“Long before I started work as the CEO of Apple, I became aware of a fundamental truth: People are much more willing to give of themselves when they feel that their selves are being fully recognized and embraced,” Tim Cook writes for The Wall Street Journal. “At Apple, we try to make sure people understand that they don’t have to check their identity at the door. We’re committed to creating a safe and welcoming workplace for all employees, regardless of their race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation.”
“Apple’s antidiscrimination policy goes beyond the legal protections U.S. workers currently enjoy under federal law, most notably because we prohibit discrimination against Apple’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees,” Cook writes. “A bill now before the U.S. Senate would update those employment laws, at long last, to protect workers against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Cook writes, “We urge senators to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, and we challenge the House of Representatives to bring it to the floor for a vote… So long as the law remains silent on the workplace rights of gay and lesbian Americans, we as a nation are effectively consenting to discrimination against them. Congress should seize the opportunity to strike a blow against such intolerance by approving the Employment Nondiscrimination Act.”
Read more in the full article here.
Good for Tim Cook. It beggars belief that someone can still be fired just for being gay in many states in a nation that touts itself as the Home Of The Free. I suspect some of you will think that this is just more government interference and that business owners should be allowed to choose who they hire and fire and just as importantly why, however IMO it isn’t really freedom if only a few people get to exercise it, especially if they then exercise that freedom right into the private lives of their employees. ENDA is good for the USA and good for Americans, just as equivalent legislation across the Western World has been beneficial in every country that has enacted it.
Tim Cook conspicuously does not mention respect for people who espouse a religious belief. So much for the enlightened leader of Apple who is a bigot against those who do not share his anti-religious sentiments.
Nonsense. I was lead to believe that the constitution protected personal religious beliefs, when they didn’t break the law.
Many very religious people have no problem with those around them being LGBT and also think ENDA is a good move. Cook is not being anti-religious for taking a side in a debate that the entire Christian world is having with itself.
Amen! You are free to lead your life with your own beliefs, but to try to force them upon others is not allowed. If your beliefs are so strong and ‘correct’ then you should easily be able to convince all others to follow them without the need for government intervention.
It’s in the Constitution, dips hit.
A lot of you liberals have plenty of attitude, and all of it bad, but you do not have much knowledge or discernment.
Religious beliefs are only protected in the Constitution (at least in theory) from GOVERNMENT interference. That is not the same as protection in the private sector.
Moreover, this “anti-discrimination” act is a violation of the freedom of religion. Government has no business telling what the acceptable criteria are for hiring and firing someone in a privately owned business. If a Christian business owner has a policy of not hiring fags, then they have a right to do that. It is, after all, THEIR business, and no one else’s.
No they don’t. US law supercedes religious dogma. If you don’t like that then may you ought to convert to Islam and more to Saudi Arabia where religion and government are one in the same.
Yes they do. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee the free exercise of religion. So U.S. law DOE NOT supersede religious belief. You lose.
Moreover, allowing the free exercise of religion is not equivalent to making government and religion “one and the same.” The fact that you don’t understand this means you are stupid.
Liberal dogma is one and the same with our government, which is a violation of the free exercise of religion.
You may not like that, but I may not care.
U.S. law does supercede religious beliefs. Ask some Mormon wives if you are in doubt.
I don’t care about Mormon wives. We’re not talking about the institution of marriage or the marriage contract. We’re talking about who gets to set the criteria for hiring and firing in a private business.
People who value liberty understand that that decision should be entirely in the hands of the individual(s) who own and run the business. But, like everything else, the government just can’t leave people alone, because for well over a century now, it has been steadily acquiring and consolidating power for itself, which of course means less liberty for the rest of us.
You were saying?
I’m sorry, I should have figured that was too subtle a point for you. Just reaffirms that old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t teach a stone to think.
mcdruid,
Subtlety has nothing to do with it. You employed a fallacious tactic of argumentation. It is not my fault that you did not learn this when your were supposedly being educated.
I’m afraid you have the name of that fallacy wrong. It is the fallacy of pointing out inconvenient facts.
Didn’t Jesus say “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”? Didn’t he say that even the prostitute should have equal rights even if she sinned? If you are a Christian, then you ought to take a peek at the Bible sometime. –in this country you do have a a right to be a bad Christian without government interference, but you do not have a right to impose your immorality and non-Christian beliefs on others.
