Walter Olson offers a thoughtful critique of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, while the conservative Washington Times gives in to anti-ENDA hysteria. To demonstrate:
Walter Olson: A classical liberal stance can reasonably ask the government itself to behave neutrally among different citizens with their differing values and aspirations, but should not attempt to enforce neutrality on private citizens themselves. … We [risk introducing] a new presumption—familiar from the prevailing labor law in parts of Europe—that no employer should be free to terminate or take other “adverse action” against an employee without being prepared to show good cause to a judge. That is exactly the goal of some thinkers on the Left, but it should appall believers in a free economy.
Washington Times editors: The act would…grant privilege to homosexual men, lesbians and others who can’t figure out who and what they are. … Employers, religious and secular, should have the right to insist that men dress like men in the workplace; he can dress in milady’s frilliest frock where such frocks on men are better appreciated.
It’s probable the Senate will pass ENDA this session and the House most certainly will not. That creates a campaign issue for the Democrats to run on, which is why they only move on ENDA when they’re not in control of both chambers (it was kept bottled up in committee during the first two years of the Obama administration, just as it was when Bill Clinton was president and Democrats controlled Congress).
I added this to an earlier post, but it was buried so I’ll repeat here. Long-time readers know that I have been, and remain, equivocal about ENDA. Yes, other minorities subject to various degrees of employment discrimination are protected by federal statute, and thus so should gays, is an understandable argument. Also, it would send a strong message that the federal government views anti-gay discrimination in the workplace as unacceptable. I get that. On the other hand, we’ve seen over the past decades a huge rise in frivolous lawsuits charging minority or gender-based discrimination with little or no reasonable evidence, which are nonetheless typically settled by employers because of the cost of litigation and “you never know what a jury might rule.”
In the case of those with disabilities (who, like gay and transgender employees would be under ENDA, are not subject to mandatory hiring and promotion preferences based on statistical analysis), the risk of opening the door to an employee’s discrimination suit is correlated with a drop in hiring (because those hires, if subsequently fired or not promoted, can sue for discrimination), the opposite of the anticipated result. Also, there is scant evidence that discrimination against gays in the workplace is widespread.
I’d welcome an executive order (or law) saying government contractors must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, which Obama refuses to issue (despite having promised to do so during the election). And I wouldn’t lobby against ENDA; but I don’t see it as the priority activists have made it, either.
Update 1. On Nov. 4, a larger than expected number of Republican senators (7) joined 54 Democrats in voting to formally begin considering ENDA. “The 61-30 margin virtually guarantees its passage this week [in the Senate],” reports the Washington Post.
Symbolism is important, so better than expected is, well, better than expected. I only wish ENDA was a better vehicle for expressing support for gay legal equality. But I share many of Stephen Richer’s qualms.
Update 2. Paul Ryan Signals Conditional Support for ENDA, with an emphasis on conditional. Actually, it might pass in the House if brought up and if limited to sexual orientation, but gender identity that extends to non-op and pre-op transsexuals’ physical-gender nonconforming dress and restroom use is going to be a no go, I believe.
48 Comments for “ENDA”
posted by Walker on
Olson correctly notes how conservatives get it wrong, yet again:
Yep, that’s upside-down. You should certainly eliminate state-sponsored discrimination before you start thinking about interfering in private choices.
posted by Don on
Like Stephen, I’m ambivalent about ENDA. This type of legislation strikes me as well meaning, but not effective.
What really irks the heck out of me, and I think Stephen alludes to it often in his anti-Democrat jibes, is HRC not being able to pass this bill – it’s #1 agenda item for two decades – because they’re so aligned with one party.
Frankly, it reminds me of the fundamentalists lobbying and raising money to get school prayer in. They elect republicans, who in turn never do anything about it, and then shrug and say “well, you can take your money and go home or help us push harder!” (albeit such a law would be unconstitutional, but all the more reason to double down on maybe even mandatory prayer?)
