Beware of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act!
by: Penna Dexter - May 9, 2007 - comments: 16
According to Fortune magazine, corporate America is in love with gays and lesbians. In an article entitled Queer, Inc. (November 30, 2006), Fortune writer Marc Gunther describes the ways in which companies have structured programs designed to attract skilled homosexual and lesbian workers.
For instance, the defense giant Raytheon, in addition to providing domestic partnership benefits, supports a variety of gay-rights groups and belongs to gay chambers of commerce in communities where its plants are located. According to Fortune, companies like Raytheon find it in their best interests “to hang out a big welcome sign” to convince prospective employees who are open homosexuals and lesbians that they will not be subject to discrimination in the workplace. Raytheon’s “chief diversity officer,” Heyward Bell, says, “We can’t afford to turn our back upon anyone in the talent pool.”
Raytheon is by no means alone in offering enticements to prospective gay employees. Fortune reports that IBM is the number one supporter of “gay rights” groups in the United States. In fact, the company also extends benefits to transgender employees, having persuaded one of the world’s leading sex reassignment surgeons to participate in its health insurance program.
American Airlines helped one of its pilots change from Robert to Bobbi. Chevron has established procedures to guide workers through the sex-change process, including the optimal timing for switching restrooms. Other companies provide homosexual and lesbian employees with what are essentially the benefits of marriage: bereavement leave when a same-sex partner dies, adoption assistance or paid leave for the birth of children, and relocation assistance for the partners of employees who are transferred.
AT&T, Wells Fargo, Motorola, Intel, American Express, Microsoft, General Electric, Kodak, and Ernst & Young are just a few other of the major companies that provide extremely gay-friendly workplaces. Some of these companies host or support gay pride events. Many provide internal forums for gay employees and finance gay networking opportunities outside the company. And nearly all of them mandate workplace diversity training to ensure that straight employees toe the line.
This situation is due in no small part to the workplace organizing efforts of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-advocacy group. A June 2006 HRC report shows that for the first time more than half of Fortune 500 companies (263 to be precise) offered health-care and other benefits for the domestic partners of homosexual employees. That’s up from 28 ten years ago. HRC President Joe Solomese expressed his enthusiasm with a caveat: “Corporate America is far ahead of America generally when it comes to the question of equality for GLBT people.” His biggest beef is that it’s legal in most states for companies to fire or refrain from hiring someone because he or she is gay.
Not to worry, Joe. Congress is on it. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank has taken the lead in an effort to pass the carefully-named and often-debated Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R.2015), commonly referred to as ENDA. The argument is that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, and disability is already prohibited. Why not sexual orientation? Rep. Frank, an open homosexual, first introduced a version of this bill in 1994. But both the House and Senate, reticent to create a protected class that is not based upon immutable characteristics, but upon a behavior or lifestyle choice, wisely have not seen fit to enact this legislation.
By mandating a higher level of workplace protections for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender individuals, the passage of ENDA would endanger the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion of employers and eventually co-workers. If the new Congress passes this bill, the likely result will be a requirement that businesses maintain an atmosphere where heterosexual employees are forced to “value” homosexual behavior or lose their jobs. A better name for the legislation would then be Employment Discrimination Act because it would result in discrimination against bosses or co-workers who oppose homosexual behavior on religious or moral grounds.
ENDA would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote an employee based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The “gender identity” part is new and makes the bill even more troublesome and confusing to enforce than previous versions. It refers to “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
You could find that the male you hired a year ago might be in transition to become a female when the first performance review comes around. Perhaps this is not the image you want to project among your sales force or to your customers or the confusion you want to foist on the children who frequent your day care center or medical facility.
There’s a religious exemption, but it’s unclear how far this would extend into the realm of parachurch groups or businesses owned by those whose faith convictions do not endorse homosexual behavior. It’s supposed to make employers feel better that they would still be allowed to enforce reasonable dress requirements based upon a person’s gender at hire date or upon that person’s giving plenty of notice that he or she is changing sex.
Statistics show sexual orientation discrimination is not a widespread problem in America. Constitutional attorney and National Review blogger Roger Clegg wrote that, even if there are cases of discrimination that would be remedied by the passage of ENDA, “weighed against them must be the inevitable specious suits, the enforcement expenses, the dubious regulations—and the important costs of enacting yet another federal law of dubious constitutionality that violates free-market, freedom of association, and federalism principles.”
ENDA is not a means to foster equality, but a tool that would be used to bludgeon businesses into maintaining a work environment that affirms open homosexuality. The proponents of ENDA claim the bill’s provisions are similar to practices already seen in 87 percent of Fortune 500 companies. Fine. In America, individual corporations are free to frame their policies in a way that will allow them to attract and retain the employees they desire. Enacting ENDA would steal that freedom from non-compliant companies. It’s a bad idea.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.
comments
1 On May 8th, 2007, at 1:48pm, dan valdes wrote:
“But both the House and Senate, reticent to create a protected class that is not based upon immutable characteristics, but upon a behavior or lifestyle choice, wisely have not seen fit to enact this legislation.”
