Gay Patriot Header Image

Can You Be Fired For Being Gay? has an article on the topic today.

The law is particularly ambiguous on the rights of sexual minorities and religious institutions. While no federal legislation protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, approximately 90 jurisdictions — covering 20 to 25 percent of the US population — includes sexual orientation in antidiscrimination statutes.

Some fired GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender) employees have filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on, among other identities, sex. However, too few religious-oriented cases have been decided to be definitive.

I nearly didn’t post on this because I think the article is a cheap shot at religious organizations.  The fact of the matter is, unless your company has specific policies against discrimination due to sexual orientation, or you live in a state with a non-discrimination law, you can be legally fired for being gay at any company — religious or not.  They might not tell you it is for being gay, but it can be done.

Now, if our holier than thou Gay Leaders hadn’t wasted the past five years on their fight-for-marriage… we could have gotten an Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by Congress.  It is the one issue that polls highest for us with a large majority of Americans, and has always had the most support in Congress.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. If you’re a college student, You can be suspended for being conservative.

    Comment by V the K — May 11, 2007 @ 2:08 pm - May 11, 2007

  2. Ofcourse you could be fired for being gay. But I dont know any court that wouldnt rule in your favor. Last time I checked most companies have anti-discrimination laws.

    Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - May 11, 2007

  3. Let’s phrase the question another way; Should an employer be allowed to be stupid enough to fire his best performing employee because he is gay?

    My liberterian position on this is probably not the concensus for those who visit this site, but then again, why would someone want to work for an idiot who really doesn’t want him/her around? I think we forget that we have more options than to just work, but to create a career. We live in an country with one of the best economies in the world, with opportunities to build marketable skill sets at every turn and someone’s going to argue that a qualified person is stuck working for just one cretinous individual.

    But then again, maybe we should just count on our government to interfere into our lives and tell the numbscull that he has to keep a person on, because we are just to weak and incapable to live our lives for ourselves.

    Comment by HCN — May 11, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - May 11, 2007

  4. Bruce, fair points all in your post… especially the one about wasted political capital, energy, time, and money by allowing the GayLeft to drive the “validate-me-with-gay-marriage” nonsense. Job and housing discrimination against gays is still a problem for civil rights advocates… and a hell of lot more important than Sharpton’s crusade against sex&violence in rap music.

    I wish we could vote on our gay leaders and invalidate the GayLeft leadership of the last 40 years… what a waste.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 11, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - May 11, 2007

  5. HCN wrote: “why would someone want to work for an idiot who really doesn’t want him/her around?”

    The same reasons so many vote for people who don’t want them around. They’re stupid.

    Comment by Libertarian Annie — May 11, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - May 11, 2007

  6. Let’s phrase the question another way; Should an employer be allowed to be stupid enough to fire his best performing employee because he is gay?

    Perfectly put, HCN.

    And the answer, by the way, is yes.

    In my opinion, the underlying reason for nondiscrimination laws is the same as those concerning noncompete and nondisclosure agreements; employers should not be allowed to arbitrarily restrict to someone’s right to seek and hold employment to the point where it prevents them from earning a living or impedes their choice of general occupations.

    When employment protections on the basis of skin color and such were included in the Civil Rights Act, they were broadly necessary. It was simply impossible in large portions of the US for people of color, women, or immigrants to get jobs at all or to get into certain professions — which, from both an economic and philosophical standpoint, made no sense.

    In contrast, most companies already have nondiscrimination policies specifically covering sexual orientation. Numerous ones actively recruit and reach out to the gay community. Gays are executives, professionals, teachers, leaders, and so forth — something that was unheard of for women and minorities in the 1960s.

    I have, as in Dallas and Fort Worth, supported and actively pushed for city-wide nondiscrimination ordinances when it seemed they were necessary. But I received an interesting education during that time when I was working my contacts in business to get CEOs and such to testify before the city councils why these laws were necessary; the answer in most cases was, “Well, sure, no problem; we already have that as a policy, but we can support it going into law.”

