When Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed an executive order Friday protecting state employees from discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, she noted that she was bringing the state agencies under her authority in line with 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies and more than 30 other states. “I’m sorry it took us so long,” she told the gathered activists. It didn’t take long, though, for some voices in the Legislature to signal disapproval. “I can almost guarantee you that will be a topic of legislative discussion,” said Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe. The governor’s office later said that the order would not entitle same-sex partners of state employees to health insurance or other benefits. Still, mentioning homosexuality in the same breath with “race, color, gender” and “religion, national origin, ancestry, age, military or veteran status or disability status” probably can’t help but invite a fight in a state that passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage two years ago with 70 percent of the vote. But as Sebelius said, “like any successful business, we need to make sure all our employees are treated with dignity and respect, and that the doors of employment are open to all.” Do some lawmakers really want to endorse discrimination and harassment by state agencies?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
57 Comments
Yes of course they do. They want their religious beliefs to rule the day.
Let’s now play BASH the FAGS! Come on down Republicans! Tell us why the state of Kansas should fire all known homosexuals from employment!
“Who supports discrimination and harassment?”
Me! I do!
If she really believed in what she was doing, why didn’t she do it during her first term as governor? Why not during the election year?
Just more grandstanding by a politician.
“Yes of course they do. They want their religious beliefs to rule the day.”
Religous beliefs as a basis for discrimination? Say it isn’t so…
Kev
You make sound like a Kansas only problem. Surveys have shown that roughly 70% of Americans do not support gay marriages, even in most of the blue states.
“I’m sorry it took us so long”.
No shit. The promise was made in March of 2004.
I guess it just took three years so governor “leadership” could establish her reputation as a friend of the wingnuts before she could do the right thing…
The governor’s office later said that the order would not entitle same-sex partners of state employees to health insurance or other benefits.
Sounds like she still supports discrimination.
Yeah! Larry Craig get outta Kansas!
Lets make a list of “Who supports discrimination and harassment?”
I’ll take some easy ones1. fred phelps2. Larry Craig
next
Just more grandstanding by a politician.Posted by: ProudMan | September 05, 2007 at 06:32 AM
Proudman,
It may look like grandstanding to you, but to the gay and lesbian state employees this order protects, this looks like real protection for their jobs and their families.
The promise was made in March of 2004.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | September 05, 2007 at 07:54 AM
Farmgrrl,
I’m going to look on the bright side here.
I saw the draft order from 2004. There were some glaring omissions, one being protections for “gender identity.” In 2004, getting that kind of language probably would not have been possible. Since then, several other midwestern states have enacted protective orders with that language, making it an easier sell to the Governor and her staff.
Something else we accomplished last week: The Governor publicly endorsed SB163, which is the bill KEC got introduced earlier this year and is currently sitting stalled in a Senate committee. SB163 would add non-discrimination protections to those already existing for things like religion, political affiliation, race, etc.
Additionally, we just plain weren’t very well organized in 2004. You _know_, firsthand, what the status of LGBT politics was in this state until very recently. There is no way we could have capitalized on the momentum EO 07-24 is going to give us (and you can bet your farm we’re going to use the momentum NOW).
So. While it would have been FANTASTIC to have had this order in 2004, for a whole variety of reasons, I’m going to be satisfied with last week’s action, and grateful to the Governor for finally doing the right thing.
Tom,
She is a multiple term governor. She could have issued the order at anytime. It is grandstanding. She might have done something good, but her motives are a little less than pure.
The governor’s office later said that the order would not entitle same-sex partners of state employees to health insurance or other benefits.Posted by: Fairness for all justice for none | September 05, 2007 at 08:25 AM
“Fairness for all”:
The Governor acted within the limits of her legal authority to act. Health insurance for domestic partners would require two things: A) recognition of domestic partnerships and B) and appropriation from the Legislature.
She might have done something good, but her motives are a little less than pure.Posted by: ProudMan
HAH!!! She’s a _politician._ Politics is the art of compromise, and of the doable. Purity need not apply.
Yippee, we now have another protected class of folks that you won’t be able to fire no matter how abysmal their job performance.
I think we should fire the g-d neo-Nazis.
Tar, feather, and run the fascists out of town on a freaking rail.
What do you say about that, Jonas?
Jonas,
Nice misstatement there. This protection, which has been extended to people based on their faith for years, says they can be fired _only_ for performance reasons.
FYI,
I posted the full text of the EO, plus press statements in response to it, on Sunday’s Open Thread. See http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-92.html#comments
It will be interesting to see if Sebelious is willing to spend some heavyweight political capital on getting some legislative follow up to her executive statement.
I imagine the capital spent will have to be large and most likely controversial to the Democratic view point and seen as a total victory with consequences from the Republican viewpoint.
What could that be…
most likely controversial to the Democratic view point and seen as a total victory with consequences from the Republican viewpoint.Posted by: Kansas
Huh?