Here we go again. Boy the Baptists just can’t let the queer boy get a break. Being gay IS immutable. Why do you think that gay people need protection in the first place? Its because some people just don’t get it. And like the Baptists they would fire us in a flat second and indeed do so, without any recourse open to us.
“Statistics show sexual orientation discrimination is not a widespread problem in America.”
What statistics show this? Without a federal course of action to take, how does one tabulate how many cases come before the courts based on this kind of discrimination. At the very least the Baptists should be honest enough to say, we don’t like gays and we want to see gay people in the closet where they belong instead of playing this silly card.
2 On May 9th, 2007, at 5:19pm, Bill Hubbell wrote:
I myself am not a Baptist, a Catholic, a Methodist, etc.
There are a lot of instances where a homosexual has changed his or her “sexual orientation” or “preference” to become heterosexual. Therefore, it is obvious that being homosexual is not immutable. It is a choice, a very hard choice for some, but a choice. Being of a certain race, sex, national origin,age, or being handicapped, is immutable. Being homosexual is not.
I, personally do believe the Word of God. I believe there are absolute right and wrongs, and that God established those. That’s initially where we got many of the laws that have sustained our country thus far. As we disregard these foundational truths (that:killing babies is wrong, homosexual behavior is wrong, euthanasia is wrong, adultry is wrong,dishonesty is wrong, etc) our country deteriorates into a country filled with ever increasing violence, disregard for life and authority, selfishness, depression, sexual abuse,
STDs, suicide, etc.
3 On May 9th, 2007, at 9:12pm, Jonathan wrote:
What this legilation would mean is that it would be illegal for me to fire my babysitter because I found out he/she was homosexual. What if the babysitter was a pedaphile? Could I fire them then? What I mean is not all discrimination is bad. This bill is a bad idea because it confuses good discrimination with bad discrimination. Jury committess who assign jurors to their post are paid to discriminate. Schools had better discriminate against convicted child sex offenders when they hire employees. Discriminating for an unchangable characteristic (such as skin color) is completely unethical. But discriminating against someone because their sexual preference may be a threat to the purpose of the job to which they apply is just smart! I guess if this legislation passes and I get fired I could just claim that I was a homosexual and own that company. I’m sure that there will be many more homosexuals if this law passed.
4 On May 10th, 2007, at 8:29am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Bill Hubbell,
You say “There are a lot of instances where a homosexual has changed his or her “sexual orientation” or “preference” to become heterosexual”, however, that is a myth generated by anti gay groups to foster just this kind of homophobia. Gay people are born gay and we die gay. Some people are bisexual and some gay men elect to try to live a lie for apperances but I can assure you that your sexual orientation is immutable. Just try changing your own sometime and see how it works out for you.
5 On May 10th, 2007, at 9:00am, Dan Valdes wrote:
“What this legilation would mean is that it would be illegal for me to fire my babysitter because I found out he/she was homosexual.”
Dear Jonathan,
The short answer is NO. Companies generally need to employ at least 50 workers full time to fall under federal mandate, and even then there are many outs for small businesses. This bill is for medium to large employers. Check it out, this site publishes alarmist editorials just to get you all riled up, but one does well to find the facts. There are lots of agendas out there.
6 On May 10th, 2007, at 7:11pm, Jonathan wrote:
I apologize. I should have researched the facts for myself. You are right. I appreciate your clarification Mr. Valdes. So there is protection for my children after all. It seems to be threatened by this bill…
But there is one more thing I want to ask. You mentioned that “Being gay IS immutable. Why do you think that gay people need protection in the first place?” If being gay is immutable then why do so many homosexuals come out of the lifestyle? In the first place, the majority of homosexuals do not remain homosexuals their entire life. How could this be if homosexuality is “immutable?” What scientific research do you turn to for such facts that declare homosexuality as being immutable? Please enlighten me. Perhaps you too should look at the facts just as I should make sure I know mine.
7 On May 11th, 2007, at 12:20pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
“In the first place, the majority of homosexuals do not remain homosexuals their entire life.”
Why do you think this is true? It’s not. I have 100’s of gay friends and all of them have been gay from day one and remain so into middle age. I even know a gay man that had electro shock therapy (back in the 70’s) and it didn’t take the gay away. Believe me, it’s something we do not control. Besides, who would elect to be gay in this climate? Society makes it so much easier on heteros. Get to know some gay people and you will see. The “ex-gay” industry is a political myth machine.
8 On May 11th, 2007, at 6:51pm, Jonathan wrote:
I have no doubt that you have 100s of friends who have been gay for a long time. But some people do decide to stop being gay. How can homosexuality be “immutable” if even one homosexual leaves the lifestyle? The “ex-gay industry” is not an industry at all. It is not a political anything, it is a real fact. You too can change, Mr. Valdes. And society seems to be bending over backwards for homosexuals because everyone’s afraid of a lawsuit. Besides, the average homosexual in the USA has a high level of education and makes an average of 50,000+ a year. Yet you say society is hard on homosexuals? Please, understand, I do not mean to be disrespectful, Mr. Valdes, but you must understand that homosexuality is a lifestyle of choice. It is an unnatural lifestyle. Anyone can come out of it. It’s never too late.
