The Florida Commission of Human Relations dictates that in the state of Florida it is unlawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, or sex. There is no statewide law in Florida that protects LGBTQ+ folks from discrimination in the workplace, and the specific term “sex” is purposefully used to exclude transgender people from protection. This means that a business can discriminate against an LGBTQ+ person with no legal recourse because their gender identity and sexual orientation are not protected by Florida’s non-discrimination policy. This is not only dehumanizing, unethical, and linked to pervasive health issues, but it’s also bad business – when the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in America (including all of the top ten largest publicly-traded companies) protect their LGBTQ+ employees against discrimination, it begs the question: why doesn’t Florida?

To understand why Florida willfully excludes LGBTQ+ status from legal protection against workplace discrimination, we must first set the stage for context. The state has been primarily conservative Republican since 1952. The objective of these politicians, policymakers, and voters is to infiltrate every aspect of culture, law, and society with their radically conservative ethos and literal interpretation of certain aspects of the Christian bible. Woven inextricably into their worldview are rigid positions on gender and sexuality. Throughout her body of work, religious scholar Elaine Pagels notes: “[T]he Genesis creation story [is often invoked] to prove that only heterosexuality is ‘natural’ and ‘right.’ …Christians invoked the story of Adam and Eve to justify and establish their beliefs… and ideas of sexuality [and gender].”

This mythologized and skewed view of reality is pervasive in every level of government. Conservative Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (former attorney for the evangelical Christian organization Alliance Defense Fund, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designated as a hate group) stated that “Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone. Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle.” Johnson’s statement could not be further from the truth, and is a resounding example of the false and damaging rhetoric that persists throughout conservative politics and prejudicial policies.

If Johnson and other (homophobic) politicians like him were to do their homework, they would find that it is the rigid societal norms around gender and sexuality that are actually “inherently unnatural.” In both the plant and animal kingdoms, the most common bodily form encompasses both female and male sexes either fluidly or simultaneously during their lifespans. Additionally, a series of studies at John Hopkins Hospital concluded that “sex was a label that could be (re)assigned” (Zheng, 8). Ecologist and evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden affirms that “genetics does not dictate a gender binary,” and even a gendered body is “not constrained by the genetics of sex determination” and is thus “free to adapt evolutionarily.” It’s erroneous to presume that female or male sex is so clear-cut given that all of us are “as genetically diverse as snowflakes” (201). 

Just as gender is fluid, “sexual orientation is [also] a continuously distributed characteristic of individuals, and all decisions to categorize it into discrete units, regardless of how many, are ultimately external impositions placed on individuals’ experiences” (Savin Williams, 452). Furthermore, Roughgarden attests that “Substantial evidence points to both genetic and environmental components in the development of same-sex sexuality. No one who pushes one factor to the exclusion of the other can be correct” (248). The final nail in the coffin of the false narrative about heterosexuality being the “natural” orientation is the fact that there is rampant non-heterosexual behavior in hundreds of species of birds, fish, insects, reptiles, mammals, and primates – including, of course, Homo sapiens.

Yet the conservative worldview and its policymaking relies upon strict adherence to systemic norms and dictates. Professor of the Critique of Political Economy Mark Neocleous notes that “[by] articulating nature as a standard by which the social order can be judged, the success of the nation becomes dependent on the natural laws of sexuality and gender… This provides fascism with the grounds for distinguishing the normal from the abnormal, where the abnormal is read as a threat to the natural – and thus the national – order.” Due to the scientific community’s suppression of the facts around sex and gender and the public’s (including conservative politicians) refusal to acknowledge or accept what is proven biologically, societal frameworks and institutions are constructed with the assumptions, expectations, and mandates that heterosexuality is “natural” and that one’s gender identity is strictly binary and directly corresponding to their assigned sex. 

