crotchitymedic1986 Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 because I believe that they are the ones who are most discriminated against. And they have no protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher.Collins Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 And the EEOC, nor any federal agency protects the employment rights of homosexuals. EEOC covers discrimination dealing with gender, race, religion. Handicap rights were added under the americans with disabilities act. But homosexuals do not have any protection. This may or may not cover a hiring process... but discrimination against sexuality and sexual orientation I believe would fall under this rather vague blanket statement that I highlighted below. http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following: *The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex. *The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee. *The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. *Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim. *The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome. It is helpful for the victim to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop. The victim should use any employer complaint mechanism or grievance system available. When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. A determination on the allegations is made from the facts on a case-by-case basis. Prevention is the best tool to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers are encouraged to take steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring. They should clearly communicate to employees that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. They can do so by providing sexual harassment training to their employees and by establishing an effective complaint or grievance process and taking immediate and appropriate action when an employee complains. It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyemt5150 Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I remember the first time that I got assigned to work with a flaming male homosexual partner. I am not a homophobe by any means, and had always thought of myself as tolerant (had an uncle and a nephew who were homosexual). If you weren't you wouldn't of brought up this subject, and yes it illegal any where to discriminate so how about a post on race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 If a homosexual were hired, and then he was harassed by males in a sexual way, then you might be able to claim sexual harassment (if they did overt acts to make the workplace hostile, or used sexual language). The problem is that this protection occurs after you are hired, and if you can prove it. But if the gay applicant is never hired, he has no protection, unless the company was dumb enough to send him a letter that says, "we didnt hire you because you are queer". But if the homosexual employee was "outed" by someone, and then fired for cause (even a made-up cause), he has no protection. There is a reason that Tom Hanks used the American with Disability Act as his defense in the movie Philadelphia, because there was no legal protection for being fired for being "gay". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobey Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 How 'bout a post on banning HBO/Porn in the workplace!! OK I'll quit stirring the pot. The post title is "Male HOMOSEXUAL Partner" Don't try to backtrack and say this is about general discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Oh, I will admit that I was uncomfortable at first, but I got over it. I was just being honest. Just because I was uncomfortable, didnt mean I was going to burn a cross in his yard. I think race has been covered many times, and we have remedies for overt racism. But since you brought it up, I will start a thread on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted December 22, 2008 Author Share Posted December 22, 2008 Its not back-tracking. It is the homophobic fear among straight males that keeps the homosexuals out. If you are willing to work with them, great; but i imagine that if most men in this room would be honest, they would say they would prefer not to have a homosexual partner on the ambulance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher.Collins Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 If a homosexual were hired, and then he was harassed by males in a sexual way, then you might be able to claim sexual harassment (if they did overt acts to make the workplace hostile, or used sexual language). The problem is that this protection occurs after you are hired, and if you can prove it. They do not have to be harrased by someone of the same sex. Sexual harrasment can be caused by a person of the same or opposite sex. Reffer to the first bullet point of my previous post: But if the gay applicant is never hired, he has no protection, unless the company was dumb enough to send him a letter that says, "we didnt hire you because you are queer". Ok, I get that... and I know you were talking about hiring. But originally you wernt talking about just the hiring process. And then you continued to say gays have no rights (in general) well, apparently they do. But if the homosexual employee was "outed" by someone, and then fired for cause (even a made-up cause), he has no protection. If the victim can prove that they were fired for their sexuality then yes they do have protection. Sexual harrasment is a form of sexual discrimination as highlighted in my previous post and is illegal. There is a reason that Tom Hanks used the American with Disability Act as his defense in the movie Philadelphia, because there was no legal protection for being fired for being "gay". And this movie came out when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher.Collins Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I think race has been covered many times, and we have remedies for overt racism. But since you brought it up, I will start a thread on it. There is no need... you stated in this very thread that its about discrimination not sexuality... so which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfmanHarris Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Here's my problem Crotch. Reading your posts it seems like you want to discuss the real issue of discrimination with regards to homosexuality. Great. But you've prefaced it with one of your bullshit polls again and that just pisses me off. Ask yourself this, if the poll question asked if someone had a problem with a black partner, or latino would it still be an appropriate way to start this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts