Translated material
The victorious rainbow
On Thursday, the US Senate with an overwhelming number of votes - 64 versus 32 - approved the bill on the ban on discrimination when hiring and at the workplace.
The purpose of the law is one-to protect representatives of the LGBT community from the arbitrariness of employers. The chances that this law will be approved by the House of Representatives, so far. Nevertheless, its initiators call the vote in the Senate historical, recalling that the epic of the struggle for voting was dragged on for seventeen years. The first time he was brought to Congress in 1996 and was rejected by the Senate by a majority only in one voice. The historicity of the moment, however, rather emphasized an unprecedented fact: for the first time during the parliamentary debate, the defenders of the rights of sexual minorities had no opponents. Only one of the opponents of the bill decided to speak with his public criticism on behalf of religious organizations, fearing that they would be forced to act contrary to their beliefs. According to many American commentators, 2013 has become a year of numerous victories of the LGBT community. On his side there was an advantage not only within the walls of the courts and legislative assemblies, but also in the eyes of public opinion. Open resistance to the idea of protecting the rights of sexual minorities is becoming a politically dangerous occupation.
After the approval of the bill by the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives John Beiner took on the role of the only prominent opponent of the anti -discrimination law that protects the rights of sexual minorities. He does not intend to adopt this law for consideration by the lower house of Congress. Formally, the speaker is concerned that the approval of this law will give an occasion to be dismissed or not hired to turn his sexual orientation into an occasion for endless lawsuits with employers. But few people "buys" such an argument. Some commentators are surprised that the republican most prominent in the country again decided to risk the reputation of his party in the eyes of the Americans, introducing it to the enemy of the ideas of equal rights of sexual minorities, while even some republican lobbying groups advocated the approval of this law.
However, under the curtain of a successful year, the year of two major victories in the Supreme Court, which confirmed the legality of same-sex marriages in California and the illegality of the federal law that protects traditional marriage, the fate of the anti-discrimination law is hardly important for LGBT move activists. Their problem may be that relatively light victories are already won. With the legalization in the near future in Illinois and Hawaii of same -sex marriages, such marriage unions will be legalized in sixteen states. In the remaining thirty -four, there are either specially adopted constitutional amendments, or laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Their cancellation, most likely, will require the convocation of referenda and a long -term struggle for public opinion, which has only been slightly inclined in favor of same -sex marriages.
The purpose of the law is one-to protect representatives of the LGBT community from the arbitrariness of employers. The chances that this law will be approved by the House of Representatives, so far. Nevertheless, its initiators call the vote in the Senate historical, recalling that the epic of the struggle for voting was dragged on for seventeen years. The first time he was brought to Congress in 1996 and was rejected by the Senate by a majority only in one voice. The historicity of the moment, however, rather emphasized an unprecedented fact: for the first time during the parliamentary debate, the defenders of the rights of sexual minorities had no opponents. Only one of the opponents of the bill decided to speak with his public criticism on behalf of religious organizations, fearing that they would be forced to act contrary to their beliefs. According to many American commentators, 2013 has become a year of numerous victories of the LGBT community. On his side there was an advantage not only within the walls of the courts and legislative assemblies, but also in the eyes of public opinion. Open resistance to the idea of protecting the rights of sexual minorities is becoming a politically dangerous occupation.
According to a survey conducted in June, the sociological center of the Pew Research, 61 percent of the Americans believes that homosexuality is acceptable in society, ten years ago the number of supporters and opponents was almost equal. 85 percent of Americans believes that the discrimination of sexual minorities at the workplace is unacceptable. Judging by statistics, such a problem in the country does not exist by and large. In 22 states, laws have been adopted that protect the labor rights of the LGBT community. In Connecticut, where such a law was adopted, out of 2700 court claims in cases of discrimination at work instituted in 2010, only 50 relate to representatives of sexual minorities. The largest and most famous American corporations organized a voluntary movement, whose members guarantee sexual minorities complete equality. They come from their practical interests, believing that even a hint of discrimination can deprive them of the best personnel. Supporters of the law present in defense of their arguments examples of discrimination against employees of religious organizations, for example, workers of Catholic schools who allegedly have to hide their orientation. By the way, an attempt to balance the rights of religious groups and LGBT community in the field of labor relations was the greatest difficulty for the authors of the bill. It included amendments that allow these groups to act according to their beliefs, but the church defenders do not have complete calm.Open resistance to the idea of protecting the rights of sexual minorities becomes a politically dangerous occupation
After the approval of the bill by the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives John Beiner took on the role of the only prominent opponent of the anti -discrimination law that protects the rights of sexual minorities. He does not intend to adopt this law for consideration by the lower house of Congress. Formally, the speaker is concerned that the approval of this law will give an occasion to be dismissed or not hired to turn his sexual orientation into an occasion for endless lawsuits with employers. But few people "buys" such an argument. Some commentators are surprised that the republican most prominent in the country again decided to risk the reputation of his party in the eyes of the Americans, introducing it to the enemy of the ideas of equal rights of sexual minorities, while even some republican lobbying groups advocated the approval of this law.
However, under the curtain of a successful year, the year of two major victories in the Supreme Court, which confirmed the legality of same-sex marriages in California and the illegality of the federal law that protects traditional marriage, the fate of the anti-discrimination law is hardly important for LGBT move activists. Their problem may be that relatively light victories are already won. With the legalization in the near future in Illinois and Hawaii of same -sex marriages, such marriage unions will be legalized in sixteen states. In the remaining thirty -four, there are either specially adopted constitutional amendments, or laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Their cancellation, most likely, will require the convocation of referenda and a long -term struggle for public opinion, which has only been slightly inclined in favor of same -sex marriages.