 |
          
  |
|
|
ABC News reports that
Congressman Barney Frank is pushing legislation that would force employers to accommodate
homosexuals and cross-dressers. Despite
supposed religious exemptions in the legislation, this bill would force many employers
to legitimize sexual behavior that they might find offensive or inappropriate.
The
Hill reports that several senators have introduced legislation that would
require businesses to accommodate and legitimize many forms of sexual deviancy
in the work place. Similar legislation in
several states has allowed male cross dressers to enter women’s restrooms. Although fighting workplace discrimination
always sounds good, ENDA would pose a huge threat to religious liberty and
public safety.
The
Hill reports that the US Congress will soon be facing legislation designed
to undermine the traditional definition of marriage and offer special unequal
privileges based solely on sexual behavior.
Alan
Sears of Exodus International explains.
Excerpt:
No sooner had he finished speaking of his
fellow Americans in his inaugural address as a people who “have chosen hope
over fear [and] unity of purpose over conflict and discord” than his staff
posted, on the White House Web site, a virtual declaration of war against those
who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in
homosexual behavior.
Daniel
Herbster reporting
Citizens for Community Values of
Indiana is one of the many great organizations in our nation fighting to
protect family values and to oppose pornography and sexually oriented
businesses. I had the opportunity to
interview Patrick Mangan, the Executive Director of CCV of IN, about his work
enabling people to take back their communities.
DH: Patrick, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you and your
organization better over the last few months, so it’s a pleasure to introduce
you to our readers here at AdvanceUSA Blog.
I’ve seen first-hand how your work affects the state of Indiana and
especially my home town of South Bend.
Tell our readers what kinds of issues Citizens for Community Values
works on?
PM: Well our mission is to protect men, women, and
children from the misinformation of sexual activists, and the harms of sexual
addictions, sexual predators, sexually oriented businesses, materials harmful
to minors, broadcast indecency, and the porn/sex industry in all of its forms,
by promoting the principles of the Judeo/Christian ethic which is the
foundation of our nation.
Our vision is to empower concerned citizens and
community leaders to significantly reduce sexual exploitation, promiscuity, and
abuse in Indiana and beyond by:
CitizenLink reports. Excerpt:
Last year, the U.S. House of
Representatives took up a bill that would have enshrined homosexuality and
"transgenderism" in federal law. The legislation passed only after
language to include "gender identity" was taken out. The Senate has
not taken up the measure, but it is expected to resurface in Congress next
year.
Daniel Herbster reporting
Did you know that legislation could be
passed in your state or on the national level that would allow cross dressers
or even sexual offenders to use women’s restrooms? The state of Colorado recently passed such a
law in the misguided desire to prevent “discrimination” against
“transgendered” individuals. AdvanceUSA interviewed
Jim Pfaff (who now works for Americans for
Prosperity) back in April about his work at the Colorado Family
Institute. We’ve decided to touch base with him again about Colorado’s
Senate Bill 200 and how it could be a grim harbinger of things to come
nation-wide.
DH: Senate Bill 200, recently signed by Colorado Gov. Bill
Ritter, claims to protect against “discrimination.” Do you think that is
true?
JP: It really doesn't protect
anyone from discrimination. The legislation was intended to protect
homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals from so-called
discrimination. But really no such discrimination existed. The proponents of
the bill claimed that there were a multitude of homosexuals being
systematically discriminated against, but we looked at the numbers and found
out that at best approximately 175 cases of such discrimination were ever brought
forward. And of those, less than 3 to 4% had any validity to them. On the other
hand, we maintain that this bill actually will have the effect of imposing by
government Fiat a new form of discrimination against those of sincere religious
belief. And as I said in our previous interview, one example we have is a
Christian couple in Albuquerque New Mexico who owned a photography company and
was hauled into a civil rights court because they refused to take pictures of a
lesbian same-sex commitment ceremony based on their sincerely held religious
belief. We believe many more cases like this will begin to emerge here in
Colorado, and in our opinion this bill therefore does nothing to protect anyone
from discrimination and, to the contrary, will likely cause new forms of
discrimination.
