Posted on 10/21/2007 4:53:23 AM PDT by Man50D
Staff members for President Bush have helped congressional staffers work on "religious exemption" language for a new "anti-discrimination" proposal that actually would codify in federal statutes an anti-Christian bias, and that will make it harder for him to veto, according to an activist group.
"Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill," according to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth organization.
"At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the president would veto [ENDA], saying that they will wait to see the bill's final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a 'no-brainer' by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it," he continued.
His organization is running a campaign to encourage people to contact the White House to express their opposition to the plan.
"Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA's exemptions; we do not," he continued. "White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill.
"H.R. 3685's current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply held moral beliefs about homosexuality," he said.
The proposal, for which homosexual and transsexual activists are crusading, "has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal 'rights' based on wrong and destructive lifestyle," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
LOL! Another bad habit that I gotta drop.
“Tell me...what does the statement mean?”
I asked that same question to myself.
Thank You for posting this..
What is the specific language that touches upon free speech? Are we to believe the outlawing of employment discrimination based on "gender identity," (Great Caesar's Ghost! Admittedly plain silly, and admittedly enough to pull out the veto pen, if only because you want to save the courts from being choked with test cases) is infringement on the 1st Amendment? The Constitution trumps federal law, or its supposed to, I know...
This article raises more questions than it answers. I'll wait for the scholars steeped in the historic stream of Christianity and "apologetics" to inform me how this touches on free speech and, more specifically, how exactly (come again?) it reverses elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.
Before I help jam the White House switchboard again, I need logical talking points that put the left on defensive in the Media, not echo chamber whispers.
“This article raises more questions than it answers. I’ll wait for the scholars steeped in the historic stream of Christianity and “apologetics” to inform me how this touches on free speech and, more specifically, how exactly (come again?) it reverses elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.”
Look at what these laws have done and are being used for in England and Canada. That is a pretty clear indicator of where we are headed. Where pastors are jailed for their sermon. Where people are fined for quoting the Bible. That is the goal for these activists.
Forget about condemning public officials who have sex in public restrooms when these laws are passed. Any reference to homosexuality in anything other than a positive context will be a jailable offense. Its happening in other countries and is coming to your neighborhood soon.
Remind me again, when is Bush’s last day in office? I can hardly wait.
Or in Philadelphia, where those preaching on the sideline of a Gay Pride Parade were arrested and bonded over for trial... what ever happened to those folks, anyway?
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), introduced as H.R. 2015 in the 110th United States Congress on April 24, 2007, is a proposed U.S. federal law that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill provides employment protections similar to those of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (also known as “Title VII”), but specifically directed to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees. The bill is different from Title VII in that it contains exemptions for religious organizations and specific provisions about employer dress codes.
While the first bill on the subject of sexual orientation discrimination was introduced in Congress in 1974, the first bill using the current title of “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” was introduced in 1996, failing in the Senate by a 50-49 vote[1]. The most recent version was introduced the United States House of Representatives on April 24, 2007 by Congressmembers Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce. The 2007 version of the bill is the first time the bill has included protection based on sexual orientation as well as gender identity.
On September 27, 2007, a revised version of the ENDA was presented to the House by Rep. Barney Frank. The bill was numbered H.R.03685. The revised version of the bill no longer includes language regarding protections for transgendered people. The September version of ENDA has been protested by the majority of LGBT rights organizations with the exception of the Human Rights Campaign.[2]
Currently, 13 states have policies prohibiting both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment: CA, CO, CT, IA, IL, ME, MN, NJ, NM, OR, RI, VT, WA, plus the District of Columbia. Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin have state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only. Fifteen other states have laws[3] that have been interpreted to protect transgender persons.
Opponents point out that the legislation, in its current form, may weaken the ability of organization such as the Boy Scouts of America to prevent homosexual men from becoming scoutmasters.
Here are the sections pertinent to gender identity:
Section 3 (a) (6) GENDER IDENTITY- The term `gender identity’ means 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.
Section 8(a)(3) CERTAIN SHARED FACILITIES- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later.
Section 8(a)(4) DRESS AND GROOMING STANDARDS- Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from requiring an employee, during the employee’s hours at work, to adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards not prohibited by other provisions of Federal, State, or local law, provided that the employer permits any employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) announced today that she has secured an agreement from the Democratic leadership to introduce an amendment to H.R. 3685 that would restore gender identity protections to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The amendment would be considered on the House floor next week, after the bill moves through the House Education and Labor Committee this Thursday. After her announcement, the United ENDA coalition released the following statement:
Two weeks ago, our community was told that gender identity would not be included in any version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Congressional Leadership expected our community to acquiesce. However, United ENDA effectively communicated the strong opposition of hundreds of organizations and millions of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to leadership’s efforts to advance a stripped down version of the bill.
http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/one_bill.htm
One Bill, One Vote
The new ENDA hurts all of us
The recent revisions to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) have left us with a bill that no competent attorney representing the LGBT community would ever support. Over 150 LGBT and other civil rights and community organizations are on record as opposing the new version of ENDA for a number of very compelling reasons as a legal organization our opposition is grounded in the reality of the cases we have seen and stories of clients we have heard over the years.
