Yesterday Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), held a hearing of the House Education & Labor Committee, which he chairs to consider the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill which would bar private companies from discriminating against gay men and lesbians. And while some may say this is just an issue of workplace fairness, the real issue here is whether or not we need another law limiting the freedom of private employers.
Of course, it’s wrong to discriminate against an employee just because he (or she) is gay, but it isn’t the government’s business to prevent business owners from doing wrong.
And anyway, this bill is unnecessary.
The latest edition of State of the Workplace, a publication of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), shows what all past editions have shown: an ever-increasing number of corporations have adopted non-discrimination clauses protecting gay and lesbian employees (and offering domestic partnership benefits as well). In 2008, 423 companies in the Fortune 500 had adopted such non-discrimination laws whereas 360 had done so five years previously. ENDA, in short, is a solution in search of a problem.
Should this legislation pass, how would a liberal Administration enforce it, would the Holder Justice Department bring “disparate impact” lawsuits against corporations that don’t have the proper amount of homosexuals in their workforce. Would a lower percentage of gay people in the workforce (than in the surrounding jurisdiction) be evidence of discrimination as some liberals believe a lower proportion of minorities (than in the population at large) is prima facie evidence of discrimination? (See e.g., Sonia Sotomayor and the Ricci decision).
And how would an employer determine how many gays are in his employ (and a judge in his jurisdiction)? Would people be required to identify their sexuality when they take a job?
Now, the evidence from states with non-discrimination laws suggest that this would not happen, but most states elect their attorneys general, so they would be loath to bring such a lawsuit.
The current Attorney General, however, favors such suits when it comes to racial discrimination. Who knows how he (or someone of his ideological ilk) might proceed on sexual orientation?
To avoid such problems, the solution is simple: freedom. Eliminate laws which discriminate against gay people and don’t enact new ones in order to achieve “full equality” (whatever that is).
SOMEWHAT RELATED: Race-based discipline in Tucson schools
Says who???
When did the God-given right to freedom of association (guaranteed by the assembly clause of the Constitution) become wrong?
If I want to hire an ALL GAY MALE staff, what is wrong with that? Such businesses certainly exist. And why on Earth shouldnt they?
I daresay, if you believe the freedom to associate with whom we wish is indeed a God-given right, and you also believe it is wrong for people to associate with whom they wish, then I suggest you have some explaining to do to God as to why you believe you know better than He. 😉
Sounds to me as though you’ve bought into the liberal “diversity” BS. And it truly is total, top to bottom, unmitigated BS.
And a very good morning to you 😀
And by the by, why is two whites, three blacks and a handicapped lesbian Hispanic inherently better than 6 black men or 6 white Christian women???
Please answer that for me.
In a law firm I previously worked at, management was already collecting data about how many gay lawyers they had hired in order to prove to the diversity police at the American Association of Law Schools that they do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As Justice Scalia points out in his Bower and Lawrence dissents, the AALS bans from membership any law school which permits law firms which do not want to hire homosexuals to have access to the law school’s career placement services. Although the disclosure of one’s sexual orientation was deemed to be “voluntary,” no one can seriously doubt that such disclosures would cease to be voluntary if in the future there would come about a perception that the law firm in any way discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. This is not to slag on my prior employer. ANY large law firm would do whatever it took to make sure that they were not excluded from recruiting in virtually all of the nation’s law schools.
So, in some professions, we have almost ALREADY reached the stage that Gay Patriot worries about: where sexual privacy is in fact being eroded in the name of preserving the right to privacy in sexual matters. It almost causes me to regret supporting anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation all these years. I say “almost” because these laws can be still enacted and implemented in a way that sacrifices neither privacy nor the legitimate rights of religious organizations or religiously-affiliated businesses or concerns who have moral objections to people engaging in homosexual conduct.
but it isn’t the government’s business to prevent business owners from doing wrong.
So an employee has the right to hire all white employees? And discriminate on the basis of race or religion? The civil rights laws in the 60s were a “solution in search of a problem?
The latest edition of State of the Workplace, a publication of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), shows what all past editions have shown:
I thought HRC couldn’t be trusted, as it was part of the GayLeftBorg?
an ever-increasing number of corporations have adopted non-discrimination clauses protecting gay and lesbian employees (and offering domestic partnership benefits as well). In 2008, 423 companies in the Fortune 500 had adopted such non-discrimination laws whereas 360 had done so five years previously. ENDA, in short, is a solution in search of a problem.
And what if you are not lucky enough to work for one of these companies? Or you work in a state that doesn’t have a similar non-discrimination law on the books? Gay people working in the other millions of jobs and other states are SOL, then? Nice.
And what if you are not lucky enough to work for one of these companies? Or you work in a state that doesn’t have a similar non-discrimination law on the books?
If you’re a good worker, people don’t care — and I speak from experience on that.
Perhaps that’s your problem, torrentprime; you can’t stop yourself from behaving like an idiot in the office because of your mistaken belief that such behavior is normal for gay people.
So an employee has the right to hire all white employees? And discriminate on the basis of race or religion? The civil rights laws in the 60s were a “solution in search of a problem?
What does race or religion have to do with sexual orientation?
Answer: It doesn’t; it’s just torrentprime’s inability to explain why he should be protected from consequences for his promiscuous and irresponsible behavior in the workplace.