DH: What are some of the scary implications of this
bill? What could happen as a result of its passage?
JP: Well, the first and the
most scary application of this bill is the fact that based on the wording of
this law, any man, for example, can of legal right to enter a woman's restroom
by merely stating that he perceives himself to be a woman. That's the first and
most concerning aspect of this new law. But secondly, as I stated before, this
bill could be used to discriminate against people of sincere religious belief
became merely refuse to appropriately accommodate homosexuals, bisexuals and
transgendered individuals based on a sincerely held religious belief.
DH: Is there a push to enact this kind of legislation on the
national level or in other states?
McClatchy
News reports on the recent
Congressional hearings on “transgender employment discrimination.” So-called anti-discrimination legislation
would be a dangerous restriction on religious liberty. Excerpt:
Opposing the legislation, Glen Lavy, an
attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said it would be a mistake to define
gender identity or gender expression as a protected class. He said that
objections to "the concept of transgender" are based on religious
beliefs and that forcing the idea as a valid concept "is like forcing an
Orthodox Jew to eat pork." And he said that employers would have
difficulty enforcing dress codes and assuring privacy.
"With gender identity being totally
subjective, who could challenge any male who says he wants to use a woman's
restroom?" Lavy asked.
Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the
top-ranking Republican on the committee, questioned whether Congress needs to
get involved at all.
"We have numerous federal and state
laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent
discriminatory practices," he said. "Do we need yet another federal
law?"
The
House Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is now holding
hearings entitled “An Examination of Discrimination Against Trangender
Americans in the Workplace.” View the live
video here.
One
of the goals of these hearings is to advance legislation which would require
businesses and religious organizations to hire cross dressers and sex-change
operation recipients despite any religious or moral convictions which would be
violated.
As
this
gay publication reports, Congress will hold hearings on dangerous
legislation such as ENDA which would endanger religious liberty at the expense
of a misguided notion of “gay rights.”
As this NPR article demonstrates, when “gay
rights” and religious liberty conflict, religious liberty usually loses. This is an important fact to emphasize as gay
couples are now obtaining marriage licenses in California.
A few examples cited by NPR:
A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered
to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been
sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned
its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with
same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in
California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused
to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a
doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose
his pending case before the California Supreme Court.
And then there's the case of a wedding
photographer in Albuquerque, N.M.
CitizenLink reports. If the dangerous “hate (thought) crimes” and
ENDA legislation now in Congress gets passed into law, we could see similar
persecution in the United States.
 Brian Fitzpatrick explains how the modern push for “gay rights” endangers religious liberty. He catalogues the outrageous international cases of religious discrimination and demonstrates how legislation currently being pushed in Congress will bring such restrictions to the United States.
Our friends at FRC have also been sounding the alarm. If you don’t want churches, private schools, and businesses to be forced to hire homosexuals or “transgendered” people and you don’t want Christians to be persecuted for their religious convictions contact Congress today. Call both your senators and your representative and urge them to vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or any legislation giving “domestic partnership” benefits to homosexual couples.
It
appears the Colorado Legislature is trying to keep up with California for
nuttiness. As the Colorado Springs
Gazette reports, Gov. Ritter signed a bill into law which would allow
the “transgendered” to use whichever restroom they prefer and no private
business is allowed to prohibit this activity, all in the name of so-called “non-discrimination”
and “equality.” Excerpt:
One aspect of the law enables transgenders
- those who were born one gender but identify with the other - to use public
restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.
…
Focus founder James Dobson said Thursday:
"Who would believe that the Colorado
state Legislature and its governor would have made it legal for men to enter
and use women's restrooms and locker room facilities without notice or
explanation?
"Henceforth, every woman and little
girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a
homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their
presence." Don’t
think this kind of legislation won’t be coming to a state near you in the near
future. Liberal activist are pushing for
similar legislation on the federal level such as ENDA and other items.
Keep
checking AdvanceUSA Blog for the latest news on these important issues.
