A few weeks ago, the media carried a story about a bed-and-breakfast in Florida that allegedly refused service to “straight” people. It made news because it’s like the “man bites dog” story. It’s just so unusual. It’s certainly not a story if a hotel refuses gays and lesbians. Even the military can refuse us.

But it would be ironic if Congress finally provided gays and lesbians with job and other protections because “straight” men and women began to complain about pervasive bias against them by GLBT hotel workers and employers. Maybe we should change “Coming Out Day” to “A Day Without a Gay” or “Gays Retaliate Day.” I would like to see Congress hold hearings, inviting straight men and women to testify as to how gay and lesbian supervisors subjected them to all forms of job bias.

It may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. … Here’s a case that just came out: Danielle Howard enrolled at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois, in the fall of 1998. She was a productive member of the women’s basketball team during her sophomore and junior seasons. At that time, the head coach was Linda Olson. Karen Seremet was the assistant coach.

According to the court, in what eventually became the case of Howard v. North Central College, student Howard alleged that head coach Olson began to exclude her from certain team activities at the beginning of her junior season in 2000. During a team luncheon on November 17, 2000, Howard allegedly voiced her opposition to homosexuality. Howard claimed that both Olson and Seremet told her not to express her opinion on the subject.

Shortly thereafter, Howard said she overheard Seremet and another player speculating about her sexual preferences. She also alleges that Seremet repeatedly talked to her about lesbian activity in an effort to “indoctrinate” her. She claims that, because she resisted “lesbian indoctrination”, Olson decreased her playing time in favor of an inferior player.

Olson also allegedly told Howard she was no longer allowed to wear ribbons in her hair because it was “too feminine.” She claims that, as a result of indoctrination efforts, dress code requirements and unbalanced personal criticism, she was forced to leave the team. According to her, Olson was seen laughing and celebrating when she quit.

She and her parents complained to school officials. Shortly thereafter, the college asked for Coach Olson’s resignation and, when she refused, terminated her. The athletic director then promoted Karen Seremet to fill the vacancy. Seremet refused to reinstate Howard to the team.

So Howard sued in federal court, alleging that she suffered bias on the basis of her gender. The court, however, found that the crux of her claim was sexual-orientation bias. Federal law does not prohibit bias based upon sexual orientation. And because Congress won’t specifically include “sexual orientation” in federal law, it’s very difficult to get claims heard in federal courts when the persons doing the harassing are of the same sex as the victim. For example, had Howard alleged that the coaches had made sexual advances toward her, then she’d have a claim because she was subject to bias because of her sex. Also, Howard would have a claim if she could show that female coaches harassed her because of a general hostility to the presence of women in the workplace.

Howard did not allege she was the target of sexual proposals. Second, the court ruled, “there is no suggestion that the coaches were motivated by a hostility toward females in an athletic setting. Indeed, plaintiff alleges that certain females, less talented than she, received favored treatment.”

The only other way to get a gender bias claim heard in federal court – and this is the way gays and lesbians have to do it – is to show that the bias is the result of failing to conform to a “traditional gender stereotype.”

In one case, a male 16-year-old who happened to wear an earring was subjected to constant, mostly verbal, abuse by his significantly older male co-workers. They called him “faggot” and “queer”, and questioned his gender, threatening him with sexual assault. On one occasion a co-worker grabbed his crotch “to finally find out if [he was] a girl or a guy.” The court found this type of same-sex harassment to be actionable discrimination based on sex.

But in the Howard case the court noted that Howard’s claim was neither based on sexual harassment under a gender stereotyping theory nor as sexual-orientation bias. If anything, it was based on her bigoted comments on homosexuality.