Comments on: Anchorage AK Mayor Dan Sullivan Endorses Anti-Gay Discrimination

By: Burr

Burr — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:42:43 +0000

My understanding is there’s no non-discrimination policy in employment even within the local government itself there in Alaska. At the very least the government should adopt an ordinance not to discriminate with people’s tax dollars, but apparently even that tame measure met opposition and was repealed.

I agree with Tim’s caveat. Ideally we wouldn’t need this and people should be free to associate as they prefer, but if there’s laws they should apply across the board.

Also this isn’t just about employment, but finding a place to live, too.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:05:23 +0000

Duncan, also, what happens when the majority of employers don’t want to hire your kind? You may not always have the option to find employment with someone who likes you and an anti-discrimination law may be your only hope.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:01:31 +0000

Duncan,

True… but only in some cases.

If you work for Joe of Joe’s Garage, then life is going to be miserable either way.

But if you work for MegaCompany, Inc., and your regional manager fires you because he ain’t werkin’ with no faaaags, it’s nice to have recourse to go in and demand your job back or compensation.

And, besides, much of the benefit is intangible and not related to actual employment, per se. If you can be fired for being gay then it is fair game to mistreat, mock, and humiliate you for being gay. But if employment discrimination is illegal, it does two things: 1) it sets a tone that anti-gay attitudes are not appropriate, and 2) creating a hostile workplace is often seen as the equivalent of job discrimination.

That being said… my caviat: I share some of Mark F’s libertarian objection to jobs protections in general. I tend to prefer that people have the right to be idiots, even hateful idiots, and to have their businesses suffer from the repercussions of discrimination. And I think the right to free assembly includes the right to exclude such assembly – even in employees – to knuckleheads that agree with every little bigoted notion that flits through your head. But if non-discrimination laws are to exist, if is bizarre to provide protections based on race or religion but not on orientation.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:44:27 +0000

Isn’t this sort of protection from being fired a moot point? Who would ever work for such an employer?

By: Therese

Therese — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:01:28 +0000

Had I known that he was going to base a veto on the “majority of people” who contacted him, I would have called his office every single day to leave a message with my support of protecting our gay/lesbian citizens. I am heartsick by this veto and tired of fighting a city and state that clearly discriminate against those that are different from the majority of rifle-toting Bible-thumping bullies. I am sorry to the gay and lesbian people that I let down by not pursuing the mayor’s email and phone messages. It is apparently open discrimination here in Anchorage, but please know that there are many people who do not feel this way. Please don’t give up the fight. I won’t. I will try harder.

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:43:08 +0000

Anchorage Daily News: Mayor vetoes gay rights ordinance. The story is not over. Readers' comments at ADN are quite interesting!

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:00:29 +0000

One of the social/thought experiments I would love to create would be to start a common business that didn’t have a noticeable gay theme; hire a bunch of people, and then fire them for being heterosexual. “I’m sorry, but I can’t have you setting a bad example for Bob over there. What if he left his husband and started dating *gasp* women.”

I wonder if any of them would sue, or complain to the media, for being discriminated against.

Then I could say “but firing someone for their sexual orientation is not against the law.”

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:47:47 +0000

Mark F. said:

I continue to oppose any “right” to force someone to associate or employ you.

- “I refuse to employ you because you are not qualified”
- “I refuse to employ you because your references say you are untrustworthy”
- “I refuse to employ you because you have a history of stealing”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are not legally authorized to work in this jurisdiction”

Are different from:

- “I refuse to employ you because you are left handed”
- “I refuse to employ you because you have brown eyes”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are Catholic”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are from a foreign country”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are a Jew”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are black”
- “I refuse to employ you because you are gay”
- “I refuse to employ you because you will not have sex with me”
- “I refuse to employ you because you will not give me money”

The 1st set of reasons are legitimate.
The 2nd set are discrimination.

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:03:40 +0000

He might have said that he opposes anti-gay discrmination but he also supports freedom of association and does not think private discrimination should be illegal–that would be a good libertarian position. But that does not appear to be his position.

I continue to oppose any “right” to force someone to associate or employ you.

By: TonyJazz

TonyJazz — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:32:37 +0000

Good for you, Vicki O! I wish there were a lot more people just like you!!!!