CitizenLink
reports on the outrageous
“non-discrimination” legislation in Colorado which would make “open to men,
women, bisexuals, transsexuals and ‘transgendered’ individuals.” If ENDA
or similar legislation is passed in Congress, the entire country could be
subjected to these kinds of policies.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Exodus International is the largest network of former homosexuals in the world and assists local ministries around the world in helping people overcome same-sex attraction and the homosexual lifestyle through a relationship with Christ. They also use their unique expertise to speak out on important cultural and societal issues. I’ve had the opportunity to work with members of Exodus on a number of occasions so it’s great to be able to interview my friend Randy Thomas who is Vice President of Exodus. The following is my interview with Randy.
DH: Randy, how long has Exodus been in existence and how did it get started?
RT: In 1976, sixty-two ministry leaders met in California to talk about their efforts to help those dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction and how they, as independent ministries, could network to help one another in this effort. The vision and name for Exodus was born out of obvious parallels that could be drawn from the Children of Israel leaving Egypt and entering the Promise Land. These visionaries had the accurate view that being “gay” should not be the only option for those with same sex attractions. They knew that our “Promise Land” was the knowledge of and relationship with Jesus Christ. They knew that there was so much more to life than what a gay ideology was offering and so they developed the network we now know as Exodus. Thirty-three years later our network has over 200 member agencies across North America who reach thousands of people seeking help. We are also affiliated with other ministries around the world who offer this perspective on homosexuality to a world hungering for positive alternatives.
Sixty-two people cast a vision that has now helped millions of people and educated millions more about biblical sexuality.
DH: One of the tenants of our modern, politically correct culture holds that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable but “gender identity” is unfixed and can change. Do you think this is true, and how does Exodus’s unique perspective relate to this issue?
RT: Recently I wrote on my personal blog a post called “The Transgender Double Standard.” In it I shared, ‘It’s always astounded me how willing some in the gay activist community are to celebrate someone surgically altering their body to “become” who they perceive to be internally. Yet when I determine I want to reorient my sexual orientation, which does not require drastic surgery or body altering drugs, according to those same activists, I am the one doing damage to myself and others by simply holding to a particular worldview that brings me contentment and sexual reorientation. The transgendered are applauded for radically altering their bodies while I am scolded for holding the belief that I would be happier living out who I truly am regardless of my past life as a gay identified man. It¹s ok for someone to ignore what they were obviously born as, but for people like me - we are told being “gay” is genetic and should be embraced because we have no other option.’
This is a terrible conundrum for militant gay activism because their own moral relativism is being exposed. We were all created with free will. We all have the ability to define right and wrong for ourselves. The issue with moral relativism is that eventually it will prove out to be hypocritical because it is self based moral judgments instead of God¹s creative intent which is unchanging. Sixteen years ago I decided that maybe God’s intent for my sexuality and identity just might be beyond my own seemingly logical conclusions. I started to question everything in life and attempting to live out my identity and sexuality in accordance with my faith. My identity has completely changed in that I am not a “gay” man anymore. I am a Christian. I will hopefully be known as a man of God. My sexual orientation has shifted a great deal as a byproduct of my pursuing purity and holiness.
Notice I said shifted. I am not above temptation and if temptation happens, I know why and what to do about it. Regardless, homosexuality does not have the power to determine who I am or how I steward my sexuality.
DH: Would you mind telling us about your background and how you came to work at Exodus?
A so-called “anti-discrimination” bill in the Colorado legislature is very similar to the proposed ENDA legislation in the U.S. Congress both of which would award special privileges to homosexuals and transgenders based on their “actual or perceived” sexual behavior. Concerned citizens must be vigilant to oppose this kind of dangerous legislation. The Alliance Defense Fund gave testimony against the bill which is also very relevant to the federal version. Excerpt:
“The government shouldn’t cater to the agenda of political activist groups and then use the strong arm of the law to force it on the public,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “This law would not protect rights but would grant special privileges based strictly on someone’s sexual behavior. Further, those privileges would have a significant impact on the constitutional rights of Coloradoans who have a moral objection to homosexual behavior.”
