Comments on: Mark(et)ing Nondiscrimination

By: Sid DeLong

Sid DeLong — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:33:53 +0000

I applaud the ingenuity of using the mix of contract, IP, and third party beneficiary law to enforce non-discrimination norms. But what is to stop the Focus on the Family crowd from following suit: licensing a little cross in a circle confirming that the seller is a bigot? Sellers who failed to discriminate would be subject to suit by their customers who found out.

By: Steve Dispensa

Steve Dispensa — Sun, 05 Jun 2005 02:51:53 +0000

Sorry for the late comment. The present climate may indeed prevent adopting ENDA as a requirement for all American businesses, but what about the Federal Government as an employer? Have you been able to make any progress about getting the Government to adopt the license and mark? Adoption of FE would be an important precedent; perhaps it's more feasible at this point.

By: Sutha Kamal

Sutha Kamal — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 17:59:03 +0000

Great idea. While we're in Canada, and I'm not sure we can necessarily "sign" the document because it refers to specific US legislation, we absolutely buy into the FE idea. (It amazes me that anyone wouldn't be.)

By: chris franklin

chris franklin — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 01:45:18 +0000

The "Fair Employment Mark" is a great idea and as a way for businesses to set themselves apart as more progressive organizations.

You've probably already considered this point: I tend to think that an FE mark and policy could legally weigh very heavily on older corporations with longstanding employees and corporate cultures. These entities may be a little gun-shy about adopting FE.

But, any companies formed in the last 5 years would probably be prime candidates for adopting the Fair Employment Mark and policies. In twenty to fifty years, maybe it will be a majority of U.S. companies that have such a policy.

By: Kirsten Chevalier

Kirsten Chevalier — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:12:02 +0000

That's a great idea. Are there any plans to expand the Fair Employment Mark to encompass discrimination based on gender expression, even though that's not included in ENDA? In addition, it would be great if the language on the web page were more inclusive of bisexuals as well as lesbians and gay men; when it comes to coalition-building, it's always better to risk making one's language a little clunkier than to risk alienating potential allies.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 16:08:59 +0000

Anon: why shouldn't consumers and the public get to express their preferences to the contrary?

By: anon

anon — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:50:24 +0000

Why should we support efforts to put pressure on businesses who merely put into effect the preferences of their employees?