But Stephen’s completely right. They’re not going to push ENDA when they could and win. It’s too juicy to fundraise off the evils of Republicans. I almost wonder if they conference and say “please don’t let our bill pass. we’re going to lose so much money!”
posted by Houndentenor on
And while doing all the Democrat-bashing, Stephen fails to mention any positive statements or votes from Republicans. Still no word about last weekend’s LCR speech from Tom Ridge. I often wonder if the gay conservatives aren’t more motivated by hating liberals than advancing rights for gay people.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Olson makes this argument: Most larger employers are now on record with policies against discriminating against gay employees, and even smaller employers without formal policies mostly hew to the same path in practice, for many good reasons that include not wanting to lose the talents of employees from any demographic.
That is true, as well, with respect to discrimination against women, religious and ethnic minorities, age and most other protected classes.
The Libertarian argument is that all workplace discrimination laws should go the way of the dinosaur, and there is a case to be made for that position.
But the “We oppose all workplace discrimination laws, but we are stuck with discrimination laws affecting race, gender, religion and so on until the Libertarian Party takes power, so let’s fight expanding the protections to gays and lesbians …” position smacks of another common position from that quarter, the “We oppose all government sanction of marriage, but we are stuck with heterosexual marriage until the Libertarian Party takes power, so let’s fight expanding marriage laws to cover same-sex marriages …”
I understand (even though I don’t fully agree with it) the Libertarian Party’s view that government should get the hell out of marriage and workplace discrimination, allowing free and full private-sector “freedom of association”, but why draw the line at a place that screws over gays and lesbians, and them alone?
What purpose does that serve?
And doesn’t that line of thinking violate the Libertarian Party’s platform, namely Section 1.3: “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.“
posted by Walter Olson on
Yikes, that awful Washington Times editorial is enough to give the anti side on ENDA, along with conservatism generally, a bad name.
posted by Houndentenor on
I heard the same argument from John McCain earlier in the week. There’s a problem with that, of course. Any employer who wasn’t an idiot could simply say, “how could we know which applicants were gay. We never asked.” Unlike women and some ethnic minorities, it’s not always clear who is gay and who is not and since it would be illegal to ask, proving that they knew would be difficult. Beyond that, McCain claimed that there would be affirmative action for gay people if ENDA passed. Really? And how would that work when it would be illegal to ask about sexual orientation in the interview process? Also, enough states have similar laws. It wouldn’t be heard to check how many people have sued under those laws. If it were a large number, wouldn’t have be a talking point for the anti-gay crowd already?
Is the right so intellectually bankrupt that they can’t come up with arguments that can’t be picked apart so easily? It doesn’t look that way. The only argument against ENDA is the libertarian one and that one would require removing all the other employment nondiscrimination laws, at least one of which helps just about everyone.
Every now and then John McCain will say something I agree with. I’ll start to wonder if I hadn’t misjudged him. I never have to wonder for long, though, because within a few days he’ll be spewing right wing talking points that he can’t possibly be stupid enough to actually believe. What a sad state of affairs our politics have become.
posted by Why I'd vote against ENDA - Overlawyered on
[…] I’ve got a new post on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) just up at Cato. More: Stephen Richer, Stephen Miller. […]
posted by JohnInCA on
I’ll believe anyone is serious about the libertarian argument when they start calling for removing religion’s protected status.
Hell, I’ll put it out there. Remove religion from the Civil Right’s Act and I will never support ENDA again.
posted by Doug on
I’m with you, JohnInCA. Drop religion’s protected status and I’ll forgo ENDA as well.
I can hear the religious right squealing already.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen’s parsing of Olson: “We [risk introducing] a new presumption …”
Olson’s actual language: “If we say yes to all, we introduce a new presumption …”
Stephen’s parsing (I always follow up on parsing, because it usually alters the meaning) led me to take a second look at Olson’s article.