NCLR, Lambda Legal, the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders and the Transgender Law Center are all unified in our opposition to a bill that will leave many lesbian, gay and bisexual, as well as transgender employees with no redress if fired from their jobs. The revised ENDA marks a major step backwards in the development of laws that protect LGBT employees from discrimination.
By dropping “gender identity” from the bill, this enormously important law, completely betrays the transgender community.
Dems Advance Bill to Grant Special Workplace Rights to Homosexuals
A bill that would force many religious and conservative groups to grant special rights to homosexuals in the workplace is scheduled for a full House vote next week after the Committee on Education and Labor moved it forward Thursday.
By a 27 to 21 vote, Democrats and three Republicans passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation.
The legislation seeks to add “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes under a 1964 act that prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Conservatives are concerned that the bill would strip constitutional rights from faith-based businesses that don’t agree with the lifestyles of homosexuals or bisexuals.
“When you strive to protect some people, you take away protections of other people,” noted Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif). “That is the difficulty, and I think some of us on this side are representing some of those people that feel like as good as your intentions are, you’re taking away their rights in their religious beliefs and dealings on a day-to-day basis.”
Notably, the Committee rejected four amendments offered by Republicans that would have protected the religious freedom of faith-based groups and individuals.
“It’s an attack on businesses and people of faith,” said Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, in a Chicago Tribune report.
“Businesses wouldn’t have the freedom to hire whoever they want,” he added.
Republicans who voted against advancing the bill argued that equating “sexual orientation” to other federally protected classes doesn’t add up.
“Sexual orientation is not the same as race, gender or age, which do not depend on perception at all,” said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind).
Souder called the legislation a “possible litigation nightmare,” saying that perceptions are enough to cause lawsuits resulting to a hostile workplace.
McKeon had also criticized the ambiguous language in the bill since one’s perception of sexual orientation is subjective.
“Under the bill, we would legislate a prohibition against employment discrimination based upon a person’s ‘perceived’ sexual orientation,” he said in opening remarks. “This vague term is not defined anywhere in this bill. It increases employee liability and will needlessly require litigation on the meaning of this term and how it applies to the work place.”
Meanwhile, Democrats were divided Thursday over the removal of “gender identity” from the bill, which would have extended special rights to people who identify themselves as transgender.
Despite the removal, Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative Christian group, argued in a news release sent out Thursday that transgenders could use the term “perceived” to their advantage and still claim protection under ENDA.
“The term ‘perceived’ provides homosexuals and transgenders far broader protection than for African-Americans, Hispanics, women, or people of faith under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” stated the group in the e-mail news release.
It’s a “slap in the face to all who fought in the Civil Rights Movement,” added TVC.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the bill’s sponsor, said he dropped the category “gender identity” because the Democrats didn’t have the votes to pass it.
Still, Democratic leaders promised to try and get additional legislation in the future.
“I believe that the step we are taking today will lay the foundation for passing these additional protections in the future,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, according to The Associated Press.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., who also backed the bill, has agreed to allow an amendment on the floor to include transgender rights, which is expected to fail.
A new direction for inclusive ENDA Gay
Fighting for state laws would ensure victory at the federal level.
Friday, October 19, 2007
REP. BARNEY FRANK has made clear that even with a significant Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, the Democrats cannot pass an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes transgender protection. Even if an inclusive ENDA were to pass the House, it is unlikely that it would both pass the Senate and not be vetoed by President Bush.
There has been significant lamenting and criticism about the current ENDA bill. Donna Rose, the first and only transgender member of Human Rights Campaign’s board of directors has resigned in protest. Lambda Legal has pointed out other flaws in the bill. The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition demonstrated at the HRC National Dinner.
******
In 1995, Rep. Studds introduced H.R.1863. The “digest” section of the bill stated:
1. This Act does not apply to the provision of employee benefits for the benefit of an employee’s partner; and
2. A disparate impact does not establish a prima facie violation of this Act. Prohibits quotas and preferential treatment.
3. Declares that this Act does not apply to:
1. religious organizations (except in their for-profit activities);
2. the Armed Forces; or
3. laws creating special rights or preferences for veterans.
