|
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act 11/18/1997 "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
--General Colin Powell
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 was introduced on June 10th in the 105th Congress by Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT). The purpose of ENDA is to include "sexual orientation" as a protected class under employment discrimination laws. But ENDA is really bad business. It grants homosexuals the benefits of minority class status -- based solely upon their behavior. Humble Beginnings Over the past several years, the homosexual movement has been phenomenally successful in advancing its public policy and legislative agenda. This success began in earnest when the American Psychological Association (APA) officially dropped the inclusion of homosexuality as a disorder in 1973 in the 3rd edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III.) Since then, the homosexual agenda has permeated every aspect of society, including your workplace and the education of your children. By using humor and sympathy, they have carefully manipulated the minds and hearts of Americans into believing their lifestyle is normal. One has only to look at the television show, "Ellen" and the many homosexual characters on other shows to see the homosexual invasion. The ENDA bill continues this assault by injecting the homosexual morality into a civil rights debate. Its ultimate goal is to have society to accept their lifestyle choice as "normal."
In 1995, homosexual activists attempted to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners in Hawaii. Because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, these "marriages" would have had to have been recognized each state in the union. Continuing this trend on the federal level, the homosexual community is attempting to force societal acceptance from a different slant: workplace discrimination. Voters in Washington state rejected one attempt of equal protection, but the homosexual community is always working on several fronts. In order to garner support, they draw on sympathetic, fair-minded Americans and members of Congress who would never tolerate an unfair form of discrimination. Their rhetoric has high jacked the civil rights movement. Like in Washington state, the homosexual community claims they are not seeking special rights, only equal protection under the law.
In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's Amendment 2 (description of A2) was unconstitutional in Romer v. Evans.1 The Supreme Court found that homosexuals who were discriminated against were not seeking ěspecial rights.î The Court wrote, ě we find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people, either because they already have them or do not need them.î2 As a result, the homosexual community has used this decision as a building block for federal legislation. A Necessary Law? Historically, protected class status is determined by the courts and civil rights authorities by three standards. They are:
Essentially, homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians, by their own admission, share only one attribute on which they base their claim to protected class status: They choose to perform sexual acts with members of the same gender. Behavior alone is not a compelling reason to reward protected, minority, or ethnic class status with all the attendant entitlements. Homosexuals are enormously advantaged relative to the general population. According to the Institute for International Research in New York City, a survey conducted by Simmons Market Research Bureau claims that homosexuals have an average household income of $63,100.00 versus a general population income of $36,500.00. By contrast, the average income of a disadvantaged African-American household is somewhere between $12 - 13,000.
In fact, homosexuals do far better financially than most Americans families. According to Overlooked Opinions, a homosexual polling firm, the annual income of homosexual households is 41 percent higher than the national average. In addition, nearly half of all gay households include someone holding a professional/managerial job. And Businessweek noted that homosexuals are five times more likely than the average American to earn $100,000 a year.
During the 1996 elections, the Humans Rights Campaign Fund, a homosexual political advocacy group, raised more than $1.4 million. This put it in the top 1 percent of political action committees (PAC's) nationwide.
To further illustrate the point that homosexuals as a class are not politically powerless, Vice President Al Gore wrote in a letter to one of CWA's members:
This Administration has taken more steps than any previous to bring the gay and lesbian communities to the table. We have more openly gay and lesbian individuals serving in appointed positions, and their impact -- through both their expertise and their efforts to advocate for the concerns of gay and lesbian Americans -- has been significant.
In November of 1997, President Clinton agreed to give the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner. This was more than the rubber chicken fundraising circuit, however. He is the first president to address a homosexual advocacy group. Leaders of the homosexual movement say that by speaking at this dinner, President Clinton recognized the power of the homosexual vote and validated its civil rights issues -- one of which is the ENDA bill. President Clinton's remarks at the dinner included calling for a redefinition "of the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning" to include acceptance of gays and lesbians. With this kind of exposure, it is difficult to validate a claim of political powerlessness.
In other words, homosexuals are upwardly mobile, politically powerful citizens who have chosen to involve themselves in sexual behavior that is neither inborn nor unchangeable. Now, they are clamoring for protected class status -- special legal standing and advantages historically applied by governments in the United States to classes of people sharing distinct and immutable characteristics.
Homosexuals are not a model of a disadvantaged minority class. Disregarding the standard gay rights rhetoric, their movement is nothing more than a powerful special interest lobby intent on using their money and political influence to "piggyback" on legitimate gains of the truly disadvantaged. They can only gain these special rights and privileges at the expense of others.
Homosexual "rights" are not about equality under the law, which homosexuals already possess, but about special privileges and legitimization of their lifestyle. Clamoring for this protected status borders on the ridiculous when seen in the bright light of logic.
Addressing the homosexual community's claims of discrimination in the workplace, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute released a report entitled "Pervasive Patterns of Discrimination." In this report, they cited the results of 21 surveys of homosexuals over 11 years and concluded there were 1,583 cases of workplace discrimination based on one's sexual orientation. But what they didn't report was that assuming the survey was unbiased, sexual orientation discrimination suits accounted for less than 1% of the discrimination charges discrimination reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The question then must be raised, how was the discrimination determined. Did a homosexual man declare he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation when in actuality he was the least qualified for a promotion. Discrimination Complexities Current law allows special protection in employment for people based on their race, age, and gender. These are immutable characteristics. Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. and a civil rights activist describes it this way:
I used to be very overweight. When I was large, I could have chosen to be a victim, like many other obese people, and lobbied for laws protecting obese people from discrimination, but I decided to make a change. That's what we're facing today in the debate over homosexual rights. Homosexuals can either choose to be victims, or choose to make a change.
