How many times do we have to have this argument?
Remember the discussions of ENDA and GENDA? Well, now there’s a new contender in the ring: DUMBARSE. That’s not really an acronym for anything, but in my current mood it was intensely satisfying to type that in all caps.
White House Warns Of ENDA Veto - 365Gay.com
(Washington) In its first statement on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect gays and lesbians in the workforce the White House said Tuesday the bill is likely unconstitutional and that if it passes in Congress the president’s senior aides would recommend vetoing it.
“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.
The House is expected to vote on ENDA, along with an amendment that would extend protections to include gender identity on Wednesday.
The White House raised what it called two examples of how ENDA would violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685. A second concern is H.R. 3685’s authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States’ immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.
“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”
In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”
[...] “It is shameful that the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto landmark legislation to end workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Fully qualified, capable Americans should never be denied a job or fired from a job for non-work related reasons,” Miller said.
“Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.”
[...]ENDA, as currently worded, would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee.
There are, however, some notable exceptions. It does not cover small businesses, churches and the uniformed members of the armed forces. The White House concerns suggest that ENDA could be used against faith-based agencies and to seek domestic partner benefits from employers. The threatened veto is the second against LGBT legislation before Congress. The other is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act.
[deep breath] Buckle in, kids; this is going to be a long one. I’m pissed, and I’m going to ramble. There are so many things in there that set me off that I don’t even know where to start, but I’ll try to pick and choose my points rather than going off on every little tangent.
“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement.
Here we run into a dilemma, my friends, and the very first thing in this article that raised my hackles. Despite being a full-blown atheist, a walking and talking godless heathen, I believe strongly in the freedom of religion. Hell, it’s part of what this nation was founded on. I believe in freedom of religion as part of every person’s personal freedoms, a right that should not be taken away from anyone as long as it isn’t harmful to other people.
But I don’t believe in exercising one’s religious freedoms in order to encourage discrimination. Freedom of religion should never come before basic human rights. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; we’ve lost sight of the separation of church and state in this nation, and all other human rights take a back seat to upholding religion. Neither faith nor religious institution should come before the protection of basic civil rights. Yes, religious freedom should be protected. But it should come second to civil rights for the GBLTQ community, or civil rights for any group that is discriminated against based on race, gender, sexuality, or other traits that are one’s birthright, not one’s choice. To say protecting the rights of our community is unconstitutional is like saying equal rights for African Americans is unconstitutional, or that the right for women to vote is unconstitutional.
Faith is a choice, people. People constantly label homosexuality as a lifestyle; it’s not. It’s a trait. Faith is a lifestyle. Faith is an adopted set of beliefs and a way of life that you choose to follow. So don’t discriminate against people for what they are because you’re trying to protect people for what they choose. Protect both, but get your freakin’ priorities straight.
The administration also said that ENDA was result in unnecessary litigation.
“For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on ‘perceived’ sexual orientation, or ‘association’ with individuals of a particular sexual orientation. If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.”
That, right there, is the only valid argument I can see against passing ENDA - from their stance, anyway. If the language is ambiguous enough it’ll create more problems than it solves, and open up ground for frivolous lawsuits in absolute droves, from both sides of the spectrum. If that was the only reason for the threatened veto, I’d say “Fine, you’ve got a point. Go fix the thing and then run it through the wringer again, damn it.” But it’s not. Oh, no, it’s not, and here comes the one that got me really steaming.
In addition the White House said that provisions of ENDA “give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.”
….
…….
…………
Wave that torch a little higher, Shrubby.
“Sanctity of marriage”, my tarty little brown arse.
I loathe the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. I always have. I think it’s an outdated, antiquated piece of filth that basically forces the religious views of a particular sector onto an entire nation, shielded by federal law. It goes against everything that “separation of church and state” stands for, by abusing the power of the state to enforce the power of the church, and it never should have been introduced in a modern age. It should not in any way be used as an argument against ENDA.
You know what? Maybe ENDA should be used against faith-based agencies that way. Maybe employers should be forced to recognize domestic partner benefits regardless of whether they’re a faith-based agency or not. I’m normally not a fan of aggression over diplomacy, but this is getting ridiculously out of hand. We’re constantly told that we should put aside our sexuality in the workplace, and therefore equal rights in the workplace and discrimination based on faith vs. sexuality shouldn’t affect us. Stay in the closet, pretty much.
Why don’t the people who protest our very existence get in their own damned closet? Why don’t they put their faith aside in the workplace in the same way they tell us to put our sexuality aside? If we don’t deserve equal consideration for who we are, why should they deserve equal consideration for their choices? Either we both win, or we both lose.
Or they can suck it up, we can come to a compromise, and we can have our basic human right to equality before they exercise their freedom in their choice of religion. It’s entirely unfair of them to wage their religious wars over our civil liberties.
Something’s got to give here.
And I’m getting damned sick of it being us.