In English, please. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
What I was saying Tom, in order for the Governor’s executive order to get some real mean on the bones of her words, she’s going to need the cooperation of the Kansas Legislature to pass things such as spouse health care (regardless of sexual preference) and of course present a case first for legalizing gay union that permits defining said union under all applicable statutes.
In shorter words, gay unions will have to become “on the books” legal in order to force the hand of the Kansas Legislature to deliver the total promise of the speech (tax breaks, health care, estate benefits, etc.)
I pondered what political capital Sebelius is willing to give up in order to force the hand of the Kansas legislature to do such an action?
Right now, I can’t think of any, but I’m sure there is something out there.
Will she have to sell the hen to keep the eggs?
mean=meat
Kansas,
The Governor didn’t talk about any of those things (spousal care, legalizing unions, tax breaks, health care, or estate benefits), at least not to my recollection. And I was standing right there – I would have noticed ;)
It certainly would have been BIG news if she had. It was surprising enough that she publicly endorsed SB163.
I realize that Tom, but I’m saying to add “meat” to that skeleton speech she made, Sebelius is going to have to sacrifice something on the altar of (cough) bipartisanship.
Yeah, bipartisanship with legislators who claim she doesn’t have the authority to set employment policy for her own employees.
I can’t wait.
Let’s call this EO what it is – THE RIGHT THING.
As a gay state employee (of the executive branch) this EO means I can not be fired because I am gay. Nothing more, nothing less. If I do a terrible job I can still be fired for being a bad employee. If I break the rules/regulations of my job I can be fired for that.
This is no different that if my boss wanted to fire me because of my race, gender, religion, etc.
I really don’t understand the HATE from people who think this is a bad thing. Do you all really think my boss should be able to come in and say “you’re gay, you’re fired,” just because he wants to? Likewise, should I as a supervisor be able to fire my heterosexual employees because they are not gay? (Heterosexual is a protected sexual orientation under the EO)
This EO does not give me any “special rights” that are not given to my co-workers. It does not expand/change health care benefits or anything else. That does require the action of the legislature.
The Governor acted within the scope of her CONSTITUTIONAL authority by issuing this EO. It applies only to Executive branch employees (Sigfried can still fire any gay staff he has).
This is about fairness. This about having the best qualified state staff we can, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, religion, or any other catagory.
For those that can’t see that, that think only in terms of hate, I pity you.
So, Gay State Employee, do you think this will make it easier to be “out” at work?
I think in politics, you can’t expect anything TODAY, it all comes in the game of politics. The very fact that she stood up and did this is fantastic. No, she can’t singlehandedly grant benefits to gay partnerships. That’s why we have 3 branches of government. And that’s actually a good thing or think of what bush would have done to all of us by now- even though he tries to bypass it.
Tom – What does this mean in layman’s terms?
Something else we accomplished last week: The Governor publicly endorsed SB163, which is the bill KEC got introduced earlier this year and is currently sitting stalled in a Senate committee. SB163 would add non-discrimination protections to those already existing for things like religion, political affiliation, race, etc.
If they’re already protected, why do they need to be protected again? I may be reading this wrong.
TDT,
The Governor’s order only extends protections to the people who work for her, and only in their jobs with the State of Kansas. KDOT, SRS, KDHE, etc.
SB163 would amend the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, which are the statewide non-discrimination statutes, to add “sexual orientation” to the list of enumerated classes. The current list includes race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin, ancestry, or in housing by reason of familial status.
One ‘good thing’ is that Shirley Phelps job will now be double protected.
Seriously if this puts a layer of protection on a class of people that are being discriminated against I am all for it. I guess I haven’t seen the actions you speak of. I’m sure it does happen.
Ksgrm,
Shirley Phelps’ job has been protected for years. It’s her employee’s jobs that haven’t been.
Could you imagine being gay or lesbian in the employ of the state, and suddenly find that *&$% as your supervisor?
Margie, grm. Margie is the one who works for the state.
Thanks, Pmom. Not like that’s any improvement…
Doesn’t one of the sons also work for the state?
I’m not sure. Margie is the only one I’m aware of. Unless it’s one of the kids that left the cult.
Shirley is their spokesperson I believe.
I guess I haven’t seen the actions you speak of. I’m sure it does happen.Posted by: ksgrm
I’ve seen it. It happens. Farmgrrl is one person to whom it’s happened, and I’ll mention her only because it’s _very_ public knowledge. There are many, many others who have been harassed, evicted, fired, etc., just for being gay or even _suspected_ of being gay.
Sorry Pmom I don’t keep up with the Phelps as well as I should I guess. They are obnoxious and don’t interest me a lot.
Off the subject you said your Gmom had some charges added to her card from BuyersAdvantage like I did. Did she find out who they are and how they got her card number?
Tom I am honestly glad this edict came down. No one should be afraid of losing a job because of who they are.
