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

[leftistdestroye]

cynic;3658737]

They are not forced to advertise a position. Fair employment relations require that employees be judged by factors that are relevant to the work, and not those that aren’t. It follows then that hiring practice should follow suite.

And who pays for the lawsuits when acompany is sued because someone decides to get cute, when they are gay and fired because of work related issues? Who pay’s for that?

Do you agree with an employer being free to refuse hiring black people on the basis of their race? Yes, race and sexual behaviour are quite different, but they are also equally irrelevant in most workplaces.

And how is one to actually know that they were not hired because they were black or gay or whatever?

 

[leftistdestroye]

LCMS_No_More;3658746]

Discrimination against people who are not qualified for the job in question. Discrimination against a person who fails to perform their job. Discrmination against a convicted criminal working with money or in security. Discrmination against a convicted child molester in a job working with children.

Those are acceptable forms of discrimination.

Other, arbitrary forms, such as race, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (which is chosen), sex, national origin, disability and sexual orientation are not acceptable. Bear in mind that perceived sexual orientation is also protected in this act. That’s right, in some states, if your boss even THINKS you may be a homasexial, then as the Donald would say, “you’re fired.”

I’m glad I live in a nation where freedom only applies to government protected groups while private companies are denied it.

 

[neat62]

We have had threads on this already, search for it. It was a matter of more respectful treatment towards those with same-gender preferences. This is not a liberal vs conservative as it is a human respect/rights issue.

No, its a matter of forcing everyone to accept same sex relationships as “normal”…it allows for those with this preference to “flaunt” their lifestyles, while those of us who object on moral or religious grounds have no choice in the matter but to accept it.

We are not allowed to openly practice our faith in public…no prayer in school, no wearing of religious jewelry in the workplace, no prayer in the workplace, etc., etc…

An employer should be able to higher and fire whoever they please, whenever they please, period! NO ONE simply has a “RIGHT” to a job!

 

[neat62]

It does not say you HAVE to hire him/her. This is not a AA program for same-gender people, it is just that you cannot remove people from employment or choose not to hire them based solely on their sexual preferences. You can still choose to hire them or not based on how they best fit the job description and their job related duty performance.

Another poster above also mentioned precieved homosexuality, which is also pertinent, as what you think might be there really might not be there.

This is a completely redundant law…as NOW, HR laws already protect privacy…as you can’t ask “what’s your sexual preference.”

And who’s to say that you didn’t hire this “gay” person based on lack of education? Or maybe they are overqualified? Or perhaps they simply didn’t interview well.

Of course, if this passes NONE of that will matter, because as soon as an employer doesn’t hire someone who claims to be “gay” they will be sued and YOU and ME, CONSUMER, will pay the price!

Not too mention, that soon we will have fewer and fewer people opening new businesses because the RISK it too high!

 

[neat62]

LCMS_No_More;3658746]

I’m glad I live in a nation where freedom only applies to government protected groups while private companies are denied it.

So true…

What I want to know is how does someone “perceive” a woman to be lesbian? I mean, sure there are some that seem to be more “butch” than others, but that really doesn’t mean much…I know a few women who are pretty “tough” and have somewhat “manly” mannerisms, but they are not lesbian.

While I know of some women, who appear to be typical females…who are in fact lesbian.

So how is one to “perceive” the difference? YOU CAN’T! BUT…if they “claim” to be lesbian and you don’t hire them…you will be screwed!

By the way…there is NO WAY to PROVE sexual preference…as there obviously is race, ethnicity, etc.

 

[neat62]

I would consider moral principles highly relevant to the work of anyone in a religious organization.

Let me state this next part very carefully, because I don’t want to be misunderstood: I believe it is morally wrong not to hire a black person solely because of their race. However, I also believe it is morally wrong for the government to dictate whom an employer may hire. Therefore, if a bigoted employer wants to screen out black people, let the black people make that fact known and boycott his company. That is free enterprise. One is free to hire whom he pleases. The other is free to take his business elsewhere.

The bottom line is that an employer should not have his rights stripped from him. In this country, people have the legal right to be bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, foolish, ditzy, what have you. We don’t by any means agree with their behavior, but we don’t try to legislate it away, because in the removal of Bubba’s right to be prejudiced, I lose my right to hire whom I want.

In preventing a gay person from working in a certain company, he is not taking away the gay man’s rights, **because the man had no “right” to work there to begin with. **He was, rather, applying for a privilege. Nobody should be forced to extend privileges.

Very well said! :clapping:

And might I dare add…until you have owned a business…its really hard to fully understand how difficult it has become today and how much it costs simply to employ someone!

 

[leftistdestroye]

LCMS_No_More;3658746]

Discrimination against people who are not qualified for the job in question.

Affirmative Action

Discrimination against a person who fails to perform their job.

Unions.

Discrmination against a convicted criminal working with money or in security.