Here is the paragraph from which the unparsed “We [risk introducing] a new presumption …” statement exists in context:
So what is the “all”? Well, the stated classifications are “political and controversial systems of belief, physical appearance (the “looksism” issue), family responsibilities, résumé gaps because of unemployment or other reasons, or use of lawful products or engagement in lawful activities in off hours“, and the unstated classifications are classifications based on “areas that in fact have been the subject of real-world agitation in recent years”. In short, everything or anything.
And if we enacted laws that required hiring on the basis of qualification alone and termination on the basis of performance alone, either by adding category after category, as Olson fears, or by just coming out and doing it upfront, Olson would be right. Employers would no longer have the right to hire or fire at will, based on the whim/bias of the moment. Qualification/performance — that is, merit — would be the sole permissible criteria, and that would put a crimp in a lot of businesses.
But what has that to do with ENDA? Why is it important to draw the line at sexual orientation, rather than at (as Olson puts it) “categories like age, marital status, pregnancy, or, say, religious affiliation“? Is there a distinguishing characteristic? Is the need different (are gays and lesbians less discriminated against than, say, older people, and hence in less need of workplace protection)?
As I thought about this, I came to realize that Olson’s argument is nothing more than the “slippery slope” argument, put into sophisticated phrases: We have to draw the line at gays and lesbians, not because there is any objective reason to draw the line at that point, but because if we don’t draw the line someplace, the categories will cascade upon one another until “we introduce a new presumption”.
Well, shit. If Olson going to draw the workplace discrimination line at gays and lesbians, he at least ought to articulate a plausible, objective reason for doing so. We might as well draw the line at Scandinavians, for all the logic involved in the “slippery slope” argument.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Again, in certain States and Congressional candidates the incumbent is probably less likely to support ENDA — no matter his party affiliation. Having most elected lawmakers affiliated with the Democratic Party does not mean that they all agree to vote for ENDA, it does mean that the bill will be talked about/taken seriously and has a better chance of passing (then when most of the lawmakers are Republicans).
2. Capitalism does not equal anarchy. Every time someone dislikes a particular proposed tax, rule or regulation they (often times) seem content to say its socialism or against the principles of capitalism. It is an attempt — mostly by the right — to frame the issue as follows “Well, either we let the private sector do what it wants, when it wants or else we all might as well start calling ourselves ‘Comrades’ and start eating babies” That is almost never the option before us and will not be until their is an election where the two major parties are the Libertarian Party and the Socialist Party.
3. In terms of Federal law, “gender identity” is a tough sell in terms of civil rights laws, less so with “sexual orientation”. One might look to say, Minnesota (the first state to add both sexual orientation/gender identity to its civil rights code) for some good advise, but, apparently, it is much easier for some people to (a) toss transgender people under the bus, (b) get nothing done or (c) pretend that you are an Ayn Rand libertarian who opposes such laws in general, even through you are probably not actually suggesting that all [private sector applicable] civil rights laws be abolished.
posted by Houndentenor on
My experience in various fields has been that no one is fired unless there is a sufficient HR file to document whatever offenses led to their firing. Mr Olson is arguing against a future policy that is for all practical purposes already the practice across the country. If Mr Olson wants to lie in a country where employers can decide to fire everyone over 50 without cause, or fire all the men in a department, or just randomly fire people on a whim, he is welcome to make that case to the American people. Good luck with that. People already have enough job insecurity from fears of layoffs. I think most people would prefer not to live in an environment in which they are subject to be fired on any given day in spite of good job performance for no reason at all. That may be the libertarian idea of a fair and just society, but it’s most people’s idea of a workplace dystopia.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I wigs that Stephen and Walter had spent the last week with me in Minneapolis at the Out & Equal Workplace Summit – I think they might have seen a different perspective from the 2000+ LGBT and straight ally attendees.
The entire purpose of this annual conclave is for business folks to share practical ways of making LGBT inclusive work environments a reality.
