ENDA: End 'a the First Amendment
ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), elevates "sexual orientation" to a protected civil right. Unfortunately, the bill passed this evening by a vote of 235 to 184. President Bush has said that he will veto the bill. A veto override would require 270 votes (2/3 of the House).
Today's floor arguments postitioned ENDA as a civil rights law. Comparisions to the racial battles fought and won, I believe, diminish the value of people like Dr. King. Selling sexual orientation (of any description) as the equivalent of racial bigotry and injustice is reprehensible. One might expect to next see validation of internet porn sites as a protected class of media presentation.
The Religious Right is certainly up in arms over this vote. The argument is that traditional religious norms are marginalized, and eventually even churches and privately owned establishments will come under federal regulation. They say, " It is formulated to remove the Christian objection to perversion from the mainstream of society."
For an older person it may be a reminder of quota systems and preferred status in hiring, education, mortgage financing and a host of other life situations. Those earlier laws and regulations were poised against racial disparities. To keep the situation in perspective, nobody in this country has ever been enslaved or disenfranchised because of sexual orientation.
Exactly what is ENDA purported to rectify? Exactly what legal framework is expected to be displaced?
ENDA is designed to mold social and cultural norms by federal law and subsequent regulation using government's influence. As the list of legally protected classes grows, equality of outcomes is the apparent goal of a step-by-step intrusion.
Comments
Should you be able to discriminate against someone because he/she is gay?
Posted by: Jace Walden | November 8, 2007 06:21 PM
No.
Posted by: Harry Johnson | November 8, 2007 06:23 PM
Larry,
If being gay/lesbian is a choice, shouldn't it be protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Religion is a choice, and it is protected under that act.
And if it is not a choice, but "something you are born as", then shouldn't it be protected just like you protect skin color discrimination (something you are also born with)?
Frankly, Larry, I don't understand your argument. You're coming off as a bigot.
Posted by: Jace Walden | November 8, 2007 06:25 PM
And Larry, if this bill is supposed to somehow silence the religious right into accepting homosexuality, then why are religious organizations exempt according to the bill?
Posted by: Jace Walden | November 8, 2007 06:27 PM
Jace, if I am coming off as a bigot there is a reason. I do not classify any sexual orientation as a legally protected class. Nor do I think fat kids, ugly women or foreign nationals are deserving of legislated special-ness.
People seem to want special considerations for skin color, national origin, ethnicity, religion, hair color and whether they can compete athletically at the same level with anyone/everyone else.
Why, you might ask? Because they feel threatened by a majority of folks who are not 'like them'. Somehow a minority status (race, sex, religion, illegal aliens, you name it) is deemed special and deserving of protections not afforded to the majority. This agenda to mold a society and culture, especially by way of federal law, is not American and does not provide greater liberties. It is Machiavellian at worst and at least Orwellian.
Who says a politically motivated bunch of social engineers is most competent to make the rules?? Pollsters and political consultants with a keen eye on the 2008 elections, that's who. Elections and agendas be damned, people's core beliefs will not be changed by John Lewis or Barney Frank making speeches.
We cannot allow dodgeball at school because someone may (1) get hit with the ball, or (2) someone may not play as well as others. We cannot allow kids to play organized playground games because someone may not be 'chosen' for a team. We cannot carry a pocket knife because it is a weapon. We cannot run a privately owned business hiring the people we choose and firing those who fail to perform as we desire. We cannot "discriminate" against a person for any reason regardless of whether they are fit for the task at hand. There is far too much emphasis on whether we may hurt somebody's feelings! Where in all this is any respect for human intelligence? How about acknowledgement of normal human thought processes?
Do I and others like me deserve special protected class status? Where does it end? At what point is it simply NOT a function of government to "protect" us, socially and culturally speaking?
To read the bill verbatim and assume that employment is the first, last and only facet of life that will inevitably be affected is naive. This bill oversteps the role of government by legally defining what is socially and politically correct and incorrect.
About bigotry: I have determined there are people, places and things I do not like. That is my right as a thinking human. Whether I may express those preferences is a matter of personal liberty. How I may act on those preferences becomes a matter of law IF and ONLY IF I physically violate another person or his property.
I choose to remain politically incorrect. I believe that every person has the same Constitutional rights as me. There is no creature of God that is more or less deserving of respect than me. Do unto others, and all that. Inherent in these beliefs is that nobody is more or less special than somebody else.
When the Congress chooses to create a special protected class for white, middle-aged, married with kids, oppressive mortgage, failing eyesight and overweight men THEN I will apply for the class. Until then, liberal social engineers should move to France or the Netherlands and leave this long-haired country boy alone!
Posted by: Larry Stanley | November 8, 2007 07:54 PM
Whether or not gay people are gay is a matter of personal liberty also. Why is it permissible to discriminate against them?
Posted by: Jace Walden | November 8, 2007 07:58 PM
Pay attention, Jace. Discrimination is a wide open term that requires definition, and specified parameters.
I never said it was permissible to deny homosexuals their right to live, work, play, etc.
I said there are far reaching implications of this law that cannot be justified.
Where does it end? And why is there no protected class for guys like me? Am I being discriminated against? How am I different in basic human rights from anyone else? Why must someone/anyone be elevated above anyone else?
I cannot tolerate politicians who, for whatever temporary gain, want to impose their designated Rules of Conduct on American citizens.
This law is different from a Pat Robertson prescribing social or ethical norms... this law has the weight of the federal government to deprive American citizens of their life, freedom and property!
Posted by: Larry Stanley | November 8, 2007 08:24 PM
Sen Sam Ervin (yes THAT Sam Ervin) wrote an autobiography - one of the best books I ever read. One section of the book was Ervin on Constitutional law. There was a chapter entitled "Civil Rights - Constitutional Wrongs".
Y'all would do well to read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Preserving-Constitution-Autobiography-Senator-Ervin/dp/0872157814/ref=sr_1_7/105-9436275-6391601?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194572737&sr=8-7
I am not sure in which box in the basement I have my copy - but if y'all are interested I will hunt for it.
Posted by: Green Death | November 8, 2007 09:01 PM