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

[surfinpure]

This just in from the American Family Association (www.afa.org):

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has passed the U.S. House and Senator Edward Kennedy is now leading the push for a vote in the U.S. Senate. ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior - homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of “sexual orientation” that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace.

ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their deeply held beliefs into account when making personnel decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.

ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

It’s obvious that the real agenda behind the innocuously named Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a push to enshrine homosexuality in national policy. This dangerous legislation would dramatically expand the government’s reach into your work place and create unnecessary work-place conflicts and lawsuits. ENDA is a sweeping employer mandate to create special new legal protections based on “sexual orientation” (or “perceptions”).

I fear the implications of such an act would also extend into churches and religious organizations, forcing them to employ open homosexuals or homosexual activists. I have written my senators.

 

[Ender]

I fear the implications of such an act would also extend into churches and religious organizations, forcing them to employ open homosexuals or homosexual activists. I have written my senators.

As you fear, this act represents a clear danger in ways that are not apparent. Assuming there is no religious based objection exception, the first group to feel the affect of this law would be the Boy Scouts … and Catholic churches would not be far behind.

Ender

 

[BillP]

So you guys are okay with refusing to hire people because they’re Gay. Got it.

How about Blacks? or Jews? or Baptists? Should I be able to refuse to hire them too?

Are you guys going to get your knickers in a twist when somebody refuses to hire Catholics?

 

[Ender]

So you guys are okay with refusing to hire people because they’re Gay. Got it.

How about Blacks? or Jews? or Baptists? Should I be able to refuse to hire them too?

Are you guys going to get your knickers in a twist when somebody refuses to hire Catholics?

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

 

[surfinpure]

Very well stated, Ender. BillP, this is about the government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong. I wouldn’t have a problem hiring a gay person who was a well-qualified auto mechanic, or architect, or waiter. But if I were running a religious organization or a church office, I would have a serious problem hiring a person whose lifestyle is in direct opposition to the principles on which the organization is built.

Should the Democratic National Convention be forced to hire Republicans? Should public schools be forced to hire registered sex-offenders? Should the NAACP be forced to hire white supremacists? Of course not. And neither should any Christian organization be forced to hire one whose lifestyle flies in the face of Christian moral principles.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This just in from the American Family Association (www.afa.org):

I fear the implications of such an act would also extend into churches and religious organizations, forcing them to employ open homosexuals or homosexual activists. I have written my senators.

The fact that the AFA is against it should tell you its fine. THey are just another fundamentalist group that is hysterical about homosexuality. Please don’t associate Catholics with such a group of fundie baptists. This has nothing to do with churches. And I guess I better write my senators to offset yours. It might be better to find out more before writing to your congress people. They tend to peg you right away as to whether you should be ignored or listened to.

 

[surfinpure]

The fact that the AFA is against it should tell you its fine. THey are just another fundamentalist group that is hysterical about homosexuality. Please don’t associate Catholics with such a group of fundie baptists. This has nothing to do with churches. And I guess I better write my senators to offset yours. It might be better to find out more before writing to your congress people. They tend to peg you right away as to whether you should be ignored or listened to.

Sounds to me like you have done exactly what you’re suggesting I do: ignore them before reading the content. I, however, have read the content of the bill, and am confident it says exactly what the AFA claims it says. It is dangerous to Christians, and that includes Catholics. If you, however, are fine and cozy with the militant gay agenda, by all means, vote for the elimination of our religious freedoms. No doubt if enough folks vote that way, we’ll all be martyred in no time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sounds to me like you have done exactly what you’re suggesting I do: ignore them before reading the content. I, however, have read the content of the bill, and am confident it says exactly what the AFA claims it says. It is dangerous to Christians, and that includes Catholics. If you, however, are fine and cozy with the militant gay agenda, by all means, vote for the elimination of our religious freedoms. No doubt if enough folks vote that way, we’ll all be martyred in no time.

I’ve read the bill a long time ago. I know who is sponsoring it, who cosponsors it, and how the vote is shaping up. I receive weekly updates on my congress people. I am informed. This is simply a non-discrimination law that is similar in kind to others passed to protect blacks, women and other minorities. Your homophobia is misplaced. I have no difficulty with gays wanting equal rights. They are entitled to them as citizens of a free country. Since when did being Catholic mean I have to give up belief in a free society?

 

[surfinpure]

I’ve read the bill a long time ago. I know who is sponsoring it, who cosponsors it, and how the vote is shaping up. I receive weekly updates on my congress people. I am informed. This is simply a non-discrimination law that is similar in kind to others passed to protect blacks, women and other minorities. Your homophobia is misplaced. I have no difficulty with gays wanting equal rights. They are entitled to them as citizens of a free country. Since when did being Catholic mean I have to give up belief in a free society?

