ENDA: support or oppose?

[FA_Q2]

The title is rather self-explanatory – do you support or oppose the ENDA?

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t think that I can actually get on board with something of this nature because it is creating yet another ‘special’ class 0of citizen that is offered protections because of their status. That is absolutely counter to what I believe in. I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.


Those of you that know my posting here should be well aware that I have advocated many times for equal rights. I have always held that gay marriages should have the exact same status as straight marriages and there should be no governmental distinctions against gays but this is taking it too far for me. I don’t think that they need special status. What do you think and why?

 

[FA_Q2]

No one has anything to say about this at all? Seriously?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its just the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all Americans.

But, the House will vote it down because they don't believe in or support the Constitution. Further, rw's are apparently against anything that gives equal rights to all.

It will take a while but, its inevitable that all Americans have the exact same rights.

 

[Two Thumbs]

trannies make up about .7% of the population

at best

and we already have anti-discrimination laws in place that protect them

so this is just more liberal money and time waste for a new and useless law.

 

[Katzndogz]

When everyone is a protected class no one is a protected class. Of course the creation of all these protected classes is supposed to do no such thing, but create a class of persons totally without protections at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Its just the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all Americans.

But, the House will vote it down because they don't believe in or support the Constitution. Further, rw's are apparently against anything that gives equal rights to all.

It will take a while but, its inevitable that all Americans have the exact same rights.

No, it’s not. They are trying to create a specific protected class. That is the point of the law. If it were ‘just getting equal rights’ there would be no need for the law, now would there.

Essentially, your employer can terminate you for almost anything he/she wants to except for a very short list of basic protections. Most importantly, those are things like race and sex – 2 things that are very apparent and CANNOT be concealed. The others are narrower except creed, a right outlined specifically for protection in the bill of rights. We are creating a new class here and I don’t think it should be created at all. It is utterly unnecessary.

 

[billyerock1991]

The title is rather self-explanatory – do you support or oppose the ENDA?

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t think that I can actually get on board with something of this nature because it is creating yet another ‘special’ class 0of citizen that is offered protections because of their status. That is absolutely counter to what I believe in. I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.


Those of you that know my posting here should be well aware that I have advocated many times for equal rights. I have always held that gay marriages should have the exact same status as straight marriages and there should be no governmental distinctions against gays but this is taking it too far for me. I don’t think that they need special status. What do you think and why?

thats the same thing they said about black people ... we don't need to hire them ... and if we want, we can fire them for who they are, just cause we don't like-um ... its not always about marriage or allowing them to be who they are ... many times its about them being gay, black, or brown is the reason they cant find a place to live or get a loan at a bank or what ever ... its not always about them living their life they way they want to live, its are you going prevent them from getting the same things that you get by saying we don't need special status... with out a law stopping these practices they will stop them from living their lives like the ones that you or I have ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Its just the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all Americans.

But, the House will vote it down because they don't believe in or support the Constitution. Further, rw's are apparently against anything that gives equal rights to all.

It will take a while but, its inevitable that all Americans have the exact same rights.

I wouldn't say the house will vote it down ...I would say Boehner won't bring it to the floor ... the reason he won't is political ... as all things are ... the republicans would lose all the gay votes across the US by voting no, they know this .... by him not bringing it to the floor, in the republicans minds eye, think only Boehner will be affected by gay vote.. thats 10% of the voting populous ... not much really, but when you consider the vote not coming from the Latinos because of the immigration reform act not being passed, or brought to the floor, 40% of the voting populous along with the black vote, the republicans get a little shaky when it comes to putting out the vote no for it ... so I would say some will vote for it if its brought to the floor, how many depends on who their voters are ... I say it would get passed if they brought it to the floor ... to many republicans being afraid of not getting reelected ...

 

[WorldWatcher]

I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.

So just curious, do you also feel that religious views should not be protected by the government** in the private business environment since religion is something that is "not worn on your skin" and is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent?



*************************

** The question concerns Public Accommodation laws and their impact on private business AND NOT religion as it relates to government and the 1st Amendment. Remember the Constitution is a limiting documents on government, not a limiting documents on private individuals. For example, where the first amendment says we have Freedom of Speech, that means the government is restricted, that does not mean an employer can't fire you for speech on the job that is contrary to company policy.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

It looks like a jobs bill for labor lawyers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Its just the basic rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all Americans.

But, the House will vote it down because they don't believe in or support the Constitution. Further, rw's are apparently against anything that gives equal rights to all.

It will take a while but, its inevitable that all Americans have the exact same rights.

I wouldn't say the house will vote it down ...I would say Boehner won't bring it to the floor ... the reason he won't is political ... as all things are ... the republicans would lose all the gay votes across the US by voting no, they know this .... by him not bringing it to the floor, in the republicans minds eye, think only Boehner will be affected by gay vote.. thats 10% of the voting populous ... not much really, but when you consider the vote not coming from the Latinos because of the immigration reform act not being passed, or brought to the floor, 40% of the voting populous along with the black vote, the republicans get a little shaky when it comes to putting out the vote no for it ... so I would say some will vote for it if its brought to the floor, how many depends on who their voters are ... I say it would get passed if they brought it to the floor ... to many republicans being afraid of not getting reelected ...

