Throughout the history of the United States, it has been deemed necessary to disallow employers from discriminating against employees for a vast number of reasons. Under federal law, the protected characteristics are pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age, military affiliation, bankruptcy and debt, genetic information and citizenship status. The list has had a few recent additions with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to include race and sex as well. What is seen as a protected class has changed over time, with the newest frontier appearing to be LGBT anti-discrimination laws, or in the case of a small handful of states, anti-anti-discrimination laws. While not yet protected under federal law, many states
…show more content…
These statistics are recent enough to be considered an accurate reflection of the current state of workplace discrimination, but general harassment and incivility as well as the fact that conservative states, such as Kansas, tend to have significantly more hostile attitudes towards LGBT citizens than an “average” state. One could argue that if a state is hostile towards a minority group, that is a sufficient reason for not implimenting laws to protect them. This, however, is a weak argument that rides primarily on personal bias of those professing it and, if it is accepted, those listening to it. If one substitutes another protected class for an LGBT employee, such as biological gender, a specific race or a religion, it becomes quite difficult to claim that these cases of abuse are not in fact cases of abuse. If that much can be objectively determined, then as it was considered in the past, it is the duty of the government to protect a minority despite the wishes of the majority, hopefully causing a net societal progress. Protected classes that were …show more content…
Having laws in place would simplify pertinent court cases, defining a protected class instead of leaving the cases open to the presiding individuals’ interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Discrimination and harassment have been researched, and both appear to be prolific and compelling issues. In addition, support for legislation that would rectify these problems is strong, despite the population being somewhat ignorant to the actual state of the present. Even the groups expected to be opposition to these laws are closer to being in agreement that one would anticipate. Judging from the past, support for equal LGBT rights will continue to rise over time while opposition will deminish. From all of this information, it is safe to conclude that legislative action to protect LGBT citizens in the workforce would not only benefit them, but would also be agreeable to the general society around them, and would therefore be a wise option for the state of Kansas to pursue. It is almost certain that federal legislation will come about sometime within the next decade, but in the meantime, it is of high importance that Kansas protect its LGBT
These statistics are recent enough to be considered an accurate reflection of the current state of workplace discrimination, but general harassment and incivility as well as the fact that conservative states, such as Kansas, tend to have significantly more hostile attitudes towards LGBT citizens than an “average” state. One could argue that if a state is hostile towards a minority group, that is a sufficient reason for not implimenting laws to protect them. This, however, is a weak argument that rides primarily on personal bias of those professing it and, if it is accepted, those listening to it. If one substitutes another protected class for an LGBT employee, such as biological gender, a specific race or a religion, it becomes quite difficult to claim that these cases of abuse are not in fact cases of abuse. If that much can be objectively determined, then as it was considered in the past, it is the duty of the government to protect a minority despite the wishes of the majority, hopefully causing a net societal progress. Protected classes that were …show more content…
Having laws in place would simplify pertinent court cases, defining a protected class instead of leaving the cases open to the presiding individuals’ interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Discrimination and harassment have been researched, and both appear to be prolific and compelling issues. In addition, support for legislation that would rectify these problems is strong, despite the population being somewhat ignorant to the actual state of the present. Even the groups expected to be opposition to these laws are closer to being in agreement that one would anticipate. Judging from the past, support for equal LGBT rights will continue to rise over time while opposition will deminish. From all of this information, it is safe to conclude that legislative action to protect LGBT citizens in the workforce would not only benefit them, but would also be agreeable to the general society around them, and would therefore be a wise option for the state of Kansas to pursue. It is almost certain that federal legislation will come about sometime within the next decade, but in the meantime, it is of high importance that Kansas protect its LGBT