Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no gays?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:13 AM GMT
    Why in our current system of "employment protections", our current president who now supports gay marriage, and going forward, the current version of the EEOC Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not include sexual orientation, or disabled or veteran, just the usual.... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin all over this document. This document is also referenced in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in use for military procurement. If our president supports us in marriage, and the dont ask, dont tell is no more, shouldnt the civil rights act of 1964 be revised to include us?????

    Im kinda pissed to see this "employment protection" document does not include us, if anyone knows about military spending and contracts, you know that in every contract this clause is included, if you work for a contractor, and your gay, and if you have a problem with discrimination, GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED even though the contractors own policys might protect gay people, this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 MUST be changed to include the LGBT community

    Who do I contact to get the ball rolling?

    Read the document yourself and tell me if you see US in it
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:18 AM GMT
    scruffLA saidWhy in our current system of "employment protections", our current president who now supports gay marriage, and going forward, the current version of the EEOC Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not include sexual orientation, or disabled or veteran, just the usual.... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin all over this document. This document is also referenced in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in use for military procurement. If our president supports us in marriage, and the dont ask, dont tell is no more, shouldnt the civil rights act of 1964 be revised to include us?????

    Im kinda pissed to see this "employment protection" document does not include us, if anyone knows about military spending and contracts, you know that in every contract this clause is included, if you work for a contractor, and your gay, and if you have a problem with discrimination, GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED even though the contractors own policys might protect gay people, this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 MUST be changed to include the LGBT community

    Who do I contact to get the ball rolling?

    Read the document yourself and tell me if you see US in it
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm


    This statement goes into a contract, everyone knows what a "tort" is?
    Defamation is a legal punishable tort

    The Contractor—
    (1) Agrees not to–


    (i) Enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration–

    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or


    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or



    (ii) Take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve through arbitration–



    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or



    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and



    (2) Certifies, by signature of the contract, that it requires each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and not to take any action to enforce, any provision of any existing agreements, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, with respect to any employee or independent contractor performing work related to such subcontract.



    (c) The prohibitions of this clause do not apply with respect to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreements with employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:28 AM GMT
    scruffLA said
    scruffLA saidWhy in our current system of "employment protections", our current president who now supports gay marriage, and going forward, the current version of the EEOC Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not include sexual orientation, or disabled or veteran, just the usual.... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin all over this document. This document is also referenced in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in use for military procurement. If our president supports us in marriage, and the dont ask, dont tell is no more, shouldnt the civil rights act of 1964 be revised to include us?????

    Im kinda pissed to see this "employment protection" document does not include us, if anyone knows about military spending and contracts, you know that in every contract this clause is included, if you work for a contractor, and your gay, and if you have a problem with discrimination, GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED even though the contractors own policys might protect gay people, this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 MUST be changed to include the LGBT community

    Who do I contact to get the ball rolling?

    Read the document yourself and tell me if you see US in it
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm


    This statement goes into a contract, everyone knows what a "tort" is?
    Defamation is a legal punishable tort

    The Contractor—
    (1) Agrees not to–


    (i) Enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration–

    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or


    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or



    (ii) Take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve through arbitration–



    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or



    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and



    (2) Certifies, by signature of the contract, that it requires each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and not to take any action to enforce, any provision of any existing agreements, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, with respect to any employee or independent contractor performing work related to such subcontract.



    (c) The prohibitions of this clause do not apply with respect to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreements with employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.




    The Civil Rights Act of 1991, they did add disabilty, but no gay
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/cra-1991.cfm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:45 AM GMT
    scruffLA said
    scruffLA saidWhy in our current system of "employment protections", our current president who now supports gay marriage, and going forward, the current version of the EEOC Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not include sexual orientation, or disabled or veteran, just the usual.... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin all over this document. This document is also referenced in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in use for military procurement. If our president supports us in marriage, and the dont ask, dont tell is no more, shouldnt the civil rights act of 1964 be revised to include us?????

    Im kinda pissed to see this "employment protection" document does not include us, if anyone knows about military spending and contracts, you know that in every contract this clause is included, if you work for a contractor, and your gay, and if you have a problem with discrimination, GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT PROTECTED even though the contractors own policys might protect gay people, this Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 MUST be changed to include the LGBT community

    Who do I contact to get the ball rolling?

    Read the document yourself and tell me if you see US in it
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm


    This statement goes into a contract, everyone knows what a "tort" is?
    Defamation is a legal punishable tort

    The Contractor—
    (1) Agrees not to–


    (i) Enter into any agreement with any of its employees or independent contractors that requires, as a condition of employment, that the employee or independent contractor agree to resolve through arbitration–

    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or


    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; or



    (ii) Take any action to enforce any provision of an existing agreement with an employee or independent contractor that mandates that the employee or independent contractor resolve through arbitration–



    (A) Any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; or



    (B) Any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention; and



    (2) Certifies, by signature of the contract, that it requires each covered subcontractor to agree not to enter into, and not to take any action to enforce, any provision of any existing agreements, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, with respect to any employee or independent contractor performing work related to such subcontract.



    (c) The prohibitions of this clause do not apply with respect to a contractor’s or subcontractor’s agreements with employees or independent contractors that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
    Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It is a resolution technique in which a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides and enforceable
  • jmtodd28

    Posts: 30

    Jan 22, 2013 11:12 AM GMT
    ummmm, you do know that in 1964 it was still illegal to be gay in most states right? That Stonewall hadn't even happened yet?

