Comments on: ENDA introduced into Senate

By: Sporty_g

Sporty_g — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:07:31 +0000

Funny …the US government considers civilians “employees”, even with the military. But military “soldiers” are not “employees”? From USAJOBS, a federal government job site, the EEO statement for a job with the ARMY, says:
“The United States Government does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor.”

Interesting that a Federal “EMPLOYEE” is covered already, but the military..ie “soldiers”, are not entitled to the same protections, even though they get to fight our battles to protect such rights….certainly sounds like a “double standard”……

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:49:52 +0000

Excellent, now everyone needs to contact their elected officials.

By: kelli Busey

kelli Busey — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:16:47 +0000

“A form of ENDA without gender identity passed the House in the last session of Congress but engendered so much opposition for omitting gender identity that it was never brought up in the Senate.”
On On 9/27/07 Rep. Frank split the gender inclusive bill H.R 2015 into two separate bills, H.R.3585 sexual orientation, and H.R.3586 gender identity.
This article leads one to believe that the Senate bill was never introduced becuse of the outrage of the 7 million GLBT people who signed the onto UNITED ENDA.
Without a doubt HRC was horrified with the prospect they might lose a portion of there ‘GALA’ payday, but even that was not the reason that why ENDA was not introduced into the Senate.
The Democrats in the house were simply protecting there jobs and succumbed to the Catholic Churches wishes and threw transgender people under the bus.
There was never anywhere enough votes to pass any version of ENDA in the Senate at that time.
Get your facts straight and quit trying to revise history. HRC hasn’t got away with it and neither will 365 Gay.

By: Alexa

Alexa — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:03:51 +0000

where’s the F in that NGLTF? =)

By: bstjohn

bstjohn — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:57:24 +0000

just a note.. when you enlist, as I did, you give yourself to this country, therefore you are the property of the USA, you are not an employee. They do however employ civilians, when ENDA passes this should become interesting.

By: JarinAmin

JarinAmin — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:43:28 +0000

As a former Sailor, it was not a job in the typical way. I choose to enlist and to serve. There is no way what I did in the service could be considered a job outside of the military. So I dont think EDNA should apply to service. I also dont agree with DADT as I was booted out before that was passed. I do think this is at the very least a step in the right direction.

By: marcus99

marcus99 — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:01:28 +0000

Morgan;

The way I see it,the two are intricately connected.

ENDA is supposed to end discrmmination in employment based uppon sexual orientation or identity.

The military is a federal organization that employs soldiers.

Soldiers that are gay are fired on the basis of DADT (i.e because they are gay-no other reason).

ENDA (in my opinion) should therefore nullify DADT. however, as Kari has informed me, you gotta read the fine print. The military is exempt from ENDA as soldiers are apparently not considered “employed”.

Since I work in a field that has everything to do with employment and litigation, I find it laughable that the government could consider soldiers effectively “unemployed”.

By: JayC

JayC — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:51:07 +0000

I’ve written to my senators, Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning. In about 3 months, I’ll receive a letter stating their strong positions on soybean price supports.

McConnell will do anything he can to stop this legislation.

By: TropicalMark

TropicalMark — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:39:14 +0000

Morgan.. THINK about that for a second..
is NOT the government an ‘employer’?

By: Morgan

Morgan — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:14:37 +0000

Marcus,
What does DADT have to do with ENDA? Surely, it’s all gay related but those are 2 entirely different and separate pieces of legislation.