Laws protecting discrimination against gays needed
The editorial on possible Supreme Court nominee Elena Kegan [“Sexual orientation nobody’s business,” Opinion, April 23] stated very eloquently that whether she is lesbian should not be an issue in consideration for her or any potential nominee.
However, the editorial stated: “She is protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Thus, questions about her sexuality required no response.” The fact is that there is no federal employment nondiscrimination law to date that includes gays and lesbians. Kegan —or any future nominee —is not protected and neither are the vast majority of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) population.
Hopefully, this will change very soon. But until it does, discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing and employment is legal in the United States unless you are lucky enough to live in one of the handful of states, cities or counties that offer protection, including Washington.
Amazing, when you think about it, that passing such protections are even slightly controversial, but the religious right is making it a priority to block the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) once again with the usual distortions and lies that have nothing to do with simple fairness or the realities of what the bill is about.
Discrimination is wrong, period. I appreciate The Times’ support in saying there should be no smear campaign against gays, but unfortunately, it has been going on for a very long time and in many circles, is an accepted way of thinking and behavior.
— Timothy Frazer, Seattle
‘Smear gays’ leaves gays in bad light
“At least there should be no campaign to smear gays.”
The above statement communicates that gay behavior is an adverse propensity and inappropriate because it is smearable. Heterosexual behavior is not to be smeared because it is acceptable. It cannot be smeared unless it is wrong.
— Burt Harwood, Longview
Orientation discrimination only a privilege for executive branch
While I agree with the thrust of the editorial regarding the sexual orientation of Supreme Court nominees, The Times was grossly incorrect when in reporting Elena Kagan “is protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Only 17 states have laws that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There is an executive order prohibiting orientation discrimination at the federal level, but that only applies to agencies of the executive branch and not to the judicial or legislative branches of the federal government. In most jurisdiction in the United States, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and those who are discriminated against have little, if any, legal recourse.
This is why the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is so important. Until sexual orientation is placed alongside race, religion and gender, workplace discrimination will remain a brutal reality for most gay Americans.
— Gregory Gadow, Seattle