Way Beyond Discrimination

The bill does not simply extend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If only! As even the Blade reports, it greatly expands the act’s definition of public accommodations well beyond the original intent, and limits use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense against state coercion to violate religious belief. Not to mention that it defines gender identity as based on presentation, not physical alteration and legally changed gender status.

“The Trump administration absolutely opposes discrimination of any kind and supports the equal treatment of all; however, this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights,” an administration official told the Blade.

But already, news reports are saying that the Trump administration favors discrimination by not supporting this awful bill.


More. On Nov. 7, 2013, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would have prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, without the overreaching leftwing grab-bag of The Equality Act, passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64–32. All Senate Democrats joined 10 Senate Republicans to approve the bill. The GOP-controlled House never voted on the measure.

It’s also true that during the first two years of the Obama administration (2009-10), when Democrats had majorities in both the House and the Senate that enabled them to pass Obamacare, they chose not to move the bill, even when it seemed plausible the GOP would retake the House. Instead, as with immigration, they decided to run on the issue yet again.

6 Comments for “Way Beyond Discrimination”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “however, this bill in its current form is filled with poison pills that threaten to undermine parental and conscience rights”

    Even I haven’t had a close enough eye on the Trump administration to figure out if that’s Trump or his handlers speaking. It’s astonishingly on-message, but it came out not in a tweet, but in an exclusive?

    This administration must have more gays than the Vatican.

    Parental rights? Heaven knows I’m all for that. But I do not see President Trump as having the political skill to win his stand there. He should focus on winning the election. Well, I suppose he did his job: now instead of quartering his share of the LGBT vote he’s only going to bleed out to 1/3 of it.

    Reply
  2. posted by JohnInCA on

    Miller, Jorge, do you actually believe that Republicans in the Senate want any protections for LGB people†?

    Simply put, is there any conceivable bill that McConnell would actually let go up for a vote? And if there is, why haven’t you told McConnell about this unicorn?

    If you can’t or won’t argue that, then you should just admit the actual problem: Democrats are passing message legislation to signal to the LGBT (and allies) base that they’re on our side, and you don’t like that this puts Republicans in the position of signalling to their base that Republicans are not on the side of LGBT people, as that undercuts your long-running (false) narrative that Republicans are the real LGB allies.

    But pretending Republicans are opposing this on the merits? Who are you trying to fool? It could be a one-line “add sexual orientation to the CRA” and McConnell would refuse to let it go to vote.
    ________
    †Yes, I left off the “T” intentionally. It really isn’t debatable that the Trump administration and Republicans “favors” discrimination against trans people.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Miller, Jorge, do you actually believe that Republicans in the Senate want any protections for LGB people†?

      †Yes, I left off the “T” intentionally. It really isn’t debatable that the Trump administration and Republicans “favors” discrimination against trans people.

      First things first, JohnInCA

      On what grounds do you presume that discrimination and protection are mutually exclusive? That it is impossible to both favor protections and favor discrimination?

      In this country we do in fact have a long tradition of both discriminating against and protecting people at the same time. On the basis of sex, policies barred women in combat positions, and still require only men to sign for the selective service. In both cases, the discrimination conferred privilege, power, or protection. On the basis of age, we determine contracts valid or invalid, limiting the power of minors but also protecting them from unwise decisions.

      When most people refer to “discrimination” they tend to forget two important assumptions they are making: first, that they are identifying a legal or social ranking that is unjust on the merits, and second that an unjust legal or social ranking in one area is by definition detrimental to the survival and prosperity of the group in question. Drawing analogies to the unequal treatment of blacks, women and, of more recent attention, gays, they believe that discrimination in law and society is impossible without violence in fact to back it up. It either does not occur to them, or they simply refuse to agree, that violence itself can be isolated and eliminated.

      I reject both the presumption that the second assumption is true and especially the presumption that all reasonable people accept the second assumption is true. Law and order entails the assignment of duties and privileges to achieve social goals. It is possible to “favor” both discrimination and protection.

      Next, on what grounds do you presume that the political thinking of Senate Republicans is so identical to that of the Trump administration, even “Republicans” as a whole that you can substitute the three without justification?

      Such laziness in language suggests to me very strongly an understanding of politics, however educated in facts and history, that is inabstract and rigid. I simply do not have the ability to make political predictions without taking the grays and unknowns into account.

      Finally, I don’t understand your question.

      Are you referring to Senate Republicans in terms of how a majority would act individually if it were up to them as individuals, Senate Republicans in terms of how the majority would act in conference with their leaders and each other, or are you asking about the mere existence of a point of view among Senate Republicans?

      Reply
      • posted by JohnInCA on

        On what grounds do you presume that discrimination and protection are mutually exclusive?

        I don’t.

        Next, on what grounds do you presume that the political thinking of Senate Republicans is so identical to that of the Trump administration, even “Republicans” as a whole that you can substitute the three without justification?

        I make no claims to know the thinking of Senate Republicans. And I don’t need to, we have their actions to judge them by.

        Finally, I don’t understand your question.

        Clearly.

        I will attempt to restate as plainly as I can: Do you honestly believe that there is a meaningful bill on non-discrimination law and LGBT people that (A) would get majority Republican support in congress, (B) McConnell would allow to go to a vote in the senate, and (C) get President Trump’s signature?

        And if you do have such a bill, why haven’t you told your senators about it?
        ________
        †Most of you don’t even bother claiming that they aren’t anti-T.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          I make no claims to know the thinking of Senate Republicans.

          “Miller, Jorge, do you actually believe that Republicans in the Senate want any protections for LGB people†?”

          “†Yes, I left off the “T” intentionally. It really isn’t debatable that the Trump administration and Republicans “favors” discrimination against trans people.”

          Yes, you do.

          Do you honestly believe that there is a meaningful bill on non-discrimination law and LGBT people that (A) would get majority Republican support in congress, (B) McConnell would allow to go to a vote in the senate, and (C) get President Trump’s signature?

          Yes.

          And if you do have such a bill, why haven’t you told your senators about it?

          1. Because they’re both Democrats.
          2. Because I’m not conservative enough to promote such a bill.
          3. Because I doubt the Democrats would vote for most civil rights bills supported by a majority of Republicans, and having seen in New York what happens when two competing gay rights bills are introduced, I’m not interested in seeing the perfect become the enemy of the good.
          4. Because the only such problems I consider worthy of my attention can be solved by either liberal or conservative methods, and I would rather raise the problem, and demand the creative minds reach the solution.
          5. Which, in fact, I have.

          Reply
  3. posted by Kosh III on

    “It could be a one-line “add sexual orientation to the CRA” and McConnell would refuse to let it go to vote.”

    Absolutely.

    Once upon a time I asked our Senior Senator if he would support or approve of legislation for equal rights for gay.
    His response: “Absolutely not, under no circumstances.” And he’s always (wrongly) touted as a “moderate.”

    Jorge, name some GOP senators who support equality and have proved it by pushed legislation. Not even Ms Graham of SC does so.

    Reply

Leave a Comment