Why do you behave nothing like the Christ, nor strive to adopt his values, and then call yourself a Christian?
@Dave H, you said it best:
“Cook is not being anti-religious for taking a side in a debate that the entire Christian world is having with itself.”
Not all Christians agree!
Dear SouthRoad,
You are a presumptuous fool. I know very well what the Bible says, and far more than just a few cherry picked verses ripped out of context and to the exclusion of other passages of Scripture.
A private business not hiring someone who is a fruitcake is not imposing anything. Why don’t liberals understand this. Government coercing private individuals to hire and fire according to liberal criteria IS imposing someone else’s standard on the business owner.
This should not be difficult to understand, but with liberals, it’s like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a chicken.
Liberals have it in their tiny little heads that when Christians are allowed to exercise their freedom of religion, something is being imposed on other people. But when liberal values prevail, nothing at all is being imposed on anyone at all.
You need to change your sentence to: “Government coercing private individuals to hire and fire according to liberal criteria, + such as race, + IS imposing someone else’s standard on the business owner.”
The business should have the right to hire and fire anyone for any reason they choose. Period. End of story.The business does not belong to the damned government. Sheesh, some of you people are thick.
@boris: the business does not, and should not, have the absolute right to fire whoever s/he wants for any reason whatsoever. The business owner and the employee make a bargain – the employee gives his or her labor; agrees to do the job as well as s/he can; to be loyal to the company, etc. The employer agrees not only to pay a salary and provide benefits; s/he also agrees to treat the employee fairly; to obey all relevant laws; not to discriminate; to provide safe working conditions. This is simply the basic bargain of employment that is part of the cost of doing business. The employer makes money out of the employee and in return has to obey the laws.
… accused “liberals” of cherry picking a few verses “out of context”, I’m sure you are ready to provide that context!
So … only the Gospels – Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John – contain the words of Christ. So, from THOSE BOOKS ALONE, choose a passage where YOU claim Christ was speaking against homosexuals, homosexuality, or any similar concept. Christ had harsh negative opinions about The Top 1% (NOT going to Heaven), so you’d think if He felt unkindly about gays He’d have SAID something!
No. You are as wrong as you can be. The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus is the Word of God. That means, the entire Bible.
There are quite a number of sins that the 3.5 year ministry of Jesus did not cover. That wasn’t what he was here to do.
Again, you’re cherry picking. You are certainly within your rights to disregard Holy Scripture, or disregard parts of it you don’t like. As for me and mine, we will follow The Lord.
You may not like that, but I may not care. Your opinions are irrelevant. Only God is God. Not you. Deal with it.
@boris: Was it Ghandi who said “I like your Christ a lot. Your Christians? Not so much.”
God is undoubtedly a good guy. But his fan club has forgotten what he stands for.
Joebloggs,
I don’t care what Gandhi said. His opinions are worthless and he is not my judge. Gandhi is in hell right now. Do you look forward to joining him?
joebloggs,
You don’t have the slightest clue about God. God is not a “good guy.” He is Holy. And he left His Word for those of us who love Him.
God is not a liberal. Quit trying to appropriate God. He does not answer to you. Your opinions are worthless that the dirt on my shoe. God is The Judge. Get saved in Christ, or you will burn in hell.
No. You are as wrong as you can be. The Gospel of John tells us that Jesus is the Word of God. That means, the entire Bible.
If you’ve eaten a bacon cheeseburger or even had an ordinary burger with a milkshake at any point in your life, you’ve already proven how selective you are with adhering to the Word of God.
In your world, I would be allowed to fire you if I saw you consuming a plate of clam chowder on your own time because it doesn’t conform to my religious beliefs.
I wonder how long it would be before you’d go running to the local ambulance-chaser claiming wrongful dismissal.
It’s that damned “Commerce Clause.” Don’t let on that I told you, but Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution was snuck into the final draft by SATAN HIMSELF! The mislead founders of the country didn’t notice because they were using a corrupted version of MS Word, which the devil had modified to make such changes invisible to them.
Freedom of religion is already established in the constitution. Your beliefs are safe… be it Christian, Atheist, Buddist, Hindu, Muslim…
No, Christian beliefs are not safe. They have already been infringed, and will be infringed even more as long as Godless hell-bound liberals have their way.