Behavioral issue.

Other, arbitrary forms, such as race, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (which is chosen), sex, national origin, disability and sexual orientation are not acceptable.

Discrmination against a convicted child molester in a job working with children.

That is a mental illness, why are they discriminated against because they are born with it?

Bear in mind that perceived sexual orientation is also protected in this act. That’s right, in some states, if your boss even THINKS you may be a homasexial, then as the Donald would say, “you’re fired.”

In the previous version of this bill, transvestites were covered too.

Here is an admission to the slippery slope:

“As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.”

pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3543

So be prepared folks, one day a transvestite will be teaching your children. Could make for an interesting gym class.

 

[leftistdestroye]

“gay bishop plans civil union
It’s ‘what God is calling me to do,’ says controversial clergyman”

msnbc.msn.com/id/24521220&GT1=43001

THIS, is what happens when we allow Liberalism into religion!

No? How about this one: youtube.com/watch?v=LjJlsGrlbUs

 

[LCMS_No_More]

LCMS_No_More;3658746]

Affirmative Action

Unions.

Behavioral issue.

That is a mental illness, why are they discriminated against because they are born with it?

In the previous version of this bill, transvestites were covered too.

Here is an admission to the slippery slope:

“As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future. With respect to ENDA, we take the same view.”

pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3543

So be prepared folks, one day a transvestite will be teaching your children. Could make for an interesting gym class.

Nice straw men you’ve set up and knocked down. Bless your heart.

I wonder what was said about the same issues back in the early 1960s.

 

[neat62]

Nice straw men you’ve set up and knocked down. Bless your heart.

I wonder what was said about the same issues back in the early 1960s.

This is no straw man…there is no reason what-so-ever for this legislation…its only purpose is to establish MORE laws to protect homosexuals…it will indeed be a slippery slope all the way to the acceptance of gay marriage!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This is no straw man…there is no reason what-so-ever for this legislation…its only purpose is to establish MORE laws to protect homosexuals…it will indeed be a slippery slope all the way to the acceptance of gay marriage!

So, you’re saying a homasexial person can’t have a job and that a boss should be able to fire someone simply because they THINK a person is a homasexial?

 

[cynic]

I would consider moral principles highly relevant to the work of anyone in a religious organization.
.

So would I. Most jobs doesn’t involve working in a religious organization.

Let me state this next part very carefully, because I don’t want to be misunderstood: I believe it is morally wrong not to hire a black person solely because of their race. However, I also believe it is morally wrong for the government to dictate whom an employer may hire. Therefore, if a bigoted employer wants to screen out black people, let the black people make that fact known and boycott his company. That is free enterprise. One is free to hire whom he pleases. The other is free to take his business elsewhere.
.

So in other words, you hold a libertarian position. I don’t agree at all, but fair enough.

I don’t know if boycotting or taking their business elsewhere had much of an effect for black people in the past (pre civil-rights). It’s systematic discrimination ; if you have enough employers expressing prejudiced views through their hiring policy, then there will be a perception that this group do not make good employees, and the value of their labour will go down. Business will also be less inclined to want to sell to them as consumers since society holds them in low regard.

The bottom line is that an employer should not have his rights stripped from him. In this country, people have the legal right to be bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, foolish, ditzy, what have you. We don’t by any means agree with their behavior, but we don’t try to legislate it away, because in the removal of Bubba’s right to be prejudiced, I lose my right to hire whom I want.

The bottom line is that a society needs both business and employees working in businesses. Disenfranchise certain groups from taking part and there will be consequences. Like for example permanent underclasses of people living in poverty, who don’t care about improving their lot, and resort to crime. (obviously I’m refering more to race here than sexual ‘orientation’ since most managers wouldn’t care about their employees private lives)

In preventing a gay person from working in a certain company, he is not taking away the gay man’s rights, because the man had no “right” to work there to begin with. He was, rather, applying for a privilege. Nobody should be forced to extend privileges.

But he does have a right to his private life remaining private. What if an employer discovered that someoned who was already working for him was homosexual?

 

[neat62]

So, you’re saying a homasexial person can’t have a job and that a boss should be able to fire someone simply because they THINK a person is a homasexial?

No…I am saying that a homosexual should keep that to themself and stop making demands that society has to accept his PRIVATE behavior.

As for private employers…they should be able to hire whoever they please, whenever they please…and offer to pay them…however much they deem the position worth…without interference from government! Its a contract entered into between employer and employee…period! Don’t like the pay, don’t like the position, don’t take the job, period.

Finally, NO ONE has a “RIGHT” to a job…one is hired based on merit, experience, knowledge, education, skills, etc, etc.

 

[neat62]

So would I. Most jobs doesn’t involve working in a religious organization.

So in other words, you hold a libertarian position. I don’t agree at all, but fair enough.

