ENDA: Ending an Important Employer Right
- Sep 5, 2007 - 7
For more than four decades, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans have enjoyed the right to seek employment on equal footing with others, protected from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Age and disability were added as protections years later. But now a characteristic that would change the face of employment protections for the worse could soon be added—sexual orientation.
Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 2015), or ENDA, employers would be prohibited from firing or refusing to hire or promote someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law currently protects an employer’s right to bar job applicants from gaining employment as well as to deny employees from receiving promotions based upon homosexual orientation. ENDA would provide exceptions for religious organizations as well as the military and businesses of less than 15 employees.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), a self-proclaimed homosexual, reintroduced the bill in April and hopes to move it through Congress this fall. The House Education and Labor Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) will hold a hearing on ENDA Sept. 5.
The legislation has been introduced in each congressional session since 1994, with the exception of the 109th Congress. It came closest to passage in 1996, when the Senate defeated it 49-50.
Although the ENDA lobby argues that its passage would bring the U.S. one step closer to equal treatment of all individuals, First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, and association would be trampled underfoot as employers could be forced to hire someone whose homosexual lifestyle runs contrary to their biblically-informed beliefs. ENDA would also chip away at the bedrock of our society, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, and move government toward acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.
At this pivotal time in our nation’s history, when many people are trying to expand privileges to homosexuals, including the right to marry, Congress should not open the door to the normalization of homosexuality as a valid, alternative lifestyle with ENDA but should instead seek ways to strengthen traditional marriage. Passage of ENDA would supply more ammunition to those who support expanding privileges for homosexuals, while, at the same time, make it more difficult for Congress to approve a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
If you agree that a federal law to protect homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace would place an undue hardship on employers whose faith beliefs do not condone homosexuality, please tell members of the House HELP Subcommittee to oppose H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007.
Members of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions:
Democrats
Robert E. Andrews (NJ), Chairman
(202) 225-6501
Yvette Clarke (NY)
(202) 225-6231
Joe Courtney (CT)
(202) 225-2076
Phil Hare (IL)
(202) 225-5905
Rush D. Holt (NJ)
(202) 225-5801
Dale E. Kildee (MI)
(202) 225-3611
Dave Loebsack (IA)
(202) 225-6576
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
(202) 225-5516
George Miller (CA)
(202) 225-2095
Linda Sanchez (CA)
(202) 225-6676
Joe Sestak (PA)
(202) 225-2011
John F. Tierney (MA)
(202) 225-8020
David Wu (OR)
(202) 225-0855
Republicans
John P. Kline (MN), Ranking Member
(202) 225-2271
Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (LA)
(202) 225-2031
David Davis (TN)
(202) 225-6356
Virginia Foxx (NC)
(202) 225-2071
Peter Hoekstra (MI)
(202) 225-4401
Kenny Marchant (TX)
(202) 225-6605
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (CA)
(202) 225-1956
Tom Price (GA)
(202) 225-4501
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)
(202) 225-2006
Timothy Walberg (MI)
(202) 225-6276
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation, Religious Liberty
comments (post your own) feed
1 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 3:03am, Marti Abernathey wrote:
You claim and ethical stance, then LIE?
“SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.”
2 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 5:55am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Carlson says: “ENDA would also chip away at the bedrock of our society, the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, and move government toward acknowledgment of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle.”
Wow! That’s quite a lot there Mr. Carlson. Protection in employment discrimination is going to chip away at the very bedrock of society? Much in the way Plessy vs. Ferguson did?
At least this author doesn’t hide his sentiments as much as the others writing for this website. He’s got the guts to come out and say..“Congress should not open the door to the normalization of homosexuality as a valid, alternative lifestyle”
That’s the bigoted fear they have on all of these civil liberty issues. If we are “normal” how can they keep beating us up?
Mr. Carlson…. I AM NORMAL!
At last a truthful essay that clearly states the fearful foundation of their bigotry.
3 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 11:30am, Jack Van Dyk wrote:
It is a well-established fact that the homosexual lifestyle carries with it an assortment of health risks and deadly diseases that individuals in a monogamous, married, heterosexual, relationship do not ordinarily experience.
It seems to me that if an employer wants to keep his/her healthcare costs down, then he/she should have the right to refuse employment to those who choose to live an extraordinarily dangerous lifestyle.
As Americans, we can do what we want, but our choices carry consequences that impact all of society. At the very root of it all, it seems to me that EDNA is an economic matter. It’s just a matter of sound economics to let an employer choose how much he/she wants to increase their healthcare costs (and how much of it they want to then pass on to us, the consumer!).
4 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 12:22pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jack Van Dyk,
As a gay man I have so many issues with your commentary but let me just say for the sake of clarity here:
HIV/AIDS transmission can be substantially curtailed with correct consistent condom use. Lack of education and empowering knowledge are the biggest risk factors in contracting HIV and other STDs.
Being gay is not the issue, being ignorant, careless or uninformed are the real risks to one’s long term health.
Do you assume that all gay couples are not monogamous?
5 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 3:30pm, Barry Wright wrote:
Mr. Valdes,
Not all homosexual couples are monogamous. It is a known fact that most homosexuals have dozens of “partners” in a lifetime. This is a given.
Being a homosexual is most certainly the issue. God tells us in His Word not to engage in such behavior. He considers this far from normal behavior, or rather, accepted behavior. You say HIV/AIDS transmission can be curtailed. That does not mean completely avoided. God is loving and compassionate. He established these boundaries for the sake of our health - both spiritually and physically. I think this is what Mr. Van Dyck is trying to say.
Ultimately, God wants what is best for all of us. Why is this such a hard thing to accept?
I sure hope that laws are passed to guarantee me employment because I wear my shoes on the wrong feet.
6 On Sep 5th, 2007, at 4:29pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Mr. Wright,
I asked him if he assumed that all gay couples are NOT monogamous because he seemed to imply that in his commentary.
As you may know, not all heterosexual couples are monogamous either, serially or concurrently.
When people say that being gay is a health risk, they show their underlying bias, even when they may not be cognitive of it themselves.
Risky behavior is not the exclusive domain of the gay male. If you believe it is, get to know your heterosexual neighbors better.
This thread is about ENDA, however, so it’s best to keep focused on that singular issue.
This is a civil liberty issue, not a religious one. It’s the SBC that is trying to commingle religion and political activism in order to achieve their biased ends.
I don’t understand their motives but one day soon all this will be a non-issue as people see gay persons not as broken but simply as one variant on a sexual continuum.
7 On Sep 8th, 2007, at 6:16pm, Harry Rockefeller wrote:
Dan raises valid points.
How can discrimination continue against those of certain sexual orientation when the courts have said their behavior is not civilly punishable?
The argument can’t be based on health risk. There are just too many logical holes. Just to name one. Suppose in an interview a prospective employer could legally come right out and ask: “are you homosexual because if so, I will not hire someone who is a medical liability”. How is that so different from “are you promiscuous because if so, I will not hire someone who is a medical liability”.
We all know the Bible carries no authority in any civil way here in the U.S. Judges have been known to reprimand lawyers who quote Scripture inside the courtroom. So, that argument, at least in any legal sense, is a dead end too. So, is there no way to prevent this change to ENDA? I have written on this in my blog.