From Rights Bill to Hot Potato : Gay job-discrimination bill hits Wilson’s desk

Gov. Pete Wilson must decide whether to approve a bill that calls for nothing more than prohibiting employment discrimination against a particular group. The bill requires no quotas. It simply says that it would be illegal for an employer to fire or to refuse to hire or promote a person because he or she is a member of this group.

Sound like existing protections involving race, ethnicity, sex, religion, physical handicaps and age? Yes, that’s right. So why is there a political brouhaha? Because AB 101, passed by the Legislature, would extend the anti-discrimination employment protection to homosexuals.

Wilson, who earlier this year said he was “very likely” to sign the bill, recently has taken a neutral stance on the legislation, by Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Los Angeles). Current employment law does not cover sexual orientation. (The courts have interpreted the state Unruh Civil Rights Act as prohibiting housing discrimination against homosexuals.) The bill would add sexual orientation to the state Fair Employment and Housing Act’s list of “protected categories.”

That last phrase is what is ringing the alarm bells among the legislation’s opponents. Quotas? Could a business be forced to hire gay men and lesbians? How about hiring by religious organizations? And wouldn’t such a law encourage gays to harass employers with discrimination claims? What about people with AIDS?

Friedman, who has worked diligently with conservatives and liberals to come up with legislation that is fair without being burdensome, has clear answers to all of those questions. Gays would gain no special rights and wouldn’t benefit from any quotas; there are no requirements in the bill that a person be hired or promoted because of being gay; it requires only that a person not be fired or barred from being hired or promoted just because of being gay.

Regarding religious organizations: They already are exempt from provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, as are nonprofit corporations and small businesses with fewer than five employees. And the suggestion of a “litigation bonanza” seems unlikely, because the Fair Employment and Housing Act places the burden of proof on the person filing the claim. Courts are authorized to penalize those who file frivolous charges. AB 101 changes nothing in AIDS law. The state already prohibits discrimination against people with AIDS, but employers are not required to hire or retain an employee whose medical condition would prevent him or her from performing job duties or who might endanger others.

Some right-wing Republicans want to make AB 101 a litmus test for the moderate Wilson. Equally counterproductive are anonymous threats from those purporting to represent gay extremists, suggesting that they could “out” homosexual members of the governor’s staff if he doesn’t sign the bill.

Wilson doesn’t need foolish threats to persuade him. The common-sense fairness of AB 101 is persuasive enough.