    Simply put, gays are not discriminated against, especially today, to nearly the magnitude that women, people of color, and others were when the original employment nondiscrimination laws were passed; hence, I am not certain that we need to put into place any more regulation on business’s right to be stupid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 11, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - May 11, 2007

  7. #3 HCN nailed it. Stupid people have a right to make bad business decisions, including those that involve bigotry. Once the bigotry is proven, I have the right to stage a boycott in an attempt to put the bigot out of business. It is not the business of government to determine the aggregate orientation, complexion, specific affiliation, gender, etc. of any payroll. I’d like to think my gay brothers and sisters are secure enough not to use the power of government force for their own ends. Apparently, we have yet to develop the community balls and ovaries to tell the government to buzz off for the good of everyone.

    A job is not a right. A job is property, whose owner is the employer.

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 3:59 pm - May 11, 2007

  8. Most Americans diagree with gays being discriminated against in the work place I think 70percent, Im suprised more hasnt been done to pass a law.

    Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 4:00 pm - May 11, 2007

  9. With a 2-year-old son battling a form of autism and requiring constant supervision, Howell’s Erin Otteman relies on her partner to bring home not only income, but health-care benefits as well.

    But if a state Court of Appeals’ February decision is not reversed, Otteman; her partner, Rachel Rangel, and hundreds of other gay couples throughout the state could be impacted in the wallet.

    The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling and said public employers cannot recognize same-sex unions for any purpose, including for health benefits.

    Otteman, 26, and Rangel, 24, would be in a bind because the latter works as a custodian at the University of Michigan and Otteman’s son, who is her biological child from a previous relationship, goes to the doctor’s office several times a week.

    “It’s hard to think about it, it really is,” said Otteman, who is also trying to pursue a college degree from home. “It’s unfathomable for me to have to go to work full time to get benefits.”

    The American Civil Liberties Union is currently trying to persuade the state Supreme Court to take up the case. The case was initially filed by a group called National Pride at Work Inc. against the city of Kalamazoo and the state of Michigan. In January 2006, Kalamazoo stopped providing health benefits to its same-sex employees, based on the recently added amendment to the Michigan Constitution.

    Rana Elmir, communications director for the Michigan ACLU, said voters approved an amendment to the Michigan constitution in 2004 not to recognize same-sex marriages but that’s as far as it went.

    “Voters did not go into the voting booth to say we want to take away health-care benefits from Michigan children,” Elmir said. “Providing health-care benefits for same-sex couples is vastly different from same-sex marriage.”

    Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals and some critics aren’t so sure of that.

    Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 4:00 pm - May 11, 2007


    Comment by liana — May 11, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - May 11, 2007

  11. Hi Bruce,
    Now, if our holier than thou Gay Leaders hadn’t wasted the past five years on their fight-for-marriage… we could have gotten an Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by Congress.
    So is it your thinking that the GOP-controlled Congress would have brought this bill to the floor and passed it?

    Comment by torrentprime — May 11, 2007 @ 4:32 pm - May 11, 2007

  12. I’m a libertarian so clearly I think the government has no business passing laws regarding the hiring or firing practices of private companies, but I think it is in a business’ best interest to be fair and equitable to its employees. I think as a gay person, it is your responsibility to know your employer’s thoughts on homosexuality and make your own career choices based on your own self-interest.

    Comment by Libertarian Annie — May 11, 2007 @ 4:46 pm - May 11, 2007

  13. You make an excellent point HH. And it really is all about growing a set, isn’t it. When I got out of college in the early eighties, I began my career at the most conservative bank in the state. While never making a public pronouncement of my orientation, neither did I take any pains to hide it. When I was blessed with my wonderful husband 23 years ago, he was not kept out of sight and was known to my co-workers as well as superiors and in time became Doctor to many of them. Some of the older gays working for the bank were deeply closeted and were appalled at my openness often warning me that I would not go far. My attitude was why work my ass off to rise in the company, only to get fired if they find out I’m gay? F**k that. And so I worked my ass off and at the age of 28 I was Vice President and in 4 years Senior VP.

    I wished I could honestly say it all came down to balls and me having them, but in my situation, I was in no danger of starving if I did get fired. But the point is that I became valued member of the company; facing termination for being gay was too far remote to be worthy of thought. I believe anyone can accomplish the same without the governments help.

