I do not see why an employer cannot discriminate in general. If you do not want a Mexican or black person work for you, do not higher them. It is their business, let them run it. As far as gays go, they could give a bad rap for the business. In some areas people do not want to go to a store if there is a gay person there. These people may boycott that business. In my opinion, it should be up to the employer, I would never higher a gay person if I could avoid it.
It would be against the first amendment for a church to be forced not to take a person's sexual orientation into consideration employing. For a Christian, Muslim, Jew, or even many secular people, homosexuality is immoral. We would not want our religious school are establishment to have to employ a homosexual person if no one else is available.
I believe this because businessess are a private institution, and have been allowed to hire whomever they want to advance their business for years. If you feel that hiring another sexual orientation is bad for your businesss, then you have every right to not hire them.
Also, they have not yet proven that being "gay", is a biological fact. Until then, the business should be allowed to view homosexuals/bisexuals as an oddball, and thus view them as unsafe for other workers who may not want other sexual orientations working with them. Taking away the rights of free business is not the answer! After all, you wouldn't hire a criminal for Build a bear Workshop would you? Not as extreme but same concept....
Should men cry discrimination because Hooters only hires women? If the company is trying to portray a certain image then I see no problem. Companies should not be bullied into hiring anyone because of sexual preference. If gays want it to be a non issue then keep quiet. I don't announce my sexual preference in the work place anyways. If you announce to everyone in the interview you are gay then you deserve not to be hired.
Employers of a private company should be able to do what they please when hiring a person, why? Because they are private. Simple as that. No person or government should be able to take away a persons ability to do something. Do I like what they have the ability to do? No, of course not; however, does that mean they don't have the ability to discriminate due to the way I feel? Of course not. If you take that away, the organization won't be private anymore. I don't think ones sexual orientation really matters all that much when talking about a job; nevertheless, a employer out there might think otherwise and no government should be able to take away his ability to discriminate. Keep private private and not government run.
I don't personally have a religious or moral problem with anything LGBT etc. related, but some people do. Some people even have a problem with people who are a different color, religion, sex, or from another country. People can be extremely perverse in their ways. If they own a business, I believe they should allowed to hire whomever they want and serve whomever they want and, the locker here, whomever they don't want to. If you don't like that, don't buy from them. If popular opinion is against them, they lose work and will fail or change their ways. To compel them by force (law is legal force), however, to go against their morals or belifs (no matter how wrong) is the greater evil.
It clearly violates the 13th Amendment to force people to work for anybody. If the business is hurt by their discrimination then so be it, but it's absolutely apalling that liberals feel "freedom" when they enslave business owners to follow their convoluted illogical agendas. Nobody has to work for ANYBODY.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
This prohibits "the exercise thereof"
As a heterosexual male, if I walk into work and discuss my sex life, I can be fired if it makes others uncomfortable. While working, I don't ask others about their sex life or religious beliefs. Those are private. A private business owner should be able to target the clientele he or she wants to serve and should be allowed not to provide service that would go against his or her beliefs. That's the beauty of our country. People have freedom. If I don't like the service your business gives, I have the right to go elsewhere, but you still have the right to run your business as you want to run it. We've become a country of overly-sensitive bullies who like to claim "victim." To say that my desires overrule your rights or vice versa is a sham. You have the rights to your beliefs and lifestyle. A Christian owning a business does not impose their beliefs upon you. You have a choice of whether to give your money to that business. By suing over a cake or a photography session, you impose your lifestyle on those business owners when it would be just as easy to go elsewhere. Why would you want to force your lifestyle on others when you don't want them cramming theirs down your throat?
There's a reason the government cannot discriminate in providing services and benefits on the basis of criteria such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The reason is because everyone is forced to support the government through taxes for the services and benefits they provide. Because one is forced to support them, the government has no right to refuse services to anyone on the basis of that criteria.
However, no one is forced to support a business. Other than expecting payment for goods and services rendered, a business has no legal claim to financial support from you. Therefore, a business, like an individual, has the moral (and should have the legal) right to discriminate. Does this mean I morally agree with their discrimination criteria, such as sexual orientation? No, just as the fact I oppose most of the drug prohibition laws doesn't mean I'm an advocate for using.
Discriminating based on sexual orientation is no different than discriminating based on race, religion, age, sex, national origin, pregnancy, or disability.
The following are the only legal reasons an employer can discriminate:
A potential employer may discriminate against hiring a person who has filed bankruptcy, for expressing political opinions at work (if you are not a government employee), favoritism (if not for race, religion, national origin, orientation, disability, etc), nepotism, appearance (sadly, though this is being challenged), credit history, and unemployment.
The only factor that should matter in relation to someone's job is a simple one: how well does he or she do the job? As long as that question is the focus, nothing else should not enter into it. If, for some asinine reason, an employer is allowed a religious exemption from such equal opportunity laws, then they should also lose any government funding or benefits.
Unless you're strictly employing heterosexual prostitutes, then sexual orientation has no bearing on job performance and the person who can perform the tasks required should be the person to get the job. People who are paranoid about a persons sexual preference need counselling. Employers should be willing to hire the most qualified person to do the job based on performance, capabilities and contributions to the position and company. Sex doesn't belong in t he work place unless that IS the job. This has become one of the most immature discussions of all time. Equality should be universal. Anyone should be able to apply for a job and sexual orientation should never be a determining factor under any circumstance unless that IS the job description. Enough already!
No one should ever discriminate a person based on sexual orientation. I mean do we discriminate based on how fat or skinny someone is? NOOO. My point is orientation doesnt tell you how good a person is or what their capabilities are. So no they shouldnt discriminate anyone for any reason.
If the basis for discrimination is not based on the individuals ability to effectively and efficiently perform the job in question then there should be no consideration for discrimination. A person's sexual orientation is their business and as long as they are qualified for the position it is silly to discriminate on the basis of something that is a personal choice that doesn't really impact the job position.
Many African American people shouted for equality, and women wanted equality. Everyone wants equality, but nobody wants to treat others equal. Why? Maybe some think they have better chances of landing a job, because of their sexual orientation. That shouldn't be the case, with all the power congress has, they got equal rights for everyone across the U.S now they're discriminating because of sexual orientation? NO! Let everyone be equal
Despite the plethora of legislation specifically preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there exists a provision in the Constitution, as established by the SCOTUS that limits almost every single amendment. For example, your 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression and belief is extremely limited. Examples include yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Your right to believe as you want does not give you the right to infringe on another's right to discrimination on the basis on innate qualities. I cannot believe that we are still discussing and debating this in the 21st century. But, if we can learn ANYTHING from history it is that stupidity persists across time.
Just because these businesses are private doesn't mean that they don't have to listen to what the constitution says. If a private business owned slaves that wouldn't be allowed. And the 13th amendment of the constitution says there is no slavery. The constitution says that all of humanity is created equal, and so private businesses should have to follow that.
No, definitely not. It is mean, wrong and dehumanizing to be discriminated against because of your sexual orientation. There is no reason to terminate a persons job because they happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight. The orientation has nothing to do with the job they will perform. If someone is gay, no one else will be hurt by that.
There seems to be a blurred line these days between what is professional and what is personal. There should be a division between one's professional choices and personal choices just like there should be a division of church and state. I think discriminating against someone for a professional position based on someone's personal choice of sexual preference is archaic.