Last week, the US Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on a vote of 64-32. Just so we know what we are talking about, click here to read the complete text of the bill. Here is a bullet list of what it does and just as importantly, what it doesn’t do:
What ENDA Does
- Extends federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability to sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, ENDA extends fair employment practices — not special rights — to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
- Prohibits employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation.
- Prohibits covered entities from subjecting an individual to different standards or treatment based on that individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or discriminating against an individual based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of those with whom the individual associates.
- Provides for the same procedures, and similar, but somewhat more limited, remedies as are permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- Applies to Congress and the federal government, as well as employees of state and local governments.
What ENDA Does Not Do
- Cover small businesses with fewer than 15 employees.
- Apply to religious organizations. Any religious entity exempt from Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination will continue to be able to exclude gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.
- Allow preferential treatment, including quotas, based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Allow for a “disparate impact” claim available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, an employer is not required to justify a neutral practice that may have a statistically disparate impact on sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to compel employers to collect statistics on sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Apply retroactively.
As the post title says, I think that the House should vote on the bill and pass it but it doesn’t look like John Boehner is going to allow a vote on the bill.
Since passage of the bill, I’ve received dozens of emails from the usual self-described “Christian” organizations opposed to the bill. They talk of hidden agendas to destroy traditional marriage, attacks on Christianity, it is an affront to religious liberty, it means the federal government is equating homosexuals with heterosexuals, etc.
So I thought I’d take a moment and tell you what I think and why. As a self-described “follower of Jesus”, I try to apply His two commandments to everything in my life. I said I try! 😉
First would be “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” Second is “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is that second one that compels me to support ENDA, especially considering the close to Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount“. Matthew 7:12: says:
This is what our Scriptures come to teach: in everything, in every circumstance, do to others as you would have them do to you.
More than simply doing no harm to others, He is commanding us TO DO for others. From the New American Commentary:
7:12 In view of God’s generosity to us, treating others in the manner we would like ourselves to be treated is the least we can do. “As you would have them” does not imply “in order that they might,” as some have mistakenly thought. Verse 12 embraces an impressive amount of scriptural teaching, including, as Jesus says, the “Law and the Prophets” (the Old Testament). This epigram has become known as the Golden Rule because of its central role in Christian ethics. Jesus assumes no pathological deviations in which one would desire to harm oneself, and he presupposes the perspective of disciples who seek what is God’s desire rather than self-aggrandizement.
Many parallels to this “rule” appear in the history of religion. Of those closest in time and milieu to Jesus, see especially Tob 4:15, Hillel in b. Sabb. 31a, and Did. 1:2. Most of these parallels phrase the rule negatively (sometimes called the “silver rule”), implying, “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” It is not clear how significant this difference is, but Jesus’ positive phrasing does remind us of the principle that we can never fully carry out Christ’s commands. As Mounce explains: “In its negative form, the Golden Rule could be satisfied by doing nothing. The positive form moves us to action on behalf of others.”97 But from a Christian perspective even negative commands imply positive action. Thus, e.g., in the first antithesis (5:21–26) even if we succeed in not murdering and in not hating or verbally abusing others, we still have not completely obeyed until we earnestly seek others’ well-being. With its reference to “the Law and the Prophets,” 7:12 ties back in with 5:17 and provides a frame to bracket the body of the sermon.
Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, pp. 130–131). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
I cannot fathom how it could be in the best interests of my neighbor to fire them simply because of their sexual orientation. Or not to hire them in the first place. We as followers of Jesus are commanded to go forth and tell the world that good news. How can we do that if we continue to separate ourselves from the world under the pretense of “protecting” our beliefs?
This basically expands liberty in the U.S. It doesn’t restrict religious freedom – churches and other religious organizations are exempt from enforcement. For those saying that it isn’t constitutional, that horse left the barn long ago and is not going back in. Some say that it will expand frivolous lawsuits but that is protected by the clause that eliminates disparate impact lawsuits. It also specifically prohibits quotas and preferential treatment.
It is time for Republicans to be men and women of courage. Justice should be blind and the scales of justice balanced. Let’s do the right thing and encourage passage of this law.
Gotta disagree.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act supposedly didn’t allow those things – untilled they suddenly were executive,judicial, and administratively ordered to require them. Plus Harry Reid has already cut deals with gay groups to strip religious liberty protections from it as soon as possible.
