Should Employers Be Able to Fire Someone for Being Gay?

Reader Comments
Back to article

By that logic, employers should also be allowed to fire people based on which political party they are registered with, which religion (or lack thereof) they practice, their marital status, and wheather or not they have children, because these are all choices. Heck, why not fire people for collecting stamps or golfing during their free time, if you disagree with these choices ?

Nancy of AZ 3:14PM May 20, 2012

My thought are this. If an employer is not allowed to discriminate against a potential/current employee for their religious views, neither should an employer be able to discriminate based on their religious views against an employee. With that being said, an employer should have every right to require an employee to behave to what ever standard (being applied and enforced to all employees) they wish to have at their establishment. So no to firing solely on sexual preference, but yes if they are hitting on patrons (as long as it is the same standard, no flirting straight or otherwise).

Ryan of SD 5:31PM May 16, 2012

Ah KJC, the ad hominem...the last desperate tactic of somebody who realizes their argument is without grounds. What a nice way to close our discussion, thanks for playing. Here's a helpful hint though, if you're going to question my "logic skills," you really ought to do so with a properly constructed sentence.
BTW, I know gay pastors. They are more than qualified to disseminate the loving message of Christ. They could teach you a lot about the religion you claim to follow.

Rev. Goodwin of CA 5:13PM May 15, 2012

Rev. Thanks for clarifying. Cooks, groundskeepers, and accountants are OK to be gay. Pastors are not. I got it. You set me straight... ;)
BTW, for a Rev (if that's what you really are) you are quite insulting, have poor logic skills, and don't seem to so care for others. You should be ashamed.

KJC of KS 4:53PM May 15, 2012

KJC, I know you're not trying to be absurd, but it clearly comes naturally to you. You speak of "morality," but your failure to grasp the nature of homosexuality continues to hold you back from actually behaving in a moral and ethical manner. As long as you continue to cling to the utterly and demonstrably false idea that sexuality is a "preference," you will not be able to discuss the issue in a meaningful manner. Homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality. If you believe that God made man, then you must believe that God made homosexuals as well and you ought to restrain yourself from judging His work. In the history of mankind, nobody has ever "chosen" to be gay.
Sexual orientation is absolutely not a reason for ANY employer to not hire somebody. Your absurdity is evident when you cite the extreme example of hiring somebody for a "leadership position" in a church. What about a scenario that is actually conceivable...say a cook to prepare meals? How about a bus driver? A groundskeeper or maybe an accountant? Should a church be allowed to reject a qualified applicant based solely on their sexual orientation...even though it has absolutely no bearing on their ability to perform the job? Absolutely not, and to do so makes you a bigot and inherently immoral by any standard of basic decency.
You claim to base your "morality" on your faith in God and Jesus, and yet I wonder why you don't act more like Jesus in this regard. What exactly did Christ say about homosexuality? For that matter, how do you think Christ would treat gay people? Would he preach against them and actively prevent them from achieving equality in society?
I have no interest in convincing you of anything, as you clearly place no value on rationality. However I have plenty of interest in promoting and supporting laws that keep people like you from oppressing and discriminating against others. You may not benefit from being "scolded," but society at large does.

Rev. Goodwin of CA 4:23PM May 15, 2012

Rev. Goodwin,
I am not trying to be absurd. I have an honest question. Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your line of thought be that if no other factor excluded a person other than being homosexual then a church should be compelled to hire? If sexual preference were to be added to the list of characteristics protected by law then wouldn't churches be 'forced' to hire them (legally)? Is that what you are advocating? If not then you would have to accept that churches as an employer should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuality as a valid or legal reason to not hire someone or to fire them.
And on another note. Don't think your scolding over discriminating is effective. I am not hiding behind anything. I fully accept that I am discriminating. Your error is elevating the value of non-discrimination above all else. I choose to submit to a different moral authority, and I will not compromise who I believe to be true. I have gay friends. I don't hate them - unless you redefine hate as disagreeing with their behavior.

KJC of KS 3:19PM May 15, 2012

KJC, now you're just being absurd. NOBODY is suggesting that anybody be forced to hire anybody. Merely that sexual orientation is not a valid or legal reason to not hire someone or to fire them.
Please stop using religion to justify your desire to discriminate against people. The world does not revolve around your god and your church.

Rev. Goodwin of CA 2:59PM May 15, 2012

So then most of you are OK with forcing churches to hire gay people in leadership positions?

KJC of KS 2:31PM May 15, 2012

Of course not. People are born gay and can't do anything about it. Why should they be fired for it? Should you be able to be fired for having red hair?

Lee of CO 12:50PM May 15, 2012

being homosexual is a choice. you can choose to deny what you are. We all know gays are inherent child molesters, children need to be sent back into the protective arms of catholic priests. we need to also stop race being a protected category..everyone knows that medication is available to stop people being black, look at Michael Jackson, he proved being black is a choice.
Disabled people shouldn't be protected, they chose to not use their legs or arms, most are just faking it. If jesus wanted you to not use your legs he would have made you into a fish.
Age also needs to be removed from this useless law. If you are old then get surgery or use more moisturiser. A person makes the choice to be wrinkly or grey.
We all know these kinds of laws are a waste of time, there is NO discrimination in America. Americans all live together in mixed communities all holding hands and loving one another.

Grimm of AZ 12:44PM May 15, 2012