Much much more than 10% because LGBT's have friends, families, people like me who believe in equal rights for all Americans.

 

[Katzndogz]

I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.

So just curious, do you also feel that religious views should not be protected by the government** in the private business environment since religion is something that is "not worn on your skin" and is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent?



*************************

** The question concerns Public Accommodation laws and their impact on private business AND NOT religion as it relates to government and the 1st Amendment. Remember the Constitution is a limiting documents on government, not a limiting documents on private individuals. For example, where the first amendment says we have Freedom of Speech, that means the government is restricted, that does not mean an employer can't fire you for speech on the job that is contrary to company policy.



>>>>

Religious views should be protected by the government FROM government intrusion. It should not be used to coerce action by private persons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The title is rather self-explanatory – do you support or oppose the ENDA?

Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t think that I can actually get on board with something of this nature because it is creating yet another ‘special’ class 0of citizen that is offered protections because of their status. That is absolutely counter to what I believe in. I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.


Those of you that know my posting here should be well aware that I have advocated many times for equal rights. I have always held that gay marriages should have the exact same status as straight marriages and there should be no governmental distinctions against gays but this is taking it too far for me. I don’t think that they need special status. What do you think and why?

The issue has nothing to do with ‘rights,’ ‘special’ or otherwise.

Civil liberties jurisprudence that prohibits discrimination pertain to government and public sector entities only.

Federal public accommodations laws and laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence and Congress’ authority to regulate markets. And Congress may take into consideration discrimination as having an adverse effect on markets and prohibit it accordingly. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Other laws prohibiting discrimination are predicated on ethical and/or moral grounds where such discrimination is offensive to the fundamental tenets of our Nation, and I support the law for that reason.

Although it’s not technically or legally a civil rights issue, I support the measure because it comports with the Framers’ intent expressed in the 5th Amendment’s Liberty Clause, where it makes no difference if a person ‘can’t help’ being a minority potentially subject to discrimination, or elects in the context of his right to individual liberty a lifestyle perceived by some to be ‘offensive,’ whether one was ‘born that way’ or not is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

From a moral and ethical standpoint, therefore, I believe that an American should be able to seek and secure employment free from the fear that a prospective or current employer will subject him to disadvantage for purely subjective, capricious reasons: whether one is gay or not has no bearing on his ability to perform his job responsibilities; and employers need to conduct themselves in an ethical and professional manner where if an employee’s sexual orientation conflicts with that employer’s moral beliefs, that employer has the good sense to retain that valuable human resource because it’s good for his company, in addition to being the ethical and professional thing to do.

Should the measure be signed into law, which seems unlikely, and subject to a court challenge, it would be upheld as Constitution based again upon the grounds noted above: Congress’ authority to regulate the workplace pursuant to the Commerce Clause. See: US v. Darby (1941).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.

So just curious, do you also feel that religious views should not be protected by the government** in the private business environment since religion is something that is "not worn on your skin" and is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent?



*************************

** The question concerns Public Accommodation laws and their impact on private business AND NOT religion as it relates to government and the 1st Amendment. Remember the Constitution is a limiting documents on government, not a limiting documents on private individuals. For example, where the first amendment says we have Freedom of Speech, that means the government is restricted, that does not mean an employer can't fire you for speech on the job that is contrary to company policy.



>>>>

Religious views should be protected by the government FROM government intrusion. It should not be used to coerce action by private persons.

The government should protect the government from the government?

That makes no sense.

Laws prohibiting discrimination against gay citizens in the workplace in no way ‘violates’ a given religious dogma, as the employer remains at liberty to practice his faith as he sees fit. If a law compelled an employer to engage in homosexual acts, that might be construed as a Free Exercise Clause violation, but if an individual perceives homosexuals as somehow in conflict with his religious beliefs, that’s an irrelevant and subjective contrivance, having no bearing on the issue whatsoever.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support equal rights for all.

On the other hand sex shouldn't be a issue at work unless you're a poll dancer or stripper.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I understand the laws that protected racial and sexual discrimination – those are things that you wear on your skin. Things that are readily apparent and you cannot change. Sexual orientation is another animal altogether. It is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent. I don’t think that this needs to be a protected ‘class’ of person.

So just curious, do you also feel that religious views should not be protected by the government** in the private business environment since religion is something that is "not worn on your skin" and is not the color of your skin and is not overtly apparent?



*************************

** The question concerns Public Accommodation laws and their impact on private business AND NOT religion as it relates to government and the 1st Amendment. Remember the Constitution is a limiting documents on government, not a limiting documents on private individuals. For example, where the first amendment says we have Freedom of Speech, that means the government is restricted, that does not mean an employer can't fire you for speech on the job that is contrary to company policy.



>>>>

no

anything anyone does, for any reason that is bad for the moral of others should be grounds for removal.

ex; had a minonite preacher as a co-worker, he loved to talk about jesus, constantly.

I didn't mind, and I had no problem telling him he was crossing a line. The other, younger men, took issue with him

eventually the boss let him go to keep the peace.

If a tranny comes in and acts the fool, he gets removed, and shouldn't have a special law that lets him sue

 

[Katzndogz]

Behavior has never been protected until now. Hopefully this nonsense won't last too long. A couple of guys claiming harrassment should be quite useful in helping an employer dismiss unwanted employees.