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.

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.

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.

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.

So an employee has the right to hire all white employees? blockquote>

Just as black businesses can hire all black employees.

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.

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.

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.

Please answer that for me.