" (Link and Coleman 171). Most would say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act's ban on gender discrimination also assumes that it bans discriminating against sexual orientation, but that is not the case. "Federal courts have repeatedly refused to construe the 1964 Civil Rights Act to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation" (Sobelsohn 110). Why does our government refuse to give equal treatment to the gay and lesbian community? Sobelsohn says it is partly because people that oppose job discrimination laws claim that "such a law will bring little benefit, because job discrimination based on sexual orientation takes place so seldom..."(111). Opponents of this law also believe that such a law will bring substantial costs. These costs fall into three categories: administrative, health, and moral. Employers do not want this law passed for many reasons, but one is that they believe they will spend more money accommodating homosexuals; but this has proved untrue. In a 1995 study, accommodating the gay and lesbians at work has actually saved employers an average of $10,000 in increased productivity and reduced costs of workers' compensation, other insurance, and finding and training new employees (Sobelsohn 113). Another issue addressed by employers is the health costs. They argue that civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians would increase the spread of AIDS and HIV. They also argue that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. Both of these arguments have been proven false by medical science and written evidence. AIDS and HIV cannot be transferred from one person to another through casual contact, which is most common at the workplace. Even at hospitals where co-workers are more exposed to the virus, the risk of transmission is very slim. Also for people that argue that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children, "most cases of child sexual abuse involve h...