Posted on 02/27/2002 12:23:48 PM PST by kattracks
Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Should homosexuals receive the same preferences under the law as women and racial minorities? That's the question broached Wednesday by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee as they considered the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA.
The legislation would add "sexual orientation" to the list of classes protected by federal civil rights laws, along with sex, race, religion, ethnicity, and national origin.
Supporters say the change is necessary to end "widespread discrimination" against homosexuals and transsexuals.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who chairs the HELP Committee, has been a long-time supporter of the idea and is the sponsor of the current bill.
"We must continue the progress toward freeing ourselves from this form of discrimination," he said. "America will never be America until we do."
The bill would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" by employers and prohibits related retaliation and coercion, according to a summary provided by the Congressional Research Service. It would also give homosexuals and transsexuals the right to sue when they believe they have been discriminated against.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) supports the legislation.
"It extends fair employment practices, not special rights, to lesbians, to gay men, to bisexuals," Clinton said. "This is not as dramatic or revolutionary a step as many people have advocated that it is."
Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, disagrees.
"Civil rights legislation was enacted to protect the rights of racial minorities," he argued. "ENDA is not a logical extension of that legislation because it is aimed at providing special protections for a particular behavior."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned whether passing ENDA would achieve the desired effect, or simply make matters worse.
"If we impose a federal law, which some will view as an unwanted edict imposed from Washington, is that really going to promote acceptance and compliance," Collins asked. "Are we going advance the cause by passing federal legislation?"
Richard Womack, director of the civil rights department at the AFL-CIO, who also testified in support of the bill, believes Collins' question misses the point
"Some of our folks are still in the dark ages, and they just need to be enlightened," Womack said. "Anyone who practices, who indulges in discrimination, I say, should be sued."
But Connor says the bill is more about indoctrination than discrimination.
"The issue is not job discrimination, it's whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts to force acceptance of a certain behavior," he said. "It violates the rights of millions of Americans with different views on that behavior."
The head of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute, Robert Knight, criticized Kennedy for not scheduling witnesses to present opposition to the bill.
"Mr. Kennedy is being openly complicit with attempts by the homosexual lobby to force organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America to either hire open homosexuals, against their policies and against the wishes of parents, or face federally funded lawsuits," he warned. "That's just one of many ugly ramifications of this bill."
Knight says ENDA would also:
- Expand federal power over the workplace.
- Create new grounds for lawsuits by injecting sexual preference into civil rights law.
- Elevate multiple-sex-partner relationships into a federally protected "right."
- Put the federal government on record, and in law, in opposition to traditional marriage.
- Forbid employers from taking sexual conduct into account when hiring childcare workers.
Although the bill does contain exemptions for "religious organizations," opponents fear that exemption would be struck down by the courts, opening churches, synagogues, and mosques to the threat of lawsuits if they refuse to hire homosexuals, even for positions of "moral leadership."
Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition says the opportunities for abuse of religious institutions would be great if the bill becomes law.
"This will mean that homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and even voyeurs could claim federal protection for their particular 'orientation,'" he warned. "Christians and other religious individuals will be silenced under this law."
Kennedy plans to hold another hearing on the bill in March.
"This legislation has been before Congress for 25 years," he said. "It's time that we take the steps to enact it."
E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Well, that's where the argument lies. Many will argue that homosexuals are born that way, so it's not necessarily rewarding a behavior more than an inborn trait.
Sexual orientation is such a false premise to begin with. "I will not hire you because I don't like how you have sex." It can't be said if the subject is neither brought up or the "orientation" flaunted. It should be a non-issue. But, if some feminine acting man wearing lipstick goes to apply for a job as a bank teller, say, then he is no more likely to get the job than a masculine man with a wrinkled suit.
How do you get preferences out of this?
The bill would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of
"sexual orientation" by employers and prohibits related
retaliation and coercion
This isn't preference. This is about
being able to earn a living.
I couldn't read anymore past that. Which ENDA are they refering too?
I can see where any employee graphically describing chaining and beating his masochistic wife will be a poster child for "diversity".
Thank goodness I live in a "right to work" state. If management doesn't like you, you're toast.
Is it me or is all this stuff just the back-door approach to just this scenario?
As a libertarian, I think employers should have
absolute discretion as to who they hire. However,
as long as what you do at home has no effect
on your job performance, it is none of your
prospective employer's business.
Anyone have different info?
I wish ex-homosexuals would storm the talk shows. But the liberal media would have no part of that.
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.