ENDA, ENDA veto, employment non-discrimination act, GENDA, workplace protections, house of representatives, house speaker nancy pelosi, religious freedom restoration act, rfra, federal defense of marriage act, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change
October 24th, 2007 at 2:59 am
[...] socialmaturity wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“[The bill] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” the White House said in a statement. The House is expected to vote on ENDA, … [...]
October 24th, 2007 at 3:02 am
More evidence of the administrations head up its colossal ass? Eh. No matter how hard you argue the facts, people will dispute them.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:15 am
[...] Roy Eappen wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf the language is ambiguous enough it’ll create more problems than it solves, and open up ground for frivolous lawsuits in absolute droves, from both sides of the spectrum. If that was the only reason for the threatened veto, … [...]
October 24th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I am not happy, and now I have to find a way to calm down before work or else I’ll explode and take it out on an innocent person. Which isn’t against any law, but since it’s not their fault, why bring it into the workplace?
See, that’s how the thought process should work. Well, something like that, anyway. Maybe a little more coherent, though.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Ugh, that is utterly repulsive on the part of the Administration (I sort of was amused by how it was capitalised in the article). I very much agree with your last section of the rant, that part of the article made me want to break something. It’s really frustrating how stupid and loony some people can be and call it their religious right, and then say that something that we are born with isn’t as valid as their religion… Grrrr….
October 25th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Now, I have to play the devils advocate and counter your first argument. I do happen to agree with the argument of protecting the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion.
While the thought of allowing anyone the ability to discriminate based on any reason is repugnant, the fact is that religion is a protected class under the Constitution. The only way it could be overridden is with another amendment. No matter how right you are in your argument (with which I agree whole-heartedly), no federal law can override the Constitution in any way.
So, faith-based organizations have to be completely excluded from the law. For instance, the Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago is one of our area’s largest Christian faith-based organizations. Should they choose to not hire gays, lesbians, or the transgendered, that is their choice (and a choice that is protected under the Constitution in its current form). I happen to know they employ a good number of homosexuals (as well as people of the Jewish and Islamic faiths), so don’t pick on them; they were just an example for my rambling.
As much as I loathe to say it, the administration is right: we need a constitutional amendment to make this happen legally.
October 25th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Kujo: I agree that they have the constitutional right, but I can’t say that they’re right. The problem is that an amendment to the Constitution correcting religion’s immunity from applications of civil rights is even less likely than the White House allowing ENDA to pass.
And I can’t help but feel that that constitutionally granted immunity is applied unfairly. Faith-based organizations can get away with discriminating based on sexuality. I’d bet you my next paycheck for this blog that if any of them pulled the same thing about race, refusing to hire a black, Hispanic, or Japanese person because something about their religion said they couldn’t, they’d get crucified (no pun intended).
October 25th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Adri, there are even worse levels of acceptance in society for that. I mean, would any jury anywhere dispute the KKK has the right to deny membership to a black man? Or a homosexual? Or a Muslim?
I do think that most faith-based organizations and even churches are lucky that people of a different faith tend to avoid them. I can’t imagine my parents’ church hiring me, a gay (well, bi) atheist for their IT department. But I think I would have sufficient legal grounds to sue if that was why I was denied (especially in the liberal Illinois Federal District Court).
But I agree, it’s not right.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
~twitch~ Considering that I grew up as a dark-skinned person in the deep South, I was trying very hard not to remember the KKK. One thing I like about you, Kujo, is that you force me to consider angles that I’d rather avoid; you and Reynai both.
At the same time one thing I dislike about you, Kujo, is that you force me to consider angles that I’d rather avoid… (…just teasing.)
But yeah, you’re right in that often that immunity is enforced not by the law, but by our own behavior. People stay out of places where they’re not wanted, for the most part, and usually with good reason. There was some old joke about a black man winning a legal battle to join the KKK, though…anyone remember if that had any basis in fact?
October 26th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Hey, it sure ain’t easy for me to go shopping. Do you know how many times I talk myself into and out of buying something? It took two hours for me to buy new brown dress shoes last week, and I ended up picking the first pair I tried on (18 pairs later). I thought the sales lady was going to kill me, and I still argued with myself the whole way home.
Oh my God, I’m so gay …
October 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
~pets~ It’s okay, Kujo, we still love you. (…says the man who only owns four pair of shoes and hasn’t bought new ones in at least a year…)
October 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hey, so do I (gym shoes, sandals, black dress, brown dress).
October 27th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against my church’s right NOT to discriminate against GLBTQ. What about OUR religious freedom? (I’m Unitarian Universalist).
Bush is an idiot, but, then, I guess saying that is like saying the sun rises in the east–just stating the obvious.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
[...] Roy Eappen wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf the language is ambiguous enough it’ll create more problems than it solves, and open up ground for frivolous lawsuits in absolute droves, from both sides of the spectrum. If that was the only reason for the threatened veto, … [...]
October 13th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I don’t really expect that this problem would grow bigger like this..