If you’re anything to go by, I sincerely hope you’re right with this post.
Just as long as your young. They do hire younger people at corporate and at retail only token older people. Tim’s gay go figure the he would champion something that he understands. But give an older person a second look at corporate. It’s not happening.
Amen!
Taking away the rights of the many to preserve the rights of a few.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Not trying to be a troll here, I’m asking this as a serious question: What rights are the many giving up?
The right of a private business to hire and fire whomever they choose.
In other words, the right of a business to discriminate against whomever they choose.
yes.
Why does the business owner, who provides society a service by providing jobs, paying taxes, etc. have no rights, but the guy who woke up one day and decided to start wearing women’s clothes to work get all the rights?
The U.S.A. is fundamentally flawed. This system inevitably leads to moral decline and a headlong entropy toward revolution.
Yes, JeffH. It’s called liberty. It’s not up to you or to anyone else to determine the acceptable criteria for hiring and firing of employees at a private business.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s wrong. It’s STILL none of your business. Liberals have always had a high problem understanding that no one appointed them to be decision makers for the rest of us.
… what? This law merely says you cannot fire someone because they are LBGT. It doesn’t say you can’t fire them. It doesn’t say you must hire them.
Go back to the pile of whale poop you call home and crawl back under it.
But that “right” was bargained away as part of the deal of employing someone and doing business in this country. The business owner has the intention of making money out of the labor of the employee. The bargain the business owner strikes is not just to pay the employee. The employee gets other rights as well – for example, not to be fired without due cause; not to be discriminated against; to have safe working conditions; and to be treated in accordance with all relevant laws. If the business owner doesn’t like the bargain, no-one is forcing him to be in business. He can go work for someone else.
Cook’s position at is proof that this law is redundant.
No, it’s proof that some employers go above and beyond what the law requires.
It would only be redundant if Apple had about 150,000,000 American employees (or… all of them).
bullshit. If you pass a law requiring x amount of any “group” hiring, you automatically discriminate against those who are not in that “group.”
Just because little Timmy is confused doesn’t mean the rest of us are.
Rand Paul was right, the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and businesses should be allowed to serve and employ at their own discretion. Now we find ourselves forced to employ and do business with (like the photographer that was sued for not wanting to work at a gay wedding) homosexuals and other perverts… where will it end?
Pedophiles may be covered under U.S. Senate “ENDA” Bill
You bring up the wedding photographer example like it’s totally reasonable, but what you fail to grasp is that that is an example of discrimination. Also, that it wouldn’t be covered by ENDA, since the photographer is the employee, not employer.
Substitute the word black for homosexual and you will understand it’s discrimination. Also most pedophiles are hetero. You’re a bigot.
bullshit. If you pass a law requiring x amount of any “group” hiring, you automatically discriminate against those who are not in that “group.”
You’re an idiot
no, you’re a statist. Explain to me how forcing a private employer to hire x amount of any “group,” doesn’t automatically discriminate against anyone excluded from that “group?”
in other words, how is legislating discrimination a solution to discrimination?
BIGOT.
eh.
You are confusing the issue. This is not an affirmative action bill, it is a bill to prevent people who are already employees being fired just for being LGBT.
This would be a great step forward for workplace equality in America, but it seems that Corporate America’s typical HR dept is no where near ready for this.
Many HR policies are of the “don’t talk about it at work” variety that result in a very awkward situation for not only the transgender employee, but also those working with and around them. One of the main reasons for this awkwardness is the limitations encountered by the layman English speaker in dealing with gender-specific pronouns when referencing a transgendered person.
I’ve addressed this challenge in the past by simply asking by which pronoun do you prefer to be addressed and it has been successful thus far, but I also work in an environment that is very tolerant and encouraging of individual expression.
Until it becomes socially acceptable (and HR approved) to ask an individual how they prefer to be addresed, then this type of discrimination will exist regardless of what the law says.
EMPLOYER: “You’re fired!”
WORKER: “You can’t do that. I’m [fill in the blank].”
EMPLOYER: “So what?”
COURT (later): “It is obvious the employer was insensitive to sexual orientation. Judgment for plaintiff.”
A quick google indicates that there are more people not hired or fired purely for being gay than there are that file bogus lawsuits.
For “gay” you can substitute “black” or “hispanic” and possibly other descriptors.
