Brownback removes LGBT Protections from state workers

[Slander and/or Libel]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-kansas-governor-gay-protection-20150210-story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, of course that's the reason

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Oh, if only the wave had been just a little smaller.....Davis wouldn't be doing this sort of thing...

RIP Kansas

[user12345]

Disgusting move but its surprising it took this long for him to do it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

HP

[Rockefeller GOP]

HP

[LeBron]

Knowing Brownback, I wouldn't be surprised if he started going on a "purge" now and tries to get rid of every LGBT employee in state government just as he did to every moderate Republican.

It's just absolutely disgusting what he did here, and it's his own way to get back at gay people for Brownback's embarrassing loss in court.

Oh, if only the wave had been just a little smaller.....Davis wouldn't be doing this sort of thing...

RIP Kansas

Just so you know, the dude you're endorsing did the same thing. Kasich got rid of an executive order under Strickland that protected state workers from being fired based off of gender identity.

[Ebowed]

Disgusting move but its surprising it took this long for him to do it.

Yeah, the timing is really unusual.  But I suppose we have reached the point in Kansas where it is okay to campaign on school cuts but wait until after re-election to make it okay to fire gay people.

[Cory]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol, of course that's the reason

[Mr. Illini]

Worst Governor in the country.

[King]

I'm surprised it took him 5 years in office to do this.

[windjammer]

Worst Governor in the country.

[CountryClassSF]

Brownback for true equality - no special rights for anybody.

[morgieb]

Hopefully he gets taken to court....I doubt he'll lose though.

[BaconBacon96]

Brownback for true bigotry - no civil rights for minorities.

FTFY

[Sol]

Brownback for true equality - no special rights for anybody.

And you're gay?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully he gets taken to court....I doubt he'll lose though.

Well, Kansas justices aren't in love with republicans by any means - after all they made Kobach SUPER ANGRY last cycle when they refused to keep Chad Taylor's name on the senate ballot.

[afleitch]

Brownback for true equality - no special rights for anybody.

And you're gay?

No. He's a troll.

[Badger]

Brownback for true equality - no special rights for anybody.

And you're gay?

No. He's a troll.

This X 100. Anyone who truly buys CCSF's "I'm just a principled conservtive--and I'm really gay!" Schtick, well, let's just say there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'm willing to sell you.

[The_Doctor]

I'm conflicted about this executive order. On one hand, I agree with Brownback in spirit - when you hire a person and fire a person, it should all be on the merits of how that person does his or her job. Their performance should not be influenced by physical or mental characteristics, unless it is pertinent to the job at hand. In that sense, I can agree: that the state government should not protect or deny protections to any employees.

Inherently, I find it distasteful to carve out protections for specific reasons instead of simply saying "You will be hired or fired on the basis of your qualifications for the job." Creating protected classes might actually make it harder to fire someone for incompetence - is it a possibility someone could be retained because their employers are worried about being targeted for discrimination, even though that employee is legitimately a terrible one? The lawsuit alone could be a deterrent to getting rid of a bad employee. This is partially why in the private sector I do not support protections for disabilities, orientation, and other reasons. In state government, however, that's a little more trickier, since this is the public sector, paid for by taxpayer dollars.

But I also see that protecting lesbians and gays from discrimination would lead to the ultimate qualification that people are hired or dismissed on the basis of their qualifications. So in that sense, I think that the executive order is a bad one.

[Ebowed]

I'm conflicted about this executive order. On one hand, I agree with Brownback in spirit - when you hire a person and fire a person, it should all be on the merits of how that person does his or her job. Their performance should not be influenced by physical or mental characteristics, unless it is pertinent to the job at hand. In that sense, I can agree: that the state government should not protect or deny protections to any employees.

What does this mean?  As you ultimately concede, anti-discrimination laws aren't about applying special protections to anybody - whether straight or gay, or anything else.

[publicunofficial]

I'm conflicted about this executive order. On one hand, I agree with Brownback in spirit - when you hire a person and fire a person, it should all be on the merits of how that person does his or her job. Their performance should not be influenced by physical or mental characteristics, unless it is pertinent to the job at hand. In that sense, I can agree: that the state government should not protect or deny protections to any employees.

Inherently, I find it distasteful to carve out protections for specific reasons instead of simply saying "You will be hired or fired on the basis of your qualifications for the job." Creating protected classes might actually make it harder to fire someone for incompetence - is it a possibility someone could be retained because their employers are worried about being targeted for discrimination, even though that employee is legitimately a terrible one? The lawsuit alone could be a deterrent to getting rid of a bad employee. This is partially why in the private sector I do not support protections for disabilities, orientation, and other reasons. In state government, however, that's a little more trickier, since this is the public sector, paid for by taxpayer dollars.

But I also see that protecting lesbians and gays from discrimination would lead to the ultimate qualification that people are hired or dismissed on the basis of their qualifications. So in that sense, I think that the executive order is a bad one.

You might be afraid that handicapped and LGBT employees will put no effort into their government desk jobs because they are not afraid of being fired, but there are already plenty of straight white government employees who have been doing that for decades.

[DemPGH]

Removing protections, especially if they've been granted or won somehow, as a general concept is in itself very, very horrible. Workers, women, gays, trans, whatever. It's all the same fight against these ideologues.

[MaxQue]

Not really a surprise coming from Sam Brownshirt.

[The_Doctor]

I'm conflicted about this executive order. On one hand, I agree with Brownback in spirit - when you hire a person and fire a person, it should all be on the merits of how that person does his or her job. Their performance should not be influenced by physical or mental characteristics, unless it is pertinent to the job at hand. In that sense, I can agree: that the state government should not protect or deny protections to any employees.

Inherently, I find it distasteful to carve out protections for specific reasons instead of simply saying "You will be hired or fired on the basis of your qualifications for the job." Creating protected classes might actually make it harder to fire someone for incompetence - is it a possibility someone could be retained because their employers are worried about being targeted for discrimination, even though that employee is legitimately a terrible one? The lawsuit alone could be a deterrent to getting rid of a bad employee. This is partially why in the private sector I do not support protections for disabilities, orientation, and other reasons. In state government, however, that's a little more trickier, since this is the public sector, paid for by taxpayer dollars.

But I also see that protecting lesbians and gays from discrimination would lead to the ultimate qualification that people are hired or dismissed on the basis of their qualifications. So in that sense, I think that the executive order is a bad one.

You might be afraid that handicapped and LGBT employees will put no effort into their government desk jobs because they are not afraid of being fired, but there are already plenty of straight white government employees who have been doing that for decades.

I am indeed afraid of that. But also, I don't believe in government workers being protected from being fired, for any reason.

I think it's harder to fire someone in the federal government than the private sector, for a variety of reasons. These laws should be reformed to fire someone for incompetence. Fear of a lawsuit should not be an employer's primary concern; competence at your job and meeting the duties of it should be.