Currently, one of the biggest issues surrounding discrimination is whether sexual orientation should be a protected characteristic, along with age, race, color, gender, national origin, religion, and pregnancy. Proponents of this legislation often present the issue as one of fairness. All of these other groups get protection, so we also deserve protection, they plead. Supporters point out that gay people can be legally fired for being gay in more than 30 states, suggesting that being legally fired for a characteristic is inherently unfair. Unfortunately, the supporters of this legislation do not understand the at-will doctrine of employment that is standard (with some exceptions) in the United States. Unless an employee is part of a collective bargaining agreement, or under contract, an employer can fire an employee for anything at anytime (with some exceptions, such as discrimination laws and whistleblower laws). Employees under collective bargaining agreements and contracts must be fired for “just cause”—meaning there has to be a good reason, such as sleeping on the job, for firing the employee. Anybody else can be fired for just about anything. Supporters of adding sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics do not seem to recognize that there are hundreds of unprotected characteristics. Employers can fire employees for coming to work with purple hair, even if the purple hair would have no effect on employee productivity. Many proponents of this legislation argue that being gay is not a choice, just like race or gender, so it should be protected. There are many characteristics about which people have no choice, which are not protected. In every state, at-will employees can be fired for having annoying voices. Unless the voice is a consequence of that employee’s race or gender (such as finding that Latino voices or female voices are annoying), having an annoying voice is an unprotected and unchosen characteristic. Moreover, if sexual orientation is added to the list of protected characteristics, it would essentially take away the rights of an already protected characteristic— religion. Many Americans object to homosexuality on religious grounds. Forcing a religious employer to violate his religious principles by forcing him to hire homosexual employees is discrimination against religious employers! It just wouldn’t be fair to give sexual orientation protected status.
1. How would you frame the issue and the conclusion of this essay?
2. The writer gives several reasons to support her conclusion. Identify the reasons and describe the reasoning. Clue: The reasoning is the logic that ties the reasons to the conclusion—ask yourself: “How does saying ‘I like cake’ lead to ‘Let’s go get cake’”?
3. How appropriate are the analogies used in this argument?
4. Write a short essay approaching the issue from a viewpoint different from the author’s. Clue: What analogies could you use in making your case?