I like what MacRumors did with this story, they put it in the religious/social section with comments enabled and left the story in their main section with comments disabled so that the fanatics wouldn’t take over with their comments, or, if they did, those who only wanted to read the story wouldn’t be subjected to them.
Way to go Tim!
Yes, limiting a wide range of viewpoints and filtering speech so that you only hear what you want to hear is a great way to have a well-rounded perspective of reality.
They didn’t limit the discussion. Perhaps you weren’t understanding what I wrote. They moved the discussion to an area where readers would be prepared for it. See the difference?
Yes, because the best way to get a “well-rounded perspective of reality” is to read what anonymous, unregistered posters write on website comment boards…
The PRSI section of MacRumors is not a censored forum. It’s just a part of the site where only those with a history on the forum get to add to the discussion. Any conservatives on that site who wish to express anti-LGBT feelings are just as free to post into the thread as those who support ENDA. All the minimum post count does is deter drive-by posting on either side of the argument and prevent the thread turning into a snipefest.
As the U.S.A continues to rapidly degrade, we constantly see these garbage bills written in euphemistic language. If the U.S. Senate is going to spell out behavior that is protected, why can’t they list it?
The Senate, particularly Chucky Schumer, should have the balls to state exactly which aberrations he and his fellow degenerates want to protect.
I thought that this proposed law was more about providing healthcare and other spousal benefits to gay/lesbian couples (unmarried).
Here’s the deal:
I do not kill myself little by little every day commuting hours back and forth to work in order to have WAY TOO MUCH of my hard-earned money taken from me to “provide healthcare” to others.
Sorry. If that bullshit worked, the Soviet Fucking Union would still be around today.
Or all those other failed states with Universal Healthcare that died throughout history, like Germany, Norway, the UK, Canada, Switzerland etc.
Oh……
Comparing homogenous populations with the mess that is the U.S.A. is disingenuous.
I don’t see how Canada is homogeneous, it’s only home to the most multicultural city in the world: Toronto, beating out even New York City (surprise!). Then there’s Vancouver, where over half the population is a visible minority.
Australia is not homogenous, nor is it a mess. Australia does have universal healthcare. Perhaps the “mess” in the USA is unrelated to healthcare.
@GetReady: You miss the point. Under the current/old system more of your hard earned dollars were providing health care to others than under the ACA. People without insurance and without sufficient means to pay were treated by hospitals and emergency rooms just the same. The hospitals were paid for providing this treatment by the state and federal governments. Under the ACA, more people will have insurance, thus lessening the load on the tax payer. It’s called individual responsibility. The part of the ACA people don’t like is they’re having to be coerced into taking that individual responsibility.
Except that those whose incomes are too low to afford insurance will receive tax credits to help out. Who do you think makes up for the tax credits? The same people that were paying previously.
Yes, poor people’s insurance will be subsidized to an extent by the tax payer. But the tax payer will still pay less under the ACA than under the current system simply because some of those currently uninsured will pay something towards their own healthcare, which they’re not doing now. And fewer people will go bankrupt because they had the misfortune to get very sick. The cost of unpaid bills is also born by the population at large, so this too will be reduced.
The ACA is far from perfect but is a long way better than the current system. That’s why the non-partisan CBO continues to estimate that the ACA will reduce the deficit long term (a conclusion that the Ryan bizarrely relied on to balance the numbers in his proposed budget even though he planned to defund the ACA).
Universal health care is good for the economy as it ensures the nation’s workforce is able to afford health care, services and mediation and remains productive.
Australia, one of the richest nations on Earth with per-capita wealth at near the top of the scale has universal health care which is supported by all sides of politics.
You need to junk the “soviet/communist” propaganda crap.
Apparently not. According to the various rants I’ve seen, it’s main purpose is to turn the US into a Communist and/or Nazi state that promotes everything from bestiality to witchcraft.
… ARE a “geezer”, you might recall that both the Communists and the Nazis were more likely to imprison, torture, and KILL anyone THOUGHT to be practicing either bestiality, or witchcraft, or homosexuality, or non-Christian religions.
Thank you, Mr. Cook. I’m glad to see one corporate leader has the courage to speak out in favor of fundamental fairness in the workplace. And despite the usual crackpot, addled-brain, hateful comments posted here, I think those still possessed of reason and sanity will be in the majority.