Government should never discriminate – but that also.means that it should not strip business owners of the right to operate their businesses according to their own values, absent a compelling government interest that can be met in no oother way. Given that GLBT folks have a higher level of education and higher socioeconomic status than average Americans, there is no substantive harm to that population that needs to be undone.
So should Asians and Jews be exempt from any employment discrimination projections because they “have a higher level of education and higher socioeconomic status than average Americans.”
You sound like your advocating some kind of affirmative action program instead of anti-discrimination legislation.
Mr. Right is obviously wrong and dumb. people are fired everyday in states that
say they can just for being gay and that is so wrong . It is no different from being able
to fire you because you are black.
You offer no substantiation for this assertion:
As I pointed out, income and education aboung these groups equals or exceeds that of straights. Where is the substantive impact on interstate commerce that is necessary to justify such a federal law? It does not exist.
And why not allow a vote on the bill? Easy — because it is a bad bill that enacts a bad policy that will substantively harm the rights of business owners and others who hold to traditional religious beliefs.
No way! Vote no on ENDA. It sounds like a good idea, but in practice it would be yet another business-stifling litigation boom, helping mostly lawyers and increasing the already heavy regulatory burden on business, which falls disproportionately on small business.
And as for Jesus of Nazareth, in his whole three-year ministry on Earth, he never once went to Governor Pontius Pilate and asked him to regulate anyone’s behavior.
OK, So where is the “the substantive impact on interstate commerce that is necessary to justify” the civil rights act of 1964? Or the 1967 supreme court ruling in Loving v Virginia?
That you arbitrarily, and in a pious authoritarian fashion, simply declare the legislation to be “bad policy” as justification for legislative inaction says a lot, and none of it is relevant outside an axiomatic claim of power over others. Yours seems to be a viewpoint born more of dominionist dogma than libertarianism. It seems disingenuous and superficial to me.
If you are a believing Christian, you should not endorse policies or actions that reward behavior that is clearly identified in the Bible as a mortal sin.
Like eating oysters and lobsters or people that have tattoos? Come on. We’re all sinners. His biblical exegesis of the Greatest Commandment is correct.
Also, let’s not question a brother in Christ’s faith. There’s only One who gets to judge. And that One commands you to love your neighbor.
Yet one more reason to keep the company small and have few employees.
Mr. Howell, treating all people equally under the law is not a reward, nor is it special right. Furthermore, this country is not a theocracy (even though your party’s state platform describes it as such.) Thirdly, it’s none of your business. Finally, the fact that you believe in the Bible does not endow you with the right or power to control others lives, discriminate against them, or arbitrarily punish them by cherry picking a few verses that just happen to have political impact you desire, while remaining willfully ignorant of other verses in the very same chapter of your book.
Be consistent, Mr. Howell. Do you also support laws to prohibit bacon wrapped shrimp? According to your Bible, that’s a double abomination. (Personally, I think they’re a delicious “sin.”)
If you are a religious person who speaks within the public arena or owns a business, ENDA will trample your religious, free speech, and assembly rights. It will trample religious rights because it will force the religious to ignore key principles from their religion. It will trample free speech because it would deny those who disagree with ENDA from speaking out against it. It will trample our assembly rights because it will compel the religious to avoid assembly with those of like religious mind (outside of the 4 walls of the church) who might act out their faith.
In short, ENDA would send many religious Christians and Muslims to the back of the bus.
Conversely, it would be good for the religious among us to ramp up our humanitarian work to those who do not agree with us.
Regarding specifics of how ENDA tramples individual rights for religious individuals, refer to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=41420&ref=BPNews-RSSFeed1105
I can’t wait for the crash when transgender fashion rights collide with OSHA safety codes. “Pants! That’s sexist discrimination!” or “It violates my rights to be forced to wear boots made from animal products!”. This could be hilarious.
David G,
In response to “So should Asians and Jews be exempt from any employment discrimination projections …”
Asians and Jews have been exempted from admission discrimination protections and have been fighting the University of Texas, University of California, and other liberal bastions because those universities deem that there are too many Asians and Jews at their institutions.
For more information, refer to any number of articles (including http://diverseeducation.com/article/57373/#).
