I have spent the better part of this afternoon, hesitating to write a post I know I should write. The skies are already dark here in Los Angeles and I’m only beginning to put pen to paper, er fingers to keyboard, to tap out on a post on a issue I really should have addressed long ago.
I guess it’s because I know this piece will stir up some controversy. Despite my predilection for speaking my mind, there are times when I would just rather not stir the pot. It’s days like these when I understand why Log Cabin leaders oftentimes seem to emulate a Hollywood star who delights in being liked.
But, if I didn’t speak my mind and stand up for controversial ideas, there really wouldn’t be much point in my blogging so I’ll risk the adverse reaction and express my disappointment with the House passage today of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). While I believe it wrong for a company to discriminate against an employee because of his (or her) sexual orientation, I also don’t believe the government should set a company’s employment policies.
Moreover, as an increasing number of corporations have adopted nondiscrimination policies (see e.g., this post referencing this article), such legislation is increasingly unnecessary. And even corporations without such policies have long since refrained from discrimating against employees because of their sexual orientation (or other factors irrelevant to their ability to do their job). Not only that, corporations which discriminate will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
Despite 365gay’s report that this passed “mostly along party lines,” 35 Republicans voted in favor enough to ensure the bill’s passage. The final tally was 235-184. Had those Republicans voted against the legislation, this statist bill would have been defeated.
It was unfortunate that the debate focused on the exclusion of protections for transgender employees in the final legislation rather than the appropriateness of the continuing expansion of the scope of the federal government.
Some might claim that it’s only fair to include gay people in the protections offered to other groups, but I contend that one doesn’t reduce the size of the federal government by increasing its scope. And for the past fifty years (and then some), American conservatives have been most concerned by the unending growth of the federal government, something which, alas, the incumbent administration has done nothing to contain.
It’s unfortunate the Log Cabin cheered the passage of a bill which will keep the federal government ever more involved in matters best left to the private sector. By standing up against ENDA, this ostensibly Republican organization could have provided an example for other GOP interest groups to follow — opposing legislation designed to benefit their group because it serves to increase the scope of the federal government.
If Log Cabin is serious about reducing the size of the federal government, then they could show it by opposing legislation which increases its scope.
It’s too bad that in the quest for that elusive goal of government-generated equality, all too many groups have forgotten the guiding idea of our party and our Republic — freedom.
Not to be picky, but it doesn’t “increase the scope of federal government” until and unless Bush signs it, after Senate passage.
My view as well. Instead of expanding these Federal employment laws (which in fact are unconstitutional, on several grounds), they should be working to repeal the ones already wrongly put in. Employers should be free to do the wrong thing, then suffer the consequences in the marketplace.
Indeed. A prime example of employers doing the right thing – in response to the marketplace. (I speak as someone who argued for this and for DP benefits at a certain large company in the early to mid 1990s, helping in my very small way to establish it as a national trend.)
Fair point, ILC. I had wanted to keep the title on one line, but decided to change it even it does sound clunky, preferring accuracy to brevity.
Being tarred as a “homophobe” is a powerful force.
Well Helio, Barry Goldwater rightly opposed the first of these laws back in the 1960s, on the grounds I’ve outlined – and was tarred as “racist”.
Yet another abuse of Federal power.
I like the idea of the ENDA in theory. But, should Bush sign it, I will be interested to see how it plays out in practice.
For instance, what’s to stop a heterosexual claiming he got fired for being gay? Will there be some sort of test?
To my deep discredit, I’m not “out” at work. If asked, I tell the truth but that doesn’t happen too aften. I do fear the reaction of coworkers and bosses (probably irrationally but I’ll blame age). I hate pretending to be “single” just to avoid questions.
My employer does provide DP benefits for which I am grateful (so HR knows the facts).
I don’t think ENDA will make a lot of difference: if you work at a place where people are gay-hostile, ENDA won’t make it better (and who wants to be known as someone who “works here only because he/she is gay”?).
I have no problem with an Enda at the State level.. but the Federal level is just inappropiate and certainly not an enumerated power.
Discrimination is a federal issue. We would still be waiting for the marketplace to settle the slavery question if you people were in charge.
[Um, I just don’t see how the two are related. Wonderful how throw how accusations without showing that you even understand my argument. Slavery means depriving individuals of their freedom. Not in the least related to opposing increasing government regulation of the private sector. –Dan]
As for you, Robert..you’re taking the DP benefits and you’re not even out at work? The sad irony of being gay while having no balls must really prey on your mind.
In general I´m opposed to federal intervention. We´ve made some progress since 1969. I have to make an exception where ENDA is concerned. We haven´t come far enough not to have it. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council which opposed the bill said it ¨would provide ´mainstream homosexuality, bisexuality, and provide activists´ a legal tool to punish employers who don´t approve of their lifestyles.
