POLL: Huge Majority Supports LGBT Workplace Equality

A new poll commissioned by Human Rights Campaign confirms that the vast majority of Americans believes that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal.

The poll found a vast majority (77 percent) of voters support protecting LGBT people from discrimination in employment.  The support for employment protections defies conventional political wisdom, reaching across party and ideological lines.  Seventy percent of self-identified Republicans and 67 percent of conservatives support anti-discrimination laws.  Support is strong even among groups who tend to be less supportive of LGBT issues, such as seniors (69 percent among voters over age 65), those with a high school degree or less (68 percent), observant Christians (77 percent), born-again Christians (74 percent), and residents of the Deep South (72 percent). 

In a finding showing a need for more public outreach and education for employment non-discrimination laws, most voters believe anti-discrimination laws already exist.  Eighty-seven percent of voters believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for being gay and 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.  Even in states without anti-discrimination laws, 75 percent of voters think it is illegal under state law to fire someone for being gay or lesbian. 

Of course there is pending federal legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would actually make the law comport with what most people believe the law is already: illegal to fire workers because they are LGBT.

But it is absolutely unlikely to pass Congress while the Republicans control the majority of the U.S. House.

Largest Private Employer In U.S. Adds Trans Protections

Well this is good news! The largest private employer in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world!) is Walmart, and they just recently announced that they have changed their discrimination policies to protect transgender employees.

According to the Windy City Times:

Big box retail giant Wal-Mart has added transgender protections to its employee non-discrimination policy.The protections include gender identity and gender expression said Phillip Keene, a company spokesperson.
Keene did not confirm when the new policy went into effect, only that the change was made "several weeks ago."
News of the new policy has not been widely publicized.
Sexual orientation protections are already a part of the company's "Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy."

Unless the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passes Congress and  is signed by the President , this is probably the largest expansion of job protections that will happen in  the Congressional term.

NFL Player-Owner Agreement Bans Anti-Gay Discrimination

This is another sign of the demise of the salience of homophobia in American life. The National Football League agreement between the players' union and the owners guarantees non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Section 1. No Discrimination: There will be no discrimination in any form against any player by the Management Council, any Club or by the NFLPA because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA.

Hat/tip to Wide Rights! If you can't discriminate against gay soldiers or gay football players why should you be able to discriminate in 31 states against gay employees in private businesses?

MAP: Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Discrimination in U.S.

This map is what the state of play in sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment looks like in the various states as of March 2011. There are 29 states that have no protections for LGBT people in employment in any way (so your boss can say, "I'm firing you because you're a fag!") and you have no recourse what so ever.

As of July 6th, there are now 15 states which ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and there are 21 which ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (all the states which ban gender identity discrimination also ban sexual orientation discrimination). The six states which do not overlap are: New York, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland and Delaware. (One should note that 3 of these 6 states have already enacted marriage equality!) Wisconsin is  ahead scratcher because they passed sexual orientation non-discrimination way back in 1982, the first state in the country to do so. There was gender identity nondiscrimination legislation pending  in New York and Maryland which died when those legislative sessions ended this Spring.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would prohibit employment discrimination nationwide on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Significantly, A version of ENDA (without gender identity protection, thus some people called it "SplENDA") passed the U.S. House under Democratic control in 2007 but failed to be brought up for a vote in the 2009-2001 111th Congress. With Republicans in majority control of the U.S. House it is very doubtful that ENDA will pass that body in the 2011-2013 112th Congress.

Herman Cain Says Homosexuality Is A Sin and A Choice

MadProfessah first blogged about Black republican presidential candidate Herman Cain way back in April, noting then that he was once a mathematics major.

Cain has started making headlines because he is starting to appear in the middle or at the top of polling lists in early Presidential primary states, with more support than media darlings like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty.

Openly gay Miami Herald blogger Steve Rothaus has the transcript:

"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it's a sin," he said. "But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice." 

Cain was asked: "So you believe it's a choice?" 

"I believe it is a choice," he responded.

I wonder if Mr. Cain believes in the Golden Rule?

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

Catholic Charities Sue Ill. For Right To Anti-Gay Discrimination

Today in religious hubris news, three chapters of Catholic Charities (based in Peoria, Joliet and Springfield) have decided to sue Illinois in order to gain the right to take state money (as much as $30 million) but discriminate in who they provide adoption and foster care services to. As you may recall, on June 1, Illinois' civil unions law went into effect. In response, some local Catholic Charities have announced they would suspend foster care and adoption services altogether unless they have the right to violate Illinois Human Right Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and race and marital status).

Simply astonishing. The Advocate has the deets:

In the suit, Catholic Charities for the dioceses of Springfield, Joliet, and Peoria claim that their state-funded adoption services are exempt from the civil unions law under provisions of the legislation as well as existing state religious freedom protections.

"Same sex couples' and unmarried cohabiting couples' application for adoption or foster care referrals could be fully and adequately serviced and accommodated (as they are now) by [the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services] referring them to other providers which do not share [our] conscientious religious objections," attorneys for the dioceses wrote in their complaint.

"On the other hand, the harm to plaintiffs and to the poor, needy and vulnerable third parties whom they serve, should no injunctive relief issue, would be severe and ... even unconscionable," they wrote.

The suit was prompted in part by a March 8 letter from Illinois attorney general Lisa Madigan's office inquiring into Catholic Charities of Springfield's existing policies and whether they violate the law.

"Please be advised that the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it a civil rights violation for any person to 'deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, or services of any public place of accommodation' on the basis of unlawful discrimination," which includes sexual orientation and marital status as protected characteristics, the letter read in part.

In a Tuesday statement, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said of the suit, "Organizations that receive taxpayer funding to provide public services must comply with the law. Unfortunately, instead of working with the state to ensure compliance with child protection and civil rights laws, the dioceses have opted to go to court."

Filed on behalf of the dioceses by attorneys from the Thomas More Society in Chicago, the lawsuit comes after the announcement late last month that Catholic Charities in Rockford was pulling out of adoption services entirely — a decision described by one source as a possible "trial balloon" from the church to put pressure on the state assembly and attorney general's office. But "there's nothing to indicate that the governor or the assembly is interested in providing an exemption" for religious groups contracted by the state for adoption services, the source said.

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities' claim that Illinois is undermining its religious freedom in state adoption contracts has been criticized by several national LGBT legal and advocacy groups.

"It's outrageous," said Camilla Taylor, national marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "They're asking permission to put their desire to discriminate ahead of the welfare of children in state care. And they're asking to do this at taxpayer expense. It's a tragic result for children."

Even the head of Catholic Charities in Illinois, Anthony Riordan, recognizes that the position stated in the lawsuit is nonsensical, making this statement:

That the Catholic Charities adoption contracts in question are not private but rather funded to the tune of a reported $30 million annually by the state is not ultimately what this is about, he argued. "I think it's certainly a reasonable point: If you receive state funds, you have to follow the directives and the rules of the state," Riordan said. "But our position is that faith-based charities have religious liberties and certain rights of conscience."[emphasis added]

I wonder how far Catholic Charities would like these alleged religious liberties to go? The right to be exempt from age of consent laws? Statutes of limitation on child molestation lawsuits? Why stop at the human rights law and try to get exemptions for every law that they don't agree with?

It should be noted that the notion that religious beliefs should trump the concept of "equal justice under the law" and the underlying principle of public accommodations civil rights laws has been rearing it's ugly head in other contexts, most notably the fight to legalize marriage equality in New York State.