    Comment by David — May 11, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - May 11, 2007

  14. I think that it’s difficult sometimes to make a rule that applies properly to people. The fact that an employee is gay shouldn’t matter but what if the employee is obnoxious about it? Employees have all sorts of individual levels of obnoxiousness… my husband worked with a guy who would change his clothes in his cubby… no door. Or you get people who don’t bathe. Or the person who is obnoxiously evangelistic or…

    I try to tell my daughter that when she works she’s going to have to dress appropriately, unless she gets a job at Hot Topic that’s going to mean “not visibly goth”. Not that she’s goth, quite, but if you deal with customers it matters if your hair is green.

    So suppose another of my husband’s previous employers had fired one guy who sometimes cross-dressed at work? The thing is that when he wore a dress it usually indicated what “state” he was in and the IT guys would always check what he was wearing if they got a call to fix his stuff and try not to do it if he was wearing a dress. I don’t think they ever did fire him (at least not while my husband worked there), but if they *had* would it be because the management or other employees were intolerant, or would it be because of behavior other than, but accompanying, the cross-dressing? And how could an employer prove it?

    Comment by Synova — May 11, 2007 @ 6:21 pm - May 11, 2007

  15. To me, the things you describe are mostly behaviors that are properly addressed in personnel policies, i.e. dress codes, etc.

    The situation with your husband’s co-worker seems to suggest mental illness, a whole other ball of wax.

    Comment by David — May 11, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - May 11, 2007

  16. #11:

    So is it your thinking that the GOP-controlled Congress would have brought this bill to the floor and passed it?

    LOL!!! Good one torrentprime. And even if they did, can you imagine Bush signing it?!!!

    Comment by Ian S — May 11, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - May 11, 2007

  17. #13 David, congratulations on your success! It’s interesting how the most vocal members of each community claim the community needs special treatment and protection. I would guess that you changed alot of minds and hearts with your diligence and dedication and ultimately, that’s the wonderful story of capitalism: that economic self-interest breaks down the barriers of prejudice. While it’s true that some people never recognize and rise above their bigotries and good people suffer, usually those people aren’t wildly successful for long — and there is too much to lose by allowing government to determine who is employed where.

    Travel is fatal to prejudice.” — Mark Twain

    Comment by HardHobbit — May 11, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - May 11, 2007

  18. “HaHaaa! Right to work state!”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 1:52 am - May 12, 2007

  19. LOL!!! Good one torrentprime. And even if they did, can you imagine Bush signing it?!!!

    Seems like I recall both he and Jeb signed legislation allowing benefits for same sex partners.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 12, 2007 @ 1:53 am - May 12, 2007

  20. It was a lot of those holier than thou gay leaders who were instrumental in passing the laws that cover the 20% to 25% gays you mention, not too mention those who worked within their companies to specify thoe sexual orientation clauses.

    Do you honestly believe that the open hostility toward gays from the Republican majority in congress would have gotten a national law passed in the last 5 years, let alone get signed by a president who advocated the anti-gay marriage ammendment? give me a break.

    Comment by Kevin — May 12, 2007 @ 2:57 am - May 12, 2007

  21. “Now, if our holier than thou Gay Leaders hadn’t wasted the past five years on their fight-for-marriage… we could have gotten an Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by Congress. It is the one issue that polls highest for us with a large majority of Americans, and has always had the most support in Congress.”

    What should the holy ones have been doing that they haven’t already been doing? Get DOMA repealed? Getting DADT repealed? Are you saying that a Republican Congress would have passed ENDA? Are you saying that a Republican Congress would have repealed DOMA? Are you saying that a Republican Congress would have repealed DADT? Get real. You and I both know that’s not true. They had plenty of time to do all of those things and did nothing. It is time to stop kidding yourself.

    If you consider fighting for marriage equality a waste of time, then by all means sit out the fight, but sit out the benefits when we get it too.

    Comment by fnln — May 12, 2007 @ 6:56 am - May 12, 2007

  22. fnln:

    My my.. I wonder if you’re the person that was being prophesied when someone during the Enlightenment said “The average age of a Democracy is around 200 years.. once the people discover they can turn the govt into an ATM, the country goes to hell real quick”(paraphrasing)

    First of all who is it that you’re fighting so that 20 people can get married… hint: Its not the evil Republicans.

    Its the majority of people in this country. State Constitional Amendments have passed virtually everywhere they were proposed to define marriage as marriage is.. something a man and woman does.