Provides for enforcement. Disallows State immunity. Makes the United States liable for all remedies (except punitive damages) to the same extent as a private person. Allows recovery of attorney’s fees. Prohibits retaliation and coercion. Requires posting notices for employees and applicants.
This bill was supported by President Clinton in 1995-OCT. He said that if the bill were passed, it would guarantee that “all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, can find and keep their jobs based on their ability to work and the quality of their work.” It was also supported by: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, by many large corporations (AT&T, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft, RJR Nabisco, Quaker Oats, and Xerox), and by many liberal and mainline religious organizations, including the National Council of Churches, National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
******
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has once again been introduced in Congress.1 ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on “sexual orientation,” thus opening businesses with 15 or more employees to harassment by homosexual activist lawyers.
ENDA is billed as an expansion of equality, but it is really a “gay” power grab that would severely curb constitutionally guaranteed “unalienable” rights that Americans hold dear, including the freedoms of speech, religion and association.
Lead to further demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior. Many corporations that adopted “sexual orientation” policies soon found themselves besieged by demands for outright “gay pride” celebrations. Anything less than open promotion is regarded by many homosexual activists as “discriminatory.”
Despite ENDA’s religious exemption, certain religious and charitable organizations could still find their tax-exempt status in danger unless they provide special advantages for homosexuals. Businesses owned by devout Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality at odds with that taught by their faiths.
Even church-related institutions will be subject to harassment, as overzealous courts trample on religious exemptions in order to promote sexual “equality.”
Although there is a world of difference between skin color and sexual behavior, liberal courts are likely to blur the distinction and to regard traditional morality as a form of “bigotry.”
Civil rights attorney Joseph E. Broadus, who testified during Senate hearings on ENDA in 1996, summarizes the problem with ENDA’s religious provisions:
“The exemption language is at best problematic. An exemption should provide some clear area of protected activity with only marginal uncertainty. With ENDA, the uncertainty is at the heart of the provision.
“ENDA trashes the traditional respect for and accommodation of religious faith and practice found in civil rights laws. It seeks to chill and suppress religious expression and freedom of speech by using the law to transform or extinguish religious practices that are disfavored by the elite, such as the practice of declaring homosexuality a ‘sin.’ Because of its stealth design, ENDA discourages discussion of such issues.”3
"Some in the transgender community and those who agree with them have given a variety of strategic arguments why they think it would be better not to go forward. One variant is that since the President is likely to veto the bill anyway, it does not make any difference if we fail to vote on it. But it should be noted that this is directly contradictory to the arguments that the LGBT community has been making for years. That is, we have been very critical of arguments that we should not push for votes on anti-discrimination legislation simply because it wasn’t openly going to win. People have correctly pointed to the value of getting people used to voting for this, of the moral force of having majorities in either the House or the Senate or both go on record favorably even if the President was going to veto it, and have in fact been getting Members ready so if that if and when we get a president ready to sign this, we are closer to passage. To repeat, the argument that we should not take up legislation unless we are sure the President is going to sign it is directly opposite to all of the arguments LGBT advocates have been making for as long as I can remember."
"The real reason that people are now arguing that we should withhold any action on the antidiscrimination bill unless it includes transgender as well as sexual orientation is that they are, as they have explicitly said, opposed in principle to such a bill becoming law. That is the crux of the argument. There are people who believe – in the transgender community and elsewhere – that it would be wrong to enact a law that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation unless it fully included people who are transgender. I think this argument is deeply flawed."
"First, I would note that since I first became a legislator thirty-five years ago, I have spent a lot of time and energy helping enact legislation to protect a variety of groups from discrimination. In no case has any of those bills ever covered everybody or everything. Antidiscrimination legislation is always partial. It improves coverage either to some group or some subject matter, but never achieves everything at once. And insistence on achieving everything at once would be a prescription for achieving nothing ever."
Thanks for the phone numbers. I’ll be calling non-stop Monday to let these idiots know that American families are not going to stand for this alternative lifestyle garbage. This nation was founded on Christian values and yet now they are trying to ennact special rights legislation to protect some twisted sexual perverts. We need to stop this degenerate legislation in its tracks.
I forgot about Philly. Read some of the blog postings and the venom aimed at Christians is disheartening. Teh good news is those Christians arrested for not having a PC view had all charges dropped.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42905
If gays are normal why do they continue to demand special treatment?
If the President wants to hold his ground on the "gender identity" issue, he's likely to find the voters sympathetic. If the Rats want to take up the banner of the gender benders, it makes them look more like the party of the freaks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.