The Ultimate Non-Discrimination Clause

By Loudoun Insider

I’m so sick of hearing about this issue, although the Delgaudio/Public Advocate side will continue to battle it out with the Miller/Weintraub/Equality Loudoun side as long as they both can get press out of it.


I am not for discrimination for any reason, believe it or not.  But I have never been, nor will I ever be, a fan of creating special protected classes, because there is a real concern for unlimited pressure for any number of self-identified population subsets to demand inclusion, and potentially quotas for hiring.  We have a myriad of special classes now included, but what about fat and ugly people, who have been statistically proven to be hired less often and make less money than fit and attractive people? 


Here’s my take on a hopefully all-inclusive non-discrimination clause, starting with the current Loudoun County verbage in bold:


It is the policy of the County of Loudoun to provide equal opportunity in all aspects of emloyment without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, political affiliation, popularity, sports affinities, friends and acquaintances, sexual affinities of any type, criminal background, weight, all aspects of appearance (including dress and the ideal known as “beauty”), breath and all other body odors, cleanliness/slovenliness, intelligence, and mental disorders (including depressive disorders such as laziness).


Please add any other conditions that may have been missed in your opinion so that we can include any conceivable condition that could possibly ever result in any person being potentially discriminated against.  Please keep in mind that it does not matter if such discrimination has ever occurred, only if there may be the potential in someone’s mind for such discrimination to possibly take place at some point in the future.


  • Brian S. says:

    Sorry, but I’m just not voting for any plan that doesn’t let me discriminate against Cowboys fans.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Is laziness a depressive disorder? I object to being pidgeon holed into a disorder category.
    Brian, my husband calls the Pittsburgh Penguins “Dallas on Ice”.

  • Wolverine says:

    So then, I guess it will be quite o.k. for a guy to apply for a job with Loudoun County while wearing pantyhose, a dress, lipstick, and hoop earrings, all the while trying to talk and act like Dolly Parton. Does that mean the same will apply to the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office? If this is the case, I would like to try the following: the next time a county job opens up, I will apply for it while wearing an African penis sheath, carrying a spear, and with a bone through my nose. If they turn me down, I’ll have Weintraub and Blackout lead the charge on my anti-discrimination case. If none of that works, perhaps I can go down to Walmart. I hear they like to hire door greeters.

  • Ben Dover says:

    Loudoun Lady – Let’s you and me bet a beer or two (or three!) on whether the Penguins take out the Caps in the playoffs this year………………….yet again (for what the 3rd, 4th or 5th time…frankly, I’ve lost track!), shall we? “Dallas on ice?” Hardly.

  • Leej says:

    We had a person in my running club that went from guy to a girl the whole nine yards including a sex change. A very nice person and nobody ever made a big deal of it. Although I have not seen this person in over 5 to 8 years. My point is this person had a extremely high security clearance and worked on some extremely sensitive projects. Like I said in the other thread if you can do the job and especially if you can do it well and are a law abiding citizen most are not going to give a crap about your race or sexual orientation or whatever in this day and age. There are again the fringe people that try to use this discrimination BS to distract the attention that they just can’t or are not qualified for the job. BTW LI people are kicked off planes all the time because they smell really bad. 😉

  • Lee, now you are beginning to make sense. If you are good at your job, none of this other nonsense ought to be an issue. It is the “fringe,” people like Mr. Delgaudio, et al, who can’t let go of irrelevant personal characteristics that have nothing to do with job qualifications. They are the ones who don’t care about actual qualifications, and are living proof that these kinds of protections are needed. It’s sad.

    I would think that “smelling really bad” or being stupid would be legitimate disqualifiers for many jobs. Most of this post is what is known as “silly.”

  • Another huge challenge with expanding any list of protected classes is that the prohibition on discrimination is not just those overt, intentional acts of discrmination. Under current law applicable to lending and employment, a party can be held liable for violating the law when the party has facially neutral polices that have the effect of disporporionatly affecting a prtotected class — the so called “disparate impact” liability, which greatly expands the actions for which a person could potentially be held responsible for damages.

    And it’s not just that liablity. It’s also the expense and complexity of monitoring for compliance. How are you supposed to be able to tell whether your neutral policies ultimately have a disporporiate adverse effect on people having deviate sexual preferences? You’re then put in the position of inquiring as to each individual’s sexual preference

  • Lloyd, is there a problem in Loudoun County with what you describe? If so, there should be an easily accessible record of such legal actions with regard to race, religion, political affiliation, national origin, and the other characteristics named in the EEOS prior to its being updated. In addition, there must be evidence that potential hires are asked to identify these and other characteristics during the hiring process, so that this “disproportionate adverse effect” can be measured. I am not aware of this being the practice. Maybe you can enlighten us?