    Give up your “fight”.. respect the People’s decision… stop with this tryanny of the minority.

    And why in the world should the Federal Govt be legislating laws like ENDA anyway? Point to me the Consitutional enabling clause for that sort of lawmaking.

    You need to get real and 1) stop trying to impose your will against the expressed will of the public at large and 2) cease with this continual abuse of the Federal govt.

    Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 7:30 am - May 12, 2007

  23. Even if you live in a state with non-discrimination protection, it’ still little protection from a middle-management homophobe…regardless of the Company’s senior management or corporate policies. While you know damn-well why he’s really firing you; unless he spits on you and calls you a “fag” in front of witnesses, can you “prove” it? Happened to me, and I’m still professionally and financially recovering….

    While I had excellent professional relationships all the way to the CEO, I was physically out the door before I could even appeal to “higher authority”. Even in a 4-billion-dollar-a-year corporation, senior management is loath to start a interniecine war after the fact amonst the middle-management ranks of anything short of damaging TV reportage. You just become another “acceptable-casualty” to in-house politics.

    He got unceremoiniously “booted” within 9-months for all the enemies he made…but it didn’t get me my job back. Now, I’m living in “Consultant-land” peering in from the outside…and frozen out of the real action.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 12, 2007 @ 9:51 am - May 12, 2007

  24. Then there’s the opposite: people who count on anti-discrimination laws so they can be a-holes.

    True story: A very “out” gay project manager at a place I once worked was the type to lie, make enemies, have “one-on-one meetings” with underlings where the younger female ones were shaking and crying by the time they left his office, etc. Management recognized he was a problem after a few months, but couldn’t fire him because as a gay, and an over-40, and a racial minority, he had “triple whammy” protection under California law. If they isolated him too much, that would have been constructive termination.

    Eventually, he tried to embezzle money with a false expense report. That’s clear-cut “cause” in CA (as most places), so then management fired him.

    How’d he respond? Lawsuit alleging sexual harassment against an underling. Made-up. I know because I was a minor leader of the company gay group, and he apparently assumed the gay group’s support and invoked a few of us as “witnesses” to events we knew could not have happened.

    How did it end? First, the good news: The company resisted. Lacking reality, the suit collapsed even before discovery ended. I don’t think the company ever paid the guy a cent. The system works, if you work it. The bad news: Other companies don’t resist, they just pay the shake-down artist. And nobody out in the world knows or cares about the bad guy here… he simply moved on and, I heard, did his thing at several other places.

    Now, while this was an extreme episode, it forced me to see what’s wrong with non-discrimination laws. The government intervenes on behalf of people who actually don’t deserve it. Some people get more “protection points” than others – single-whammy, double-whammy, triple-whammy, etc. First, that’s not right. Second, too much of that and you end up like France.

    After that episode, I became acquainted with libertarian thinking on these matters and I have to say, I agree with the libertarians. Nobody has a moral right to a job. It’s the employer’s money; it should be their choice if they take you and their choice if they keep you.

    And I have to say, it’s pleasant to be among so many people in this thread who get that. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 12, 2007 @ 11:12 am - May 12, 2007

  25. Liana, relative to the Michigan case, I can tell you exactly what the problem is.

    From the Court of Appeals decision itself, on Page 15:

    The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.

    And the reason that was a problem relative to the University of Michigan and other state plans is on page 8:

    Three of the four plans provided in the record (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and the City of Kalamazoo) require the domestic partners to have registered, declared, signed, or filed a domestic partnership agreement to establish entitlements to benefits. A public employer that requires proof of the existence of a formal domestic partnership agreement to establish eligibility for benefits “recognizes” the validity of a same-sex union as reflected in the “agreement” for the “purpose” of providing the same benefits to a same-sex couple that would be provided to a married couple.

    That’s why private companies in Michigan have generally not had to give up any partner benefits; their plans, which were written by people like myself who have expertise in this sort of thing, do not require you to LEGALLY affirm your domestic partner status.

    What is taking place in Michigan is that leftist Democrats, unions, and puppet gay groups are trying to manipulate people. The parties involved could immediately bring their plans into compliance by simply changing the language so as not to require legal registration as domestic partners, and thus allow people to keep their benefits.

