ERLC’s Land sets the record straight on ENDA

By Doug Carlson - Sep 18, 2007 - 5

A stacked deck of witnesses urged passage of a highly controversial bill to provide workplace protections to homosexuals and transgenders during a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing Sept. 5. But the measure continues to face stiff and principled opposition from the pro-family community, including the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. The full committee could review it as early as Sept. 19.

Noticeably missing in the subcommittee hearing was a balanced share of viewpoints on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 2015) (ENDA). Backed by a majority of the Democrat-led subcommittee, eight witnesses spoke favorably of ENDA, while just one witness found fault with the bill and another remained neutral. The hearing took place in the House Education and Labor Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

ERLC President Richard Land sought to counter the nearly one-sided presentation with a written statement to the subcommittee, expressing concern the bill might lead to government intrusion into the religious community and businesses.

Among religious liberty concerns addressed in Land’s statement on ENDA are that the measure:

  • Attempts to distinguish between various activities of religious organizations, exempting some of their activities from its hiring protections but not all of them;
  • Renders religious organizations that provide such activities as child care, private school education, and job training services vulnerable if the government does not consider their primary purpose to be religious teaching; and
  • Places an undue burden on religious organizations, which could be required to declare ahead of time which activities are sufficiently “religious” and, therefore, exempt and which are not.

Business concerns on ENDA communicated by Land include:

  • Bases workplace accommodations on perception of gender or sexual orientation needs, unlike some workplace accommodations, such as gender and disability, which are based on immutable characteristics;
  • Opens the door to chaos in the workplace when individuals claim the right to wear whatever they believe is appropriate for their sexual identity;
  • Differs from other workplace mandates because it requires employers to accept the gender identification made by the employee regardless of actual physical evidence to the contrary;
  • Enables a person who is anatomically male to claim female gender identity and therefore demand access to space previously reserved for women, such as the women’s restroom; and
  • Suggests that an employer will be able to classify all employees as either male or female in gender, even though many authorities speak of transgender people who perceive themselves as both male and female, or neither.

Click here to view Dr. Land’s full statement on the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 2015) submitted to the House HELP Subcommittee.

If you agree that a law granting homosexuals and transgenders 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. 2015).

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, Legislation, Religious Liberty

5 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Sep 20th, 2007, at 7:24am, John Elliott wrote:

I think that there should be no special rights for people who do not like the way they were made by God. If they do not accept their gender they need to pray about it and if God changes them then they can go to the other restroom. Until that happenes it would be way to much confusion in letting males go to female restrooms are the other way around.
I also think that the Constution has already given Churches the right to not have Congress make rules for them and their rights.

2 On Sep 21st, 2007, at 7:19pm, luther marvin walters wrote:

it depends on the workplace. gay scoutmasters - no way.  pedophiles in day care centers - never.  i believe in equal rights for everybody but there are exceptions.

3 On Sep 22nd, 2007, at 8:25am, John Shelton wrote:

This appears to be yet another attack on churches and people of faith.

4 On Sep 25th, 2007, at 8:42am, Dan Valdes wrote:

Just what church do you go to John Shelton?  How in the world do you imagine this employment bill affects your church?  Have you educated yourself about it or are you following the fold?

5 On Oct 7th, 2007, at 9:24pm, Sandra Dunn wrote:

Re. ENDA
I must say that I’m surprized at the comments you printed about Enda. If a chruch is involded with other activities other then “religous” activities then they must be involded in business. As for the choas in the workplace , have you looked at they way some of the people dress for work ? Some companies have a dress code which may need to be adjusted ,if and when that issue comes up for that particular company it can be handled with a memo until the next reprint of the policy manual comes out. On the disability comment , are you anti ADA? I am a veteran , I beleive that every person has the right to equal oppritunity without descrimination no matter what! If that person can do the job let that person do it. Women wear mens clothes at work , Whats The Difference? The women are practicing crossdressing. Thank you for the oppritunity to address this issue with you , Sandra Dunn

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com