Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Library of Congress employee sacked after “liking” pro-gay Facebook page

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ben Austwick 13 Apr 2012, 10:26pm

    What was said to him was disgusting but he was sacked for taking too many days off work, not for liking a Facebook page.
    It may have been indirectly linked to it but he should have pushed for the individuals involved to be punished. Still shocking that such homophobia still exists in the ‘civilised’ world.

    1. the days off was a lie to cover the homophobic crap up with

      1. Spanner1960 15 Apr 2012, 11:05am

        That is not proven either way.
        We don’t know the full story here and are viewing it from a biased perspective. It is all to easy to jump the gun and draw the wrong assumptions.

  2. Land of the free, home of the brave. Now excuse me while I go over here and laugh myself cross-eyed.

    Oh, and I notice that his supervisor was a bloody christian. What a surprise…

  3. @Valksy
    My mother was a christian, I am trans, which the bigotted usually regard as worse than being gay. My mother loved and supported me partly because of her belief so please, do not condemn someone for their religion, but rather for their perversion of christian belief to their own evil ends

    1. Except it’s not a “perversion” of christian belief, it’s just another version. Nice people who happen to be christians make up a nice version of the religion. Nasty people who happen to be christians make up a nasty version of the religion. It’s all superstitious nonsense, and none of it is true, so both are just as valid as religions.

      It’s not because she was a christian that your mother supported you, it’s because she was a decent human being. Isn’t it doing her a tremendous disservice to credit her love and support to some fatuous abstract something else, rather than to her as a person where it should be credited? There is only goodness in her religion because she put it there.

      1. steffi lee didn’t actually her mother loved her because she was christian – that was something you assumed she said. She was merely pointing out that all Christians are bigots not that their religion makes them better people.

        1. OK lets try that again but this time without a few vital words missing (this would be so much easier if you could edit comments):

          steffi lee didn’t actually say that her mother loved her because she was a Christian – that was something you assumed she said. She was merely pointing out that not all Christians are bigots, not that their religion makes them better people.

    2. That’s very true. Judge people by their works. Malice is self-evident.

  4. An important legal case. DC also has strong gay employment protection laws if you need to go there. Good luck! I hope they file a law suit against the supervisor. He is the one who should be fired. His daughter sounds like a brainwashed twit. Gay men are “wierdo’s” and you live in DC?

    1. I am fairly sure the Federal government is not required to abide by DC employment law. And the push is on to have Obama issue an Executive Order banning discrimination by goverment contractors. The Library of Congress already has policies in place that ban LGBT job discrimination.

      Don’t make up your mind about this issue based on this one article. You are only hearing one side what is alleged here. And he was fired for not showing up for work despite many warnings that this would happen if he failed to show up. (This was reported elsewhere, not in this article.) He will get his day in court.

  5. Oh well… lucky for him Obama signed that anti-discrimination bill for LGBT employees… oh… wait…

  6. It’s so strange – whatever the laws are, I expect public service workplaces to have a much more progressive culture… even in the States.

  7. “A spokesperson for the Library of Congress has said in a statement that the library does not comment on personnel matters, and merely affirmed that all employees have the same legal protection as other federal employees.”

    only there is no protection for being lgbt if your a federal employee – see the news article yesterday where obama refused to issue a presidential order to that effect.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Apr 2012, 12:22pm

    The Employment Non-Discimination Act also known as ENDA apparently has never been signed into law and won’t be as long as republicans control the House of Representatives (Congress). This law would have banned employment discrimation but is still languishing. We have to be thankful we have more protections in the UK, far more progressive in my view in spite of the last hurdle to overcome, equal civil marriage.

  9. There is a presidential order banning discrimination in federal agencies that protects gays and lesbians (presumably bisexuals as well). I don’t know personally if it extends to transsexuals. The order has existed since it was proclaimed by President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. The problem is that the Library of Congress is not within the executive branch of the government, it is part of the legislative branch. Most equal opportunity laws, if I understand correctly, have interestingly enough not been extended to employees of the legislative branch. As a part of the federal government, the Library of Congress is not bound by the laws of the District of Columbia. The problem, even if the executive order applies, is that there is no explicit remedy for its violation. It is not clear that you can sue over its violation. I learned this during my own encounters with being terminated by the federal government.

  10. But the supervisor has the blessing of President Obama, has he not?

    1. No, probably not. The President is not the boss of the Library of Congress, as it is a part of the legislative branch of government. Nor does he appoint the head of the Library of Congress. The employees of the Library of Congress are also technically not members of the federal civil service, except in so far as Congress has adopted legislation to extend those rules to their own employees. (And I do not know how exactly how far that is, but I recall from a Washington Post article long ago that very little of the anti-discriminatory and whistleblower laws that apply to executive employees also apply to legislative employees.) The law that the other article is about is an attempt to extend the protection granted by President Carter’s executive order beyond federal employees in the executive branch to the employees of companies with private contracts with the government. The Republican House won’t pass the law, and activists want Obama instead to issue another order.

      1. And this is the problem; federal interest vs private interest.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all