While it is true that many large corporations include sexual orientation and gender identity protections in their employment policies, there’s still a wide enough swath of employers that don’t… I’m not talking about companies with less than 50 people – but the rest of the pack that only do what is legally required. (Exxon folks are in a tough spot – legally married employees can get company benefits, but they have to out themselves in a workplace without any protections.)
ENDA is an important step in providing a “floor” behavior – it doesn’t have quotas, require equivalent benefits for domestic partners (those that can’t get legally married yet) or paying for sexual reassignment surgery for trans workers. There is no program to deal with prior bad acts and anyone who has dealt with the EEOC process knows that ‘frivolous lawsuits’ fears are entirely overblown.
Once the floor behaviors are set – it’s up to the LGBTA employees and managers, etc. to decide whether to go any further… and the market is pretty clear: companies with inclusive policies, practices and work environments attract and retain talent better, have more committed employees and tend to out-perform companies that don’t.
posted by Jorge on
I did not know Orrin Hatch was a supporter of this bill. Why on earth is he supporting ENDA?
I know he’s polite and extremely politically knowledgable, but I always thought he sat still on arch-conservative issues. Maybe it’s the white hair and years of name recognition that’s throwing me off.
Hmm… no, if you look at his positions he used to take [www.ontheissues.org], he hasn’t moved a bit. Or rather, he has not moved one second faster or one second slower than the shifting ground beneath his archconservative chair.
Hatch says when he told fellow Republicans at their state convention two months ago that they should be proud of their party because “we don’t have the gays and lesbians with us,” he didn’t intend the comment to sound prejudicial. The Utah lawmaker was just pointing out that “gays and lesbians, by and large, are very intelligent, highly educated, high-earning people, who support mainly Democrats.” Hatch said he resents any implication that he is intolerant. Source: Associated Press , Aug 13, 1999
…
“You can sum it up in one sentence: Orrin Hatch is tolerant of all people and he doesn’t try to tell people how to live unless they ask him,” said Hatch. While Hatch said he is tolerant of all people, he does believe that homosexuality is contrary to the Bible. “It’s a religious belief to me that homosexuality flies in the face of biblical teachings,” he said, noting he can’t determine “whether it’s a genetic predisposition or whether it is a choice.”
Source: Associated Press , Aug 13, 1999
The Salt Lake Tribune came out with an article on the matter today.
“I oppose any form of discrimination, though I do draw the line on the definition of marriage,” Hatch said shortly after the vote, espousing a position similar to that offered by LDS leaders.
He said it was “a tough vote” that he was willing to cast in part because ENDA exempts religious organizations and their affiliates. Hatch said that religious exemption is stronger than the one in the 1996 version that he voted against. That bill also didn’t protect transgender people.
I believe the exemption in question is any organization so exempted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I would *swear* Sen. Hatch would be all over the special treatment bandwagon, but it’s hard to take that position honestly with a concession offer like that–treat people exactly the same as you’re treating everyone else. That super old fogey smell of a law almost 50 years old is the needed proof of good faith. Now I know why John Boehner smokes so much.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Just have to weigh in a bit on the ‘frivolous lawsuit’ hokum posited in Stephen’s post.
We have a couple of decades of data from states and localities with non-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and the stats just don’t back up any assertion that there will be a flood of lawsuits… and as we’ve seen with other EEOC actions, the reality is that few people are willing to put themselves through the process. So-called tort reform and a generally conservative bench make that atmosphere pretty hostile for a complainant.
As to lowering hiring, there’s nothing to back that up except conjecture. A recent survey of small business owners had 63% in favor of ENDA… and most of the top employers in this country already would be ENDA-compliant. Many Fortune 100 companies endorse ENDA passage (see HRC Business Coalition for Fairness).
9 out of 10 Americans (wrongly) believe that federal protections already exist – so I don’t see this creating downward pressure on the job market.
