If you were a manager, supervisor, whatever other higher-up...

[Charon]

Would you automatically give special treatment (e.g. promote, raise one's salary) employees who just so happen to be gay themselves (kind of like nepotism), or would you treat them like any other employee, judging them by how adept they are at their job?

 

[Vannie]

My moral alignment would only let me hire all people based on their qualifications not on their sexuality.

 

[cityboy-stl]

My moral alignment would only let me hire all people based on their qualifications, not on their sexuality.

Yes, this. ^^

 

[unloadonme]

Where I work, appointment and promotion are strictly on merit and salary is within a fixed range for each grade depending on length of service. There's nothing individual managers can do to give preferment to colleagues who are gay (or members of any other minority for that matter).

 

[rareboy]

My moral alignment would only let me hire all people based on their qualifications not on their sexuality.

Yup. This.

Unles he was reallllly, reAALLLY hAWT.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

if everybody's qualified, what's wrong with using minority status as a leg up? it's been a leg down for way longer.

 

[cityboy-stl]

if everybody's qualified, what's wrong with using minority status as a leg up? it's been a leg down for way longer.

The way the OP asked the question, promotion was based on sexuality alone, irrespective of qualifications "kind of like nepotism". So that is how people are answering.

You do make a good point. Assuming equal qualifications, I see nothing with giving minorities a leg up to improve diversity. But that wasn't the question. That's an additional element.

 

[Kahaih]

My moral alignment would only let me hire all people based on their qualifications not on their sexuality.

That seems rather easy to say in the service industry, though, doesn't it?

I mean, really, can straight people make crepes?

 

[nycguydowntown]

I only give promotions to cute guys who have sex with me.

 

[LeicsDom]

Would you automatically give special treatment (e.g. promote, raise one's salary) employees who just so happen to be gay themselves (kind of like nepotism), or would you treat them like any other employee, judging them by how adept they are at their job?

How good they are at their job is the only criteria I would take notice of

 

[cabinfever]

Whomever is most qualified would get the promotion.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The way the OP asked the question, promotion was based on sexuality alone, irrespective of qualifications "kind of like nepotism". So that is how people are answering.

You do make a good point. Assuming equal qualifications, I see nothing with giving minorities a leg up to improve diversity. But that wasn't the question. That's an additional element.

Touchè. "I see" said the blind man to the deaf pianist.

 

[Cormac135]

I'd only hire cute guys gay or straight.

Defo no women.

 

[Vannie]

Yes, this. ^^

Yup. This.

Unles he was reallllly, reAALLLY hAWT.

In the past I have hired a few guys as cooks and waitstaff strictly for their looks and nice butts ops!

 

[eddielee]

A raise or promotion would strictly be done based on job performance.

 

[cityboy-stl]

In the past I have hired a few guys as cooks and waitstaff strictly for their looks and nice butts ops!

Hiring waitstaff based on their looks can be good business assuming they're good waiters as well. There was a restaurant I used to frequent here that hired this waiter with number 10 model looks. It was a very casual restaurant and this guy always wore tight white jeans that showed a bulge the size of a softball. I have no doubt it was real as he always showed enough VPL to prove it. Believe me, he was awesome in addition to being a great waiter. I still remember his name. It was a popular place and a good restaurant to start with, but business as well as tips skyrocketed as word got around the gay community. Although not strictly a gay place, they were close to a gay neighborhood and welcoming. He brought in a good number of straight women as well.

 

[Peloso]

I would hire the most inept, least qualified people regardless of their orientation or sexuality. This would cause chaos within the business, which would have a ripple effect throughout the entire company, causing it to crumble. I would fake my own death, sport an awesome new look, and begin the process all over again in some other part of the country.

 

[Rickrock]

I would hope that I would promote according to their job performance, but I am not sure that I wouldn't subconsciously be influenced. I could see myself unconsciously favoring the gay, but on the other hand I could also see myself trying to be so impartial that I would error the other way instead and be too harsh on them. I guess only being in that situation would tell.

What I could really see myself doing would be to favor a good looking person over an ugly one regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

[Alistair]

I think the manager of the local Target is gay. 95% of the employees are skinny young guys that look like they work at Abercrombie.

I would total give a gay guy preferential treatment.

 

[Peloso]

I think the manager of the local Target is gay. 95% of the employees are skinny young guys that look like they work at Abercrombie.

Same with my local supermarket a while back. Every cashier was a cute Italian kid between 17 and 23. The thing is, though, that you probably have to be gay to figure it out.