You are comparing apples and oranges. What Universities do is what is called affirmative action. Something I am 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} against. Affirmative action gives people a boost due to their race. Non-discrimination laws level the playing field by making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and other non-work related categories.
The two have nothing to do with each other.
Mr. Armstrong, I’ve read the Baptist Press article you linked to above. Are you aware that similar organizations raised exactly the same objections when the Civil Rights Act was passed, nearly 50 years ago? Do you recall all the protests and similar complaints of “destroying religious freedom” that resulted when the last of the social conservative authoritarian hold-out states were finally forced to “permit” interracial marriage? Are you even aware of other states and municipalities that have enacted laws similar to ENDA, without the dire predictions of doom that you spread?
You’re entitled to your opinions, and I’m entitled to mine. History sides with my argument. So does reality.
But by all means, continue to hitch the republican party’s buggy to an increasingly lame horse. I’ll pop some corn and enjoy the ride as my former party continues to self destruct over silly issues, and the rest of the nation laughs at their folly.
bob42: ” Are you even aware of other states and municipalities that have enacted laws similar to ENDA, without the dire predictions of doom that you spread?”
Oh there’s DOOM pending for Mayor Castro and councilman Bernal in those recall petitions being circulated right now….
Why not wait for Mayor Parker to push for this (NDO ordinance) in her third and final term before the House takes a vote on it?
Oh, really?
A recent petition to repeal the controversial San Antonio city ordinance received about 20K of the 61K signatures it needed to move the effort forward. I see no rational reason to predict that a revenge petition against the mayor and a council member will fare any better. But I could be wrong. Perhaps the social conservative authoritarians can get a few more miles out of their lame horse, in Texas. But not nationally, and that is why the republicans in congress are too scared to even discuss ENDA.
But back to my original question, “Are you even aware of other states and municipalities that have enacted laws similar to ENDA, without the dire predictions of doom that you spread?”
Can anyone cite a few instances where religious freedoms have be “trampled” as another commenter suggested? Has anyone been stopped from protesting, praying, assembling, or voicing their opposition?
“Truth Matters.”
Every employer “discriminates” (i.e. “makes a distinction”) all the time . The only way to make a hiring decision without discrimination would be to put the names of all the candidates into a hat and pick one.
There is an inherent contradiction in the arguments of the advocates of ENDA, who contend that what they do in private has nothing to do with their work, but then also argue for the right to be “out of the closet” while at work.
ENDA goes beyond prohibiting unjust discrimination and poses several problems. As noted at http://tinyurl.com/los9k8m, ENDA (1) lacks an exception for a “bona fide occupational qualification,” which exists for every other category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, except for race; (2) lacks a distinction between homosexual inclination and conduct, thus affirming and protecting extramarital sexual conduct; (3) supports the redefinition of marriage, as state-level laws like ENDA have been invoked in state court decisions finding marriage discriminatory or irrational; (4) rejects the biological basis of gender by defining “gender identity” as something people may choose at variance with their biological sex; and (5) threatens religious liberty by punishing as discrimination the religious or moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, while protecting only some religious employers.
Basically, ENDA is an official government declaration that homosexual behavior is the equivalent of heterosexual behavior in every way, and that those who believe otherwise are bigots.
Silent Archer, does your “religious freedom” depend on your ability to employ the force of government to punish me for, or prevent me from, enjoying sex without being married?
(I’m heterosexual, btw, since this seems to be of such importance to you.)
Seriously, what part of limited government and “mind your own business” do you fail to understand? It really looks like you support a theocracy, and that is fundamentally problematic.
Re: limited government and “mind your own business” — As discussed in the Federalist Papers, the idea of limited government originally implied the notion of a separation of powers and the system of checks and balances promoted by the U.S. Constitution. This understanding of limited government maintains that government is internally limited by the system of checks and balances as well as the Constitution itself, which can be amended, and externally through the republican principle of electoral accountability. The Constitution limits the power of the government in several ways, most notably by prohibiting the government from directly interfering with certain key areas: conscience, expression and association.
“Limited government” stands in contrast to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Under that doctrine, the king, and by extension his entire government, held unlimited sovereignty over his subjects. His government could intervene to promote equality and outcome through regulation — which is exactly what ENDA would do.
Seriously, what part of limited government and “mind your own business” do *you* fail to understand?
bob42, Really? A revenge petition?