  • James Young says:

    Don’t agree with much of what you said, Leej, but I wish I had know that (“people are kicked off planes all the time because they smell really bad.”) on my last flight to San Francisco.

  • Linda B. says:

    Lee, were you a hasher? I remember her. It’s been a long, long time since I went by “Squirrel Bait,” but those were the days….

  • Leej says:

    James there is a reality show on A&E which uses southwest airlines and it is amazing what happens on airplanes and before you board from fat people having to buy two seats to being denied to board because they smelled to bad. And everything you could imagine. The show has been canceled but it was interesting what happens in the airline business.

  • Leej says:

    yes Linda you are correct and I am having a big party which is starting out as a hash this sat jan 30th with Great falls hash and morphing into a party with a live band and many of my regular friends and business friends. You ought to show up the directions are on the hash site just look up the great falls hash. Love to see you I am “Next Week/Never Again” named twice when I lived in Los Angeles

  • Linda B. says:

    Thanks for the invite, Lee! Sounds like a great time. Mr. B. and I may just take you up on that.

  • Lovettsville Lady says:

    I love your list but you forgot geeks and nerds and those with severe acne. (not always the same people)

  • Dan says:

    That list reminds me of a favorite bit of dialogue from the movie Blazing Saddles.
    “We’ll take the niggers and the chinks. But we don’t want the Irish.”
    Is it time for my Hibernian brethren and I to prepare our picket signs and head to Loudoun County?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Dan, no wonder we enjoy disagreeing!

    There may be hope for you yet–are you Black Irish, or of the paler persuasion?

  • Dan says:

    Barbara, despite my roots in Ward 8, I’m the whitest white boy you are ever likely to encounter.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    I’m pretty pale myself, except for my dark curls and darker heart. lolol

  • […] This is non-negotiable. If you do not understand why it is unacceptable under any circumstances to refer to other human beings as “it,” if you do not understand the meaning of such sentiments in human history, then you do not understand anything of moral behavior. In the absence of such understanding, your claims that you are “not for discrimination for any reason” are hollow and meaningless. […]

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Well you two, color and national origin are already covered.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    LI, what about Black Irish Austro-Hungarians?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    Liz Miller is already on the case of the overweight!

    Expect Stevens to move to add this at the next BOS meeting.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Well, shouldn’t she be?

    We breathe less efficiently, and consequently have a larger carbon footprint.

  • Caroline says:

    I was actually enjoying this page until Dan had to put that ignorant slang about black people. Can we PLEASE have one forum where we can talk intelligently about the issues?? Yeah, I am conservative but not an asshole about it. Sometimes,I think that the real niggers are white people! DAMN!!!

  • Eric the 1/2 troll says:


    If you are so sick of hearing about this issue, why did you bring it up?

    But now that it is posted, if you are against creating protection for classes, why not eliminate all protection for race, sex, religion, age, etc? What do you think will happen?

    I guess what I am saying is perhaps there really is or has been a problem with discrimination based on (perceived?) sexual orientation. Do we know there is/was not? I don’t. Frankly, if we are against discrimination against gays, why not come out and say so (via our elected representatives)? Why not be clear about it?

  • Henry Hale says:

    Your ignorance is baffling; I wish I could meet you in person. You would never say or write that word again in your lifetime; that’s guaranteed, just ask someone about me.

    The new EEOC was needed because gay rights is the new human rights fight in this country, and many are reluctant to fight with our GLBT brethren and sisters because of what others may think of us. Well, I proudly stand with this community, because they stood with Black folks during our struggle for civil rights not too many years ago.

    Eugene Delgaudio should be ostracized by the Loudoun County community, regardless of political affiliation, for embarrassing the county and making it look like the laughing stock of thestate/

  • Elder Berry says:

    Have you ever worked with anyone who is transgender? If you have you probably know that they are people just like everyone else.

    I hate the dismissive attitude of this posting and it is almost as bad as Delgaudio.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Mr. Hale, the quote is from Blazing Saddles, written by a Jewish comic genius (I recall lots of Jewish people–didn’t some lose their lives?–in the civil rights struggles of the 60’s), starring an African American and Jewish comics, which skewered racism and prejudice in many forms.

    A bigoted townsperson somewhat won over by the black sheriff he had opposed agrees to let black and asian railroad workers settle in the township—but NOT the Irish.

    Every immigrant group has suffered from having its own set of prejudices directed toward it, as the author of the story points out over and over again in the picture.

