Gay Rights, Employment Discrimination, and the Right to Work
This paper explores the philosophical and legal tension between the rights of gay and lesbian individuals to equal employment opportunity and the rights of employers — including corporations — to freedom of association and control of private property. Drawing on theories of natural and civic rights, the paper analyzes whether a meaningful "right to work" exists in moral or legal terms, and how that question shapes the ongoing debate over workplace discrimination against sexual minorities. The paper compares the treatment of sexual orientation discrimination to the legal resolution of racial discrimination, and considers the historical expansion of human rights protections to corporations under U.S. law.
- Introduction: Religion, Sexuality, and Competing Rights: Framing the conflict between gay rights and religious freedom
- The Philosophical Foundations of a Right to Work: Natural vs. civic definitions of the right to work
- Employer Rights: Property, Association, and Self-Determination: Employer property and association rights vs. gay workers
- Corporate Personhood and the Right to Discriminate: How corporate personhood extends discrimination rights
- Civic Rights, Legal Gaps, and the State of the Law: Legal conclusions on sexual orientation workplace protections
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds a contemporary policy debate in philosophical theory, distinguishing between natural/moral rights and legally constructed civic rights before applying that distinction to a real-world conflict.
- It uses an effective historical analogy — the racial desegregation struggle — to sharpen the argument about why courts have acted in some discrimination cases but not others.
- The inclusion of corporate personhood adds a dimension many treatments of employment discrimination overlook, showing awareness of how legal fictions extend or complicate rights claims.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates definitional analysis as an argumentative strategy: before taking a position, it carefully distinguishes two competing definitions of "rights" (natural vs. civic) and two competing definitions of "right to work" (moral vs. legal, negative vs. positive). This prevents equivocation and allows the author to make a precise, defensible claim rather than a vague one.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad framing of the social conflict, then narrows progressively: from the general concept of rights, to the specific question of employment rights, to employer rights, to corporate rights, and finally to a legal conclusion. This funnel structure — moving from philosophy to law to policy — is well-suited to applied ethics arguments and keeps the reader oriented at each stage.
Introduction: Religion, Sexuality, and Competing Rights
Conflicting moral standards in our time have produced a new tension in the philosophy of human rights. Increasingly, gay and lesbian individuals are going public with their sexuality and demanding that they continue to receive equal rights despite their sexual preferences. The idea that gay and lesbian people should enjoy equal freedom makes a great deal of sense according to rational theories of rights, such as those proposed by John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. Their sexuality is, after all, a private matter of self-determination and should not serve to abridge their basic human rights.
However, many individuals who exercise their freedom of religion — and who believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin — argue that society should discourage it in every way possible: through laws, the abridgment of equal rights, or by refusing to provide employment, housing, and other necessities. This has created a dilemma in which the government is caught between assuring freedom of religion and freedom of association for those who oppose homosexuality, while simultaneously assuring the basic human rights of gay and lesbian individuals.
This conflict is closely related to the kind of problem that arose when Black Americans sought equal rights and desegregation, despite the fact that such a move challenged the white population's claimed right to freedom of association — for example, in forcing store owners to admit Black customers onto their private property. While the government ultimately decided in favor of civil rights for racial minorities, no comparable decision has yet been made for sexual or other lifestyle minorities. Today, even though gay people unquestionably deserve the same job opportunities as anyone else, employers can still legally invoke rights of property, association, and self-determination to choose whom they hire and what wages they pay.
Bibliography
Elster, Jon. "Is there (or Should There Be) a Right to Work?" Democracy and the Welfare State. Ed. Amy Gutman. New York: Princeton Univ. Press, May 1988.
Hartmann, Thom. Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights. New York: Rodale Press, 2002.
Valadez, Jorge. Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-Determination in Multicultural Societies. New York: Westview Press, 2000.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.