Breaking News: I Have An Opinion

Like many of you, dear readers, I am a subscriber and fan of the gang-o-bloggers at Fistful of Talent. The other day I noticed something on the site that initially made me angry, then confused and then sad.

No, they were not blogging about my love life. Although THAT topic makes me angry, confused and sad all at once sometimes!

You see, Jessica Lee wrote a fantastic post titled "The Gay Experience and Your Employment / Recruiting Brand..." She writes,

The best question a candidate has ever asked me during an interview, hands down, was this:

"I'm openly gay. How are gay employees treated here? And is the culture receptive to GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans gender] staff?"

She goes on to say,

So let me ask you this - if posed the above question by a candidate, would you know how to answer it? And as a recruiting or HR pro, is the “gay experience” at your company something that’s on your radar?

Let’s get this out of the way first - this isn't and can't be a question of morals or ethics. This is simply reality for ya as California is now the second state to marry same-sex couples and now the first ready to grant licenses to couples from any state. This spills over into the benefits arena for HR pros, yeah? And sure, sexual orientation doesn’t fall under a Federal protected class for EEO, but there are a handful of states and cities in which it does. So what does this mean to you? And do you know what it means to be a GLBT friendly employer?

As the SHRM conference winds down, there, we're even prompted by the outgoing Sue Meisinger who urged HR pros at her opening remarks to champion GLBT issues in the workplace.

Jessica then talks about the NY Times story about Lisa Sherman and her (sometimes very frightening) experiences as a gay executive. It was an all around awesome post about a very relevant issue to recruiting and HR pros and employees.

So what is my problem? What made me angry, then confused and then sad? I'm getting there. Stick with me.

Those of you who read FOT know there is usually an "Editor's Note" at the end of every post (authored by Kris Dunn, the creator of FOT). It's usually a short bio of the FOT contributor as well as a tongue-in-cheek comment on the subject matter. For example,

Editor's Note - Michael Homula is the founder of Bearing Fruit Consulting, a national recruiting consulting firm based out of Michigan. Prior to founding BFC, Michael served as Director of Recruiting / Talent Management for multiple companies in the Financial Services industry. FOT team and readers, please move to Michael's table in an orderly and civil fashion to soak up the benefits of being with the "cool" crowd...

So, after reading Jessica's fantastic post I went on to read the Editor's Note. Here is what it said (emphasis mine):

Editor's Note - Jessica Lee is an Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide, a global PR firm in D.C. Like most upscale HR pros, she spends half of her time on recruiting, the other half on ER, Training and OD. In a rare serious Editor's note, this post is presented not to debate the moral issues surrounding gay rights, but the appearance of employment branding to this segment of the candidate population - a real issue for recruiters and HR pros alike...

****

Now, a disclaimer of my own: Some people may disagree with me on this post. That is fine. It is simply my opinion. I truly hope it is not taken as a personal attack, as that is not my intention.

****

When I read the editor's note, the thoughts that came to my mind were these:

The editor's note, for whatever reason, appears to be overly concerned with the topic of the moral nature of gay rights.

In my opinion, there IS no moral issue with gay rights.

First, I don't think being gay or “participating in a gay lifestyle” is immoral.

Second, even if I did think gay = immoral, plenty of "immoral" people / those who act "immorally" have the legal right to marry the person of their choice without regard to the other person's

• Race,
• Color,
• National origin,
• Disability,
• Religion,
• Pregnancy / parental status,
• Economic standing,
• Age (once majority is reached),
• Genetics,
• Tastes in music,
• Ability to dance,
• Preference for extreme sports,
• Salt and pepper shaker collection count

And so on and so forth into infinity and beyond. Most state laws say you have the right to be married (once you reach legal age) to one person at a time and you have to get a license in order to make the marriage legal / ensure your rights. That’s it.

Eliot Spitzer has the legal right to be married. In my book, he's an immoral douche bag for several reasons. That doesn't change his legal right to continue in his marriage or get divorced and, if he wants to (after that) remarry.

I understand not everyone uses their blog the same way I do mine: to express myself, my views, my journey through HR and life. I also understand that sometimes, especially with controversial issues, a Blogger will do their best to very specifically spell out what they ARE saying and what they are NOT saying.

Jessica pointed out in the body of the post, “…This isn't and can't be a question of morals or ethics. This is simply reality…” So why was it brought up again in the Editor’s note? I just don't understand the point of trying so hard to appear neutral. State your case and be done with it. Don’t try to "please all of the people, all of the time". And unfortunately, in this instance, the “neutrality” of the Editor’s Note came across to me as not genuine.

I may be totally wrong. I may be half wrong. I may be right. Either way, everyone is entitled to their opinion as well as whether or not they choose to give it in a public forum.

But my opinion (& question) is this: SHRM took a position at their convention and Sue Meisinger referred to GLBT rights as human rights. Is SHRM more progressive than FOT?