Religious scholar William Scott Green states, “A society does not simply discover its others, it fabricates them, by selecting, isolating, and emphasizing an aspect of another people’s life, and making it symbolize their difference.” Thus there is an age-old practice in culture and society of defining one’s own people as human (read: acceptable, natural, normal, worthy of belonging, care, protection, and respect) and “Othering” (read: dehumanizing) those who do not ascribe to or fit in with the dominant group… and that dominant group bonds and empowers each other through this very practice of excluding others. Conservative Republican lawmakers refuse to acknowledge or accept “a world where gender is no longer fixed to biological sex, or where women and men can reject gendered stereotypes. They want to maintain the lie that gendered stereotypes are rooted in biology” (Norris, 144) and thus maintain what they claim to be the “natural” order by using prejudicial policies to attack, delegitimize, and purposefully fail to protect LGBTQ+ people.

This targeted discrimination is especially felt in the state of Florida where approximately 900,000 people who identify as LGBTQ+ reside and approximately 545,000 people who identify as LGBTQ+ are in the workforce. General findings present the grim reality that half of all LGBTQ+ workers will experience discrimination – a recent poll revealed that 81% of transgender respondents in Florida reported experiencing discrimination or harassment on the job. Prejudice is also present with income disparity as men in same-sex couples in Florida earn less than men married to different-sex partners, while women in same-sex couples earn less than married men as well as men in same-sex couples. Bias happens in the pre-employment stage too. Field experiments revealed that women who included an LGBTQ+ indicator on their resumes were discriminated against, receiving about 30% fewer callbacks than the candidates who had resumes without that indicator. Studies also show that employers who emphasize the importance of stereotypically male heterosexual traits (the hegemonic norms of assertiveness, competitiveness, confidence, independence, and strength) were particularly likely to discriminate against openly gay men who are prejudicially perceived to be “feminine” – and not surprisingly, employers in the state of Florida show strong discriminatory tendencies.

Prejudicial policies and practices have painful mental and physical consequences. LGBTQ+ folks who are victims of the myriad forms of demoralizing and dehumanizing discrimination can experience cardiovascular issues, depression, distress, isolation, loneliness, stress, and suicidality. Those who identify as LGBTQ+ are twice as likely as heterosexuals to experience anxiety and mood issues. Experiencing discrimination or exclusion at work can also impact economic security, which can lead to housing instability, poverty, and unemployment. Those in the workforce who attempt to “blend in” experience stress from hiding their true gender identity or sexual orientation, negatively impacting their connection with their colleagues, depth of interpersonal relationships, productivity, and overall self-esteem and well-being. The emotional, mental, and physical impacts of discrimination cannot be ignored or refuted, and can be avoided… if the state of Florida won’t protect its LGBTQ+ community, then private businesses will.

As Florida attorney Kelly M. Peña noted, “Many employers, on their own initiative, have sought to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation within the workplace, by updating their employment policies and initiating relevant workplace trainings.” Anti-discrimination policies have far-reaching benefits to both the business and its workforce. These include “improved recruitment and retention of talented employees, increas[ed] employee productivity and customer satisfaction, and attracting a larger customer base… [as well as] greater job commitment, improved workplace relationships, increased job satisfaction, and improved health outcomes among LGBT employees” (Mallory & Sears). Upholding policies that protect everyone (including LGBTQ+ folks) is good for business. Nadine Smith, the CEO of Equality Florida, affirms “In order to be economically competitive and attract the best and the brightest, the State and the business community must institute policies of fairness and non-discrimination.” And yet conservative lawmakers persist with prejudice.

“The homophobic agenda of the Christian right and Republican politicians has rapidly gained political and legal traction, especially in the South” (Lamont) where Governor Ron DeSantis and other “extremist legislators in Florida are some of the most anti-LGBTQ+ politicians in America… As a result, the rights of millions of Floridians are being rolled back by politicians who are attacking the LGBTQ+ community at a breakneck pace to pander to the most extreme fringes of their base” (Human Rights Campaign). 

