Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers [Employment Nondiscrimination Act]
NY Times ^ | November 8, 2007 | DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

Posted on 11/08/2007 2:26:08 AM PST by Former Military Chick

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The House on Wednesday approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.

The bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, is the latest version of legislation that Democrats have pursued since 1974. Representatives Edward I. Koch and Bella Abzug of New York then sought to protect gay men and lesbians with a measure they introduced on the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the brawl between gay men and police officers at a bar in Greenwich Village that is widely viewed as the start of the American gay rights movement.

“On this proud day of the 110th Congress, we will chart a new direction for civil rights,” said Representative Kathy Castor, a Florida Democrat and a gay rights advocate, in a speech before the vote. “On this proud day, the Congress will act to ensure that all Americans are granted equal rights in the work place.”

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a longtime supporter of gay rights legislation, said he would move swiftly to introduce a similar measure in the Senate. Some Senate Republicans said that, if worded carefully, it would have a good chance of passing, perhaps early next year.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has said that she would be the lead co-sponsor of the Senate bill. Ms. Collins, in a statement, said that the House vote “provides important momentum” and that “there is growing support in the Senate for strengthening federal laws to protect American workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; dncvalues; gays; homosexualagenda; homosexuals; house; nyglbttimes; rinos; stuckonstupid; unconstitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
Oh imagine a few dem's opposed the bill Among the Democrats opposed, many said the bill should have also outlawed discrimination based on gender identity.

Of course the White House spokesman said the administration would need to review recent changes before making a final decision.

1 posted on 11/08/2007 2:26:09 AM PST by Former Military Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

The dimlylit congresscritters can finally point to an accomplishment.


2 posted on 11/08/2007 2:27:56 AM PST by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Did congress use the corrupted form of the once good word gay?

It used to mean light hearted or happy, now it is corrupted to mean abnormal sex acts!

3 posted on 11/08/2007 2:34:37 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has said that she would be the lead co-sponsor of the Senate bill.

No surprise there!

4 posted on 11/08/2007 2:46:30 AM PST by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

There will be no end to the pandering to these perverts.

Alas Babylon.


5 posted on 11/08/2007 2:52:15 AM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Did the RATs sort out whether cross-dressers were covered by this as well? I recall that was a big battle.


6 posted on 11/08/2007 2:52:20 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

This is how England forced the Church to ordain gay clergy.


7 posted on 11/08/2007 2:57:14 AM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

No mention to protect churches or the boy scouts from being forced to hire gays.


8 posted on 11/08/2007 2:58:36 AM PST by Cyclops08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Of all the important things going on in this world....they pick this....

Well off to the senate for a "Toe Tapper" amendment.

god congress is more than worthless anymore.

9 posted on 11/08/2007 2:59:14 AM PST by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing.....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
FMC: Does this affect only Federal employment? The military?

==8-0

10 posted on 11/08/2007 3:00:15 AM PST by Does so (...against all enemies, DOMESTIC and foreign...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
Did congress use the corrupted form of the once good word gay? It used to mean light hearted or happy, now it is corrupted to mean abnormal sex acts!
Language is determined by usage, not the other way around.

Meanings drift over time. Less since Gutenberg, but it still happens.

Good luck fighting changes in popular usage of words over time. It's a lot harder than fighting city hall.

11 posted on 11/08/2007 3:03:16 AM PST by samtheman (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

So this means that normal men can be hairdressers, interior decorators, screenwriters and choreographers now?


12 posted on 11/08/2007 3:22:23 AM PST by USMCVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Finally, Mark will have the protection he deserves.


13 posted on 11/08/2007 4:27:14 AM PST by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

If it is now illegal (assuming GW signs it) to “discriminate” or even make policies that in any way affect the “rights” of homosexuals - then how about workplace rules that require me to put up with that crap at work? Does that not step on MY civil liberties?


14 posted on 11/08/2007 5:12:01 AM PST by TheBattman (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
I wonder if this really helps gays? Are potential employers going to be more likely or less likely to hire potential “legal problems?”
15 posted on 11/08/2007 5:57:16 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USMCVet
So this means that normal men can be hairdressers, interior decorators, screenwriters and choreographers now?

Even worse: they can be New York Times or Boston Globe editors. And because those papers are so financially strapped right now, they may not be able to afford the necessary accomodations to the Men's Rooms (lowering the stalls, filling the holes in the wall, etc.)

16 posted on 11/08/2007 6:02:14 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

This is just the beginning. And if anyone thinks they can just run and hide from the indoctrination that is to follow then your crazy. Expect the homo indoctrination at your schools (including private), your churches, and every other moral institution.

We are in a world of hurt if Bush signs this legislation, if you are a Christian, practicing Jew or even a Muslim you will be forced to bow and be silenced over the overt perversion that is to come.

This is there definition of diversity - no respect for people of faith, hate of all things decent and moral and lie like a snake and smear the opposition with help from the liberal media.


17 posted on 11/08/2007 6:37:53 AM PST by sasafras (All things evil are cloaked in the word diversity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
If GWB signs this, I sure hope to hear an end to the constant moaning about how it's Rudy who is the sole focus of evil in the GOP.
18 posted on 11/08/2007 6:42:27 AM PST by Notary Sojac ("If it ain't broken, fix it 'till it is" - Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal

***Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has said that she would be the lead co-conspirator of the Senate bill.***

Fixed


19 posted on 11/08/2007 7:18:49 AM PST by wastedyears (One Marine vs. 550 consultants. Sounds like good odds to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

And on another thread,

a company in Florida has banned its workers from

SMOKING AT HOME.

Now, which causes more health problems and shortens lifespan more?


20 posted on 11/08/2007 7:19:56 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson