Discrimination Because of Sexual Orientation at Work: Paradigm Changes

Abstract

The human being is not merely a child of nature but also one among many species of animals in existence. Reproduction, the great rule for the perpetuation of the species, occurs among animals and plants through the sexual mixture of genetic material. Heterosexuality, the mixture of genetic material between males and females, is nature´s norm. However, humans are not merely sexed beings but they are also endowed with affection and feelings which are culturally required for the development of sexuality. Some animals do not develop attraction for the opposite sex, featuring trends contrary to heterosexuality. Since this fact occurs regardless of their will, no inferiority or superiority to other animals is extant. In the human case, this type of orientation does not make the person better or worse. The sexual freedom currently experienced comprises the public acknowledgement of homosexual behavior although it also favors bias caused by years of persecution and prohibition. The Law does not allow that this right jeopardizes the person´s rights in any social environment, especially the work milieu. The latter, through which people pass most of their lives, ranges from the selection process to the cessation of the labor contract. In fact, labor relationships should be based on objective criteria so that discrimination would be shunned. Compensation to the discriminated person is mandatory when the rule is not complied with. However, commercial relationships and competition are so intense that entrepreneurs have to contract professionals with the best qualifications and results. The latter should not be dependent on people´s sexual orientation as frequently occurs due to an imbedded culture. An analysis of the person´s sexual orientation is often conducted during admission tests under the guise that homosexuals are not apt for the job. In the case of certain jobs, such as working in a sauna for females, the gender of the worker is an objective choice. However, in most jobs sexual orientation is a neutral item. Is it permissible to argue that there is a conflict of constitutional principles when, due to the eventual culture in client discrimination, the employer chooses professionals characterized by their specific sexual orientation? Current research deals with the above issues and proposes a change in the paradigm. The dignity of the person, with a different sexual orientation or not, should be predominant and above the interests of capital. Employers and their relationships are part and parcel of society and their behavior should change so that alterations in society could occur too.