A real revenge petition is going before SCOTUS right now.
Elaine Photography v Willock is about the vengeful Vanessa Willock who sued Elaine Photography because Elaine and her husband felt their Christian beliefs conflicted with the services Willock asked to contract for. Willock easily found another photographer for her ceremony BTW. (psst, that’s the free market operating)…
Elaine and her husband believe they are being compelled by law to compromise their beliefs…and a judge ruled compromising their beliefs is the “price of citizenship.”
No one should be forced through the coercive fist of government to compromise their beliefs in order to earn a living.
I must have missed the widespread news accounts of the lawsuit filed after being refused employment at the Muslim Bank on 59 in Sugar Land. And I would never be so vindictive as to sue to force the Halal store near my home to sell me kosher food or seek the government to force the Hasidic store owner to sell halal products.
Would you wish to be compelled to hire Yvonne?
As Rhymes noted, where is the substantive impact on interstate commerce to justify this?
Yes, I really think it is a revenge petition. It follows a failed petition to overturn the ordinance itself, and directly targets two people who supported that ordinance. It too will fail (Even John Hagee has backed down from it.) But the attempt provides comfort and consolation to the social conservative authoritarian losers, I’m happy for them, and of course I deeply respect their right to petition.
I also think that vengeance, and the desire to make a political statement were a motives in the 2006 photography suit in NM. However, NM’s laws are not ENDA. Furthermore, the defendants in that case could have saved themselves some money by settling it out of court. They chose not to, and they too were making a political statement.
There was a similar case in Oregon, more recently where a baker, attempting to make a political statement, refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religious beliefs. No lawsuits were filed there. The outraged local population boycotted, and he closed his retail shop. This is also an example of the free market at work, btw.
Ultimately, in both examples no religious freedoms were “trampled.” In both cases the people remain free hold any belief they desire, worship as they please, as often and as loudly as they like. They are free to have their own show on TBN, and join the ranks of dozens of other TV preachers that claim persecution if they are not permitted by law to inflict their cherry picked portions of the Old Testament on others via the force of government, while providing no rational reason to perpetuate discrimination.
I can point you to Bible verses that could easily be interpreted to support racism and racial segregation/discrimination. I can also point out a few restaurants in SE Texas and SW Louisiana where black people know better than to try to order lunch. The difference is that supporting racial discrimination based on religious beliefs is no longer a successful political tactic. In time, this will also be true of this issue.
Ultimately, our entire discussion is probably moot, because congressional republicans are not likely to allow the bill to be discussed, much less allow a vote on it.
If anyone has stayed with this thread this long, I encourage you to re-read Big Jolly’s original article. It makes good sense, even if you are not religious, and makes even better sense if you are. Good job, Jolly!
Must be easy to dictate how business owners deal with problems you will never have. If you owned a publicity firm and were offered a lucrative campaign to ban cannabis and you would go broke without the deal, would you take it, go broke, or sue? This seems to be the only moral ground on which you stand.
I’m not a business owner, but I’ll address your hypothetical anyway. When I was in broadcasting, the local sheriff, well known for boasting about his “accomplishments” in stamping out pot, and also known for busting college kids for small amounts while maintaining a hands-off approach to the major traffickers in return for money.
Because it is political speech, the FCC has regulations involving political advertising–You pretty much have to do it. So we did. Even though everyone from the station owner on down to the air staff (and probably the shop cat that lived in the studios as well) found the man reprehensible, immoral, and unethical, we took his money, and produced and aired his spots on schedule.
Similarly, when I worked the “dollar a holler” early Sunday shift (we called it that because 30 minutes cost $30.) I certainly didn’t agree with what the litany of fire and brimstone preachers said on their programs. But I operated the studio in a professional manner, and even gave them tips to better their delivery. It was my job, and it’s what the station was in business to do.
The two business owners discussed above took a risk when they used their public accommodations to make a political statement by refusing to do business with same sex couples. One failed in a court of law, and the other in the court of public opinion, aka, the free market. Their religious freedoms were no more inhibited than a murderer’s would be if he used the Old Testament as a legal defense for burning a witch.
As to your attempt to impugn my morality, I support your right to say childish and insulting things, and I have the same right to suggest that you write that opinion down, roll it up, and shove it up a goat’s …
Blah, blah blah. Never a dime out of your pocket.