Boehner’s ENDA end around

When the U.S. Senate last week, in a 62-34 bipartisan vote, approved the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the achievement was noteworthy primarily for one reason –– it was the first time either house of Congress had approved such a measure with protections for transgender Americans included. The House passed the bill in 2007, but incorporated only provisions regarding sexual orientation, not gender identity as well.

The Senate action likely does not foretell ultimate victory on this measure, which would remedy the failure of 29 states to provide any gay rights protections and 33, including New York, to offer relief to the transgender community. That’s because even before the bill got its final vote on the Senate floor, Republican House Speaker John Boehner put out the word that it would lead to “frivolous litigation” that would kill “small-business jobs.” Ten G.O.P. senators saw through that reflexive type of response, but Boehner, as usual, is playing to the far right in his House caucus. If the House Republicans are unwilling to stanch their losses among Latino voters by taking on immigration reform, it’s probably not surprising they can’t see how increasingly out of step with the American public they are on L.G.B.T. rights as well.

The unlikelihood of ENDA’s enactment in the current Congress should be seized on by the L.G.B.T. community to right a wrong in the bill passed by the Senate –– its craven surrender to the religious right on the question of religious exemptions.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination in areas like housing and public accommodation as well as employment, made use of the concept of religious exemptions to allow religious organizations to base decisions such as their hiring on religion. A Catholic parish could show a preference for hiring Catholics; a mosque could staff itself with Islamic adherents.

What such institutions could generally not do is base employment decisions on other proscribed categories. A synagogue was not free to use racial tests in hiring, for example. At the same time, the Catholic Church, of course, is free to limit its choice of priests by gender. Using a religious exemption to practice discrimination otherwise outlawed could be justified only by showing a close and reasonable nexus between the discrimination and the religious tenet being protected.

As gay rights protections matured, the concept of religious exemptions began to be stretched further in that same direction –– based on the widespread belief, even among liberal friends of the L.G.B.T. community, that religious objections to homosexuality typically have more validity than any religiously based objection to a person’s race or gender. Like women, a gay man’s status is seen per se as incompatible with service as a priest –– or as a clergy member in many faiths. Gay people, furthermore, could be excluded not only from the role of clergy but also from many other activities within a religious organization.

Where the L.G.B.T. community has generally been successful in drawing the line has been on the question of public accommodations. While a church or parish house can limit employment, a Catholic hospital, university or social service agency that provides its services more generally to the public at large can typically not discriminate under most state and local L.G.B.T. rights laws. That same protection is not afforded by ENDA.

Defenders of the religious exemption language in the bill adopted by the Senate argue they have simply “cut and pasted” the language from the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What that means, however, is that a religious organization’s ability to differentiate employees based on their religion is now extended to their sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

It’s unfortunate that leading L.G.B.T. legal advocacy groups, who recognize the danger here, have elected to hold their fire, hoping to amend the bill after a new Congress takes office in 2015.


A longer version of this editorial first appeared in Gay City News, The Villager’s sister newspaper

The Villager encourages readers to share articles:

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.

2 Responses to Boehner’s ENDA end around

  1. No one has any obligation to work for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda or to employ any such person. It’s no different than being forced to employ any other individual with a harmful ideology.
    There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born
    physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial
    discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very
    root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation
    regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be
    scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you
    establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly
    done away with equal protection before the law. ENDA isn't just a push for a
    special right – it will forcibly bring about the persecution and discrimination
    of anyone who doesn't normalize homosexuality and transgender-ism
    Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating
    their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional sexual
    psychologies. Having a major problem with heterosexuality is no reason to force
    employers to keep such people on staff.

  2. Being LGBT is not a political agenda. It's human reality We've existed forever and have no intention of "destroying society." We wish to co-exist and be treated fairly and equally. ENDA presents the radical thought that LGBTs also need to hold jobs and pay the rent to keep a roof over their heads.

    Everyone who has problems with LGBTs is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional outlook on sexual psychologies. Your major problem with homosexuality is no reason to force LGBTs into poverty, homelessness and marginal existences. Allessandrareflect you are the one who needs help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

− four = 5

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>