Would you hire someone simply because they are gay.

[shainski]

Say you had two candidates for a job. Both are sufficient for the job, neither are incompetent. One is straight and the other is gay. The straight employee is slightly more experienced and suited for the job. Would you hire the gay person simply because of their orientation? Or would you hire the straight person because of their experience?

I would not necessarily hire the straight person BECAUSE of their experience.

When i have hired, i have often downplayed many attributes such as GPA, college, experience in lieu of personality and attitude.

I have often felt that I could teach a candidate with a great attitude (as long as s/he had the necessary aptitude), but not necessarily the other qualifications, but i would never be able to motivate someone who had all the qualifications but lacked a good attitude.

But i can't quantify how i measure that intangible.

But there are many gays with bad attitudes just as straights.

So I wouldn't hire the straight just because of experience (of course, it depends on the job), but you also added the words "Better suited to the job". I presume that that takes into account my intangibles. So if everything added together makes him/her better suited to the job, then i would hire that person.

How well will that individual interact with others in the workforce? Will others be affected positively or negatively because i hired that person.

I might dismiss even my own inclination if i thought that the candidate would be disruptive simply because he is gay (or black), not because of his own attitude, but because of the others. If i thought that, then it is the others problem not the candidate. But, that might depend on the situation as well.

Whether it's my own company or i were a manager, then i would hire the one that i felt would best make my company more valuable.

 

[oakpope]

that would fit in the position to enhance the position and make the companey money.

Cus that's why you are in bussiness.

I will perhaps be seen as a crazy lunatic or a dangerous commie, but for me a business shoudn't just be a way to make money, that and nothing but that.

 

[looseliam]

No.

But I would hire someone simply b/c they were black.

Yeah, I said it.

I don't see any difference between that and hiring a family member, someone of the same religion, or even someone with a certain body-type.

I'm a firm believer in there's more to being qualified for a job than being able to do said job - hell, just look at Congress

 

[Puzuzzu]

In all honesty, the nicer guy. The gay guy could be a douche\homophobe, while the straight a fag hag (yes, there are str8 male fag hags)

 

[hotatlboi]

I think this forum could easily serve as evidence in this situation...just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're going to be a particular kind of person or behave a certain way. Gays are without a doubt a pretty diverse group...there's some of everything .

Gays are so diverse...










...that if we were Jews, some of us would be Nazi supporters.

 

[oakpope]

Gays are without a doubt a pretty diverse group...there's some of everything .

I'm so happy for that

 

[miken1999]

When your in a position to hire new employee for your company, they have entrusted you and your judgment.

Do what is right for your team and not for your self . A new employee will effect more people then just your self.

 

[brandhay]

As an employee I would not want to be hired on the basis of my sexuality.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

I would hope that the first thing a future employee would tell me about is their work experience - not their sexuality.

 

[AlmondMilk]

I'd hire the straight guy. He's more qualified.

 

[FirePhoenix]

first off what is this job they are applying for? would being gay or straight have more of impact on the job? I would not hire a straight guy over a gay guy if I owned a gay club etc. There is the aspect of personality also... do you think the gay guy had a better personality that would fit with the business better?

But I will assume that is not the case and consider it a job where the sexual orientation does not matter in which case I go with the straight guy if he would be better suited for the position applied for.

 

[freefall]

Rather than asking their sexuality spontaneously out of the box, I'd simply ask them if they were homophobic. The rest is a piece of cake.

Otherwise, the one with better qualification wins

 

[NineOfClubs]

In the past I hired the gay guy, mostly because the "gays" understood the job.

 

[EwanSF]

As an employee I would not want to be hired on the basis of my sexuality.

Dude, I aint got a job, and there's none out there. I couldn't give a fuck if I'm being hired because of my sexuality. They could hire me for being a black, lesbian amputee for all I care.

With regard to the scenario, I'd probably hire the homo, provided there wasn't much in it, qualifications-wise. Employment laws or no, there's plenty of gay men and women out there that lose out on a position because of their sexuality. I'd like to try and help redress the ballance.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Now a twist to this post:: What if it was the same two people but there persona is how they dress, Emo-Rocker-Attire in one-- other is dressed as a normal professional and the other is into all the clothes, tinted hair all spiked up and so forth.

Mind you the is a dress code for your work place.. Now who would get the job....

That's not even a sane question. One came dressed to impress, the other did not. It is that simple.

All you did was prove the idea of "normal" is a sickness.

 

[diamondstar]

I would like to say I wouldn't, but in the back of my mind I would say "Hell Yes!".

 

[colliefletch]

Employment laws or no, there's plenty of gay men and women out there that lose out on a position because of their sexuality. I'd like to try and help redress the ballance.

Yeah, this is why I'd probably hire the gay guy.