    But instead, these leftist liars are blithely sacrificing gay families, deliberately refusing to change the language of these plans in the hope of creating martyrs. It should show how thoroughly sick and deranged the ACLU is that it is doing that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm - May 12, 2007

  26. ENDA has been re-introduced in the House. It’ll be interesting to see how far it goes this time.

    Comment by vaara — May 12, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - May 12, 2007

  27. Here’s my take on rights laws: if a company fires you for being gay/lesbian, just find another job. Places like that are rarer than hen’s teeth in this day & age. Same with renting an apartment. Landlords who are boneheaded enough to reject gay/lesbian applicants won’t get my money. Ability to pay rent & competence on the job should be the criteria for eviction/firing.

    Comment by Jimbo — May 12, 2007 @ 2:32 pm - May 12, 2007

  28. Wouldn’t it be better if instead of telling businesses who they can’t fire … the Federal government worked out a way so citizens could fire government employees for being incompetent?

    Comment by V the K — May 12, 2007 @ 3:45 pm - May 12, 2007

  29. Leftists, in conjunction with Radical Muslim groups, are killing Free Speech in this country

    Tufts Univ has found students “guilty of harassment” for distrubuting factual information about Islam.

    This is a threat to our way of life.

    Comment by Vince P — May 12, 2007 @ 6:35 pm - May 12, 2007

  30. the Federal government worked out a way so citizens could fire government employees for being incompetent?

    Are you speaking of the liberals deeply entrenched in beauracracy jobs?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 13, 2007 @ 7:04 am - May 13, 2007

  31. #19:

    Seems like I recall both he and Jeb signed legislation allowing benefits for same sex partners.

    Dream on. Dubya even supported retention of Texas’ sodomy law.

    Comment by Ian S — May 13, 2007 @ 10:34 am - May 13, 2007

  32. Are you speaking of the liberals deeply entrenched in beauracracy jobs?

    Not just liberals, although I’m sure most of them are. I’m just talking incompetence. Getting a Federal job is equivalent to life tenure. It shouldn’t be like that. The Department of Education “misplaced” $450 million in taxpayer dollars. Who was fired? Nobody. Who was fired for letting the 9-11 terrorists slip through the cracks? Nobody. There are 600,000 illegal alien fugitives that the Immigration service and the FBI have lost track of? Who gets fired? Nobody. HUD under Clinton also misplaced billions in taxpayer dollars and not only was no one fired, the Democrats in the Senate buried the report so we don’t even know how much was swindled.

    Comment by V the K — May 13, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - May 13, 2007

  33. Dream on. Dubya even supported retention of Texas’ sodomy law.

    Ummmmm….No, I don’t have to dream. George and JEB did indeed sign such legislation. The sodomy law is a whole other can of worms.

    BTW, ‘gloid, guess who gave the most recent version of the sodomy law to the state of Texas? None other than the state Democrats and signed into law by non other than Gov. Ann Richards.

    So by your standards, that makes them racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. However, they had D’s after their names so they get a total pass and your unyeilding, whorish admiration.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 2:03 am - May 14, 2007

  34. Dream on.

    Actually, I don’t have to dream. George and JEB signed legislation into law granting benefits to same sex partners. Compare that to liberals who….didn’t.

    Dubya even supported retention of Texas’ sodomy law.

    And who gave Texas the sodomy law? None other than the “democrats” who gave us the legislation and the “honorable” Gov. Ann Richards (D) signed it into law. As usual, the liberals give us anti-gay laws, but we’re supposed to bend over, lube up, and pretend with them that they give a sweet Jesus about gays. Defense of Marriage Act, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Texas Sodomy laws etc.

    We get SODOMIZED by the libs, but we’re supposed to beg for more? Sorry. By your, and HRC’s standards, the liberals are the racist, sexist, bigot homophobes, but if they have a “D” after their name, they get a total pass because they pretend to give a rotten **** about gays.