It works the other way as well, it protects gays and lesbians from being fired, even if their work is outstanding because the owner doesn´t approve of our sexual orientation.
Last night I watched my favorite program Boston Legal. Denny Crane fired a female associate because she was fat. He believed obesity was contagious. He read it in a magazine. Lets change the words fat to gay and obesity to homosexuality. There could be redneck machistas who still believe homosexuality is a disease and contagious.
On my return to civilian life in 1969, after eight months on the job, I was given a choice , resign and get a good recommendation without mention of my sexual orientation or be fired!
I agree. The Republicans should advocate for the repeal of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As someone who works to elect Democrats, nothing would make me happier.
To my deep discredit,
Why?
#10
What’s really disgraceful is how the people you work to elect keep Americans on the plantation and sucking on Uncle Sugar’s tit. The utter contempt that you and your candidates have for Americans is really sad and disappointing. However, I know damn well that you are incapable of feeling shame.
You really don’t think folks are capable of doing anything for themselves, do you?
Unfortunately Ayn Rand is dead and we’re not living in Sweden. There were no small goverment Libertarians making the case in the well for the Republicans. The religious arguments put forth by Souder of Indiana were rather weak. He kept trying the religious bookstore, church fitness center being forced to hire gays and lesbians or else face the wrath of trial lawyers. If corporations feared these lawsuits they would not have sexual orientation so frequently listed in their hiring practices. Intrusive goverment — okay. Big government and intrusion on the free practice of religion, don’t think so.
GPW: It’s a valid argument, allowing employers to set their own policies, and at the heart of a lot of libertarian arguments.
You realize, of course, that you are advocating allowing employers to hire, fire, and promote on the basis of race, religion, etc. Do you feel that that policy was the way to go in ’64? Is it the way to go now?
You sketched out the beginnings of a position but haven’t addressed the elephant (ha) in the room: Should Ollie’s BBQ be forced to not only serve without respect to race but hire in a colorblind fashion as well?
As far as the size of the federal government goes, I’d rather see anti-discrimination laws in place to protect gays and lesbians in places where Republicans still seek to demonize them (I didn’t see a post on the Boone robo-calls in Flesher’s desperate bid to use gay hate to stay in office; how come, GP/GPW?) and give up, say, a few tens of millions of dollars in abstinence-only funding which further research is showing doesn’t work.
The passage of this bill is important because of its historic and symbolic implications. Yes, the law easily could be circumvented by an employer, who could come up with a different reason – “We are eliminating your position,” etc. — for firing a gay person, but that is still not the point. The mere fact that our elected officials, especially a number of republicans, voted for this sends a message that gays are achieving some equal status.
I know this for a fact, too. In the city i live, council passed an anti-discrimination resolution in teh late ’80s that acknowledged equal rights for gays. The effect was immediate. The city’s attitudes towards gays changed over night, and one bar owner (who was subject to vandalism for many years) even noted to me that it was like “turning off a switch.”
I am also a little concerned about the government passing laws that impede on a person’s rights to dislike gays, but I think the implications of that are vastly overblown. The mere fact of this bill’s existence speaks far more volumes of our status today. It is, alas, unlikely to get past the president, but this is still a major step towards our equality.
We would still be waiting for the marketplace to settle the slavery question if you people were in charge.
Wait, who freed the slaves again? Help me out here. It sure as hell wasn’t Sen. Robert Byrd (D, KKK) the “Conscience of the Senate”. Further, it sure as hell wasn’t Algore, Ross Barnett, George Wallace, Theophilus Connor etc.
To further piss in your Cheerios, history shows that it was the south who did more to oppose slavery than the north. That is, real history and not the revisionist history of Yankee liberals.
And yes, it can be said that the 14th Ammendment was unconstitutional as is any other decision based on that.
Got to be quick, OTW to work.
For centuries Left handers have been persecuted. From the accusations of it being a sign of witchcraft, to the meaning of the word ‘sinister’ to the ‘breaking’ of left handers in the 20th century, clear to the ergonomic difficulties of being left handed in the office space, we’ve had to deal with it for centuries.
In fact, even in the media today, ther are more openly gay superheroes than left handed ones.
Amazingly with time and education it’s become a non-factor. Though we still have to adapt in a workplace (try to cut with right handed scissors in your left hand) we have been able to earn respect and be part of the workforce, and society. Since it appears left handedness is likely the result of damage in the womb, we don’t even hide behind the ADA. We just do our jobs and let the market survive.
And we’ve been overcome the left handed hatred without a single law.
So tell me again why ENDA is so important?
Oh wait, I forgot, people like tp, DEEK and Chase are pro discrimination, as long as it benefits them.
I’d rather see anti-discrimination laws in place to protect gays and lesbians
Why stop there? Why not demand that the federal government force businesses to hire X number of gays when they hire X number of straights. How about we demand that they not hire you based on your qualifications and only hire you because you’re a f**king gay victim of the brutish “racist, sexist, bigot homophobe” Republicans? Would that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Hell, you would never have to go to school for anything. Just pick a job, march your happy a*s down there and demand that you be hired. After all, you’re a much better person than any Republican SOB out there, right?