Data proves that discrimination causes harm to mental, emotional, and physical well-being. Policies that protect, support, and champion a diverse workforce are good for business and result in successful employees, satisfied customers, and strong revenue. The people have spoken: 80% of Floridians support anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ folks. Conservative lawmakers who commit a sin of omission by willfully excluding gender identity and sexual orientation in prejudicial policies that are enacted through the purview of their beliefs would do well to brush up on their own Christian doctrine: “A new command I give you: Love one another.” (John 13: 34) – no exceptions; no exclusions.

WORKS CITED

Bostwick, Wendy et al. “Discrimination and Mental Health Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States.” Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144327/

Coleman, Hazir. “The Impact of Discrimination Against The LGBTQ Community.” Ramifications. 2019. https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ramifications

Equality Florida. “Analysis by National Think Tank Underscores Need to Update Florida’s Nondiscrimination Laws.” 2014. https://www.eqfl.org/maap

Florida Commission of Human Relations. https://fchr.myflorida.com/employment

Holy Bible. New International Version. John 13: 34.

Human Rights Campaign. “LGBTQ+ Equality at the Fortune 500.” https://www.hrc.org/resources/lgbt-equality-at-the-fortune-500

HRC Staff. “Gov. DeSantis Signs Slate of Extreme Anti-LGBTQ+ Bills, Enacting a Record-Shattering Number of Discriminatory Measures Into Law.” Human Rights Campaign. 2023. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/gov-desantis-signs-slate-of-extreme-anti-lgbtq-bills-enacting-a-record-shattering-number-of-discriminatory-measures-into-law

HRC Staff. “ICYMI: New Data Shows Support for LGBTQ+ Rights Reaches Highest Rates Ever Recorded.” Human Rights Campaign. 2023. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-new-data-shows-support-for-lgbtq-rights-reaches-highest-rates-ever-recorded

Kline, Nolan S. et al. “Responding to “Don’t Say Gay” Laws in the US: Research Priorities and Considerations for Health Equity.” Sex Res Social Policy. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9666954/

Lamont, Michèle. Seeing Others. Simon & Schuster: 2023.

Lavietes, Matt. “New House speaker’s views on LGBTQ issues come under fresh scrutiny.” NBC News. 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/mike-johnson-house-speaker-lgbtq-views-scrutiny-rcna122317

Mallory, Christy et al. “The Impact of Stigma and Discrimination against LGBT People in Florida.” The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law: 2017. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Impact-LGBT-Discrimination-FL-Sep-2017.pdf

Mallory, Christy and Brad Sears. “Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Florida.” The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law: 2015. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Employment-Discrimination-FL-Mar-2015.pdf

Medina, Caroline and Lindsay Mahowald. “Discrimination and Barriers to Well-Being: The State of the LGBTQI+ Community in 2022.” American Progress. 2023. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-and-barriers-to-well-being-the-state-of-the-lgbtqi-community-in-2022/

Mishel, Emma. “Discrimination against Queer Women in the U.S. Workforce: A Résumé Audit Study.” Socius. 2016. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023115621316

Movement Advancement Project. Florida’s Equality Profile. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/profile_state/FL

Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Open University Press: 1997.

Norris, Sian. Bodies Under Siege. Verso: 2023.

Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Vintage: 1989.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. Vintage: 1996.

Pagels, Elaine. Why Religion? Ecco: 2018.

Peña, Kelly M. “LGBT Discrimination in the Workplace: What Will the Future Hold?” Florida Bar Journal. 2018. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/lgbt-discrimination-in-the-workplace-what-will-the-future-hold/

Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. University of California Press, Berkeley. Tenth Edition: 2013. 

Savin-Williams, Ritch C. “An Exploratory Study of the Categorical Versus Spectrum Nature of Sexual Orientation.” The Journal of Sex Research. 51(4), 2014.

Tilcsik, András. “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology. 2011. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661653

What We Know Project, Cornell University. “What Does the Scholarly Research Say about the Effects of Discrimination on the Health of LGBT People?” 2019. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-scholarly-research-say-about-the-effects-of-discrimination-on-the-health-of-lgbt-people/

Zheng, Lily. Gender Ambiguity in the Workplace: Transgender and Gender-Diverse Discrimination. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York: 2018.