The other fallacy that Stephen threw out is that there’s scant evidence of workplace discrimination… that flies in the face of workplace environment surveys showing that the majority of LGBT employees remain largely closeted because of discrimination and safety fears.
(Oh – and waiting for Stephen’s head to explode over the new alliance between HRC and GOP billionaire stalwart Paul Singer…)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh dear, I think you just triggered a spate of More‘s and Furthermore‘s.
What I’d like to see Stephen do, given his description of Olson’s ENDA Edition of the “slippery slope” argument, is to draw a rational, objective line between race, religion and gender discrimination, on the one hand, and sexual orientation, “political and controversial systems of belief, physical appearance (the “looksism” issue), family responsibilities, résumé gaps because of unemployment or other reasons, or use of lawful products or engagement in lawful activities in off hours“, on the other, showing why sexual orientation fits into the second category rather than the first.
posted by Lori Heine on
Mike in Houston, you are blissfully unaware that your own argument invalidates itself.
If inclusiveness in the workplace is happening voluntarily — and in most cases, it clearly is — then government force is obviously NOT necessary to make it happen.
“Progressive” heads never explode, because they’re perfectly comfortable with cognitive dissonance.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Wrong Lori.
First if all, you use ‘force’ pejoratively, when we’re only talking about reasonable market regulation.
Second, the gap between those that are already doing the right thing and those that aren’t is large enough for a regulatory solution.
The question of why this should be US policy rather than be left totally to market capriciousness is simple: it aligns with US competitiveness goals in the global market and our national values that place a premium on merit in the pursuit of economic happiness… and because Adam Smith’s dead hand is often too slow or stayed by provincial prejudice, ENDA is entirely appropriate.
And progressive’s heads don’t readily explode because we can and do handle more than one idea at a time and aren’t constrained by binary solutions. Nuance isn’t a bad word to us.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Wrong, Lori.” I stand corrected! The Oracle hath spoken!
According to you the market regulation you support is “reasonable.” And according to you “the gap between those that (sic) are already doing the right thing and those that aren’t is large enough for a regulatory solution.”
You, and your fellow “progressives” of course, are the possessors of infinite wisdom. You and your rival/partners in the social conservative Right really are twins under the skin.
When the only tool you can conceive of using is a hammer, then of course everything looks like a nail.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Reasonable = something that is constitutional and supported by the majority… and while I understand that you, as a libertarian, don’t even like stop signs – reasonable is an appropriate term.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, it’s happening in SOME companies, but not in all. Some major employers here in Texas don’t have policies against anti-gay discrimination. The oddest one is Exxon which recently announced that it would honor gay couples’ marriage’s for spousal benefits, having no anti-discrimination policy there’s no guarantee that they won’t fire you after you out yourself to put apply for such benefits.
It’s a joke that in our country otherwise very conservative corporations are more progressive on social issues than the Republican Party. That’s just further proof that it’s the religious right who are running the show in at least half the country. We need a federal law. We shouldn’t need a federal law, but as long as the GOP is going to pander to anti-gay bigots, we can’t depend on the states to look out for the rights of their citizens.
posted by JohnInCA on
Handling cognitive dissonance is a *human* trait. You do no one a service by pretending anyone is immune.
posted by Lori Heine on
When libertarians are slandered on this site, we’re not going to let the slander stand. No, Mike, it isn’t because libertarians don’t like stop signs. What we don’t like are dishonesty and cynical, manipulative attempts to keep grabbing more and more power under false pretenses.
As we have noticed, leftists keep moving the goalposts. According to your earlier rhetoric, nothing would ever change — not one iota — without the sort of heavy-handed legislation you advocate. Now, it’s “But…but…but…but…it’s not moving fast enough!”
Prediction: It will NEVER happen fast enough to suit you, or the likes of you, until you’ve grabbed all the draconian power away from everyone else that you can possibly get.
posted by Doug on
It’s very easy to say that ‘progress’ is coming fast enough if you are not the one whose rights are being ignored and if your are not suffering.