9 On May 14th, 2007, at 8:21am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
I can change behavior and no longer have sexual activity with men, I can also put on a facade and begin having sexual realtionships with women, but I will always have attraction to men and not women. Some people are bi-sexal, I really don’t know anyone who has ever changed from one to the other, it’s a myth. The intolerance I speak of relates to sites like this one that would rather we not exist.
10 On May 14th, 2007, at 8:11pm, Jonathan wrote:
I am heartbroken for you Mr. Valdes. Remember, just because you do not know anyone who has really changed does not mean it is a myth. It just means you do not know anyone who has changed. And I highly doubt that Richard Land and company would ever say that they would rather you not exist. In fact, he has never said anything like that. But remember, you are visiting a website whose entire mission is contrary to your own. So be not suprised to find opposition. Does that mean intolerance? No. Does that mean they would rather you not exist? Never. In fact, they’re the ones who keep letting your comments be posted. At least they let you voice your opinion.
11 On May 14th, 2007, at 8:18pm, Jonathan wrote:
By the way, Mr. Valdes, you are correct when you say you will never be able to change. That’s why Jesus Christ died and rose again. He alone has the power to change lives by changing hearts. He has turned my life around, yet I still struggle with certain areas that I know are wrong, “unnatural”, and sinful. Yet, I know that those areas do not govern the way I live my life anymore. That is a role reserved for Christ and Christ alone. So, no, you will never be able to change, but Christ can bring you out of homosexuality regardless of how ingrained in your life it is. In fact the only hope for our lives is in Christ. Not in homosexuality, not in Richard Land, or oursleves, but in Christ alone. So for you or any other homosexual that may be reading this remember, that your life can change. God knew we couldn’t save ourselves from our own sin, so He came down and saved us Himself. The Judge took the sentence upon Himself. That is a promise we can bank on Mr. Valdes.
12 On May 15th, 2007, at 8:49am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
You are right that the Baptists do give me a voice here and I must applaud them for that. However, I am also keenly aware of this particular group’s political activity, something Mr. Land is keenly proud of. That is the main reason that I counter their false notions about sexuality and gay people.
Thank you for your well intended wishes. You seem to have this view of human sexuality that doesn’t jive with reality or science but your heart seems to be in a good place. I just wish you could understand that when I was a very young boy until now at middle age, my sexual orientation has been towards men. I have loved Jesus all those years and He has never seen fit to make me any other way than gay. Perhaps because He saw that I loved myself just the way He intended me to be.
Peace to you Jonathan. Be joyful for me, I know Jesus too. :-)
13 On May 15th, 2007, at 8:01pm, Bro.Charles wrote:
True spirituality rests not in the change, but faith in the changer. In other words Johnathan is right that Jesus Christ can bring someone “Out of” the homosexual lifestyle and David is right that he can “Love Jesus” and be homosexual.
I love Jesus and I am heterosexual, but I am also prone to:
GALATIANS 5:19…adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy,murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, “that those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
It is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out.Therefore if what comes out of us is offensive to God - it is sin, whether it comes from a homosexual or a heterosexual.
14 On Oct 27th, 2007, at 6:28pm, Mary Brown wrote:
As a transgender person who lost a job because of transition I totally support ENDA. And it isn’t anyone else’s place to judge, that is up to god. If you refuse to treat GLBT people fairly and as human beings you just might be the one being judged for doing wrong!
15 On Apr 1st, 2008, at 3:04am, Kini Roland wrote:
Are you kidding me with this? No one is going to be “forced” to do anything besides respect a person’s right to work based on their qualifications. People, “let us reason together.” If you are opposed to homosexuality based on religious beliefs, be opposed; what does it matter what a coworker does, besides their job? There is truly no explanation (or scriptual basis) for discriminating against anyone based on his or her sexuality. Quoting scripture solves the issue of moral right and wrong based on Christian beliefs, it does not explain why someone’s livelihood should be jeopardized.
You are not the Nation of Israel ordered to destroy Canaanites. You have no moral grounds for this stance.
16 On Jul 9th, 2008, at 7:39pm, Ric wrote:
As a born-again Christian I find it very “anti-Christ like” to be opposed to legislation that would seek to prevent discrimination based on a person’s behaviour that is not directed with evil intent. I know that Jesus was himself very opposed to discriminatory practices occurring during his own time in the physical world. Some examples would be Matt 15, where the Pharisees thought it “abominable” because He and His disciples didn’t follow ritual washing before mealtime, and then of course there is the incident with the prostitute, Where Jesus said to let him without sin cast the first stone. In fact, it seems that Jesus was more concerned with actual evil from the heart: greed, lust without Love, selfishness, hypocrisy, etc. If we were to discriminate on the basis of any Law given after the original “Ten Commanments” then we should all ensure we truly remove the big beams from our own eyes so we can see to remove a speck. Read John 15. Love, Ric