    I don’t always agree with Dan, but I seriously doubt he was calling someone the N word, unlike the poster who first chided him for it.

    Black Irish is not necessarily a racial joke (other than among the Irish, referring to the dark-haired Irish and antecedents–most likely the Milesians, according to some, as opposed to the more romantic “survivor of the Spanish Armada” legend) Bernie Mac’s line in Charlie’s Angels notwithstanding.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Barb, it’s clear Mr. Hale needs to brush up on his Mel Brooks…
    Since the thread has turned to comedy, I read this recently and I had to laugh: “I joined the Republican Party for the homophobia but stayed for the anonymous gay sex.”

  • Leej says:

    ed that is the funniest thing said on these blogs in a long long time 🙂

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    I may be mistaken, but I believe Caroline and Mr. Hale are objecting to use of the word, period.

  • And that is because it is an objectionable word, intended to classify a certain kind of person as *less than human*. Seeing a pattern in history, anyone? Anyone besides Elder Berry and BO, that is.

    Context notwithstanding; yes, the stupidity of racists is fodder for comedy, as is the stupidity of people with a kindergarten understanding of gender. Why anyone would put an ounce of effort into running interference for either sort is beyond me.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, do you mean yourself, black civil rights, or the Irish as far as a pattern in history?

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, I see you’ve posted about me on your blog…tomorrow.

    What’s wrong with the time stamp? just curious, though.

    Machinations? Okay…

    Can you please explain for me the legal difference in definition for anti-discrimination purposes between sex and gender, and IF gender has more of self-selection in it as opposed to the simple biological determinant label of sex, then please explain why gender identity is further different? Is one conscious and one perceived?

    That isn’t simple machination–I’m honestly interested in the legal differences, since we’re enacting law on them.

  • […] been astounded by those local commentators who erroneously insist that “Virginia law already protects everyone” from discrimination, and that therefore […]

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    So, after having read the post at EL, am I to conclude that yes, Loudoun just adopted legislation in advance of enabling legislation to adopt anything at all?

    And should SB 66 pass, does this mean we can all really get down to work parsing out all the possible ways to discriminate, and make sure all of them have recourse should any of them ever happen?

    Kiss the budget goodbye, at every level.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    p.s. to David–please, what is the legal differentiation between the policy concepts of sex and gender, and if gender is self-determined or perceived, why does it not cover gender identity?

    Honestly wanting to know, and the time lapse in answering grows.

    I’d hate to say “tick tock”, but as you’ve used it yourself David, well…tick tock can you please answer the question?

  • Barbara – I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t think I’m qualified to give you a definitive answer on the legal question. Short answer: Gender is not “self-determined” in the sense that I think you mean. Sometimes people are assigned the wrong “sex” at birth (and there you see the ubiquitous conflation of the terms sex and gender) for a variety of medical reasons, resulting in the need for them to legally and socially change “sex.” Ideally, my opinion is that any discrimination on the basis of gender identity *should* be treated as discrimination on the basis of gender, since they are in reality the same thing. The recent case of Diane Schroer v Library of Congress found for the plaintiff on the basis of Title VII, so maybe that will become the recourse for transgender people who are discriminated against. See My sense, though, is that many people who comment here don’t think any nondiscrimination law is needed at all. Perhaps I am mistaken.
    In any case, I hope that helps.

  • Oh – and I think you’ve misread SB 66. It applies to state level government employment only.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    Thank you for the reply David.

    My use of “self-determined” was not intended as some kind of behavioral remark, but more as “what gender the self in question determines they are”, because most of what I skimmed in looking for an answer had to do with “sex” referring to biological deteminants, and gender referring more to societal gender roles, and what roles the individual chooses as opposed to those assigned by “sex”.

    Consequently, yes, part two of my question would be that if that is the case, then it would appear gender identity would be covered under gender for non-discrimination purposes.

    I think you may very well be mistaken about the all-or-nothing aspect, David.

    That is the problem IMO with one dimensional combative issues advocacy.

    The one-dimensional here does not refer to YOU personally (lest you assume) but to the idea that balking at yet a third parsing of sex, gender, identity, is not objection to overkill in legalese, or a desire for specific groups to be discriminated against, hurt, etc. Not including the mythical african-american spanish-speaking lesbian chinese specifically by subgroup ALSO does not mean proof that everyone REALLY REALLY hates them and wishes them harm.

    I think that kind of advocacy actually does more harm to any issue than anything.

    And that is how our Dem demagogues (other than Buckley, who had the grace to note partisan demagoguery on both sides of the issue, and it appears Burk and Kurtz did not insert much into the discussion) McG and Miller presented it.

