Current Indiana law does not protect people from being fired, or denied housing, simply because they are gay or transgendered. When this fact comes up in one of my classes, it usually stuns my students, most of whom were born after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They regard civil rights laws as part of the natural order of things, and even those who are disapproving of homosexuality are appalled that people could actually lose their jobs or homes because they are gay.
Indiana Equality—a group of gay and transgendered rights organizations—has announced an effort to extend Indiana’s civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Current Indiana law does not protect people from being fired, or denied housing, simply because they are gay or transgendered. When this fact comes up in one of my classes, it usually stuns my students, most of whom were born after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They regard civil rights laws as part of the natural order of things, and even those who are disapproving of homosexuality are appalled that people could actually lose their jobs or homes because they are gay.
The Star reported that a protester at the Project Equality press conference held a sign saying “protect employer rights.” Opponents of civil rights laws—of all varieties—maintain that such acts infringe the rights of landlords and employers. And they are right. The question is whether the ends served by such laws justify that infringement.
When we really think about it, all laws limit our freedoms. Laws against theft keep me from helping myself to your possessions. Laws against speeding make me travel more slowly than I would like. Teenagers resent laws against underage drinking. Manufacturers must contend with laws against dumping toxic wastes in our rivers. The list goes on and on.
Law is the price we pay for living with others in relative safety. Enlightenment thinkers conceived of law as part of the social contract: we give up some of our liberties and in exchange the government keeps our neighbors from harming us. One of the great ironies of the social contract is that a government strong enough to protect our property is also strong enough to appropriate it—hence the persistence of our concern with too-powerful government.
Whenever a new law is proposed, citizens need to weigh the need for such a rule against the loss of liberty that will be entailed. There are questions we must ask before we accept yet another regulation in our lives: what is the need? Can this rule be enforced effectively and fairly? What are the costs involved for law enforcement? What will the economic impact be? And most important, is this proposed law consistent with our system of government? Does it advance our American values?
Do gay citizens need civil rights protection? Ask those who have been fired despite excellent employment reviews, after a manager discovered they were gay. Can the rule be enforced? We enforce civil rights protections now—not perfectly, but we do it. Economic impact? Colleagues in the business school point to numerous studies showing that workplace discrimination is bad for the bottom line. The most persuasive reason to extend civil rights, however, is that it reinforces the American value of equality before the law.
If you don’t like gays—or Jews or blacks—you needn’t invite them to dinner. But as a society, we ought not sanction laws that leave some people more equal than others.