Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:14 UTC
Legal

Tim Cook, in a letter published in The Wall Street Journal:

Apple's antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law, most notably because we prohibit discrimination against Apple's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. A bill now before the U.S. Senate would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We urge senators to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote.

It's hard to imagine for someone like me, from The Netherlands, but in the US, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people have, in most states, far fewer rights than straight, non-transgender people. The LGBT community in the US still has a long fight ahead of itself, and large companies like Apple publicly urging Congress to address the archaic position of the LGBT community can only be seen as a good thing.

Most technology companies support the LGBT community's fight for equality, and considering the importance of this industry, that's a blessing.

Thread beginning with comment 576126
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You've missed a key point
by roblearns on Mon 4th Nov 2013 17:53 UTC
roblearns
Member since:
2010-09-13

You've stated things slightly wrong, and it is an important disctinction.

Straight people have no rights as a result of being straight in the United States.

So stating that gay and lesbian have fewer rights - is technically wrong. The straight community is de-facto facing less discrimination, but without extra rights being codified into law.

What has happened over the years is that groups that face discrimination are given rights - and groups that are perceived as not facing discrimination are not given rights. This does create bad policy at times.

For example, men cannot get the same leave for the birth of a child at many companies, that women get.

This is because men were never added to the group's receiving special protection.

What needs to happen is gay and lesbians do need protection from discrimination - but everyone needs to have equal treatment under the law. That's the only way to prevent discrimination from forever being an issue.

Why I can tell you right now I work at a company that gives daycare to mothers and does not for fathers.

This type of behavior really needs to end. Each group should not have to fight it out, year after year, trying to end discrimination.

Edited 2013-11-04 18:00 UTC

Reply Score: 14

RE: You've missed a key point
by abraxas on Mon 4th Nov 2013 19:43 in reply to "You've missed a key point"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Straight people have no rights as a result of being straight in the United States.


Neither do gay people by this law or ANY law.

So stating that gay and lesbian have fewer rights - is technically wrong. The straight community is de-facto facing less discrimination, but without extra rights being codified into law.


ENDA and other non discrimination acts like it DO NOT grant ANYONE more rights than another person. This is simply wrong. It is just a guarantee that a minority group cannot be discriminated against by a majority group. Straight people are a majority, so are white people. They (we/I) do not need to be protected against the majority They (we/I) ARE THE MAJORITY. A big part of US law for the past 250 years is about protecting minority groups.

Why I can tell you right now I work at a company that gives daycare to mothers and does not for fathers.

This type of behavior really needs to end. Each group should not have to fight it out, year after year, trying to end discrimination.


This is a different issue and in fact the ERA amendment that is similar in nature to this act was defeated in the 70's would have probably made this practice illegal but people using your same logic defeated it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: You've missed a key point
by RshPL on Mon 4th Nov 2013 20:21 in reply to "You've missed a key point"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

I as an employer need to have freedom to employ whoever I choose. If any law would force me to employ one person over another, wouldn't it be a tyranny? Please stop viewing employers as offenders, they need the same freedoms as the employees. "gay rights", "women rights" - these are all very ugly concepts. There are no gays, no women - just people! The same rights must apply. The employer needs to evaluate the skills and employ whoever fits better. Need human relations? Usually women do better. Need some muscle? Usually men.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: You've missed a key point
by Jbso on Mon 4th Nov 2013 20:56 in reply to "RE: You've missed a key point"
Jbso Member since:
2013-01-05

You don't hire the usual woman or man, you hire a specific person. Assuming that individuals are more or less suited for a job because of what you imagine the typical person of their class, so to speak, is like is exactly the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Technically - yes. But the point here is that you should not take into account person's gender of sexual orientation when it is irrelevant. Or to be precise, if you are looking for a person to do their job a black woman that can become pregnant is no more or less suited for the job than a reckless gay man. Therefore "I like his tie better than her skirt" should not be a reason to higher a less qualified person.

Reply Parent Score: 3

amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

The part that many people miss here is that US laws are poorly written and enacted in a way that is counter productive. It is often the case that a less qualified person must be chosen because they are part of a protected class. If the law could be done in a way that would prevent discrimination while allowing the choice of the most qualified candidate regardless of whether or not the candidate is part of a protected class, that would be great. They haven't managed to do that yet.

Edited because my typing stinks.

Edited 2013-11-04 22:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3