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.
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.
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.
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.
To understand this situation, it is first necessary to examine the concept of a right to work. Much of the complaint on the side of gay rights activists rests on the modern assumption that every person has a right to employment. However, a serious philosophical question exists as to whether such a right actually exists. This is because there are two distinct conceptions of what constitutes a human or civic right.
According to one view, rights exist independently of their legal codification or even of their recognition in anyone's mind. "Whether a right to work exists, on this view, is an issue to be resolved by moral theory." (Elster, 54) This is the view that certain rights are innate and unalienable. A second view holds that rights are human-made and legally created. In that case, "the question whether there is a right to work then becomes a purely factual one" (Elster, 55), depending entirely on whether the government has established such a right.
Classically, rights are negative — that is, they define arenas in which no one should be permitted to interfere, such as a right to life that should not be violated by murder. One could argue, then, that there is a moral right to work in the sense that no one should interfere with another person's occupation. At the same time, there does not appear to be a moral right to work for a particular employer, at a particular wage, or to be paid at all. Few rights are positive in the sense of being a right to receive something, because such a right would require someone else to actively provide it.
"The right to work, as defined against an employer, can at most be the right to retain a job that one already holds. It is nearly impossible to imagine how there can be a legally enforceable right to acquire a job. Even the right to retain a job is subject to serious reservations." (Elster, 71) At the very least, it is clear that in America there is no legally established right to employment, and that any moral right to paid employment rests on very shaky philosophical ground — since it would imply an obligation on someone else to act as an employer. It is worth noting that the right to work is not the same as a right to be employed, as one can work in any number of self-directed ways.
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.