Perhaps gays should start demanding reparations from heterosexuals. That would make everything all better, wouldn’t it?
What else do you want handed to you on a silver platter? How about friends? You obviously think it’s best for the government to make people like you. They could dispense with your friends as well?
Hell, since it’s the government’s job to make people like you, why not a whole department dedicated to hooking you up with your boyfriend? You wouldn’t have to get off your sorry, lazy ass and go down to the bars anymore. A whole new beauracracy on par with the DMV could select somebody for you and make them like you. Gay.com could be the model.
Sounds great, don’t it?
Guys, you are the modern equivalent of the pro-slavery Negro. The GOP has kicked you in the ass so long that, when it comes time to reach just an iota of your freedom, you squeal in opposition — so afraid of what lies ahead if you stand up on your own two feet and declare yourself as human as the rest of them. You ought to be ashamed, but you’re not. You’re Republican gay boys and Republicans just voted en masse to oppose a civil rights bill designed to protect YOUR rights, so what do you do? You squeal about this “expanding the Federal government”, you squeal about the sad hypothetical example of violating the rights of a Christian bookstore, and other absurdities. But what it r-e-a-l-l-y comes down to is this: you’re embarrassed that every thing you stand for politically stands squarely in opposition to YOU. Your bed, you made it, lie in it bitches.
KYKid.. you still haven’t told us what should be done with Kosovo.
You should be ignored until you do.
Never be afraid to speak your mind, Dan. Good people can disagree with each other without believing the other is, in this case, the gay equivalent of “Uncle Tom”, spawn of Satan, etc. That gets overlooked too much in this poisoned atmosphere of extreme partisanship today. I understand your reasons and have just enough of a touch of idealism to be sympathetic with them. However, I don’t agree. ENDA is not the be-all, end-all to thwart discrimination as some portray it, but it is a small help. And hey, on this I have Mary Cheney in agreement with me! 😉
Vince, why wait? I started ignoring the troll days ago. BTW, remember its histrionic assertion that Iraq is a Shia-dominated, taliban terror-state? There is some evidence to the contrary.
As for ENDA, countless gay men and women have made happy, successful lives for themselves without any help from Big Brother. If one believes we ought to have no more government than is absolutely necessary, this seems like a clear case where it is not.
What civil rights are being protected with ENDA?
No one has a civil right to work when and where he pleases.
If you are denied employment, you can attempt the discrimination claim. However, charging discrimination is not sufficient alone for resolution.
What is the gay claim to employment discrimination? Every applicant who is not chosen for the position was canceled out for some reason. It might be the tattoo on the forehead. It might be the loud mouth and raucous laugh. It might be the rolls of fat and huffing and puffing. It might be using the F-bomb every fourth word. It might be a strong indifference toward trying to do a good job.
If the employer can not find a “qualified” black or woman, then civil rights under the 14th amendment come into question. But one’s sexual practices does not create a unique race or gender.
If being gay is a disability, then there is an intrusive law already in place to force the issue. (We were forced to hire a deaf mute and her personal sign reader and interpreter. One job and two people. It doesn’t get much more intrusive than that.)
When you have made an employment choice, you should also be free to fire the person without undo commotion. If you sense in the interview process that you have a litigious sort applying for the job, the chances for the hire go way down.
So, just what civil right is coupled with ENDA? It isn’t gender or race.
Bzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. First, I’m not Republican. Second, why do you think such bills protect anyone’s rights? All they do is force the really nasty employers / managers to be more covert – where they can’t be punished by the marketplace, i.e., by consumer boycott.
Third, these laws create safe havens for shakedown artists – nasty employEEs who aren’t being discriminated against, but who use these laws (or the threat of lawsuits, etc.) as “cover” for their own nastiness. Yes, the latter is a real problem and I’ve seen it in action.
Someone is showing their ignorance of history again. It was the capitalist North (and capitalist Britain) that drove slavery’s end.
Capitalism is based on two things above all: (1) property rights and (2) free association. Repeat, **FREE ASSOCIATION**. It means you can’t (morally or Constitutionally) force anybody to associate – or to hire, or to work – where they don’t otherwise want to. I oppose ENDA for the exact same reasons I oppose slavery. In much the same way that it is wrong to force people to work, it is wrong to force them to hire. Think a little harder next time, DEEK.
tp: unless I’m mixing you up with someone else, you’ve always claimed to be libertarian on GP and, as I’ve always told you back, you really aren’t.
Easy to say you don’t need ENDA when you are living in LA. Think about the people who actually live in areas that need this. I assume you believe people should be able to discriminate based on race, gender and religion also? I know you don’t believe they should in principle, but you believe they should be able to legally?