    What you should be really asking here is for a new civil rights act of 2013 that protects the LGBT community.

    This is not something that can just be tacked on to the old 1964 Act. It will likely take another 10 years before there is a serious discussion on this subject and the ball is already rolling. There are various LGBT lobbies in Washington and other states actually working toward equal rights. All you have to do is get involved.

    Personally I agree with the strategy to lobby states and get a critical mass of states to create an LGBT civil rights act on the state level first. Again, google your state for LGBT lobby if there isn't one, start one. Once we have a critical mass of states with civil rights acts it is almost easy to force Washington to follow along.

    Take gay marriage- There are now nine states that recognize gay marriage. the Supreme Court is hearing cases this year because of a congressional act. I'm not sure which way the Court will go on this one. If the conservatives on the Court adhere to their stated values, they can't get around the full faith and credit, equal protection and the supremacy clauses so they must find DOMA unconstitutional. If, however, they are activist jurist, they will hand down a bad case law that could be on the books for decades before it is overturned. However, if 26 States or 35 States recognized gay marriage, the court would have to pause in their approach.

    just my 2¢
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 2:09 PM GMT
    jmtodd28 saidummmm, you do know that in 1964 it was still illegal to be gay in most states right? That Stonewall hadn't even happened yet?

    What you should be really asking here is for a new civil rights act of 2013 that protects the LGBT community.

    This is not something that can just be tacked on to the old 1964 Act. It will likely take another 10 years before there is a serious discussion on this subject and the ball is already rolling. There are various LGBT lobbies in Washington and other states actually working toward equal rights. All you have to do is get involved.

    Personally I agree with the strategy to lobby states and get a critical mass of states to create an LGBT civil rights act on the state level first. Again, google your state for LGBT lobby if there isn't one, start one. Once we have a critical mass of states with civil rights acts it is almost easy to force Washington to follow along.

    Take gay marriage- There are now nine states that recognize gay marriage. the Supreme Court is hearing cases this year because of a congressional act. I'm not sure which way the Court will go on this one. If the conservatives on the Court adhere to their stated values, they can't get around the full faith and credit, equal protection and the supremacy clauses so they must find DOMA unconstitutional. If, however, they are activist jurist, they will hand down a bad case law that could be on the books for decades before it is overturned. However, if 26 States or 35 States recognized gay marriage, the court would have to pause in their approach.

    just my 2¢

    Good points, and nicely stated. Another thing scruffLA can do is write his Member of Congress for his district, and the 2 US Senators from California. The President cannot change or make law like this unilaterally, only sign or veto laws presented to him by Congress. Something like this would be beyond any Executive Authority he has, which is mainly used for internal operations within the Executive Branch, and cannot conflict with existing Federal Statutes.

    But naturally I completely agree with the essence of what scruffLA is saying. I encountered this lack of civil rights protection in a State where I lived, in which a landlord had evicted a couple solely on their being gay. That State's Supreme Court finally ruled the landlord had the right to evict, because State housing protection laws didn't specifically mention GLBT. Race, color, sex, religion, national irigin, yes, but gay no, you're out on the street.

    The State Court could have found other protections for gays in broader constitutional provisions for equal rights, but chose not to. They only looked at the narrow scope of the State housing protections. Therefore I support including specific and clearly identified gay civil rights protection in Federal & State law, so that judges (and you know which ones they are) cannot get it wrong.

    I also maintain membership in HRC, and Florida Equality, to magnify my voice on these issues, and to better target the individual lawmakers who are key to certain issues, such as legislative Committee Chairs. Navigating who does what in government can be very confusing, and these civil rights organizations can help point their members to the decision makers on matters of vital interest to them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2013 10:41 PM GMT
    I just emailed the president!!

    To remind him of ENDA and Title VII missing LGBT, the FAR regulations are specific to Secretary of Defense but tie into fair and equal protection in employment, I would consider the FAR regulations a "backdoor loophole" for certain employers to discriminate, legally. Yes, local state congress people should also be contacted regarding ENDA, but in CA, employment protection for gay people already exists. The Federal EEOC owns Title VII and the defense department owns the FAR regulations. So, I went right to the top

    Here is what I wrote, hopefully getting a reply from the white house:


    Dear President Obama, congratulations on your inauguration and your next four years. Thank you for recognizing our LGBT community in your speech. I am an openly gay man, activist and ex lobbyist (hate crime legislation) and what you have accomplished so far has been appreciated. I would like to remind you that ENDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need to include us LGBT folks once and for all. Hopefully you can get this done in the next four years. Speaking of employment and knowing about military contracts, I found DFAR 252.222-7006, (RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS) protects the contractor(s) from prosecution in employment matters, also FAR 52--52.222-26 (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY) needs to include LGBT people much like Title VII, as both of these regulation documents reference employment protections or lack thereof. Looking forward to the day when I won’t have to worry about discrimination in the workplace, it still happens especially in military defense contracting now that I found the regulations that protect them, instead of its employees. I urge you and your new Secretary of Defense to take a closer look at the DFAR and FAR I have brought to your attention. Good luck with ENDA and your second term. Again, thank you for supporting our diverse community!