Protecting the LGBTQ Community
In the past decades, the United States has faced considerable challenges on effective measures to use in protecting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ)
Community. Notably, the major controversy surrounding LGBTQ groups’ rights is that of who is responsible for protecting the rights of this vulnerable population. As a result, several debates have increased significantly without the conclusion on who should be responsible for protecting the LGBTQ community. Ideally, diversity in social views within the United States has significantly contributed to the growing segregation and oppression of the LGBTQ community. According to Ayoub (293), over 44% of the lesbian, gay and bisexual groups face harassment and discrimination. Over 92% of transgender and queer communities experience unequal opportunities and oppression, not excluding their families and relatives. Perhaps the core solution to protect the LGBTQ group lies in government interventions through penal legislation and laws to control this vulnerable community’s discrimination. Ideally, the LGBTQ population’s immense discrimination has detrimental consequences not only at an individual level but also at the family level (Ayoub 293). Thus, to realize the full protection of LGBTQ communities, the federal government should focus on reinforcing existing laws that discourage LGBTQ discrimination and provide more policies that govern the protection of LGBTQ groups.
The federal government should enact an LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination policy. Currently, there are no strict laws that prohibit discrimination of the LGBTQ groups. As a result, discrimination cases are growing exponentially, making it difficult to protect their rights within the United States (US). Principally, employment discrimination of the LGBTQ groups undermines their economic plight, hence; leading to poor living standards both to the employees and the employers. According to the research conducted by (Ayoub 300), many cities and county executives concentrate much on protecting people against religion, sex, and national origin without focusing on LGBTQ communities. Thus, this gap can be filled by issuing mayoral directives or executive orders to protect LGBTQ discriminations and oppressions. Furthermore, a direction should be given to local agencies to interpret all forms of LGBTQ group discriminations, as indicated in Title VII, to underpin other ways of protecting this oppressed community. However, more research will be conducted in various counties and cities that have taken considerable steps in enacting LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination policies around the US to realize the significant LGBTQ community protection.
Additionally, the federal government has the mandate to recruit and retain LGBTQ groups in various workplaces around the US. According to Gates and Margery (24), diversity is essential, especially when hiring or retaining employees. The federal government controls most organizations and firms within the US. In other words, the federal government has a direct influence on most human resource departments. Therefore, through the executive directive, the federal government can instruct the agency officials and human resource department to actively update the existing personnel policy within firms to realize equal employment opportunities between the LGBTQ and other groups. Fortunately, other local governments such as the New Jersey have embraced LGBTQ communities’ regular recruitments to foster equal opportunities for employees within the Jersey City. Consequently, police departments in New York City are at the forefront of recruiting numerous LGBTQ officers to maintain their culture and promote equal opportunities among all employees. Based on the recent research studies, there is sufficient evidence that recruiting and retaining LGBTQ groups plays an integral role in minimizing the various discriminations that exist during promotions, terminations, and salary changes among employees in US cities. However, more research will be conducted on how prohibiting county and city employees from discriminating in programs, services, and activities will help the federal government fully protect LGBTQ rights.
The federal government can ensure that county buildings and restrooms are freely accessible to all populations regardless of gender expression or identity. Local governments can institute policies on facilities such as restrooms to enhance equal access t both visitors and employees without restrictions that circulate gender expression and identity. According to Gates and Margery (27), 30% of LGBTQ groups experienced significant discriminations in restrooms and county buildings as per 2017. Mostly, some LGBTQ communities are denied access to restrooms as others are sexually assaulted, and their presence is questioned. Ideally, being denied access to restrooms has underlying health concerns such as kidney-related conditions (Knauer). Therefore, a great danger to the vulnerable LGBTQ group. They ensure that there is unrestricted access to local facilities and restrooms for all populations will be a milestone for the federal government in protecting LGBTQ rights within the US. However, future research will explore the possible strategies that can be used by the federal government to enhance free access to restrooms and county facilities to all groups, particularly among the vulnerable populations such as the transgender communities.
Besides, formalizing the existing policies and enacting new laws, the federal government can fund LGBTQ employee resource groups. The resource groups are essential in bolstering understanding and promoting inclusiveness in the workplace. As a result, the socially isolated LGBTQ individuals benefit from the LGBTQ employee funding, which creates more opportunities for these vulnerable populations to network and retain their talents. Also, the executive budget should consider addressing issues surrounding the LGBTQ populations. Executive budgeting includes leveraging state-granted and federal resources to be equally accessible to the LGBTQ group (Knauer). Ideally, unequal access to resources can hinder academic performance in educational institutions. Therefore, leveraging resources can help address various issues LGBTQ groups face, such as food insecurity. Some programs, such as Title IX, protect bullying in public schools triggered by LGBTQ discrimination (Knauer). Future research will focus on examples of educational programs initiated by the federal government to protect LGBTQ rights and their effectiveness in mitigating all LGBTQ discrimination forms in schools.