Hm. What I see is the typical activist gay position: “We want the same rights as other people… except when we want more.”
ILC: Your number 25 was great.
It’s scary how many people are ignorant of what freedom is. This Balkinization being foisted us is a divide and conquer.
I wonder if folks like KY know they seek to trample on freedom or if they do it deliberately.
The reason I keep asking KY for his Kosovo plan is becuase KY seems SO SMART when criticizing the risks other people have taken with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight …. but how smart is he with a problem that has yet to be solved.
Lets hear his ideas for this… I mean he’s so smart about the stuff that happened before.. if we had only listendd to him.. well tell us, sport.. what should we do with Kosovo… share your wisdom with us.
Or did you just want to complain?
Vince, I do usually ignore KY. If I quoted or answered him above, it’s only because someone else quoted him and forced my eye to catch it. And I always figure, once a really dumb comment has entered my brain, I’m obligated to write another comment flushing it back out 😉
I’ll be ignoring KY from now on too. Let it talk to itself.
BTW: Have you heard about the paramilitary compounds all over the United States populated by Muslim extremists preparing for war?
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/islamberg-damage-control-in-full-swing/
Meanwhile, House Surrendercrats Desperately Keep Hope of Defeat in Iraq Alive.
The DNC seems hell-bent on doing whatever it takes to lose this war.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/08/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
What bothers me about the Democrats is that they acting in total isolation from the real world.
All the blood and sacrifice that is going on there in Iraq.
Every time a soldier re-enlists BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GO TO IRAQ.. It’s a God-damn slap in the face and kick in the balls by these bastardly Democrats.
It’s so infuriating.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/08/fbi-warns-al-qaeda-targets-malls-in-la-chicago-this-holiday-season/
FBI warns: Al Qaeda targets malls in LA, Chicago this holiday season
I’m sure we’ll hear a deafening questioning of the timing about this shortly.
Law enforcement officials tell ABCNews.com that the FBI received the information in late September and declassified it yesterday for wide distribution.
Here’s the announcement. It’s a reminder, and some of us do need reminding, that al Qaeda remains a threat
and give up, say, a few tens of millions of dollars in abstinence-only funding which further research is showing doesn’t work.
Torrentprime, did you actually read the story you cited about abstinence not working?
The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called “myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates” including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents……
The sponsors of the study praised Kirby for his “thorough research” and for being “fair and evenhanded,” but they also acknowledged that ETR Associates developed and markets several of the sex education curricula reviewed in the report. Several of the previous studies that were reviewed also were written by Kirby.
Gee, what a surprise; an abstinence opponent who has sex-promotion curricula to market and sell found that abstinence “doesn’t work” and that sex-promotion curricula do by citing his own research.
Then again, it should be no surprise that leftist gays are anti-abstinence and pro-sex training; after all, they call the Folsom Street Fair an “educational experience” for their children and insist that anyone who disagrees is “close-minded”.
The interesting thing about this is that if you ask most Americans they think that this is already the law. The reason the focus was on trangendered people is that we have and have had for some time the votes to add gays to ENDA, we just couldn’t get it out of committe while Republicans had the committee chairs.
Bush is not going to sign this.
As for proving discrimination, well I guess that would be just as hard as it is for anyone to prove discrimination based on race or age or gender, or how gays would have had to prove discrimination in any of the states where this is already the law. It’s actually hard to prove such things. But the fact that many, though not all, companies already have nondiscrimination policies just shows that the federal government is way behind the public and the business community. Most people will never notice the difference after the law is passed, but certainly some poeple will and those are the ones the law is for. I do care about the people who live in the backward states where discrmination is still illegal.
As for the whole ENDA law, including all other groups. that’s an argument I often hear from conservatives, but I notice that there was no attempt by the Bush administration or the Republican controlled Congress to repeal the law. Either the law should be there or it should not. And if it is there then it should include everyone.
Interesting note: this would also apply to straight people who were passed over for a job in favor of a gay person. There was such a lawsuit against the Metropolitan Opera in the 90s which was settled out of court.
We’re losing containment! Core breach imminent! 🙂
My last comment was in reference to the accumulating OT-ness, but now I’ll address this:
Brilliant. So let’s add fat people, skinny people, tall people, short people, medium-height people, beautiful people, ugly people, indifferent people, dog owners, cat owners, horse owners, people who hate animals, vegetarians, sexual fetishists, sexual prudes, people who love Madonna, people who love dancing, people who hate dancing, Goth people, big car owners, small car owners, hybrid owners, non-hybrid owners, mountain climbers, couch potatoes, ……?????? where does it stop? You did say “everyone”.
