Progressive groups say they’d rather have no Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) then one that doesn’t force those with faith-based objections to provide creative services for same-sex weddings.
In the past, I’ve been neutral on ENDA—aware of its potential for misuse, along with other anti-discrimination statutes, but mindful of its positive symbolic value. With the advance of marriage equality, the need for such a symbolic statement of inclusion by the federal government no longer seems necessary. And it is now crystal clear that ENDA will be abused, as state anti-discrimination statutes have been, to limit individual liberty and punish those who don’t bend knee to the progressive authority. Good riddance, ENDA.
More. I recently addressed (again) the appropriateness of religious exemptions and so won’t repeat myself, but see No Faith-Based Exemptions from the Dictates of the State?
8 Comments for “The Nail in ENDA’s Coffin”
posted by Houndentenor on
What would be the point of passing ENDA and then giving anyone who claims their religion is anti-gay a pass on the law? Not churches, mind you but secular businesses owned by some religious hypocrite who cheats on his wife and cheats on his taxes but gets all high and mighty when it comes to gay people. Since all the arguments against gay rights are religious, if we give a religious exemption we might as well not have the law at all because there’s no other argument against equal treatment for gay people. We don’t give a religious exemption for sex discrimination even though many religions teach that women shouldn’t be treated the same way as men. Or race. Or any other group covered by nondiscrimination law. Why the special carve out ONLY for anti-gay discrimination?
No, I don’t want ENDA. I want the same rights as everyone else. The question isn’t why gays don’t want to face state-sanctioned discrimination. The question is why certain religious groups should reasonably ask for special rights.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The nub of the issue (quoting from the article Stephen cites) is this:
And the question is this: What makes discrimination against gays and lesbians acceptable, but discrimination based on race, gender, religion or ethnicity not? If sexual orientation is to be treated differently than race, gender, religion or ethnicity, then the persons seeking a special exemption for discrimination against gays and lesbians under federal non-discrimination laws must show a rational reason why the gays and lesbians are different enough to be treated differently under those laws.
Why are we so different that good public policy demands that we be treated differently?
If you come up with a rational basis for making the distinction, then we can argue the pros and cons of making that distinction. Until then, we have nothing to talk about, Stephen.
Do you have any idea what “equal, no more no less” means?
posted by tom Jefferson the 3rd on
Minnesota has had “sexual orientation” in its civil rights code since 1993. Very few genuine “abuses” occur.
It may be easy to oppose civil rights (or affordable health care ) when you live in the ‘right’ sort of state and already got decent employer and health care coverage.
posted by Jorge on
I believe two statements from the article are key. Tom cited the one of them. The other points to the why:
“’Over the past year, the public conversation and context regarding religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws has evolved significantly,’ Snyder said. .As a result, at this time we are unable to support ENDA in its current form…'”
This sounds like a valid dispute to me. There is a reason some people believe that the protections of the Civil Rights Act are not enough. This places a lot of GLBT people and organizations in a position where they must oppose this evolution.
I think the broader religious exemption is very important given recent events. I also do not think the need for anti-discrimination employment protections for GLBTs and persons perceived to be GLBT in 2014 is comparible to the same need for blacks and other protected groups in 1964, while the need for anti-discrimination protections based on religion has increased. This dispute needs to be taken to its logical conclusion. If that means EDNA will not pass, not now, not ever, so be it. This country has survived the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. We will find another way.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, thanks to Romer v Evans there is no gay equivalent to Jim Crow laws which is what the Civil Rights Act had to address. Many corporations already have nondiscrimination policies that include gay people. I was a contractor in one of them when they passed theirs. (They got some hate male from right-wingers but not that much and not from any major clients.) Since the company didn’t think it was discriminating against gay people and had no plans to, they passed the new rules rather uneventfully. (Which leads us to wonder why Exxon/Mobil keeps refusing, but wide margins to do the same.)
posted by JohnInCA on
Hey, I’m all for a “religious exemption”. So long as I get one too.
That is to say… if your religion means you don’t can ignore non-discrimination laws when it comes to serving me, then your religion should mean I can ignore non-discrimination laws when it comes to serving you. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
John In CA
Yes, that is one of the complaints I have with the proponents of ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious exemptions’. I am not opposed to such First Amendment exemptions…
Given the reputation that gay people have in terms of excelling in the the arts, fashion, flowers, hair styles, interior design and the like, I got to wonder if social conservatives fully realize just how much damage religious liberty could do them.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well it would be easier to have this discussion if the right didn’t flat out lie so often. I’m often hearing or reading hysterical rants that the government would force churches to marry gay couples. They can’t, any more than they could force a church to marry non-members (which many will not do). The only real problem would be when churches rent out their space to non-members but when that happens the church is operating as a business (often a profitable one!) and is therefore subject to the same rules as everyone else. Churches often want it both ways. They run what are in effect for-profit businesses without even the scrutiny to which we subject all other non-profits.