"Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA) Has Passed the House!

[Ridgerunner]

EEOC cases do not work quite as described. The EEOC (usually in coordination with similar state agencies) investigate a claim. They might or might not make “settlement recommendations”. EEOC has the right, in any case, to use federal (or state if the state agency wishes) to prosecute the case on tax dollars. By “prosecute” I mean an action for money, reinstatement in employment, changes in the employer’s way of doing business, etc. Normally, EEOC prosecutes only those cases in which they wish to establish some precedent they deem important to their interests.

If EEOC does not want to proceed itself, it gives the claimant a “right to sue” letter which he/she can take to a private attorney to file a private suit. It costs employers a great deal of money to defend even the most frivolous of those suits. $50,000 each would be a bare minimum. There is a reason for that.

The big problem with this legislation is that it’s so vague. What is “sexual orientation”? What is “perceived sexual orientation”? As mentioned before, if a male comes to work dressed as a female, that would create a “perceived sexual orientation” in a manner of speaking. Even if he was not homosexual (and I understand most of those aren’t) cross-dressing is still an “orientation”.

Bestiality? Pedophilia? Those are also “sexual orientations”. Sexual sadism is a “sexual orientation”.

This is a welfare program for trial lawyers. Besides that, it will put employers and employees at the mercy of every expression of “sexuality” imaginable. There is no provision excepting flamboyant or disgusting behavior. Once the courts get finished inventing all the “penumbras” in this, there will be a lot of very unpleasant surprises.

I don’t know of any employer who would discriminate against someone just because he/she is homosexual or because he/she cross-dresses at home, as long as it isn’t made some kind of workplace issue. Most large employers have homosexual employees and don’t think anything of it as long as they act appropriately and don’t make an issue of it. But “sexual orientation” also includes “expression of sexual orientation”, particularly with the “perception” part added.

Notwithstanding the “religious” exception which to many courts doesn’t mean anything anyway, this bill would certainly apply to public schools. So, if John Smith turns to “Jane Smith” mid-semester, everybody just has to live with it.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Dale_M;3659274]

A fair question, and one I can only answer partially. I read the bill when it was being debated by the House last year. But it passed late last year, and I can’t find any recent news articles about it, so I am a bit confused. Is the bill going by a different name?

The AFA’s website doesn’t have any seem to have any recent articles regarding ENDA. Perhaps Surf(name removed by moderator)ure can tell us what is the bill number so we can look up its history, as well as its exact text.

H.R. 2015, introduced on 24 April 2007 by Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce, does include gender identity within its protections; and

H.R. 3685, introduced by Representative Frank on 27 September 2007 and passed by the Education and Labor Committee on 18 October, does not include gender identity within its scope.

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR03685@@L&summ2=m&

 

[leftistdestroye]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure;3659837]

A very good point. Indeed, I wonder if this isn’t getting very close to “hate crimes” legislation now. I recall a particular email sent out by Catholic Answers about severe and unjust punishment for perceived “hate crimes” (i.e. a pastor saying homosexuality is a sin, but that we should be sure to love the sinner) in Europe and Australia. Are we next? Are the thought police alive and well in America?

Let me state again for the record that I would have no problem employing a well-qualified and well-mannered gay person to work in a non-religious business. I would realize that many of my employees are likely living sinful lives sexually (that’s the norm these days), and as long as the private life stays private, for both groups, I don’t see why being gay ought to be an impediment to job performance.

What I am arguing against, however, is giving a gay person a special legal privilege to claim. Under the proposed legislation, if I fire John because John is lazy, and John happens to be gay, and John does not agree that he is lazy (few lazy folks do), John is perfectly likely to lawyer-up and file suit, claiming that he was really fired because he’s gay. He could then go on to describe, true or untrue, a “hostile work environment” where he felt “ostracized.” He could say other employees talked about him, or that they or I made him feel uncomfortable. And then guess what it boils down to? My word or his.

And if it goes before a judge who happens to think all Catholics are bigots, guess what? Lazy John now owns my business.

You are 100% correct, on all points.

 

[surfinpure]

Thanks, left. The thread grew so fast that I missed this post.

 

[leftistdestroye]

pathia;3659981]

If this was the case, ever black, hispanic or asian person would be filing EEOC claims whenever they were laid off.

And that DOES happen. I have seen it. I work construction, we all get laid off from time to time. I knew a black guy who was laid off, sued for discrimintaion, won, and was re hired and never laid off again. He retired from that company, while I keep getting laid off. Where is MY government protection?

