That analysis isn't entirely accurate either. For example:
> Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime.
The law is still on the books, but ever since Lawrence v. Texas[0], gay sex is legal in all 50 states (and all US territories). They're on the books simply because of inertia - there's no impetus to pass a new law repealing a law that's already been invalidated.
Others include:
> In Russia you cannot be fired from your job for being an LGBT individual, in the United States you can
This depends highly on the state. Some states even protect transgender individuals.
Also, comparing Russia's laws to the US's laws is inherently flawed. For example, I could mention that Iran conducts more sex reassignment operations than any other country in the entire world, except Thailand![1]
But before we go ahead and praise Iran for being progressive with regard to transgender rights, let's understand that they do this because they assume that homosexuality and being trans are the same thing, and the government pays for forced gender reassignment of gay people[2].
So it's very easy to make the US look bad in comparison to other countries, especially since the US is more federated than many other countries (ie, states have more leeway), and the US is larger (so it's easier to cherry-pick examples). But that doesn't mean the US is actually worse.
Too bad the kind of people who give polygraphs to root out and fire the gay people in their company don't give a shit about the science (or lack thereof) of polygraph tests.
Well, polygraphs, while not providing undeniable proofs, give statistically significant results. U.S. govt agencies use them widely as part of security clearance.
And the reason it took until 2000 was inertia. It was a completely symbolic repeal of a law nobody had enforced for some time. I’m not sure what your point here is.
Are you seriously saying that you can legally fire somebody for being gay in some US states?
Yes. I'm surprised that you're surprised. Under Obama the tide has definitely turned in favor of gay rights, but gay people are still very far from being equally protected under the law nationwide.
And if the next US President is a Republican, many Obama-era gay rights advances might very well be rolled back.
I'm European, this might explain my surprise. My understanding was that employers were usually very careful to avoid lawsuits for wrongful termination when firing people. I had not understood that in some places, discrimination against people with the wrong sexual orientation is fair game, while discrimination against people with the wrong skin colour isn't.
But "at will" means you can be fired for any reason except if the reason is "being in a protected class". Those include pregnant women, for examples.
It is so ridiculous it is funny. In the US, the law guarantees NO paid maternity leave, but you can't fire a pregnant lady. So, as soon as she gives birth, you can stop paying her (but not fire her), and then, two weeks after she comes back from maternity leave, you can fire her (because she is no longer in a protected class). So, basically, all this protection amounts to is ... about two extra weeks of severance.
US is pretty sad when it comes to labour law and employee rights - and most people living in the US are somehow under the illusion that it is better for them.
Does anyone know if sexual preference or sexual orientation is a recognized protected class?
It is true that the US does not guarantee maternity / paternity leave, however many companies do have it, and some are very generous. It's a great incentive to get good people on board.
While I agree that a minimum is a good idea (though not sure how it would be legislated in practice) I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated.
In european countries you get between 3 and 12 months of paid maternity/paternity leave by law (in some countries, maternity only, in others, 12 months divide between parents). In some countries you can extend this by 3-6 month of unpaid leave while still protected against termination.
> I also appreciate that the lack of labor regulation in the US results in a labor force and companies that are more responsive to change than in Europe and other places that are heavily regulated.
companies that are more "responsive to change"? What does this mean? Yes, they respond more easily to quarterly results by firing, but I don't know of anyone outside of Wall Street that considers this a good thing.
The US labour situation is all fcked up, sorry - up until last year, health insurance was tied to employers (meaning people kept working in places they hated, or did not start a new venture, for health coverage). Now, it's just ultra expensive and tied to a location. (Moved? unlikely you can keep your coverage)
Some places in Europe are fcked up in the other extreme - e.g. I've heard from people in Austria and in Denmark that they won't hire employees because they won't be able to fire them without a year's notice.
But the e.g. UK, Northern Ireland, Sweden and Germany are doing fine on the both the health care and labour law fronts.
Yes, you can, in SOME places in the United States. The reason being is being gay isn't a "protected" status in FEDERAL civil rights legislation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Before that one could say "black people need not apply" on a job description or ask women if they were going to be having children soon on a job interview. Being gay was never defined as a protected group outright.
That being said, SOME States in the United States have taken it one step further and made homosexuals a protected group and disallowed discrimination against them under STATE law. Some companies have specifically outlawed discrimination against gays via official company policy and extended employee benefits to same sex partners.
I don't know if you can see this video outside of the United States, but try to watch it! It gives some examples of people being fired for being gay, and an interview with a completely clueless State lawmaker.
In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The EEOC enforces the prohibitions against employment discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act (GINA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity. The Commission's interpretations of these statutes apply to its adjudication and enforcement in federal sector as well as private sector and state and local government employment.
The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20.... The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt.*
Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the US was a highly segregated country mostly because of "cherry picked" examples from the deep south. Federal law exists in part to put the entire country on the same page with respect to basic liberties. Its not OK for me to have more freedom of speech in California than in Texas, so why should it be OK for an LGBT individual to have more basic human rights in one state than in another?
The current debate is exactly about the question if the basic human rights are violated or not. As soon as this would be resolved - I mean legally, having an opinion on that is not enough, for enforcement you need laws - if it would be resolved that some laws violate the basic human rights of LGBT people it would provide the basis for making them void.
So far the court only decided that the federal laws banning same-sex marriage are violating the rights of the citizens. They did not decide that recognizing same-sex marriage is a basic human right though, and since the text of the Constitution is also mum on this question, it would require a separate court decision to have federal enforcement of such rights, if recognized.
However not having such decision is in no way comparable with limitations of freedom of expression instituted in Russia. It's one thing to complain that the federal government does not force states to recognize same-sex marriage, especially if it doesn't even have a legal basis to do so right now, and another thing is to prosecute people for opening support centers for gay youth or for debating the topic of sexual relationships and freedoms in public.
> Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime.
The law is still on the books, but ever since Lawrence v. Texas[0], gay sex is legal in all 50 states (and all US territories). They're on the books simply because of inertia - there's no impetus to pass a new law repealing a law that's already been invalidated.
Others include:
> In Russia you cannot be fired from your job for being an LGBT individual, in the United States you can
This depends highly on the state. Some states even protect transgender individuals.
Also, comparing Russia's laws to the US's laws is inherently flawed. For example, I could mention that Iran conducts more sex reassignment operations than any other country in the entire world, except Thailand![1]
But before we go ahead and praise Iran for being progressive with regard to transgender rights, let's understand that they do this because they assume that homosexuality and being trans are the same thing, and the government pays for forced gender reassignment of gay people[2].
So it's very easy to make the US look bad in comparison to other countries, especially since the US is more federated than many other countries (ie, states have more leeway), and the US is larger (so it's easier to cherry-pick examples). But that doesn't mean the US is actually worse.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v_texas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran
[2] There's some subtlety to this (we could debate the exact nature of the word "forced"), but that's basically how it works.