‘Grabbing power’ makes it would like some sort of dictatorship. For the most part most people agree that regulation is necessary. Big business is not known for being socially responsible witness the need for child labor laws in the early part of the last century and trust busting after that and not to mention the financial debacle we just went through because of lack of regulation.
posted by Lori Heine on
I love being lectured by men about how I don’t know what oppression is. Thanks for telling me!
As for “big business” needing government to make it socially responsible on gay employment issues, you are living in the Twilight Zone. We are living in the Twenty-first Century — check your calendar. It is no longer “the early part of the last century.” Corporate America is indeed guilty of many sins, but it certainly has taken the lead over government in hiring gays.
Your problem is that your political philosophy is misnamed. You are actually a conservative — only a different form of one. You live in the past, and can’t get over the notions “progressives” believed a hundred years ago.
posted by Houndentenor on
In the late 90s a group of gay employees went to the HR department at American Express and asked to be included in the company’s nondiscrimination policies. The conversation, from reports at the time, (I talked to people who were there) went something like this:
Amex: Are there currently any problems with anti-gay discrimination?
Employees: None that we are aware of.
Amex: So we’re just putting in policy what we’re already doing?
Employees: Yes.
Amex: Done.
It was quite simple. There was no reason to say no to this request since they had no intention of discriminating. In fact, soon after, Amex was recruiting gay people (back when companies had to go out and recruit employees…those were the days) using this policy and an incentive for people to work for their company rather than another one (that didn’t).
My point in this is that the only reason to block ENDA is if you want to be able to discriminate against gay people. The “employers should be able to hire and fire anyone they want” reasoning only makes sense if there’s a push to repeal the other nondiscrimination laws. Let me know when that happens. Until then, I call bullshit on that talking point.
posted by Jorge on
My point in this is that the only reason to block ENDA is if you want to be able to discriminate against gay people.
So naive.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I love being lectured by men about how I don’t know what oppression is. Thanks for telling me!
Lori, moving off ENDA for a minute, do/did you see any need for workplace protection laws relating to gender, either now or historically?
My view is that workplace protection laws for women were important in the 1970’s and 1980’s, as our society made the journey from “a woman’s place is in the home” to “equality in the workplace”, which is where we are headed, and, at least in the professions, reasonably close.
I’m beginning to think about the criteria for creating such laws and, eventually, dismantling them. It seems to me that if such laws are going to be objectively based, we need such criteria for creating such laws, and, of course, the reverse when the situation has changed.
Any thoughts?
posted by Doug on
You appear to be an angry woman who justifies her anger by attacking straw men. Nothing I said was directed at either you or your gender. It was directed to the ‘have’s’ vs ‘have not’s’. Those who have some civil rights tend to think that progress is made fast enough while those with few or no civil rights, want faster progress and rightfully so.
I mentioned nothing about socially responsible gay employment issues only that corporations are often irresponsible toward their human and physical surroundings and gave several examples of such as a need for regulations.
posted by Kosh III on
“that no employer should be free to terminate or take other “adverse action” against an employee without being prepared to show good cause”
Fine with me. I reject Libertarianism because it is unworkable. In a perfect world–yes but we have plenty of bosses who are more like JR Ewing or Lester Maddox and would and do fire folks arbitrarily.
Where I work the management style is fear, intimidation and retaliation. In the last couple of years I’ve seen plenty of folks fired at the drop of a hat for no good reason.
Until the time that we are all law-abiding and ethical, we need laws to protect citizens from abuse.
And as Houndtendor said above, when there is a major push by “conservatives” to abolish all the special rights according to religionists and others, then I’ll take it seriously.
posted by Lori Heine on
In a perfect world? No, you reject Libertarianism because we live in a world that has descended to the level of the brutes. Violence solves everything. We “must” use it — because the “other side” uses it. It is the political equivalent of MAD – mutually assured destruction — and it is, indeed, a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
The thing people like you never realize is that to the social conservatives you think you hate, you are the gift that keeps on giving. They wish we were all like you. In fact, they lie and try to say we are.