Sexual orientation is a behavior that can change. ENDA would be granting protected status to a group of people who exhibit one particular behavior. By that same logic, any group identified by a specific behavior could be eligible for special protected class status -- from vegetarians to drug abusers. ENDA would prohibit an employer from making a decision regarding an employee (hiring, firing, promotion, etc.) based on his or her sexual orientation, even if homosexuality is against the employer's moral or religious beliefs. Businesses Concerns U.S. businesses are already struggling under the heavy burden of excessive government regulations. Adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes would place an even greater burden on businesses by allowing the federal government to scrutinize another dimension of employer hiring and firing practices.
ENDA forbids employers from adopting quotas or giving preferential treatment based on sexual orientation.3 However, adding sexual orientation to the list of groups that qualify for special protected class status would have far reaching implications when it comes to proving that one is not discriminating against homosexuals. An employer would no doubt keep records of his homosexual employees in order to "prove" that he is hiring homosexuals.
Additionally, ENDA would burst open the floodgates of litigation. If civil rights protection is broadened to include changeable behaviors, employers would be put in the difficult position of evaluating "sexual orientation." When a black or Hispanic person interviews, the employer knows from their appearance that they belong to a special protected class. How is a business supposed to know if a prospective employee is a homosexual? And, what would prevent a person from claiming he was gay in order to be hired because of some government imposed quota?
Would an employer have to ask every person he interviewed if they preferred to have someone of the opposite sex or the same sex as a sexual partner? They wouldn't be able to do this for fear of provoking a lawsuit similar to lawsuits asking a person's age or marital status. However, if they don't ask, how will they know they are not vulnerable to later claims of "discrimination." A disgruntled former employee could falsely claim to be a homosexual in order to file an unlimited damages suit. This is lose-lose legislation.
Many businesses have already adopted ENDA-type policies for their companies. Mr. Raymond Smith, the Chairman and CEO of Bell-Atlantic Corporation, is a strong advocate of ENDA's passage, having testified at the ENDA Hearings on October 23, 1997. He states that "more than 320 Fortune 500 companies offer sexual-orientation protections as part of their non-discrimination policies.4 But itís one thing for a privately-owned company to choose to implement a discrimination policy based on sexual orientation, itís quite another story for the federal government to mandate it for all private and public sector companies. The Devil is in the Details There has been a lot of confusion concerning religious exemptions in ENDA. Subsection (8) of the bill defines "religious organization" to include any kind of religious corporation, association, or society. It explicitly includes school and institutions of higher learning if they are owned or run by a religious organization or if the curriculum is directed at propagation of faith.5 However, section 9(b) allows for a very dangerous exception.
Although churches and religious schools are exempt from ENDA, their for profit entities (with 15 or more employees) would not be exempted from ENDA. This means that Christian bookstores, day-care centers, summer camps, and radio stations with 15 or more employees must comply with ENDA. Non-profit organizations would also be subject to ENDA -- which means Christian-based non-profit organization or religious political groups would have to adhere to this law. Ultimately, an employer with a moral or religious beliefs against homosexuality would be forced to lay down their own rights at the altar of the federal government.
ENDA would also cover federal employees generally, including employees of Congress and presidential appointees. ENDA Hits Home ENDA's extension of special rights to homosexuals would affect all public employers, from the federal level all the way down to small city governments. Local police forces could be subject to homosexual hiring quotas, mandated recruitment of homosexuals, and "sensitivity training" for police officers.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have already enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.6 Those states include: California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. A total of 170 cities and counties have also passed similar legislation. Although state laws differ in some respects, they generally share a number of features with one-another and with ENDA.7
According to an October 1997 GAO Report, the definitions of "sexual orientation" often vary state by state. California gives no definition, but the law applies specifically to both "actual or perceived" sexual orientation. Massachusetts and Minnesota explicitly say, in connection with the definition of sexual orientation,8 that the protection of the law does not extend to pedophiles.8 Will the government sanction pedophilia as a ěsexual preferenceî next?
To add insult to injury, only a few states allow exemptions for non-profit organizations, and seven of the eleven states include all employers regardless of a company's size.9 This means a business with two or three employees would still be subject to ENDA! While every state allows an exemption for religious organizations, the for profit portions of these organizations must adhere to the tenets of ENDA. If states choose to enact their own laws against discrimination based on sexuality, that is their prerogative. However, it is not the domain of the federal government.
Overall, ENDA would be bad for businesses, bad for government, and certainly bad for Americans who do not sanction homosexual behavior. Homosexual activists are engaged in a campaign of misinformation and lies. They are demanding special privilege instead of legitimate rights. They are gently tugging at the sympathies of the average American as well as the unsuspecting member of Congress in order to gain more political power. Contact your state and federal legislators to let them know how opposed you are to this, or any similar, bill and all it implies. ENDA is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
|
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
