Ongoing conversation about Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Hello all.  When out canvassing, I got to meet Hazel Erby, County Councilwoman for the 1^st district of St. Louis County, and opponent of the recent (successful) bill to extend employment non-discrimination guarantees based on sexual orientation and gender identity to St. Louis County’s Workers.  We briefly discussed her opposition, and here is the letter I’ve sent her, rebutting her two arguments against it.  This may be beating a dead horse, as the measure passed and was signed by Charlie Dooley, but this is the issue that first got me into this business 8 years ago, and I want your opinion as to whether I’ve stayed sharp.

To the Honorable Councilwoman Hazel Erby

Hello.  My name is Graham Krueger.  I met you when I was canvassing for a candidate we both support, and we spoke briefly- we both had much to do, and we resolved to continue our conversation at the election watch party, come the 5^th.  I just wanted to be sure I ordered my thoughts beforehand, as I find that produces my best results.  If you’d rather continue this conversation via email or in person, let me know.  Either way I look forward to seeing you again at the watch party.

I’d like to say that I’m writing as one who has distributed your campaign flyers, and deeply appreciates your efforts to encourage Minority and Women-Owned Businesses and to break the monopolies on county contracts often held by the business firms of old white men.  Your efforts to obtain foreclosure protection for families targeted by predatory banks are exactly what we need from public policy makers.  I also appreciate your support of Mr. Dooley, whose leadership of the county I continue to view as of the highest quality.  Everything I’ve seen from and about you suggests that you are a great asset to St. Louis county’s government, except for the issue we were discussing. 

We were discussing why you oppose what is commonly referred to as the ENDA – employment non-discrimination act, which would extend protection from prejudice-based firing and in some cases eviction to the LGBT community.  The majority of states have no such statute for the lgbt community as a whole, even more lack it for Trans people.  Now, homophobic discrimination to the level of firing and eviction may not be entirely pervasive, but it does happen frequently, from gas stations in Virginia to police departments in South Carolina to restaurants and schools all across the country.  You responded to my question by claiming that there are no protections against firing or eviction based on race, so there shouldn’t be for sexual orientation or gender identity.  I believe this is incorrect- does the federal Civil Rights Act (1964) not include provisions barring most employers from discrimination based on race, sex or religion?  Title II extends this prohibition to public accommodations, title III to government facilities, while Title VII bars most private employers from discriminating against current or potential employees based on race, sex, religion, or country of origin.  I strongly contend that sexual orientation and gender identity need to be included in ordinances of this kind, and yes, they do exist at the federal and state level for other persecuted minorities.  Now, St. Louis County has joined the list of states, counties and cities to have extended it to the LGBT population, and I’m very excited for that.

You also claimed that extending employment protections to the LGBT community would pave the way for extending them to the short.  I’m not sure where you were going with this, but assuming you intended to suggest that “frivolous” claims to protection (to use Speaker Boehner’s words) would proliferate in the wake of ENDA passage, I’m not sure it necessarily follows.  Of course, in the example you cited, there is some noticeable social bias in favor of the tall, but on the topic of physical difference we did pass the Americans with Disabilities act, which does spell out the principle that physical conditions other than those necessary for performing a job should not affect one’s chances for obtaining that job, and specifically said that disabilities cannot be used as a reason to bar applicants.  Whether the example you offered will ever be included, I don’t know, but the principle in similar cases has been the law of the land for 24 years now.

Returning to my point, you say you believe in “fairness” but oppose this law.  My primary question is, in your opinion, is it fair to allow opponents of the LGBT community to deny employment, fire or evict us based solely on personal prejudice with no legal consequences?

It was an honor to meet you, and I look forward to your reply

Your Comrade

Graham Krueger

Rather more conservative than my usual work, but what do you think?  Perhaps I should have offered some description of the need to build workplace solidarity free from homophobia- the more we get used to seeing each other as comrades first and everything else second the better we'll get at not only reducing hate and violence against the LGBTQ community but at building up awareness of our contributions to society and what we deserve in return- and what we owe to others.

I'll mention that to her the next time we meet.

Solidarität

Genosse Graham