Good Lord…leave it to you guys at this blog to denounce the ENDA bill (simply because it was a Democratic initiative of course) and try to construe it as some sort of encroachment of federal power. The federal government has no business trying to protect it’s citizens, of course. Would be nice if you put your loathing for Democrats aside for a moment and celebrate the fact that there are now laws that protect us from workplace discriminaton, no matter what our political affiliations are. (notwithstanding a veto from the ‘Decider’ of course)
You realize, of course, that you are advocating allowing employers to hire, fire, and promote on the basis of race, religion, etc.
Torrentprime, employers already do that; it’s called “affirmative action” and “expanding diversity”.
According to liberals and their interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate against people on the basis of their skin color, gender, or religion and to give preferential treatment to others in hiring, promotions, training, firing, acceptance to educational institutions, and awarding of government contracts based on theirs.
ENDA is the same thing. It has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with forcing employers to discriminate against straight people and give gays preferential treatment.
The irony is that “equality”, which is what most leftist gays claim they want, would be the ABSENCE of ENDA, in which neither gay OR straight people are guaranteed job protections based on their sexual orientation.
Like Big Government much, tontocal? Expect it to protect you from every bump and bruise in life?
Have much trouble with reading comprehension? LOL 🙂
(simply because it was a Democratic initiative of course)
Hm. And yet most of us opposed the Bush-backed Amnesty bill. Explain that.
I repeat. Countless gay men and women have made happy, successful lives for themselves without any help from Big Brother. Why is this law even necessary?
Would be nice if you put your loathing for Democrats aside for a moment and celebrate the fact that there are now laws that protect us from workplace discriminaton, no matter what our political affiliations are.
Yup, so liberal gays like Bonnie Bleskachek have job protections and can’t be fired, regardless of what they do, because they’re gay.
Immense improvement. I’m sure she did wonders for gay people when she used Minnesota’s ENDA to keep herself from being fired for systematically turning the Minneapolis Fire Department into her own lesbian brothel and punishing any of her ‘hos who didn’t shut up and lean back, then claiming anyone who disagreed was just “homophobic and sexist”.
NDT – I’m not sure about that. Doesn’t ENDA ‘protect’ (i.e., create trial-lawyer claims for) straights against gay discrimination, just as much as the other way around?
My view is, allow both kinds of discrimination – if people are so dumb as to do it. A gay employer should be able to fire (or refuse to hire) some straight jerk they don’t want to work with, just as much as the other way. Aka “freedom”.
@43: yes, ND30, I oppose affirmative action laws because I believe in a level playing field. Not being allowed to make any decision based on those factors is the ideal state. And as for the “you’re not a libertarian, see!!” is a laugh, because NO ONE is a pure libertarian across the board. Our perspective is just as long as we are protecting minorities who have suffered discrimination, the gays can and should be included in that. If you want to rollback one, then roll them ALL back. (no one answered the comment about the Republican anti-gay robocalls in Kentucky, wonder why)
@26: Religion isn’t race or gender, and that is protected. I believe family status is too. Do we need to take those off the list? Is it only innate characteristics that matter, or, I don’t know, *a history of discrimination*?
And for all of the heat above, no one answered my question: does GP or supporters believe that the 64 civil rights acts should have been defeated? Do you support their being overturned now, whether under libertarian grounds or to (lol) reduce the size of the federal government?
@45:Iraq wasn’t “necessary” but apparently it was the “right” choice. But I guess persistent relgious-based persecution here in America doesn’t count.
And also, if you only want to focus on those that made it and not those that didn’t, with no respect to why or how, then I’m guessing you’re in the right party.
Because there is not a single congressional district in the United States that a candidate could run on the repeal of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and win. That’s not the type of issue you could support and have just be part of your platform. If a candidate supported that, it would be THE issue in the race. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the most celebrated and famous piece of legislation ever passed in the United States Congress. If you’re going to argue against it’s underlying principles, for whatever reason, you’re going to lose.
Only advocating the repeal of the Social Security Act would be a more sure fire loser.
My view is, what do you value more, freedom or equality? It’s easy to support something like ENDA when, from your perspective, it’s only someone *else’s* freedoms that are being taken away, and this theft of their freedom accrues to your benefit.
It’s similar to Democrat approach to taxation and income redistribution.
But, there I go again, flying over the heads of the trolls who can’t handle anything more intellectually complex than ‘Sesame Street’ or ‘The View.’
Doesn’t ENDA ‘protect’ (i.e., create trial-lawyer claims for) straights against gay discrimination, just as much as the other way around?
Only in the same sense that Title VII does for white people.
But, as we were shown in Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court has flatly stated that discrimination on the basis of race and gender, which one would think is strictly forbidden by Title VII based on its language is permissible — as long as it’s discrimination against whites and males.
This is also why Proposition 209 (our California state prohibition on affirmative action) hasn’t been struck down; it specifically makes it clear that there will be no discrimination or preferential treatment whatsoever, which is a stronger and more-constitutional protection than even Title VII provides.