This is just another potentially BAD law, it tries to place into law what should be common sense.. all it will do in the long run is make it harder for companies to manage their work force and will DISCRIMINATE against many that the law will probably purposefully overlook.
Unfortunately, history shows that some employers – from small firms to multinational corporations – have discriminated against and taken advantage of employees, particularly minorities and vulnerable groups. Laws are required to discourage this because relying on common sense didn’t work.
As for whether this law is “potentially” a bad law – all laws potentially have unexpected consequences. I suspect you haven’t read this bill nor fully comprehend what all the consequences of it will be. So you’re not really in a position to say what it will do in the long run.
News Flash, its not a perfect world, nor will it ever be one.. however to perpetually use the force of law to try and manage imperfect behavior in certain areas of society will never work either. There are slews of examples. Someone always loses and in many cases, they’ve done nothing wrong. At what point is having a law, that no one can manage effectively, unless someone sues, which only enriches lawyers and no one else. There are also slews of laws already on the books for job discrimination, do we really need another? I don’t think so.
Here’s my take on it.
I’m proud to say that I’m a devout Catholic, and agree with the teaching of my Church that homosexual orientation is a cross that some people must bear in their lives; we all have afflictions in our lives. I also believe that homosexual activity is intrinsically wrong.
I also believe that every person, regardless of their afflictions or what they do (or don’t do) about them, is beloved of God, and deserving of my respect for them as a person made in the image and likeness of God. Simply because they disagree with me, or the Church, does not remove this inherent respect that is incumbent upon me to give them. This doesn’t mean that I have to approve of their viewpoints or actions, but it does mean that I cannot count them as “less equal” to me or to anyone else.
This being said, it is utterly abhorrent to me that an LGBT person would be discriminated against for simply being homosexually oriented, a situation that – to all rational tests – is something that is not a choice on their part. People are responsible for their actions and choices, and can be held to account for them – one’s state of mind is known to that person, and God, alone; judging someone for being homosexually oriented is, to my mind, to test God Himself and find him wanting.
Here in the usanian northeast it is much more common for employers (including Apple) to discriminate by age than by sexual orientation.
I would be a comfortable thought to believe that most employers will hire who they feel will return the highest investment, be they whomever or whatever.
At the end of the day, it’s just becoming too easy to be a criminal by virtue of owning a business.
I don’t have enough information here, but the only way I’d favor this would be if it only applies to publicly traded companies, non-profits that are federally funded or federal entities . . . . those of us fighting to make a living with privately owned small businesses really should have complete control over who we hire and not fear being put out of business over a misunderstanding or because we happen to hold beliefs that cannot be reconciled with the intent of the law.
And this is coming from someone who is sympathetic to people and families who have had to fight bigotry over gender and sexual orientation. Personally, it would not be a factor in my decision to employ someone in the least bit. But there’s a difference between holding that philosophy and being required to.
I see Tim Cook has pissed off the followers of Rush Fatbooger. Good.
Is there a dress code at Apple? Is there an expected work schedule? Can people work from home when they want? Can they live wherever they want and work for Apple? Can they play music at work, or wear perfume? Can they voice their political opinions at work? Can they express their religious views at work? Can they engage in office sex? Can they “express themselves” in all these ways at work and by being away from work? Are they truly being their “Whole selves”? Also, would Tim Cook discriminate in hiring or promotion if a person were found out to hold the “wrong” views – for example, regarding gay marriage?
Meanwhile, which “workplace right” is currently being denied anyone based on sexual orientation?
Tim Cook is also very out of touch with the employee world. Employees don’t actually care if their employers pretend to let employees bring their “whole selves” to work. Employees DO care about not getting fired (“laid off”) to make way for cheaper employees in India and China, or because of unsound and/or short-term business strategy. Employees care about a steady paycheck. Keep them happy in that respect, Tim, and you will have largely done your duty by your employees.
“Embracing people’s individuality” is hardly necessary or advisable in most business settings. Do the managers of Apple’s assembly factories care about the individual personalities of the people working the assembly line, or do they care about productivity? And as far as “creativity” goes, let’s see how far Apple gets when each of its employees wants to take a different creative direction.
