Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...ENDA hearings recap
11.09.2009 5:43pm EST
A House of Representatives committee held hearings Monday on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would make it illegal to discriminate against LGBTs in employment and hiring.
“For more than three decades, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans have waged a courageous campaign for their workplace rights. I regret that they had to wait so long for us to respond,” said Rep. George Miller, chair of the House Education and Labor Committee.Reports the Advocate:
The 3.5-hour hearing was mostly dominated by the testimony of pro-LGBT witnesses and questions from lawmakers who generally favor the bill. Those who opposed the legislation were few and even their arguments mostly lacked the incendiary rhetoric that sometimes accompanies LGBT issues.
“The questions that we heard, even from members who may not be thrilled with ENDA, were actually very technical issues,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “They were not the arguments that we have heard over the past 20 years that have been degrading, insulting and inhumane. I think that bodes well for the passage of ENDA.”
Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, lead sponsor the bill, kicked off the testimony with his usual flair.
“I find it hard to argue for legislation that bans discrimination,” he said. “It just seems to me so self evident that an American who would like to work and support himself or herself ought to be allowed to do that judged solely on his or her work ethic and talents … Sometimes, we’ve been accused — those of us who are gay and lesbian — of having a radical agenda. As I look at radicalism through history, trying to get a job or trying to join the military have not been the hallmarks of radicalism.”
Those who testified in favor of the bill also included Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin; The Honorable Stuart Ishimaru, chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission; Professor William Eskridge of Yale Law School; Rabbi David Sapperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Brad Sears, executive director of The Williams Institute; and Vandy Beth Glenn, a former Georgia state legislative aide who had been fired due to her gender identity.
The main opposition came from GOP Representative John Kline of Minnesota and Craig Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters Association.
In his opening statement, Kline said the legislation “creates an entirely new protected class that is vaguely defined and often subjective. For instance, the legislation extends protections bas on – quote – ‘perceived’ sexual orientation.” These “vaguely defined” terms would result in an “explosion of litigation,” he added.
Those who oppose ending discrimination against LGBT people for employment or housing need to ask themselves why any person should be denied the basics of life– housing and the right to earn her/his living– for any reason other than incompetence in the workplace or carrying out illegal activities in a place of residence. Would these same people, particularly those of a religious persuasion accept the idea of an employer refusing to hire a worker because s/he insists on having a day off from work on Sunday (or any day of worship)? To discriminate against one group opens the door to discriminate against any group.
I just know I likely would not be unemployed today if this law were in place last year at this time. Hopefully it will be passed and become law so I am no longer a second class citizen.
Let me understand this. Rep. Kline is arguing that it should be legal to fire people who show up to work, who do their work, and who pay their bills? What kind of chode thinks that this is “conservative”? Last I checked, the GOP used to make a big deal about people helping themselves. This shows his underlying ignorance and bigotry.
FYI, I googled his name, went to his website, but wasn’t allowed to send an e-mail there. Evidently it kicks you out if your zip code isn’t in his district. That’s OK. His office number in DC is 202 225 2271. I will be calling his office in the morning.
Joanna Sue…I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve been there. It feels strange…again, you go to work, you do your job, and somebody fires you not because you’re late, not because you’re lazy, not because of any performance issue, but because of who you are. It’s infuriating because you need money to eat and have a home, and here you’ve had your job taken away because of something totally unrelated to your job performance. It can feel embarrassing, even humiliating. It shakes your confidence, and leaves you with dread when you apply for another job and have to explain why you were fired. It’s wrong.
I do not understand why anybody would be against non-discrimination for people in the work place. What good does it do to fire or refuse work to someone who is homosexual? It does not affect our ability to work.
I actually totally understand why people are against this. I don’t agree with them, but this is how it is. Either, as with the christian broadcasters, they do not want us sinners around them which is simply bigotry but it is central to their very definition of who they are….nobody that lives outside their definition of accepted morality is welcome. The other reason is much more pragmatic and it is what Kline is getting at: it is already difficult to properly fire someone, and as and employer I know the frustration, and the fear these people live under.
They are afraid they will need to fire an LGBT person for real reasons and not be able to.
Today we pussyfoot around underperforming women, minorities and older people. This is because they have a better chance of sueing us. The fact is with ENDA we would add us to that list, and that is what they fear.
Now, it may simply be bigotry, but it isn’t for everyone.
It simply shows we need to make it clear we need these protections AND we will not abuse them.
I am struggling with something like this right now. These are real issues and as uncomfortable as it is, if the person is in a protected class we are simply gun shy.
So the solution is difficult and needs to be done right. It is naive to simply say none of the opposition makes sense…true for the bigots, but that is not the only dynamic.