“Homophobia” is not a word, and it certainly does not apply to me. If you think that a “free society” is the same thing as the government stripping Christians of their freedom to hire whom they please, you are sorely mistaken. Freedom is being allowed to conduct the hiring of employees according to one’s own principles. If a particular group is offended by this, they have every right to boycott the organization.

Nobody has a “right” to a job with any company. Employment is a privilege bestowed by the employer. This is just more entitlement nonsense that always comes from those whose real wish is to extend their own license while limiting the freedom of others.

 

[Philthy]

This is simply a non-discrimination law that is similar in kind to others passed to protect blacks, women and other minorities.

 

[Dale_M]

Sounds to me like you have done exactly what you’re suggesting I do: ignore them before reading the content. I, however, have read the content of the bill, and am confident it says exactly what the AFA claims it says. It is dangerous to Christians, and that includes Catholics.

I’ve read it too, and I disagree with the AFA’s assessment. I think they are just trying to scare folks into contributing money to them.

BTW, the link in the first post takes us to the Air Force Association.

 

[surfinpure]

I’ve read it too, and I disagree with the AFA’s assessment. I think they are just trying to scare folks into contributing money to them.

BTW, the link in the first post takes us to the Air Force Association.

LOL, sorry about that.

Here, in particular, is the part of the bill that concerns me:

**
SEC. 4. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.

---

(a) Employer Practices- It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer–
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation; or

---

Is this not disturbing? I was, however, somewhat relieved to find the exemption for religious organizations:

**
SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a); 2000e-2(e)(2)).

---

**But it is an unjust law to begin with, and once the door is opened, the next piece of legislation may attempt to remove this exemption. Or perhaps some activist judge will legislate from the bench and declare this section unconstitutional, and that’ll be the end of it. :nope: **

---

 

[leftistdestroye]

Dale_M;3657975]

I’ve read it too, and I disagree with the AFA’s assessment.

Which part and why? And, which version of the bill are you referring to or both?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

LOL, sorry about that.

Here, in particular, is the part of the bill that concerns me:

---

Is this not disturbing? I was, however, somewhat relieved to find the exemption for religious organizations:

---

**But it is an unjust law to begin with, and once the door is opened, the next piece of legislation may attempt to remove this exemption. Or perhaps some activist judge will legislate from the bench and declare this section unconstitutional, and that’ll be the end of it. :nope: **

---

It is not disturbing. It is still unjust discrimination. The AFA like others have said is a fundamental and very political organization and not religious at all. Sexual preference is not a reason to discriminate on.

 

[leftistdestroye]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]

It is still unjust discrimination.
Sexual preference is not a reason to discriminate on.

To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?

The AFA like others have said is a fundamental and very political organization and not religious at all.

So? They want to uphold traditional family values. How terrible is that?

 

[Mystic_of_God]

My position is this:

Homosexuals are homosexuals. They sin like the rest of us.

Expect me to not discriminate against them, but I’ll thank you kindly not to force me to support them via state-sponsored marriage benefits. If you do, you are placing a tax burden on me, forcing me to support something of which I do not morally approve.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]
To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?

So? They want to uphold traditional family values. How terrible is that?

NO discrimination is acceptable. Discrimination are “traditional family values”? Family values are looking for differences to avoid people instead of similarities to welcome them according to your inference?

No values are at risk here, never have been and never will be.

 

[cynic]

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]

To your mind, what discrimination IS acceptable?

Factors that are relevant to the job. Of course if sexuality is relevant, (for eg. teaching in a religious school) then to discriminate on those grounds is justified.

NewUlm1976_2000;3658133]
So? They want to uphold traditional family values. How terrible is that?

They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.

 

[surfinpure]

NO discrimination is acceptable. Discrimination are “traditional family values”? Family values are looking for differences to avoid people instead of similarities to welcome them according to your inference?

No values are at risk here, never have been and never will be.

Really? So then when you decide that one applicant is more educated to perform a job than another, are you not discriminating against the less educated one? Discrimination is natural, and there is nothing wrong with it. But what you are talking about is unjust discrimination, and you are arguing that not hiring someone because their values conflict with the values of your organization is unjust discrimination.

I will therefore rephrase my earlier question:

Is it unjust for the NAACP not to hire someone simply because he is a white supremacist? Is it unjust for the DNC not to hire a Republican? Is it unjust for a daycare not to hire a registered sex-offender?

These would all be clear-cut cases of discrimination, after all.

 

[surfinpure]

Factors that are relevant to the job. Of course if sexuality is relevant, (for eg. teaching in a religious school) then to discriminate on those grounds is justified.

They want homosexuals persecuted by limiting their abillity to earn a living.

I’m sorry, somehow I missed that in the AFA’s statement (if that’s whom you mean by “they”). I don’t recall reading that they want to persecute gays by limiting their employment.

I do, however, agree that an employer extends a privilege to his employess in hiring them. It is not a right. No employer should be forced by the strong arm of the government to hire anyone. Period.