Gov't to Dictate to Religious Groups on Hiring Gays, Bisexuals
WASHINGTON -- Some religious organizations will be prevented from acting on their beliefs in making employment decisions regarding homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people if the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is passed, a Senate committee has been told.
"ENDA, in its present form, would impose a substantial or unconstitutional burden on religious organizations and would interfere in their effectiveness in terms of pursuing their vision," lawyer Craig Parshall said in testifying against the bill in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
The legislation would make discrimination based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" illegal in such areas as hiring, firing and compensation for both the private and public workplace. The measure would treat "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in a fashion similar to other federally protected categories, such as race, gender, age and religion. "Sexual orientation" includes homosexuality and bisexuality, while "gender identity," or transgendered status, takes in transsexuals and cross-dressers.
The bill provides exemptions for religious organizations, the military and businesses with fewer than 15 employees, but Parshall said the exemption for religious organizations is insufficient for those motivated by a biblical conviction that homosexuality is sinful.
"It really provides no meaningful protection for the vast number of Christian ministries out there, both non-profit and particularly for-profit Christian ministries, bookstores, Christian publishers and so forth. In an area like this, clarity is necessary," Parshall told Baptist Press after the hearing.
For instance, if a Christian bookstore decides not to hire a homosexual, the courts can rule that the decision was made not because of the applicant's religion but because of his sexual orientation, said Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Religious Broadcasters.
"I'm fairly confident that after many, many years, if this has passed, we will finally get the courts to recognize it's unconstitutional, but between now and then, a great deal of damage is going to be done in ministries," he told BP.
Camille Olson, another witness, said ENDA should be easier to understand.
If ENDA is clarified, "there would be less ambiguity, less confusion and more likelihood that individuals would understand how to comply with ENDA," said Olson, a lawyer at a Chicago firm.
In the meantime, while the bill is in the process of being reviewed, homosexual individuals are in need of protection in the workforce, some witnesses and senators said. Secular businesses, such as Nike Inc,. will thrive if the bill passes, the committee was told.
"Nike's support of this bill is a reflection of our employment policies, practices and training programs.... [T]hese are designed to reinforce a culture of inclusion and respect where each employee can reach their full potential," said Virginia Nguyen, a diversity and inclusion team member at Nike, at the hearing.
The committee's chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin, D.-Iowa, said at the Nov. 5 hearing the "harsh reality is that employers in most states in this country can still fire, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identification; shockingly, they can do so within the law."
Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, said President Obama supports the bill.
"The Obama administration believes that ENDA must be the next step and that this act will be a worthy addition to its venerable predecessors," Perez said.
The Senate version of ENDA is S. 1584, while the House bill is H.R. 3017. The Senate bill has 43 cosponsors; the House measure has 189.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
If a "separation of church and state " is so important to people, how can people support laws regarding practices of religious organizations? Our Congressmen aren't allowed to pray in session, but they can create laws forcing a group whose beliefs do not support homosexuality to hire such people? What's next? Churches can't have signs out front because they're shoving their religion down the throats of others? Gotta love how the anti-religious movement contradicts its own views.
The proposed law just says that if the best person for the job happens to be gay , or black, or hindu, you can't just fire them for being gay, or black, or hindu. Unless you're a church . Or employ less than 15 people. If you're a small business, you can still advertise saying "Jews need not apply", or "White applicants only".
I've yet to see anything in scripture that says "don't give jobs to gays ". So to say that this is a central religious tenet of Christianity is controversial to say the least.
40% of the US population lives in states, cities , or counties where such laws are already in effect, Yet it doesn't seem to be causing problems, does it? No demonstrations, or even letters to the editor by downtrodden, persecuted Christians about the existing situation being unacceptable in those places.
Sorry about that... I just went back and reread the article. I missed the part about the exemptions. As long as any business with a religious affiliation is exempt, due to the mission of the group, it's fine with me. Non-religious businesses, though, shouldn't discriminate no matter how few employees they have.
The idea of the "15 or less employees" rule comes from the 1964 legislation. Individuals and small business owners have the constitutional right to " freedom of association". A White Supremacist doesn't have to employ any Blacks, as long as the business he runs is one he personally controls as an individual. As soon as the business becomes large enough to be impersonal, there's no longer a personal right involved. This has arbitrarily been set at 15 employees.
It's one of the standard lies of opponents to such legislation that it infringes on *personal* freedoms, so they omit this fact. Most in support of such legislation also don't publicise the "15 employee" rule, as so many people who would otherwise engage in bigotry think it's illegal , when it isn't.
Many states have similar legislation, but they set the bar lower, usually at 4-10.
The legal difficulty over "religious affiliation" is that it's open to interpretation. Certainly any organisation that's tax-exempt should qualify. But what if it isn't? For example, the megabusiness owned by the LDS? Or the newspapers owned by the Moonies? A manufacturer with 10% of the shares held by a Catholic Diocese?
Note that unlike all other civil rights legislation, this only applies to employment. It's still quite legal for a hospital to refuse medical treatment to a car crash victim who's transsexual for example. Or for a city or county to make the use of sidewalks by gays illegal.
In the eyes of so-called Christian businesses:
It is wrong to discriminate against someone for being female.
It is wrong to discriminate against someone for being black.
It is wrong to discriminate against someone for being disabled.
However, it is okay to discriminate against someone for who they love?
Do those opposing protections for homosexuals also oppose similar protections for ethnic minorities?
As horrid as it may sound on the surface, I disagree with all such protections. Forcing someone to act as if they believe in equality does nothing to help further it. Protection like this may have been necessary in the past, but with the wealth of information about business practices available, they are now counter productive.
Wouldn't you rather patronize a company like Nike that openly supports diversity, rather then Acme Shoe Company who only hires homosexuals because they are forced to do so? You may do your research, but as long as Acme is not allowed to do business the way they want, others who would otherwise avoid them in favor of Nike will continue to buy their products. Forcing a tolerant public face allows intolerance to breed in the dark.
Additionally, in a society of tolerance, intolerance must be tolerated. You may say that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong, but who are you to press that belief on others? I personally am disgusted by distinguishing people by race to the point that I consistently mark "prefer not to answer" on surveys and job applications, but what right do I have to say that my personal belief on the subject is correct?
? As long as they follow the rules, it doesnt madder