 Homosexual activists gathered in our nation’s capital from a few days ago until Tax Day (today) lobbying for what they call “family values.” Their agenda includes supposed anti-discrimination legislation like ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and instituting laws which provide what substantively amount to marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
Concerned citizens must be careful to clearly state that we do not hate homosexuals or wish to persecute them, but that we strongly object to creating special rights and privileges based on sexual behavior and we believe that organizations and companies should have the right to deem certain behavior unacceptable for their employees.
If these legislative goals proceed they will likely include some sort of “religious exemptions” which only protect churches and other explicitly religious organizations, but which do not cover individual employers such as private companies and certain non-profits. For example, while a Catholic church might be exempted from being forced to hire or accommodate homosexuals or same-sex couples, a Catholic businessman or leader of a faith-based charity would not be protected. The religious freedoms of individuals should be protected, not just the religious freedom of large organizations.
The bottom line is that sexual behavior should not be given preferential treatment under law under the guise of anti-discrimination. Also, the crucial institution of marriage should not be undermined by offering special marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
ACTION: We do not yet know when Congress will consider such legislation, but we encourage you to contact your representative and both your senators to urge them to oppose ENDA and other attempts to give substantive marriage benefits to same-sex couples.
The Washington Times reported in
February on the case of Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer in New Mexico,
who refused
to take pictures of a lesbian civil ceremony. Elaine is being prosecuted under
anti-discrimination laws and the Alliance
Defense Fund is now coming to her assistance. This case is a chilling reminder of why
anti-discrimination laws based on “sexual orientation or gender identity”
should be opposed, especially on the federal level (i.e. ENDA). Here’s an excerpt from the Times:
An evangelical Christian photographer was
brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after she declined for
religious reasons to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
When Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, N.M.,
declined in September 2006 an e-mail request from a lesbian couple to
photograph their ceremony, one of the lesbians responded by lodging a human
rights complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division, the state agency
charged with enforcing state anti-discrimination laws and sending cases to the
commission to be adjudicated.
LifeSiteNews
also reported
on this case.
The
Wall Street Journal mentions the dangerous
Employment Non-Discrimination Act in an article on several anti-business
bills that could progress in the current Congress. Another concern with ENDA, besides
restrictive government regulation of business, is the threat that
non-discrimination laws based on “actual or perceived” sexual preferences could
pose to religious freedom.
Excerpt:
…the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
passed the House of Representatives last fall. It would prohibit discrimination
on the basis of "sexual orientation." In short, private-sector
employers who have religious or other objections to homosexuality would be told
their moral views lack legitimacy.
The Bush administration has announced its
opposition, noting that the bill raises constitutional problems and "turns
on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance,
and enforcement extremely difficult" and is "virtually certain to
encourage burdensome litigation." Sen. John McCain is opposed to such
legislation; Sens. Obama and Clinton are supporters. Sen. Edward Kennedy is
expected to introduce the bill later this year in the Senate. For more information on ENDA click here.
AdvanceUSA has learned that ENDA, after having
passing the House of Representatives recently, will likely be put on the Senate
“calendar” within a week. This means that it could be considered at any
time. However, there are about a hundred total bills on the Senate
calendar, so it is not certain that the Senate vote on ENDA is imminent.
It could even be pushed back to next year.
Be
assured AdvanceUSA will keep a watchful eye on this dangerous
legislation. For more information on ENDA click here
or here.
 Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr. voices his concerns with a
number of issues he sees as a threat to religious freedom. Doubtless the
ENDA bill and hate crimes legislation are clear and present dangers to free
religious expression, and the movement to
resurrect the discredited “fairness doctrine” is a blatant affront to free
speech. Read Jackson’s
full
column here.
For more
information on religious freedom click here or here.
Yesterday the House passed ENDA by a vote of 235 - 184. Check the vote box below or on the Congress Vote Watch page to see how your representative voted on this dangerous legislation. An amendment proposed by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to broaden the religious exemption for churches and other religious institutions passed, but the bill still ignores the threats to the religious freedom of regular employers. Furthermore, the underlying bill sets a dangerous precedent by elevating sexual behavior as a civil rights issue akin to race, religion, or gender. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) had an excellent article Tuesday in Human Events which explains the serious religious freedom and litigation concerns with ENDA. Fortunately, the President has vowed to veto the legislation.
