Why do LGBTQIA+ workers want to be protected from discrimination by law?
At a dinner party recently, a person who identifies as a “man” and who is married to another person who identifies as a “man”, disclosed his hatred of Donald Trump (not a big risk in Massachusetts!). On the list of the Trumpenfuhrer’s crimes was “I can be fired if I tell my boss that I am gay.” I tried to refrain from pointing out that as an unemployed person in his mid-50s, he probably wouldn’t be hired in the first place simply due to his age (i.e., that he’d have to get hired despite his age before becoming eligible to be fired due to his sexual preference).
This thought made me wonder, actually, why Americans in the LGBTQIA+ community would want a law protecting them from workplace discrimination. The protected classes are people whom employers consider to be inferior workers:
- the old: less energy, freighted down with family responsibilities, likely to run up expensive medical bills on the “self-insured” employer health plan
- the disabled: by definition, lacking some kind of ability that most other workers have
- women: potentially less motivated to work due to being in a higher tax bracket than men due to eligibility for means-tested welfare benefits, alimony, or child support (see https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2015/06/01/book-review-the-redistribution-recession/ and Claudia Goldin on the gender gap in working hours)
- non-white/non-Asian: constantly featured in the New York Times as doing poorly in school
Is there any evidence that employers currently believe that LGBTQIA+ workers are less healthy, less energetic, less intelligent, less motivated, less able, and/or less educated than non-LGBTQIA+ workers? If not, why spread this negative perception by adding LGBTQIA+ identification to the list of people who need the government to force employers to retain them as workers?
Full post, including comments
