    So, Ian, you can continue to bend over and say “Ahhhh”, but the rest of us won’t.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 6:31 am - May 14, 2007

  35. Dubya even supported retention of Texas’ sodomy law.

    And who gave Texas the sodomy law? Texas “democrats” and Gov. Ann Richards. Of course they get a total pass.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 6:50 am - May 14, 2007

  36. I’m not very knoweldgable about the TX Sodomy Law… but I do know that typically you can’t challenge a law in court unless you’ve been directly impacted by that law you can’t challenge the law in court. In other words you must have an actual case or controversy , the lawsuit cannot be theoritical or moot.

    So….. the people involved with the lawsuit that eventually led to the Supreme Court decision… what year did thier saga begin?

    Comment by Vince P — May 14, 2007 @ 7:12 am - May 14, 2007

  37. Given that Bush’s position on gay marriage and Civil Unions is pretty much the SAME as John F.You Kerry’s (who served in Vietnam), as well as many other liberals:

    I don’t doubt for a second that if Bush passed a nationwide gay marriage law this morning, Ian and his funky bunch would be pissing and moaning about how illegal and immoral it is. They would immediately fall back on the Defense of Marriage Act and wail about how Bush is destroying Clinton’s law and “the will of the people”. Screamin’ Howie Dean would lead a charge against it and Ian would be in the lead trying to snowball it to the rest of us.

    I’d bet my salary for the rest of my life on that. Liberals are THAT predictable.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 14, 2007 @ 7:23 am - May 14, 2007

  38. Kiss Freedom of Speech goodbye

    Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine

    The American Spectator reports that the Democratic House leaders are going to begin a new push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
    According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will “aggressively pursue” reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.
    The Fairness Doctrine would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal hosts. Since their own liberal radio hosts couldn’t win out fairly in the market place, the Democrats want to use government power to stifle conservative voices on talk radio.
    The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. “First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen,” says a senior adviser to Pelosi. “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don’t want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.”

    That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

    According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich’s staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular — and highly rated — conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

    “They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving,” says a Government Reform committee staffer. “Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can’t shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him.”
    In other words, if they can’t win an audience on their own, they’ll just have to limit conservatives through government regulation. Despite its name, there is no fairness in the Fairness Doctrine.

    At this point, the Republicans should be able to keep this from becoming law and Bush would be sure to veto it. But this desire of the House Democrats to use government power to hush their conservative critics on talk radio is revealing of their attitude towards the free marketplace of ideas.

    Comment by Vince P — May 14, 2007 @ 8:18 am - May 14, 2007

  39. Look at the bright side: At least they finally admitted Air America flopped.

    Seriously – I know we’ve passed Orwell’s 1984 and so much is Orwellian doublespeak these days, but this is a new marker in the downward spiral.

    Here’s the American Spectator direct link:

    Assuming accuracy of the story… we have officials of one party openly planning to force private citizens to represent that party’s (or those officials’) political viewpoint. Could there be a more flagrant violation of Free Speech? But they market it as “Fairness”.

    I guess it’s a logical extension of campus speech codes. If it’s OK to censor speech on campus, then it’s OK to censor it in society at large… and we have arrived at the European “soft totalitarian” state.

    Kucinich and Pelosi are not liberals or lovers of freedom; they are a kind of totalitarian. Doubtless we will now see Left gays, who allegedly love freedom and came out for its sake, defending their totalitarianism.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2007 @ 9:12 am - May 14, 2007

  40. Excuse me, I should have said “dictate” rather than censor, in my second-to-last paragraph. Please substitute.

    What’s totalitarian about Kucinich & Co. is that they plan to dictate the political viewpoint of broadcast content. They will achieve censorship as well, but via burdening and chilling effects.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 14, 2007 @ 9:37 am - May 14, 2007

  41. “Now, if our holier than thou Gay Leaders hadn’t wasted the past five years on their fight-for-marriage… we could have gotten an Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed by Congress. ”

    LOL!!! Right. Republican Congress would have let that happen! And do you think this president will not veto ENDA should it be passed under a Democratic Congress? I want to smoke what you are smoking…it seems like good stuff.

    Comment by sean — May 14, 2007 @ 5:41 pm - May 14, 2007

  42. Why cant private companies fire someone for being gay? They are private companies right? And if you can tell a private company they cant fire people based on discrimination why cant we tell Exxon-Mobile that they cant charge $4 for a gallon of gas? Why cant we force all private companies to insure their employees families? Besides why would you even want to work for someone who hates the fact that your gay, hispanic, or whatever? The truth is many companies have their own anti-discrimination laws because at the end of the day its business. And Im sure many of them care more about employee productivity than their sexual orientation. Unless your boss is Pat Robertson.