Social conservatism stays alive not because of “self-hating” gay conservatives and libertarians — whom (tellingly) social cons can’t stand — but because of “progressives” like you. Nice going. If gays and lesbians are still battling these freaks fifty years from now, they will have you — not us — to thank for it.
posted by Kosh III on
Lori puts words in my mouth by saying “No, you reject Libertarianism because we live in a world that has descended to the level of the brutes.”
I reject it because it is unworkable.
When someone can clearly show that laissez-faire policies will prevent Jim Crow stuff from returning; I’ll be convinced.
Read a history book some time. We have NOT descended, we have always been there: Jim Crow existed and THRIVED during the period of laissez-faire.
Government regulations such as requiring that job terminations be ONLY for the inability to the work are necessary because without controls we get even more brutality.
Laws against discrimination are necessary because we have so many brutes in business like Romney, Dimon and Madoff.
posted by Doug on
You have empirical evidence to back up that assertion ?
posted by Kosh III on
What assertion? That Jim Crow thrived in the laissez-faire era?
I’m from the South. I remember separate water fountains, schools etc.
It was ONLY the power of the government that forced an end to segregation.
One name: GOP Sen. Strom Thurmond.
posted by Doug on
Lori’s assertion that social conservatism stays alive because of progressives. I totally agree with you Kosh.
posted by Houndentenor on
And most of the south would be segregated to this day if it had been left up to local communities to get rid of Jim Crow laws. It’s nice to think that people eventually would rise to a better nature, but I was raised around pretty nasty religious extremists and racists. I know better.
posted by Jorge on
Symbolism is important, so better than expected is, well, better than expected.
Better than expected.
I only wish ENDA was a better vehicle for expressing support for gay legal equality. But I share many of Stephen Richer’s qualms.
I do, too–about gay marriage laws. I do not have them about ENDA. This sentence is entirely backwards:
“Unfortunately, there’s significant philosophical differences between ENDA and marriage equality that should turn even pro-marriage equality Republicans away from ENDA.”
“Then there’s equality under the law. We supporters of marriage equality ask that gay Americans be treated the same as all other Americans. People born heterosexual can enter a contract (marriage) that is celebrated by society and yields government benefits. Gay Americans should have the same opportunity.”
Being given the “same opportunity” to get “government benefits” and be “celebrated by society” sits uneasily alongside such fundamental dignities as the right to have and keep a job. To demand the same right to be “celebrated by society” as everyone else goes farther than telling people how to conduct their own private business. It is telling people what kind of opinion they can have in their own private thoughts. Hello! Gay cupcake photo lawsuits?
The fact is that if you are an employer you are given a greater measure of power over others than if you are a citizen, and the government can–and should–ensure that you exercise some sort of social responsibility for that power. The same is not true for the relationship between a business owner and a member of the community.
The better arguments of that article were in the second half–the if it ain’t broken then why are we fixing it if not for ulterior motives argument. I find them unconvincing because I don’t take seriously the notion that anyone honestly thinks the workplace culture isn’t either broken, or functioning in a way that is objectively oppressing gays.
posted by Senate Poised to Pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act on
[…] other perspectives on ENDA, see Walter Olson, Cato Institute; Stephen Miller; Stephen Richer, Purple Elephant; Daily Caller; Libertarian Jew; Andrew Sullivan (in support of […]
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Paul Ryan Signals Conditional Support for ENDA, with an emphasis on conditional. Actually, it might pass in the House if brought up and if limited to sexual orientation …
Whether it comes up or not, in any form, depends on how the Republican Caucus votes, and Boehner is signaling that he isn’t going to let it get to the floor.