The process is long and grueling and not particularly entertaining. You’re saying this person who was gay and fired for being lazy is going to bother to stick it out for all of the paperwork and voodoo involved in an employment case, when they were fired for being lazy. Think about that a moment now.

Sure, there is big money in it. I can show where tax payers have payed 4,226,000 in harrassment suits involving schools.
aclu.org/lgbt/youth/11898res20070209.html

That’s the ACLU and schools alone!

Civil cases are another matter, but those can be filed regardless of law. You can sue in civil court for anything at all if you have the time and money to bother.

And how is freedom defended, when the government picks one side over another? Is that fair?

 

[householder]

Does anyone know the bill number, or name, of the legislation just passed by the House? Leftistdestroye mentioned some bills from 2007, but I am curious about the bill Surf(name removed by moderator)ure mentioned in the original post.

 

[surfinpure]

Does anyone know the bill number, or name, of the legislation just passed by the House? Leftistdestroye mentioned some bills from 2007, but I am curious about the bill Surf(name removed by moderator)ure mentioned in the original post.

The bill that passed is HR 3685.

govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2015

 

[urban-hermit]

I am in favor of allowing people the right to make reasonable distinctions as to who would or would not be appropriate for certain positions. The military allows only men in combat positions, the girl scouts allow only girls. Where someone’s homosexuality is relevant to the position he seeks it is appropriate to decide either for or against him on that basis. That it is not relevant in most situations is not reason to ban it from the decision process in those cases where it is relevant. Since there are only a few situations where homosexual behavior is an issue this bill really has virtually nothing to do with addressing an actual problem. It is not about forcing legal recognition; it is about forced legitimization.

Ender

Thank you Ender, very well put.

In addition, I do not feel it is a religious issue, as the framers of the bill seem to by giving a religious exemption.

The atheist has just as much of a right as the Catholic to ask that homosexual sex acts not be treated as right and good in our public policy.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally do not feel that a person should be fired based upon their sexual orientation but I can also see how this “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” could have negative repercussions as well.

 

[leftistdestroye]

I personally do not feel that a person should be fired based upon their sexual orientation but I can also see how this “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” could have negative repercussions as well.

So if you had to vote, where would your ink lie?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Does anyone know the bill number, or name, of the legislation just passed by the House? Leftistdestroye mentioned some bills from 2007, but I am curious about the bill Surf(name removed by moderator)ure mentioned in the original post.

The bills were introduced last year, the House has passed it and the Senate will vote on it sooner than later according to thomas.loc.gov. If it fails I expect it to be reintroduced and tried again.

I would of course vote a big YES if I could.

 

[wapsi]

This may be a non-issue.

And now, ENDA proponents are fighting not only Republicans, but time as well.

“The biggest problem right now for any legislation in the Senate is simply the clock. There’s only so much floor time on the Senate to consider legislation, and there are some important must-pass pieces of legislation, particularly the appropriation bills that fund the government,” said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which supports passing ENDA in the Senate, and one of the organization’s lead lobbyists on LGBT issues. Anders said if Kennedy plans to bring up ENDA as a free-standing bill he will likely need to do so between now and mid-June. After that, the only viable option would be to attach it as an amendment to one of the aforementioned “must-pass” bills.

edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=national&sc2=news&sc3=&id=72852

The article is from a gay news source, and is one month old, but the fact that there hasn’t been any news on the matter since then suggests that ENDA isn’t likely to go anywhere.

 

[surfinpure]

This may be a non-issue.

edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=national&sc2=news&sc3=&id=72852

The article is from a gay news source, and is one month old, but the fact that there hasn’t been any news on the matter since then suggests that ENDA isn’t likely to go anywhere.

Thanks, wapsi. That’s somewhat encouraging. It also reminds us that the ACLU is pushing this thing, and that cannot mean anything good.

 

[Holly3278]

So if you had to vote, where would your ink lie?

I’d have to vote against the act if I was going to vote for or against it. The reason is because I would not want to risk this act imposing unwanted rules on religious organizations. So, I’d have them send the bill back and make sure that exceptions for religious organizations were put in before I’d vote for it.

 

[leftistdestroye]

I’d have to vote against the act if I was going to vote for or against it. The reason is because I would not want to risk this act imposing unwanted rules on religious organizations. So, I’d have them send the bill back and make sure that exceptions for religious organizations were put in before I’d vote for it.

So you would send it back ONLY if negative repercussions applied soley to religious institutions? No care about society as a whole?