For more information on this threat to religious freedom which is also an open door to wasteful and malicious litigation, check the AdvanceUSA home page or the ENDA category at AdvanceUSA Blog.
House Vote on H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (Passed)
November 7, 2007
Full Results | News Story
|
|
|
Yeas |
|
Nays |
|
PRES |
|
NV |
|
Republican |
|
35 |
|
159 |
|
— |
|
6 |
|
Democratic |
|
200 |
|
25 |
|
— |
|
8 |
|
Independent |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
TOTALS |
|
235 |
|
184 |
|
— |
|
14 |
H.R. 3685, the dangerous Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), will likely be voted on today in the House of
Representatives. While liberals may attempt to whitewash it with religious
freedom and marriage protections ENDA is still a dangerous step toward special
federal protections based on sexual behavior. ENDA is part of the overarching
homosexual strategy to undermine traditional marriage and legitimize
deviant sexual behavior. For more information on ENDA click here
or here.
House
Minority Leader Roy Blunt (R-MO) has a very helpful article today in Human
Events which explains the serious religious
freedom and litigation concerns with ENDA which would be well worth your
time to consider. Excerpt:
One thing, however, is certain: Passage of this bill would
effectively create a brand new market for litigation, and set up the opportunity
for billions of dollars for trial lawyers. Another bill, another
Democratic payback to their special interests, more burdens on American small
businesses, more attempts to limit religious speech -- well, just another day
under this Democratic Congress.
AdvanceUSA
will post the vote results of the House vote on ENDA as soon as they become
available. Be sure to see how your
representative voted on this dangerous bill.
The
Washington Blade (homosexual news publication) explains the
strategy of the “gay rights” agenda while offering critique to help
proponents obtain the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage. The article suggests a “incremental” approach
in which marriage and civil unions are not discussed until the public is
“ready.”
A
suggested plan of attack includes these stages of building in this order:
- Hate Crimes
- ENDA
- Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell”
- Permanent Partners
Immigration Act
- Civil Unions
- Repeal Defense of Marriage
Act and Overturn State Marriage Amendments
Click here
to read the full explanation.
Star
Parker has an excellent column explaining the
problems with the dangerous ENDA legislation and exposes the hypocrisy of
many radical homosexual organizations.
Excerpt:
We've got legislation moving
through Congress, pushed by gay activists, that would make it illegal for an
employer to not hire, or to fire, someone because of their sexual orientation.
But the head of the nation's largest gay-activist organization asks Obama to
fire a man because he is a Christian and an advocate of traditional values?
For more
information on ENDA click here
or here.
The Daily
Mail reports on this outrageous case. This is an example of what can result
from laws dictating “tolerance” and “non-discrimination” towards
homosexuals. Congress would do well to consider cases like this when they
vote next week on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685).
More on
ENDA here and here.
Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., (Chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and author) has written an article criticizing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) because it endangers families and is an insult to the real civil rights movement. First he draws a distinction between this attempt to mandate privileges based on sexual preference and the civil rights movement seeking to prevent racial discrimination. Then he gives five reasons to oppose ENDA. Click here to read the entire article or see below to read Jackson’s five reasons to oppose ENDA.
1. ENDA would overturn the historical basis of protected class status by adding “actual or perceived sexual orientation.” While every other federally-protected class embodies three standards: an obvious, immutable characteristic; a history of discrimination evidenced by economic disenfranchisement; and political powerlessness, “sexual orientation” falls under none of these criteria. It is an insult to African Americans to grant special protections for “sexual orientation.”
2. ENDA expands civil rights protections on the vague basis of perception. An employee or potential employee could sue an employer for his or her perception of their sexual orientation. Yet unlike the currently-protected classes of race, age, and gender in employment, sexual orientation is not scientifically verifiable. It is an offense to African Americans to equate “sexual orientation” with skin color.
3. ENDA infringes on the religious liberties of our parishioners. As shepherds of our flock, we cannot stand by while our parishioners are forced to ignore their convictions when they leave church on Sunday. ENDA requires people of faith to lay down their religious freedom at the office door. This opposes our beliefs and it is not practical – faith cannot be segmented into only one part our lives.