AE, I was hoping someone would make a comment like you did in your initial response. One could say the wrong I described is purely subjective. I do think it’s wrong to discriminate, but I also believe in a person’s right of free association. Hence, my opposition to ENDA.
but it isn’t the government’s business to prevent business owners from doing wrong.
Umm… what? Then who is preventing them from breaking laws? Who is holding them accountable? Who’s business is it?
As for freedom of association, that’s wonderful until you realize you’re the minority. I still live in a predominantly Christian nation and if given the opportunity to lawfully screen out gays and lesbians I think many would. I can pretend to be straight at work, but what are you going to do about people who don’t want to hire blacks or women? This little slippery slope you’ve built is neither relevant or helpful.
I disagree on both counts, Dan. ENDA in my view is needed and is no more onerous than the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I do have concerns about the “gender identity” portion and the overall enforcement. I am absolutely opposed to mandated quotas, which is how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 eventually was perverted into supposedly requiring. I do not want to see the same happen with ENDA. If this isn’t addressed in ENDA, I’d like to see a reform bill when the GOP eventually takes over explicitly prohibiting such across the board. Ward Connerly is right.
Since we can now marry in several states, and there are several churches which openly welcome us, and most corporations don’t discriminate against us, and it looks like we will soon be able to serve openly in the military–where, exactly, is the discrimination? Where is the justification for victimhood? Isn’t it time for gays to marry, have families, hold down jobs, and serve their country–rather than have Pride parades and Mr. International Muscle conventions?
What does race or religion have to do with sexual orientation?
Answer: It doesn’t; it’s just torrentprime’s inability to explain why he should be protected from consequences for his promiscuous and irresponsible behavior in the workplace.
My job is easier when you prove my points for me. Race isn’t a choice; religion is. In either case, some orientations are minorities with a history of discrimination and thus in need of protection, just as some races and religions are. Thus, they should be protected. Also, note the lack of answers as to whether or not an all-white workforce is acceptable.
And, surprise, surprise, more baseless personal attacks with no knowledge to base them on. My being gay makes me promiscuous and irresponsible at work, according to ND. These are your defenders, gaypatriot.net. This is your base. The devolution of conservatism continues.
I can pretend to be straight at work, but what are you going to do about people who don’t want to hire blacks or women?
Again, what do skin color and gender have to do with sexual orientation?
And to the latest example of that, torrentprime:
Race isn’t a choice; religion is.
Religion is also Constitutionally protected, as much as you would like to ignore that in your little antireligious bigotry fits, torrentprime.
And, surprise, surprise, more baseless personal attacks with no knowledge to base them on. My being gay makes me promiscuous and irresponsible at work, according to ND. These are your defenders, gaypatriot.net. This is your base. The devolution of conservatism continues.
Wrong, torrentprime.
I happen to know that being gay does not require you to be promiscuous and irresponsible at work. But you and your fellow leftists continue to use it as an excuse for the fact that you are. Therefore, I see enormous harm in putting in a law that protects you from the consequences of your behavioral choices.
It’s a pity that gays like yourself who can’t stop yourself from demanding sex from your coworkers and discriminating against those who refuse to give it to you sully the reputations of the rest of us.
That is conservativism, torrentprime: being able to stand up for principles, rather than balkanized minority status. You have no principles other than supporting promiscuous gays at all costs because they’re gay. Therefore, you should be treated accordingly and held responsible.
ENDA shouldn’t be necessary – and by the way, it *does* address the topic of quotas, explicitly. It doesn’t require them.
But is there really a problem here? For example, are trans people *really* significantly disadvantaged?
Here’s the facts:
• Double the rate of unemployment: Survey respondents experience unemployment at twice the rate of the population as a whole.
• Near universal harassment on the job: Ninety-seven percent (97%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or mistreatment on the job.
• Significant losses of jobs and careers: Forty-seven percent (47%) had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion.
• High rates of poverty: Fifteen percent (15%) of transgender people in our sample lived on $10,000 per year or less-double the rate of the general population.
Ah. Um. This is in agreement with all the other surveys. One of the most scientifically rigorous in the NE states showed 25% were unemployed, 40% were in part-time work, and 35% in full-time work. Those in full-time work had an average salary of $15,000.
There’s good libertarian arguments for repealing the civil rights act. To allow employers to advertise “No Jews need apply”, or to allow movie theatres to refuse the patronage of Blacks. To allow segregation, if that’s what people want.
But if we are to have a Civil Rights act, one that prohibits the most egregious implementation of bigotry in employment, then certainly trans people (at least) have an unimpeachable case based on the evidence. Gays, not so much.
B. Daniel Blatt asks, “Should this legislation pass, how would a liberal Administration enforce it, would the Holder Justice Department bring “disparate impact” lawsuits against corporations that don’t have the proper amount of homosexuals in their workforce.”
The answer is no, and Mr. Blatt could have figured this out if he had done a modest amount of research about the bill. ENDA is explicitly limited to disparate treatment claims. Disparate impact claims are excluded. The bill also explicitly prohibits the use of quotas.
Please do your homework before you start spreading baseless rumors about the likely effects of a piece of legislation.
Wow, now the far right is trying to use misleading fear mongering to trick the lgbt community into being afraid of ENDA. This is silly, and it isn’t going to work.