I lost a job because of age discrimination once and could identify with frmgrl. It is very hard to prove as was her case I am sure. I even had a witness that testified to hearing him tell a friend he had inherited a very old staff (he was newly hired) but that could be fixed. I was 57 at the time.
Wasn’t provable in court.
Good work on your part to get this passed.
Ksgrm,
Thanks for your kind words. I’m sorry you had to deal with a similar experience in your life.
And yeah, it can be difficult to prove specific acts of discrimination. But when a law is in place, most law-abiding people will work to comply with it, even when they disagree with it. So getting these kinds of provisions enacted _is_ important.
“”"Kev
You make sound like a Kansas only problem. Surveys have shown that roughly 70% of Americans do not support gay marriages, even in most of the blue states”"”
She didn’t sign an order allowing gay marriage. She simply ordered that the state not dicriminate against gay citizens in employment.
Which, Kev, as Tom has pointed out only applies to employees of the Executive Branch.
“”"(Heterosexual is a protected sexual orientation under the EO)”"”
That brings up an interesting question- let’s say you have a gay newspaper or a web site that wishes to hire a City Editor. A sterling candidate with a great resume applies for the job and he knows gay issues and the gay community really well. So the paper or web site hires him and he does a great job. But in all this time, they never asked him if HE was gay. Now he is passing out invites to his wedding to a woman in the office and everybody is shocked because they just assumed he was gay. Should you now fire him? Can you do so legally if it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?
Should you now fire him? Can you do so legally if it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?Posted by: Kev
Emphatically, no and no.
Kev, what Tom said (as if he needs my input on this).
She had a Montgomery Wards card that she had cancelled years before. Suddenly she got a thing from Walmart saying that she owed 20 bucks on this old card.
Turns out Walmart had bought out the MW stuff, and had started applying a fraud protection plan to it out of the blue. Hadn’t had a bill on that card in years. They claimed she didn’t cancel it fully (bull). After finally getting to the correct department, they fell over themselves to remove the charges.
YO congress people out there reading this blog- this type of thing should flat out be considered fraud. And I hope you move to stop this kind of crap. What would have happened had she not been in a position to know what was happening to that card. She almost threw the bills away- since she can’t even see.
The order that Bilious Sebelius signed is not about discrimination and harassment. It is about special privileges, quotas, propaganda, mandated indoctrinations, and recruitment of sodomites and those confused about their gender, and other unnamed deviants. (I assume that all 29 vile pervsions recognized by the American Pyschiatric Association as sexual orientations, such as pedophilia and necrophilia, are included, as the order did not specify which orientations were being addressed.)Here’s the pro-sodomy program specified in Executive Order 07-24:- A diversity management program that includes outreach recruitment and hiring, support, mentoring, development, rewards, and recognitions for achievement; as well as monitoring the effectiveness of such programs.
- A strong program prohibiting discrimination and harassment on account of race, color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, military or veteran status, or disability status. This program will include training, and a prompt and confidential method for expressing complaints.
- A program of awareness regarding legal protections for persons with disabilities in order to allow qualified applicants to apply for employment and to allow employees with disabilities to perform the essential functions of jobs and enjoy the privileges and benefits of employment.
- Establishment of an agency affirmative action plan.
hey margarine man……………how is what you posted above “pro-sodomy”?
Careful Par, you’re gonna give yourself a stroke! Amazing how you can read all that into her simple executive order prohibiting discrimination. I realize you’re fast running out of people to safely hate, but you’ll manage to survive.
Onlhy in fake butter’s mind, apophis… There is nothing in the EO about necrophilia, or pedophilia… Those are both AGAINST THE LAW… The Gov. cant issue an ORDER to make them legal, so they cant be discriminated against. Furthermore, they are not a lifestyle… They are, as noted, deviant behaviors!!
Go suck on that a while Fake Butter!!
Wait — Fake Butter cant suck on that… seems Kansas thinks oral sex is illegal
Jed, these lunatics always go after necrophilia, and pedophilia, and animal sex, and all that weird stuff when you talk about equality for ALL PERSONS… It’s in their genetic structure to do so — They are mentally deficient on logic…
If you’ve ever had to meet any of them, you’d realize quite quickly how mentally deficient they really are.
Seriously Chas, one day, you should go out with me to protest for pro-choice. You’ve got to see it to believe it.
Sorry, but I’m confused. Does this issue apply to who(whom) your sleeping with sexually or politically?
That can be said for both sides, PM. I prefer to stay away from the lunatics on both ends. You all are a bunch of fools.
I know a gay guy. A very successful man in New York City! He moved away from Kansas because Kansas hates him for his sexual orientation. OUR LOSS! Literally, think of the jobs and benefits we could have gained by retaining one of our best citizens. Add up all the others who flee this repressed state.
I must admit, the public displays of affection, or scenes in movies/TV make me want to hurl (unless it’s lezbians). But they have a right to live their life the way they want to.