4. ENDA puts the integrity of our ministries in jeopardy. Many African-American churches run outreach ministries separate from the church to care for our communities. My local church runs a daycare which cares for over 200 children daily and the potential to serve another 100+ children in extended care for those who are in school. ENDA provides unclear protection for schools, while leaving ministries such as childcare, after school programs, and food and clothing banks vulnerable to ENDA mandates.
5. ENDA is a direct attack on our freedom of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment grants all Americans the freedom to practice their faith. ENDA stands in direct opposition to this liberty and must be rejected as a result.
The
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685) was favorably reported out of the
House Education & Labor committee by a vote of 27 – 21. Four
amendments were offered to the legislation in order to highlight the severe
danger it poses to religious liberty and to illustrate the litigation nightmare
that would ensue if enacted into law.
ENDA will
be voted on soon (most likely early next week) so keep calling your
representative and urging him or her to vote “No” on ENDA (H.R. 3685)!
Also, an amendment will most likely be offered on the House floor which would
add “transgender” people (cross dressers, sex-change recipients, etc.) to the
special privileges and regulations established by this law.
Continue
reading for more information on the amendments offered and some of the
statements made during committee markup today.
Chuck
Colson paints an alarming
but accurate picture of what could happen in America if the dangerous ENDA bill
becomes law in his column at Townhall.
Excerpt:
Imagine you own a small business—let’s say a donut
shop—and you have an employee who is late for work everyday and is rude to
customers. When you fire him, he claims it is really because he is gay—and
sues.
Or imagine you run a daycare center in your church
basement. One day a homosexual applies for a job. When you turn him down, he
says you broke the law.
Today, both of these stories are simply scenarios. But by
the end of the week, they could be reality.
For more information on ENDA check the material on the
AdvanceUSA home page
or the other blog posts in the “ENDA” category.
The latest version of ENDA no longer includes “gender identity” as a protected class and contains a broader exception for religious institutions. However, the legislation still recognizes “real or perceived sexual orientation” as a protected class and adds a two-part test that religious organizations must pass in order to have their beliefs on sexual morality protected. Furthermore, the legislation still burdens businesses with unnecessary regulation which could cause a litigious nightmare and harm work force morale. The committee markup originally scheduled for today has been postponed. AdvanceUSA will continue monitoring the situation closely.
UPDATE: Fox News reports on the delay in ENDA legislation due to concerns over “transgender” protections. The article includes quotes from liberal LGBT activists.
On
September 5 hearings were held in the House Education and Labor Committee on
ENDA. The hearings were rather one-sided as 6 witnesses and 3
Representatives supported the bill, one witness merely expressed concerns with
the legislation, and only one witness opposed ENDA. For transcripts of
witness’s testimony from the hearings click here.
For more information on this dangerous assult on religious freedom and simple fairness check our ENDA blurb on the AdvanceUSA home page.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), introduced in April and scheduled for a hearing on September 5, would create new privileged classes under the guise of prohibiting employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Far from guaranteeing constitutional rights to a discriminated race or gender, this bill would grant special privileges to those who participate in homosexual activity and heap more intrusive regulations on businesses and organizations, including some religious organizations.
There are a number of serious problems with ENDA. Many employers who have religious objections to hiring homosexuals or transgenders would be prohibited from refusing to hire such a person based on those beliefs. Furthermore, many who have suffered real discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race or gender, see adding sexual orientation as a protected class as an insult to what they suffered and achieved in the civil rights movement. Finally, if passed, ENDA could help make gay marriage and civil union legislation all the more likely.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the most liberal members of Congress, has introduced the bill in the House (H.R. 2015), and it is now in several House committees. With heavy support from labor unions a similar bill will surely be proposed in the Senate so concerned citizens should be watchful. While churches are exempt from ENDA, other religious organizations are not, resulting in serious assaults to freedom of religion. Call your representative today and urge him or her to vote “No” on H.R. 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)!
|
|
|
| |