ENDA: Unacceptable to Religious and LGBT Groups?
- Oct 16, 2007 - 5
Efforts by one member of Congress to pass legislation to provide special workplace protections to individuals based on “actual or perceived sexual orientation” have triggered an uncommon alliance in opposition: religious groups and homosexual groups. But the bill’s chief sponsor believes that despite the pushback he may now have the necessary congressional support for passage.
For several months, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), an outspoken homosexual, has been looking for the most opportune time to move through Congress the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 3685), better known as ENDA, which would prohibit employers from taking sexual orientation into account when making hiring, firing, or promotion decisions. Unfortunately, that time is now upon us. The House Education and Labor Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill Oct. 18, and a vote on the House floor could follow next week.
The committee abruptly postponed a scheduled markup earlier this month after Rep. Frank, acknowledging, “We do not have sufficient support in the House to include in that bill explicit protection for people who are transgender,” sparked outrage among many homosexual groups by stripping protections based on gender identity from the bill. He had hoped that dropping the gender identity provision as well as broadening an exemption for religious organizations would allay concerns and attract more congressional support.
The political maneuvering, however, has proven to be a double-edged sword that has led the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) community to oppose the bill along with the religious community. Rep. Frank and other congressional supporters of the new bill have now found themselves on damage control, trying to bring back into the fold LGBT groups that have pulled support for the bill for lack of protections for transgenders. Now Rep. Frank has asserted “we finally—after thirty-plus years—have the votes.”
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and other pro-family organizations, however, still find the bill unacceptable because it would force many employers with moral objections to homosexuality to violate their freedom of conscience in employment decisions.
While the new version includes a broadened exemption for religious organizations, many schools, universities, day cares, shelters, and job training services with religious missions would not be covered. ENDA ultimately would undermine what these schools and services believe to be their God-given mission by forcing them to cater to homosexuals. Unlike current employment protections based on race, age, and gender, “sexual orientation” is behavioral.
Further, the business community at large would be forced to comply with ENDA’s special protections for homosexuals, creating a hostile work environment and opening employers to a litany of lawsuits. Merely keeping a Bible on a desk or a Scripture verse on a wall in an office, for example, could be viewed as discrimination based on “actual or perceived sexual orientation.” As countless employers would inevitably be brought to court, no one knows how a judge would interpret “perceived” and the unintended consequences that would follow for employers and employees.
Despite the sponsors’ efforts to create a bill more attractive, or less repulsive, to both the pro-family and pro-homosexual communities, ENDA remains a threat to the constitutional principle of equal protection and would create inappropriate government intrusion on businesses and the religious community.
If you agree that a law granting homosexuals special rights in the workplace would place an undue burden on businesses and religious organizations, please tell members of the House Education and Labor Committee to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 3685).
Offices of House Committee on Education and Labor:
Majority (Democrat) (202) 225-3725
Minority (Republican) (202) 225-4527
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty
5 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 7:12am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Carlson states."Unlike current employment protections based on race, age, and gender, “sexual orientation” is behavioral....
“ but that is simply not true. What behavior? I am gay when I am sleeping, eating, drinking, working, etc...so what is he talking about?
2 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 8:09am, Nathan Falco wrote:
This is an interesting twist! However, I could not agree more with the general evangelical stance against the ENDA bill, not just from a Christian viewpoint, but from a democratic view of the tyranny that would be imposed on the individual conscience!
3 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 10:52am, russell page wrote:
How would this bill affect the military? Especially the don’t ask don’t tell policy?
4 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 1:19pm, Pastor Ike Riddle wrote:
Dear Richard,
We must stand strong against this kind of manipulation. No other group has this kind of protection and neither should the gays. We must restore the fact that to our Holy God, homosexuality is an abomination and not a favored status.
Keep up the great work.
Pastor Ike
5 On Oct 18th, 2007, at 8:59pm, s.dick lindsey wrote:
I am definitely opposed to this H.R. 3685. It has the potential of taking away religious freedom from employers. It could also be misinterpreted by pro-active judges which could lead to problems in private Christian Universities,ect.