I don’t know if boycotting or taking “their business elsewhere” had much of an effect for black people in the past (pre civil-rights). It’s systematic discrimination ; if you have enough employers expressing prejudiced views through their hiring policy, then there will be a perception that this group do not make good employees, and the value of their labour will go down. Business will also be less inclined to want to sell to them as consumers since society regards holds them in low regard.

The bottom line is that a society needs both business and employees working in businesses. Disenfranchise certain groups from taking part and there will be consequences. Like for example permanent underclasses of people living in poverty, who don’t care about improving their lot, and resort to crime. (obviously I’m refering more to race here than sexual ‘orientation’ since most managers wouldn’t care about their employees private lives)

But he does have a right to his private life remaining private. What if an employer discovered that someoned who was already working for him was homosexual?

Let me ask you this…how do you prove to another that you are gay or lesbian?

 

[pathia]

I have been fired/laid off for being what I am at least five or six times. I did not announce it, I did not tell any coworkers. It came up in background checks due to the nature of work I do, they’re necessary. My lifestyle outside of work is easily identified with a simple background check.

I am then called in HR and told that due to my ‘background and home life’ I am no longer welcome to be employed and told to leave. I have no criminal past what so ever, I’ve never even gotten a speeding ticket, so there’s only one other reason.

Why should firing me for something I never even discuss at work be legal?

 

[neat62]

I have been fired/laid off for being what I am at least five or six times. I did not announce it, I did not tell any coworkers. It came up in background checks due to the nature of work I do, they’re necessary. My lifestyle outside of work is easily identified with a simple background check.

I am then called in HR and told that due to my ‘background and home life’ I am no longer welcome to be employed and told to leave. I have no criminal past what so ever, I’ve never even gotten a speeding ticket, so there’s only one other reason.

Why should firing me for something I never even discuss at work be legal?

Well…first off…here in CA…we are an “at will” employer…so CURRENTLY, you can be fired for any reason or NONE what so ever. You don’t have to be told why you are being let go, which in MY opinion is how it should be! No employer should have to “keep” anyone simply because of their lifestyle choices or NOT.

By the way…your post doesn’t tell us “what” your lifestyle is…are you trying to tell us that you are gay or lesbian? And if so, what in a background check would verify that??

In all honesty…this bill is not going to help homosexuals, in fact, it will do just the opposite because once hired…whether you are a good worker or not…it will be very difficult to “fire” without the “discrimination” lawsuits being filed and again…HOW DO YOU PROVE to another that you are gay or lesbian?

I mean…skin color is easily proved, as is gender…but how do you provide evidence of being gay or lesbian?

 

[pathia]

I mean…skin color is easily proved, as is gender…but how do you provide evidence of being gay or lesbian?

I am intersexed transsexual. One only has to pull my documents of name change to see that I once had a male name in my youth.

I am fired after they find this out without fail if it falls into the wrong hands.

 

[neat62]

I am intersexed transsexual. One only has to pull my documents of name change to see that I once had a male name in my youth.

I am fired after they find this out without fail if it falls into the wrong hands.

So do you think you are “entitled” to a job by anyone? Do you believe that you have a “RIGHT” to a job?

If so…might I recommend a government job…as they are the ones who these silly laws should apply to…no one else!

Oh and by the way…lots of people today have “male” names…for instance, I have a niece who’s name is “KEVAN”…so that really doesn’t “prove” anything either.

 

[pathia]

So do you think you are “entitled” to a job by anyone? Do you believe that you have a “RIGHT” to a job?

If so…might I recommend a government job…as they are the ones who these silly laws should apply to…no one else!

I have a master’s degree and I graduated in the top ranks of my class. It’s not like I’m not qualified.

I have the right to not be harassed too. Often as soon as they find out, if they DON’T fire me. I get sexual harassment more or less from the men, and forbidden to use any bathroom in the building, things like that. Bodily functions are sort of necessary. Should it be legal for them to tell me I can’t pee anywhere when I work? I am not even afforded basic human decency.

 

[neat62]

I have a master’s degree and I graduated in the top ranks of my class. It’s not like I’m not qualified.

Perhaps…but then again, I don’t know what sort of work ethic you have…you could be someone who just thinks everything is"owed" to you simply because you are “educated”…doesn’t mean you are going to be a good fit for the position I am looking to fill.

And again, lots of people have male names, but are female…heck today we have kids walking around with none gender specific names, like APPLE! So that’s a weak argument…perhaps you were let go because your role was no longer needed…or maybe you didn’t fulfill your duties and obligations…or maybe they found someone cheaper to do the same work as you…etc., etc. Its pretty hard to provide positive evidence that you were let go because of your “background”…also…let me remind you there are laws that prohibit the amount of information that can be revealed to an employer…and umm…YEA…I know a little bit about it, as I have been a Director of HR for over 10 years!