Interestingly enough, there is a question on whether Prop 209 covers sexual orientation, since it doesn’t specifically mention it — which means discrimination against straight people in this fashion is probably still allowable in California, even though we theoretically have an ENDA as well.
@46: Well, that clears it up. If a law is *ever* abused or misused, even once, then the law itself must have been a bad idea. Makes total sense (good thing that doesn’t apply to executive power). And even your statement of the “problem” is a straight-from-free-republic line of what non-discrimination laws are described as, not what they actually are. Very sad.
I note none of the lefties have answered my question: Because millions of gays lead successful, happy professional lives (NDT, GayP, and Mich-Matt for example) why is this law even necessary?
Clearly, it isn’t. But it is a power-grab, and keeps the professional victim community employed. And lefties love that.
OK, so TP made some weird apples-and-oranges comparison to the Iraq War and tacitly admits the law is unnecessary. But he digs the federal power grab.
@50 (childish insults aside):
“it’s only someone *else’s* freedoms that are being taken away”
Um, no. It applies to all employers, regardless of orientation. All people are banned from discriminating on the basis of orientation; how the heck does this only hurt “other” people? Gays are bound by it as much as straights. Unless…
You’re not actually pretending that this is a gay-only bill, are you? Really? Just like the ’64 acts were “black laws”? Regardless of ND30’s desperate attempts to portray it as such, reverse discrimination is also banned and such suits have been successfully prosecuted. Of course ppl can try to game the system (see Bush, Neil), but that doesn’t mean the system itself is not helpful or “necessary”.
(no one answered the comment about the Republican anti-gay robocalls in Kentucky, wonder why)
Do you even know what those robo-calls said, torrentprime?
The state GOP is now sending a robo-call throughout the state featuring none other than Pat Boone, warning that as a Christian he is concerned that Democratic nominee Steve Beshear, who has been way ahead in the polls, will work for “every homosexual cause.”
“Now do you want a governor who’d like Kentucky to be another San Francisco?” Boone asks. “Please re-elect Ernie Fletcher.”
Now how is it “antigay” to be saying that a Democrat candidate will work for every homosexual cause, receives money from gay people, and is endorsed and supported by gay groups — especially since HRC, et al. themselves were publicizing all of those things and that they endorsed Brashear?
What you’re telling us is that it’s antigay to tell the truth about what a candidate believes in regards to gay rights. Why on earth is that a problem?
“it’s only someone *else’s* freedoms that are being taken away”
Yes, the freedom of any and every employer to employ whom he chooses is being taken away by the state. And this is not troubling to some people.
Regardless of ND30’s desperate attempts to portray it as such, reverse discrimination is also banned
I cited two specific Supreme Court cases in which it was made clear that, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, entities are allowed to discriminate against white people and males on the basis of race and gender — even though Title VII allegedly, like ENDA, specifically prohibits ANY discrimination whatsoever on the basis of either.
Meanwhile, as to your attempt to cover up what your fellow liberal gay Bonnie Bleskachek exploited Minnesota’s ENDA and her protections from being fired based on her lesbian status to not only do, but to be continued to be promoted and advanced in pay while she was doing it, read it and weep.
Why would a gay person even want to work for a company that would fire them?
Umm… Because it’s irrelevant? And because the discussion is not “about you”? Because you’re often not even worth reading?
So he or she can sue them under State or Federal ENDA, thilly.
Pays for PTown, the rent boy, the next stretch of unemployment caused by his or her personality problems, or whatever. (And yes, I’ve known gays in CA who live – I refuse to say, “who earn their living” – by such a method.)
Umm… Because it’s irrelevant?
Oh, no need for that, ILC; as I pointed out, it’s very relevant.
As in gays like torrentprime think it’s antigay to point out that a Democrat candidate is endorsed and supported by gay groups and that said candidate has promised to support gay causes.
I would buy the “small government – libertarian” argument if it exempted privately-owned businesses, but in an age when a vast percentage of workers are employed by governments and publicly-held and traded companies the argument of “stupid-employers should be on their own to make mistakes” just doesn’t fly. Our tax-dollars…my tax-dollars…pay those salaries for governmental-employees, and the tax-laws and commercial-codes provide specific benefits to corporations that are offset by our tax-dollars; so the “public” does have an interest in their hiring and employment policies.
Plus, ENDA may provide additional ammunition to overturning DADT in either the courts or the Congress. If we can’t openly-serve in the military then we are denied the opportunity to fulfill one of the fundamental obligations asked of us as citizens and as members of a free people.
As per Ted B.’s comment in #63, I do believe that while I believe we should leave the private sector free to set its own hiring policies, that should not be the case when government itself is the employer.
Um….Ted, there’s a few problems with that.
1) The Federal government, via executive order (which carries the force of law when applied to the Federal government) already prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.
2) Publicly-held companies are still privately-owned businesses; they are not “public”, i.e. government entities.
3) Your argument is that any tax “benefit” you receive gives the government the unlimited right to dictate your behavior, in the name of “public interest”.