    All legitimate legal questions on Dillon or public hearing were responded to with simplistic “hater” language.

    Nothing like giving Eugene an opening, eh?

    But perhaps that was the point.

    And now the issue is narrowly and simplisticly defined for Sterling and the current 86th.

    How nice.

    If so, what bullshit.

  • As I’m sure you can understand, it’s not that simple. This issue has been litigated for many, many years, and Schroer is the first case in which the court found in this way. It should be obvious to a sensible person that discrimination against a transgender person is discrimination on the basis of that person’s gender, and we seem to be on the same page there. However, defendants in these cases have always successfully argued otherwise, and in the absence of specific protections on the basis of gender identity, these plaintiffs have been without recourse. My hope is that eventually the finding in Schroer will result in settled law. That’s the way it should have been from the beginning. In the meantime, I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I and others should stop advocating for the right to equal employment opportunity, especially on behalf of a population for whom it is very much a life and death issue.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    I’m sorry David, but there goes that one dimension again–when did I argue against equal employment opportunity, or suggest that you STOP?

    For you to assume that anyone reluctant to parse possible sexual/gender discrimination three or more ways, in what would seem to be finer and finer lines, is automatically FOR total nonprotection of anyone is far beyond what you may be encountering here.

    I don’t know if public employment is something I would qualify as a life or death issue, either.

    You may have strayed more into the area of potential hate crime, such as the cases of the young transgendered individuals murdered in DC a few years back.

    It was obviously a life or death issue for those people, and the only public employment issue there may be studying whether those tasked with bringing the murderers to justice discounted the crimes on an investigative priority list because of the status of the victims.

    In the mess that is DC government, I would imagine that would be very hard to conclusively prove.

  • The situation for those young women and many like them has everything to do with widespread and blatant employment discrimination against them because of who they are.
    The need for specific legal protection from discrimination on the basis of what you are calling “yet a third parsing of sex, gender, identity” is the creation, as I said, of those who made successful legal arguments that they were not discriminating on the basis of gender. When people who are discriminated against are told by the courts time and time again that there is no remedy for them under existing law, guess what? They work to change existing law to include them. You did in fact object to this kind of advocacy. Review your own words.
    It seems to me that you have decided, regardless of anything you are told, to see this merely as a “political” issue rather than something that actually matters to real human beings. And that is what I find so disappointing.

  • Barbara Munsey says:

    David, again, the issue under discussion here is Loudoun County employment policies, at least that’s where it started.

    As far as the people murdered in DC, are you suggesting that it is the government’s job to provide jobs?

    These women may not be good examples of the county argument, because what skills did they have for employment at a level that would have allowed them to afford pursuing full transition?

    Unfortunately, it appears from what I read (which I’m sure wasn’t everything there was) that they did not have higher education that would have allowed the outcome present in the LoC case of the former Green Beret.

    In the brief discussion of the hurry-up issue at the BoS, HR and the county atty affirmed there had been no complaints.

    Has someone trans feared to apply for a job because of the lack of gender identity in policy, and they believe that is their only job option?

    Your argument seems to be that the DC victims would have been served better, had good jobs, etc if policies were in place like we just adopted here in Loudoun. That may well be. And having language in place may not have saved them either.

    By all means, advocate for your issues, but I don’t see how adopting seemingly redundant language, in a place that is not experiencing documented discrimination, addresses the issue of trans people of limited means getting murdered in the inner city.

    I don’t think it is the county’s job to create jobs for all people who COULD suffer discrimination, and I don’t believe you are seriously advocating that. (Remember, this was COUNTY GOVT hiring policy)

    It IS their job not to discriminate against any qualififed person.

    As I said, and several BoS members said, it seems that’s what we already do.

    There is a right and a wrong way to adapt policy. The right way includes putting it through staff for review, i.e. HR, Legal, etc.

    This was unnecessarily messy, and thus smacked of political points (on both sides) and little else.

  • M says:

    Here’s the thing Mr. Loudoun Insider, sexuality is something that can not be controlled. What physical sex and gender identity are two completely different things, or did they not teach you that in your bible thumping Sunday School?

    You’re fat and ugly? Then excersize fatty! Are you naturally fat and have no control over it? Heh… bull. Watch “The Biggest Loser” sometime and you will know just how wrong such a notion is. Lazy? Who the hell would want to hire you if you choose not to work!? We are decent and productive members of society and deserve to be treated as such. The problem is that “Good Christians” like you have their head stuck so far up their asses that you don’t realize that times have changed! This isn’t the dark ages anymore. Grow up!

Leave Comment