Happy employees are more productive than miserable ones. Making everyone feel included and part of something bigger means they are more likely to pull in the company’s agreed direction without energy wasting dissent and infighting. Build a family and you’ll get much more out of your people. They’ll surprise you, surpass your expectations, and create something that will make you proud.
That’s how you run a successful business, not by cost-cutting to the point where everyone wants out and the place turns into a back-stabbing arena of last man standing.
Cook gets it. Possibly one of the reasons why SJ appointed him.
BTW, Apple don’t have any assembly factories.
Actually, although happy employees are more productive than miserable ones, happy employees may not be as productive as slightly less-happy employees. Making everyone feel included at work has nothing to do with whether or not someone is gay; it has to do with a common cause for which the work is being done. And few companies (Apple may be an exception) are able to excite their employees with the business they’re in. If your business is to sell toilet paper, then you are serving mankind, but it’s hardly inspiring to employees each day. I agree about building a family, but I do not trust executives, including Tim Cook, in that regard. I bet you he is more than willing to dump employees and replace them with offshore workers at the drop of a hat.
You run a successful business by having a successful business strategy founded on a product or service that people want to buy. Without that, the rest is moot. I wholeheartedly agree that overzealous cost-cutting is typically destructive, but there’s nothing in Cook’s essay that says that Apple won’t be doing that ever. His essay contains some very easy-to-write pablum that really addresses nothing at all about what happens in modern corporate workplaces.
Someone is making Apple’s physical products, and the things I wrote apply. How much “individuality” would Tim Cook want the factory workers to have as they go about their jobs? Is anyone asking about their personal lives?
You completely and utterly avoid the point, RT. People with sexual orientation issues, including young people struggling with life as they try to work through those issues, are being fired (or not hired) simply because they identify as GLBT. Life is hard enough for a minority that has historically been discriminated against without being thrown out of work as well simply because the boss doesn’t like gays.
I didn’t avoid Cook’s point. Rather, I chose to show how it’s all a bunch of easy but empty chatter. He states the obvious – there should be no workplace discrimination against gay people -, with which no one disagrees, and which in my estimation is exceedingly rare to perhaps nonexistent in modern corporate America. You state that people are being fired for being gay, but I don’t believe it. If so, they would already be able to file a lawsuit – I believe the intent of this new law is to make that easier to do. But how do you know that a hiring manager “doesn’t like gays”, and how do you go about proving that’s why you didn’t get the job? It’s probably MORE likely today that you wouldn’t get hired because somewhere on Google is evidence that you opposed gay marriage. What about job promotions? How do you know or prove that the reason you didn’t get promoted was your gayness or straightness or views on gay-related topics?
The reason I posted what I did is that Cook goes on to make unsupportable statements about embracing individuality at work, supposedly by letting any remaining closet gays “come out”, as if this will lead to great creative work being done. I don’t buy it. I posed the questions because I don’t trust ANY corporate executive, including Cook. Apple is most likely limiting “expressions of individuality” in numerous ways, because they are running a business. Please reread my initial comment with that in mind.
“Meanwhile, which “workplace right” is currently being denied anyone based on sexual orientation?”
The right to be hired, be promoted, be paid an equivalent wage.
And not get fired by some overzealous bible thumper who got worked up at Sundays pep-rally.
There is no right to be hired or to be promoted. What you mean is that one’s sexual orientation should not be a determining factor. How do you prove that you were not hired because you are gay? How do you prove that you were not promoted because you are gay? How do you know whether your pay is equivalent to another person’s at work, unless you are paid according to a government-style pay scale?
The only basis you end up with is a physical count of “how many gay people are employed by, or in management at, Company X”, which is a very poor way of determining bias, and ends up with more lawsuit craziness.
I see no evidence of any discrimination against gay job candidates or employees. Then again, I work in the corporate IT world, in California. Your mileage may vary.
Look, I don’t oppose formalizing what should already be obvious. But don’t most companies already express state that their policy is to not discriminate based on sexual orientation? I can only imagine that bad side effects will come from having some outside agency determine that Company X has committed a thoughtcrime, using hard-to-prove “evidence”.
Meanwhile, please consider the gist of my initial comment about “bringing your whole self to work”. I think that managers are spouting BS when they say things like that, because their own managerial actions do not support the words. They don’t uphold the principle. A policy of not discriminating against gay people will barely register a blip on the employee radar in the workplace. Other actions would.