If that is the case, than the government can mandate the hiring and employment of gay workers, dictate the number of gay workers companies must have, and punish employers who don’t have the requisite number, all in the name of “public interest” — thus driving employers to make decisions about their workforce, not based on job performance, but on sexual orientation.
If we can’t openly-serve in the military then we are denied the opportunity to fulfill one of the fundamental obligations asked of us as citizens and as members of a free people.
Problem is, with an all-volunteer army, no one’s asking you to do anything; service in the military is not a fundamental obligation to anyone.
Furthermore, Federal law is never supposed to impose on employers conditions that could be harmful to the operation of their business. For instance, a spa that caters primarily to females may make a perfectly-justifiable argument that they prefer to hire females because males in the dressing rooms and in certain areas would make their clients uncomfortable. Hooters won a case in which a male who wished to be a waiter at one sued them for gender discrimination; it was found that the “Hooters girl” was an essential portion of their business, and thus they were justified in hiring only females as service staff.
DADT could be repealed as long as gay and lesbian soldiers were housed separately from straight soldiers, just as is done currently for females. However, that requires the military to have to house four different groups individually, and still does not solve the issue the military likes to avoid of not housing individuals who are sexually attractive and attracted to each other together (i.e. gays with other gays is akin to housing males and females together).
Because it pays the bills and might even help further their career, or perhaps it’s something they get stuck in and they have to make do until they are able to move on to something better. Not that I know anything about this of course…
Same here. Same for government contracts. Congress can make whatever laws it wants, for spending the government’s budget.
#48
Our perspective is just as long as we are protecting minorities who have suffered discrimination, the gays can and should be included in that.
What makes you think they want or need your protection? Do you think they’re completely incapable without your benevolence?
#49
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is the most celebrated and famous piece of legislation ever passed in the United States Congress.
Well, the left pissed on that a long time ago. The only thing left to “repeal” is the actual text. Further, replace “most celebrated” with “most meaningless” and you’d be spot on.
#10: No idea how old you are but those of us beyond a certain age grew up in different times and certain things learned or seen in one’s early years leave a lasting imprint that’s hard to shake. Try to keep that in mind before lobbing the stones.
#13: TGC, I do regret having to “filter” my life in conversation with people I don’t know well. I suspect that those I work with every day have a pretty good clue – it just doesn’t come up. Nevertheless, it weighs on my mind.
My partner is a lot like me on this: work is just a lot less complicated if the domestic situation is off the table (and he lived for years in LA – much more “out” than I am).
ENDA won’t make a lot of difference: Lawyers will make more money and employers who desire to get rid of someone because of [fill in the blank] will always find a way to do it.
Slackers and ne’er-do-wells who clog the courts everytime they get canned will get yet another chance at winning the lottery.
#69
I understand that. What I don’t understand is the “to my discredit” part.
I have a friend that owns a gay bar. He has all gay bar tenders. If ENDA passes, could I make him hire me since I am streight? Also if that doesn’t work, I can get him on age, since I am 85 and the 1964 Civil Rights law states (including many other things) that you can not disciminate account of age. So I got me a job even though that means that means he will probably lose all of his customers. Why did I wait so long to cash in on all of these goodies that the Federal Govt is giving me?
#63 “the argument of “stupid-employers should be on their own to make mistakes” just doesn’t fly.”
A) It’s not about “should be on their own,” it’s about “it’s their right to be”. Like individuals, in a free society businesses must be able to make their own decisions, and, yes, even mistakes.
B) Employment decisions are just like any other economic decision, and should not be treated differently. If Bill Gates decided not to buy a Slurpy from a 7-Eleven because he didn’t like the person behind the counter, would you consider that immoral or illegal? How about a year’s supply of Slurpies?
C) Businesses don’t have a “duty” to provide employment any more than individuals have a “duty” to work for them (nor, incidentally, do consumers have a “duty” to purchase their goods and services, especially if they find their behavior morally lacking). While we may feel morally obligated to behave in a certain way, that is very different than a legal obligation.
To choose is to discriminate, on whatever basis. It’s not the government’s job to tell us what is the valid basis of our choices. That is the economist’s and the moralist’s.
I’d rather see anti-discrimination laws in place to protect gays and lesbians
What’s that quote about giving up freedom for security?
If ENDA passes, could I make him hire me since I am streight?
He has all gay bar tenders. If I’m not mistaken, the go-go boys make more money. 😉
Hell, my dad was fired from a job and was told that he was a doddering old man when the let him go. I was denied a job with a major city fire department because I’m a white male. I’ve been refused service at a Louisiana restaraunt because I was dressed as a Union infantryman (Regulars by God!). My mom’s been fired twice after suffering OJI.
You grab your balls and move on. You don’t wallow in the mud pissing and moaning that they owe you your job.
