ENDA’s not pro-business, it’s anti-competition
No wonder Log Cabin national continues to crumble (while many local clubs flourish). Instead of offering a conservative approach to gay issues, they continue to support the policies and ape the rhetoric of the increasingly left-wing national gay groups.*
In Log Cabin’s latest missive, they do the right thing in defending Vice President Cheney against attempts by a left-wing radio host to misrepresent his records, but use the wrong terms, telling us that that good man spoke out on “equality issues” while Vice President. He did no such thing. He merely registered his opposition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage then-President Bush backed.
Earlier this month, Log Cabin issued a release, calling for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and dubbing that interventionist legislation “pro-business.”
ENDA”s not pro-business, it’s anti-competition. It’s just an excuse to expand the scope of the federal government, a solution in search of a problem. Indeed, in his organization’s very release touting ENDA, Log Cabin Republicans Spokesperson Charles T. Moran shows us what it’s unnecessary:
ENDA is reflective of policies already in place by the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in America, as well as supported by many small-businesses which form the backbone of the American economy.
Why do we need the federal government to tell businesses to do what they’ve already been doing volunarily? Even during the supposedly dread (for gays) Bush era, an increasing number of private corporations enacted non-discrimination clauses, without pressure from the federal government. In 2008, 472 (94.4%) Fortune 500 had adopted such policies, up from 323 (64.6%) in 2003.
Most corporate executives recognize that in order to be competitive, they need an inclusive workforce. Why should the government force all companies to do what many have already done, reducing the competitive advantage of companies that have sought to make employment in their workplace more attractive to gay men and lesbians?
Those businesses, small as well as large have enacted non-discrimination policies (as well as those offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees), because they know it’s good for business. They didn’t do so because of a mandate from the federal government, but because they have learned responding to changing social conditions is good for business.
Let’s let businesses determine how to respond to the increasing social acceptance of gay men and lesbian. They’ve been doing a great job so far.
Trying to dress up ENDA as “pro-business,” Log Cabin’s leaders betray a limited understanding of the free market. This legislation works to the disadvantage of companies which have already reached out to gay and lesbian employees and clientele.
RELATED: The Hullabaloo over Microsoft.
*Just one example, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has joined a number of left-wing outfits in Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), a George Soros-supported “coalition” pushing for passage of Obamacare.
8 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan, thanks for this post. Someone had to say it – that government mandates as such are anti-business, and ENDA is just another needless federal mandate. You could add that it’s anti-States’ rights, as well.
In the 1990s I had the privilege of being a gay activist at a certain large, trend-setting corporation. Over a period of several years, several dozen of us got the company to have a non-discrimination policy, marketing and hiring outreach to the gay community, and finally Domestic Partner benefits. So I know it can be done by private action, when people of goodwill are willing to use persuasion. The government didn’t help us for jack squat – this was the era when the Democrats were busy creating DADT, and pretending to dislike DOMA but signing it anyway and boasting about it – and we didn’t need government help. All it took was courage, rationality and a bit of patience.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 25, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - August 25, 2009
Re Log Cabin: Robert Conquest’s 2nd law of politics: Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
Comment by SoCalRobert — August 25, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - August 25, 2009
I bet that you wouldn’t have been as successful with government help.
Comment by Leah — August 25, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - August 25, 2009
you should explicitate your thought in a more general way;after you could judge the error of your reasoning.In 1964 the civil rights act was succesful in its aim to desegregate the south states and contained similar provisions concerning employment,that resulted necessary to end jim crow.In fact jim crow was anti-economical for the reasons you have reported and in a rational market it should not have existed. But social stigma was sufficient to mantain it ,against the forces of free market.In some states the firing of lgbt people do not cause legal or social problems and the federal government should protect these people like it did for blacks in 1964.
Comment by volpi — August 26, 2009 @ 8:46 am - August 26, 2009
I would agree that calling ENDA “pro-business” legislation is a bit of a stretch (I see it as neutral business-wise), but I do agree with it in general for sexual orientation. Where I have I concerns with the proposed law is the enforcement, especially as it comes to “gender identity”. That to me seems like a loophole large enough for the proverbial Mack truck to drive through. For example, I do not consider it discriminatory at all that pre-op transsexuals are not allowed to use the same public bathroom or changing facilities that persons of their desired gender use. Most transgendered activists I’ve seen dismiss this as rightwing scare tactics involving false accusation of potential child molestation, but really we don’t even have to go there. It’s about common decency and respect for the general public which many of these activists ignore. Unless we are going to advocate uni-sex public facilities across the board, I do not find it unreasonable to make it a rule that one have the outer parts match the gender of the facilities they are using.
Comment by John — August 26, 2009 @ 10:04 am - August 26, 2009
you do not answer unpleasant questions.Why the civil rights act was more legitimate than enda? was it legitimate or not?In louisiana bobby jindal let drop an anti-discrimination law one year ago,with the justification that no federal or state law protected lgbt people. Was it right?I can have doubts about the application of such laws,but the principle of protection should be enshrined into law. do you have answers or this is a blog only for a small group of friends that have the same ideas? i beg you pardon for my english,but i am a mother language italian
Comment by volpi — August 27, 2009 @ 8:41 am - August 27, 2009
You have to be freaking kidding me with this one. Do you honestly feel that you need to back big business over homosexuality? What you fail to realize is that while Fortune 500 companies might be instituting these policies anyways (which some prove absolute contradictions to that statement such as Exxon), its places like schools and public offices that refuse to hire gays and lesbians on an overwhelming basis. School teachers in Ohio can be, and have been, fired simply for being gay. I’m sorry if ENDA might offend some of your big business friends, but the truth is that when you get your head out of rich white america’s arse you quickly learn that ENDA is needed.
Comment by galefan2004 — August 27, 2009 @ 10:27 am - August 27, 2009
care to put a source to that, galefan? Considering I’m in Ohio and all…
Comment by The Livewire — August 27, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - August 27, 2009