We went through the “T” battle in the Democratic Party 2008-2010, as you will recall, Stephen. ENDA didn’t pass then because Democrats couldn’t muster enough votes for the “T” part of the equation.
It is interesting that Ryan is signaling that a “No-T” ENDA might be acceptable. I don’t know what it means, but it could be good wedge politics, allowing Ryan to claim that he’s all for “fairness” for “LGB” but not ready to accept the “T”. I just hope that the comedians don’t get going and start talking about a “Low-T Compromise”.
posted by Doug on
For Ryan to say he will support ENDA, in any form, when he knows it will never come to the floor is pretty hollow, crass and cynical. Not to mention two-faced.
posted by Jorge on
By that reasoning, why should Orrin Hatch, or any other Republican in the Senate have voted for it, nothing the chances were nil that it would pass the House? He was for a modified bill, too, only in his case he got one.
If there are other reasons to believe that Paul Ryan is hollow, crass, cynical, and two-faced, maybe we should hear them, so that we can see whether or not they stand on their own or whether they are marred by fatal biases and deliberate distortions. I think I would have heard of them by now considering that he was last year’s Vice Presidential candidate, but it’s always possible there’s something new. If not, the default assumption is that he is honest.
posted by Jorge on
“nothing the chances were nil” >> “knowing the chances were nil”
posted by Doug on
The procedural vote in the Senate, Hatch voted for, was 3 days ago. Boehner announced he was nothing bringing the measure to the House floor the NEXT day or 2 days ago.
So Ryan is still dishonest.
posted by Don on
I took Ryan’s statement as a signal. Or a trial balloon. If I’m right, this might be legitimate cracks in the wall of opposition. ENDA is a weird animal. One could oppose it on the basis of additional litigation. But any other opposition than that is simply animosity. Because then you feel you have a right to fire gay people? Hmmm.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm…
I can neither agree with nor rebut your argument. Every assumption for or against it depends on facts that are way out in the weeds–when did Speaker Boehner decide this bill is DOA, and why? Was it this week, this year, or more like 10 years ago? The same goes for Paul Ryan. My understanding of the thinking of Republicans who are neither social moderates nor social conservatives does not extend that far.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I do not always agree with the Mr. ‘apparently progressives’ who Stephen frequently quotes. I do feel that religious exemptions need to be put into place .
It is good that we are living in an era when most Federally elected Democrats and a number of Republicans actually feel the need to support equality or at least a modicum of tolerance. Part of what ENDA can do is indeed symbolic of where the nation and both political parties are (or are work to be).
Minnesota has had sexual orientation and gender identity in our civil rights code since 1993. I think we were one of the first states to do both (and we have an appropriate number of exemptions for the most part). Not too many of the ‘horror story’ transgender issues actually seem to arise in Minnesota case law.
Back in 2003, Justice Scalia – writing his dissent about why states should be allowed to imprison adults for gay sex — did actually suggest that the fact that Congress had not added sexual orientation to federal non-discrimination laws proven that society had not really changed on the issue (which apparently mattered to him in his ruling, although I doubt his ruling would have changed had the issue come up after Congress had added sexual orientation to the civil rights code (at least for employment).
Yes, equal opportunity with government contractors is something to strive for. It is a bit more complicated then just issuing an order. Mainly because when Clinton did something similar for civilian, federal employees (like 1998), the GOP (especially the right wingers) were all up in arms about it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, equal opportunity with government contractors is something to strive for. It is a bit more complicated then just issuing an order. Mainly because when Clinton did something similar for civilian, federal employees (like 1998), the GOP (especially the right wingers) were all up in arms about it.
Oh yeah, Scott Bloch. A good demonstration of why Executive Orders are definitely a second-best solution, if that …
posted by David Benkof on
I have a fresh take on ENDA, suggesting that the law be re-written to include everybody, not just LGBT people. It’s published in The Hill, read by many Congressmembers and their staffs. You can find it here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/192238-an-enda-for-everyone