Additionally, the federal government has powers to revoke all licenses from businesses and organizations that violate LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws. All businesses and organizations within the US must have licenses that allow them to legally engage in business practices and as a prerequisite to operate in a particular jurisdiction. The federal government has a legislative arm that permits all bodies within the US; hence; it can revoke licenses to businesses that are reported to encourage LGBTQ discriminations after close evaluations. Suspending organizations and businesses that violate LGBTQ rights will hinder the significant growth of LGBTQ oppression as more people will consider securing their licenses rather than losing them. Thus, an opportunity for the federal government to protect the LGBTQ community. Currently, many states, such as California, have taken the initiative of revoking licenses as an alternative to protecting the LGBTQ group. According to Semenova et al. (305) report, other states have taken the responsibility of educating businesses and organizations on the importance of adhering to LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws alongside their businesses’ growth and thriving. However, further research will focus on how the federal government can control exercise control LGBTQ discrimination in private businesses and the importance of actively including private businesses and agencies in protecting LGBTQ rights.
Finally, the federal government can embrace community engagements to expand awareness and acceptance of LGBTQ groups by the general public. Furthermore, embracing community engagements allows local governments and communities in the US to actively coordinate with various experts in the federal government to address issues affecting the LGBTQ group. S of the programs that can increase community engagements include appointing an LGBTQ liaison in relevant agency or executive branch to increase LGBTQ protection. According to recent studies, there is a close connection between increased LGBTQ group equality and when LGBTQ people are serving as the executives in leadership positions. A 2015 report by Semenova et al. (305) indicates that LGBT liaisons play an integral role in ensuring equality and protecting the rights of the vulnerable community. Notably, the liaisons are essential in suggesting various solutions to the federal government that can help minimizing assuming surrounding them. Besides, liaisons have been proved to significantly help in revising various practices that aim to protect the rights of the LGBTQ population. Therefore, future research will focus on the case studies where liaisons have been successfully used to improve the protection of LGBTQ communities.
However, federal government alone cannot be considered responsible for protecting the LGBTQ community. School employees such as counsellors, administrators and teachers have a key role to play in protecting the LGBTQ community. For instance, school counsellors can easily pinpoint the LGBTQ affected students and discover the underlying issues affecting them as well as formulate ways in which they can help handle their issues within school. Asa result, effects such as mood disorder and depression that are commonly associated with LGBTQ discrimination can be addressed by counsellors. Also, counselors can engage bullies who oppress the LGBTQ groups within school as a strategy to mitigate the discrimination odd this vulnerable population. According to the research conducted by Semenova et al. (305), over 45% of the LGBTQ discrimination cases in schools are addressed by counsellors. Furthermore, teachers are often in close contact with students within the school. Hence, Semenova et al. (305) argues that teachers can be trained to examine students with characteristics of being bullied and privately interrogate them to discover issues affecting the LGBTQ group in schools. Finally, school administrators can enact laws that discourage LGBTQ discrimination in schools to promote equality among students. Besides, the school administrators can post posters within specific positions within the school that discourage LGBTQ discrimination as well as provide potential consequences that will face those engaging in LGBTQ segregation. Future research will focus on other ways in which school employees can be responsible in protecting the LGBTQ community.
Also, there are numerous arguments that employer is responsible for protecting the LGBTQ community. According to (Nutt), 80% of the LGBTQ discriminations occur during employment processes such as during trainings, hiring, promotions and salary changes. As a result, employers have a significant role to play in protecting the LGBTQ community. Employers can change their hiring strategies to create equal opportunities for the vulnerable LGBTQ community. Besides, employers can support events such as the Spirit Day a way portray a stand in protecting LGBTQ rights as well as discouraging their bullying (Nutt). The future research will focus on how employers can partner with governments to improvise their various measures of protecting LGBTQ community.
Conclusively, to realize the full protection of LGBTQ communities, the federal government should put more focus on reinforcing existing laws that discourage LGBTQ discrimination and provide more policies that govern protection of LGBTQ community. From the above facts, the federal government has a huge role to play in protecting the LGBTQ community. Through the utilization of the executive and legislative branch, it can successfully address issues surrounding the LGBTQ community. However, its should not be forgotten that other bodies such as school employees and various employers can be considered responsible for protecting the LGBTQ community. If the federal government cannot put more focus on reinforcing existing laws that discourage LGBTQ discrimination and provide more policies that govern protection of LGBTQ community then the blame against its failure in protecting LGBTQ community is indisputable.
Works Cited
Ayoub, Phillip M. “Contested norms in new-adopter states: International determinants of LGBT rights legislation.” European Journal of International Relations 21.2 (2015): 293-322.
Gates, Trevor G., and Margery C. Saunders. “Executive orders for human rights: The case of Obama’s LGBT nondiscrimination order.” International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 16.1 (2016): 24-36.
Knauer, Nancy J. Gay and lesbian elders: History, law, and identity politics in the United States. Routledge, 2016.
Nutt, Amy Ellis. Becoming Nicole: The transformation of an American family. Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2016.
Semenova, Nataliya S., et al. “Traditional values and human rights of LGBT under the contemporary international law.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6.5 (2015): 305.