Damn the law, I’da kicked you out myself! Damnyankees…
OK, since no one is disputing that these laws are unnecessary, and the board lefties are cheering on the government’s ability to tell employers whom they are supposed to hire and whom they can not fire, let me ask this, is there any line the government can not cross? Or, does government have a blank check to impose any kind of hiring regime it wants as long as it reflects the prejudices of those in power?
I never said that ENDA was unneccessary. People do get fired for being gay. I think that’s wrong. Most Americans think that’s wrong.
I do understand your argument, and if that’s the one you want to make then you should make that a party issue. It’s a loser of an issue which is why Republicans didn’t do anything to repeal nondiscrimination laws while they had control of Congress and the White House.
Overall we like to think that people get hired based on their qualifications and promoted based on the quality of their work. We all know that isn’t always the case, but we like to think that. It’s an ideal that Americans treasure and running against that as a politician would be suicidal. But please, feel free to encourage Republican candidates to promise to repeal laws barring workplace discrimination.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with the ENDA bill from your perspective. I mean, the scope of the government…aren’t protections already provided to everyone else besides gay and bisexual people and the transgendered community? If race, veterans (I think), people susceptible to age-discrimination, sex, ethnicity, and national origin already protected by anti-discrimination laws, what does it matter if one more group of people are protected? Doesn’t this law just give us assurance that if the employer readily fires someone for being gay, we can quickly prosecute?
I’m honestly interested in knowing why this is important to gay Republicans. I thought that you’d talk about the trans-exclusion from the bill…maybe you already did. Sorry if you did, I just found out this blog! Glad that you write it. It would actually be nice to understand the whole picture.
Not being a Republican, I don’t really care what the party’s position should be in order to gain electoral benefit. I’m not about left and right, I’m about right and wrong.
Off-Topic: Hillary Clinton: Queen of Pork. And for once this isn’t about her thighs, it’s about the half-a-billion in earmarks she’s larded up in the budget. Will she be campaigning on fiscal responsibility?
Quote of the day, for me.
Just out of curiosity, does ENDA over-ride ABA Rule 6.2, which allows attorneys to refuse to represent gay clients?
#77. “I’m honestly interested in knowing why this is important to gay Republicans.”
The issue is (or should be) of interest to any freedom-loving person, gay or straight, of whatever party affiliation, who feels that government should not make our personal decisions for us. That is our job, our responsibility, and our right.
As an aside, I witnessed the following after a gay-pride march a couple of years ago: As the crowd was dispersing, a young “gay guy” (hate that term, shoulda used queen) was crossing the road against traffic, and yelled at a cab driver he cut off “You better not hit me, I’m a homo!” (or similar). This is the mentality that legislation like this engenders, the creation of a “protected class” worldview, where we poor gay people have to be sheltered in the arms of the [Democratic] Party, who provides for us and keeps “the bad people” away. This is not “Nerf World” (couldn’t find a link to the SNL skit).
Exactly. I’m gay, I’m out, I’ve fought for gay equality… but what I’m “about”, is human freedom. I don’t see everything through the prism of my gayness. Rather, I see things through the prism of how our, year by year, our society slowly becomes more like George Orwell’s_1984_.
You have answered your own question. Women, blacks, and non property owners have all been clearly identified as “people” and they get all the privileges and immunities promised in the 14th amendment.
Gays, bisexual and transgendered individuals are recognized as people and the 14th amendment is applied to them as well.
The question is whether the status of being gay, bisexual or transgendered should carry a civil right that is exclusive to members of those groups. (For reasons I can not quite fathom, disbled people were given a special class civil right status.)
Any gay is free to marry under current laws of all 50 states. The hitch is that those laws are restrictive in ways that conflict with the “special status” of gays who often wish to marry someone of the same sex.
We have some problems in our hospital with “next of kin” documentation when a patient’s brother says one thing and the patient’s life partner says another. That problem needs fixing if for no other selfish reason than it ties up a lot of our time and resources over matters that have little to do with medicine. But we are all very aware the woods are full of John Edwards and his slip and fall partners in legal blackmail.
Not being gay, I have not personally suffered from discrimination aimed at gays. But our hospital has many gays on the staff and we value them as much and more as anyone else. However, we sometimes unwittingly hire a gay “activist” who can find a personal slight in every corner. Being the guy who finally deals with employee problems that work their way up the chain, I have fired gays for bringing their crusades to the workplace in ways that disrupt the order of the workplace. Were they fired for being gay? They would say they were, but I have never lost in court.
I equate ENDA to the concept of a hate crime. We will have as endless backlog of complaints under ENDA over “discrimination” when not a soul on earth can write a definition of “discrimination” that will give any employer necessary guidance. I liken it to hate crime, because every patient we see who has been abused is the victim of hate. I don’t relish the thought of having to assign affirmative action triage points because some law says they are in a “select group.”
Bravo, Dan. Proud to know you.