Some people think yes, they must do so or they are guilty of discrimination. Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu wrote a paper for The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law in 2011 that reviews employment, hiring and termination discrimination in the workplace against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and queer (LGBTQ) employees. All fine and good. But then …
… the paper goes into Section III, where it discusses employment discrimination in provision of employment benefits. At some point, a line is drawn for everyone. I’d venture to guess Fluke and Hu may also run into something the government could mandate a person do or not do they find offensive and would not want to contribute to.
An example that may or may not cross the line for Fluke and Hu could be the government using tax dollars to send a kid to a Catholic high school or elementary school. For many liberals – a lot of them – this totally crosses the line when it comes to the “separation of church and state.” Even saying a prayer at graduation is a punishable offense, but that does not stop Fluke and Hu from demanding all employers – no matter their objections – pay for gender reassignment.
The argument, as I would think Fluke and Hu argue, is the “separation” works only one way.
Fluke and Hu refer to what they deem to be direct discrimination against LGBTQ persons because they are denied “insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”
Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.
The paper goes on to argue there is a controversy within the medical community regarding the “treatment.” Supposedly the American Medical Association has “declared” the lack of coverage to be discrimination. One could argue the size of a woman’s breasts might be so traumatic to their psychological well-being employers should be mandated to provide breast enlargement surgery. I don’t even want to think of the other possibilities.
The paper is available online, but you have to pay $3.50 to buy it and it’s a secured PDF so I am not providing a direct link, rather a link to where you can buy it.
The argument of course will be insurance companies and employers should extricate themselves completely from the equation, and be willing to pay for this and anything else demanded by the doctor and patient no matter what. If not, you’ll be labeled as a racist bigot and your company will be targeted for destruction by the LGBTQ community.
Remember the California Proposition 8 maps? That map – still published today – provides specific “targets” on a map identifying individuals and the companies they work for who simply contributed the fund who wanted to changed the California state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. Boycotts, death threats and vandalism was the result.
More violence in the Castro District was documented by Michelle Malkin. And since then politicians on the right (exclusively) have been chastised for having a “target” in campaign ads … that never resulted in any violence at all.