    Comment by liana — May 14, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - May 14, 2007

  43. ENDA has been introduced in Congress every year since 1996. The Republican leadership found time in those 10 years to bring the bill up for a vote just once, in one house of Congress.

    In contrast, today’s Democratic leadership will bring ENDA up for a vote later this year in both houses. The bill will pass and President Bush will veto it.

    Bruce will then blame the Democrats and our gay leaders for President Bush’s veto.

    Which should make for an interesting post.

    Comment by Chase — May 15, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - May 15, 2007

  44. Chase how do explain the DNC being sued for discriminating against gays?


    Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for defamation and discrimination by a former employee – claiming among other things that Dean discriminates against gays and violated the “D.C. Human Rights Act”.

    Comment by Vince P — May 15, 2007 @ 4:53 pm - May 15, 2007

  45. That is because, Chase, the Democrats are quite obviously lying.

    Add to that how Democrats like Bonnie Bleskachek use ENDA-like laws to prevent themselves from being fired for sexual harassment, discrimination, and demanding sex from subordinates as the price of advancement, and the decision shouldn’t be difficult.

    But of course, Chase, we know gays like yourself don’t see anything wrong with what Bleskachek did — which is why you want laws like ENDA that prevent gay people from being fired.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 15, 2007 @ 4:56 pm - May 15, 2007

  46. I’m still waiting for Chase’s response to the DNC being sued by gays for disciminaton.

    Comment by Vince P — May 16, 2007 @ 12:31 am - May 16, 2007

  47. This has generally been a good discussion of yet another complicated issue. I suspect most of us posting here live in urban areas where non-discrimination laws that apply to sexual orientation exist, or where employers have adopted non-discrimination policies.

    But a lot of gay people don’t live in areas covered by such policies, and job opportunities are not the same (just check out Wenatchee, WA for example). Yes, you can move to some place that has protective laws on the books and more opportunities from non-discriminating employers, but why should you be forced to in order to make a living? But there may be other reasons why you are unable to move (caring for sick relatives as but one example.) So you should not be given your opportunity to succeed (or fail), simply because of where you choose to live?

    Regardless of jurisdiction, under no circumstance should government (as an employer) be the one discriminating on any basis other than ability to do a job. Legislation prohibiting public job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be adopted. As for private employment, the circumstances between Seattle, WA and Wenatchee, WA are what really require consideration of non-discrimination protections.

    Discrimination is a flaw in the market place … just as monopolies are a flaw in the market place. Trying to eliminate that flaw through legislative change makes sense.

    Comment by DesMoinesDave — May 16, 2007 @ 10:50 am - May 16, 2007

  48. Yes, you can move to some place that has protective laws on the books and more opportunities from non-discriminating employers, but why should you be forced to in order to make a living? But there may be other reasons why you are unable to move (caring for sick relatives as but one example.) So you should not be given your opportunity to succeed (or fail), simply because of where you choose to live?

    You may choose to live wherever you like.

    If you choose to live where you know you can’t get a job or make a living, for whatever reason, that is also your prerogative.

    But it isn’t the government’s place or responsibility to ensure that you automatically get the job you want, whenever you want, wherever you want, at whatever amount you want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 16, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - May 16, 2007

  49. City, profession, income: In a slave country (feudalism or socialism), pick 0. In a free country, pick 1 if you’re not-so-lucky, 2 if you’re lucky.

    I can hardly think of anyone who gets to pick all 3. Let me know if you can. A world-changing expert in some area, who really loves it and chose it for herself (not family expectations or whatever), might come closest.

    Even Bill Gates has to stay close to Redmond – if he wants Microsoft to stay on top (and with it, his own income).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 16, 2007 @ 8:39 pm - May 16, 2007

  50. I picked all 3

    Comment by Vince P — May 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm - May 16, 2007

  51. YES!! Lev 18:22 says that man shall not lay with another man. GAY IS WRONG! GAY IS SIN!

    Comment by Gary Bush — October 9, 2007 @ 12:43 pm - October 9, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.