The fact:
The U.S. House of Representatives successfully passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on 11/7/07 by a vote of 235 to 184, a bill which adds “sexual orientation” to a list of federally protected classes under a 1964 act that prohibits job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.


So, gay people are on the way to having security in their employment now.
Sounds like a good thing, doesn't it?
More civil protections for Americans = better for America, right?
Well... depends who you ask.


The bigot spin:
Conservatives Blast ENDA Bill for Restricting Religious Freedom | Christianpost.com
“ENDA would unconstitutionally force business owners to abandon their faith at the workplace door and adopt a view of sexual morality which runs directly counter to central tenets of every major world religion and thousands of years of history,” said Barber.

“It’s hard to imagine the Framers agreeing that newfangled ‘gay rights,’ based on changeable sexual behaviors, should trump the First Amendment,” he added.

First Amendment Trampled with ENDA Passage
Congress apparently believes it has carte blanche authority to nullify any constitutional provision which it finds bothersome. In this case, they've drawn a black line through the free exercise clause of the First Amendment."

"This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys and, if signed into law, will open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith," concluded Barber.


The truth:
These bigots actually think the first amendment says they can discriminate against gay people in the workplace, and that the freedom to "live out their faith" means having the power to legally fire people for being gay.

I don't know which version of the Bill of Rights they are reading, but mine says nothing like that.

The Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

So your relgion actually calls for firing gay people? Find me that verse in the Bible. "And Jesus spake, and said 'Blessed are those that fire gay people, for they deserveth not to make a living and feed their families.'"

Even if this version of ENDA goes down to a veto by anti-gay (and anti-child) Bush, pro-equality forces are already hard at work on a T-inclusive bill for 2009. And the next president, a democrat, will sign it into law.

So, enjoy your hateful religion, bigots. Believe whatever you like, and hate whoever you feel you must. But don't expect that you can legally force it on other people, ruining their careers and lives, and get away with it.

Your days are numbered.

I think it's just too convenient to blame "religion" on anyone who finds something amiss with homosexuality. Even in a room full of staunch anti religious atheists, there will be a certain number of people that find homosexuality "wrong". Hell, even among homosexuals themselves, there are a few of them that can't come to grips with it by literally rationalizing the hell out of it, and they just end up committing suicide. Religion guides many people's lives and gives them support for their natural aversion to homosexuality, but it's not "why" homosexuality is abnormal.

If a business owner doesn't want to work with a gay person, why should they be forced to. No one forces a small business to hire women, any particular ethnicity, or religion. Why should they be forced to hire and retain a gay person they don't want to be around.

I used to date a young lady from St. Loius who's dad owned a building supply company. Her father had no black employees, and he purposely kept his number of employees low enough so that he wouldn't be required to hire any. Was that wrong? Yes. Was that his right as a business owner...Why not? I know of more than a few "black" businesses that would go out of business before they hired a white person. And there are more than a few Hispanic landscaping companies that are 100% Hispanic.

As Dog the bounty hunter was afraid of, I too have been in the company of people at work that talked disparagingly of gay people in a rather flippant manner. I'm sure there are companies with employees that talk the same way about women, blacks, other religions, and ethnicities. If I owned a company where I knew we dropped the "fag" bomb on a regular basis, the last thing I would want to do is hire a gay person and set myself up for a harassment lawsuit.

If this Bill becomes law, will it mean that GLAAD, PFLAG and other pro-homosexual organisations will be forced to hire their fair share of right-wing fundamentalist Christian evangelicals??

If so that can only be a good thing.

Bigotry works both ways!!

Such laws don't work that way.

I didn't say that. I agree, different people have different reasons for their intolerance.

But the people and organizations I quoted obviously object to gay people on religious grounds, and think that the Constitution should protect their "right" to fire gay people.

No one is forcing anyone to hire gay people. This isn't affirmative action.

But if an employer hires someone, and that person is later discovered to be gay, ENDA protects that person from being fired for being gay. If it turns out the person isn't doing a good job, the employer can certainly fire the person for that cause. But being gay alone is no longer legal grounds to fire someone.

I just can't imagine any rational, reasonable person thinking this is a bad thing.

Actually, that would be the second-to-last thing you would want to do.

Because apparently from your description, the LAST thing you would want to do is change the culture/policy of your company such that "dropping the fag bomb" would no longer be acceptable.

Personally, I think it would be easier to tell the employees to clean up their act, or even pay to send them for a couple hours of diversity sensitivity training than deal with a possible anti-gay hiring bias lawsuit, but that's just me.

I DID say that though.
It's funny where our agreeing and disagreeing meet and then diverge...
I find the pro-homosexual people insanely hateful of religion in many places online. The two largest religions seem as clear in the what the deem homosexual acts as our modern laws are against predators. Should the religious faithful "hate" homosexual people? No. But I don't see the religious suddenly deciding that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. It would require a total rejection of several passages.

Should a person be fired for being gay? No. But then again, if you didn't want to hire a gay person in the first place, something that isn't written across someone's forehead, and you find out that they are gay later, you in essence ARE being forced to hire a gay person. This is weird legislation from that aspect.

Should a gay man be fired for just being gay at a publicly traded paper store? Nope. Should a gay man be fired for just being gay from a privately owned company where the owner knows he has other valued employees that are uncomfortable around that person? Maybe. Why should the majority in a private company change for that one person? Black people, women and other minorities deal with that all the time. It's not like you can just not "be" black or female during an interview and then revert later. In a larger publicly held corporation, the priorities are different, but a smaller company should have the right to choose their employees.

I don't see that either, but no one is asking them to do so. I work with a couple of people who act in ways I find personally morally troublesome, but I wouldn't want to see them lose their jobs becaose of it. I just act professionally with them, get my work done, and choose not to associate with them any more than I have to.

You are right. These uncomfortable people you mention shouldn't change for that one person. They should change for themselves, because tolerance is a good thing for everyone.

Because, when they eventually run across that one person, or some other person, in a work situation or some other situation, they will already be equipped to coexist comfortably, rendering this whole topic a non-issue.

The idea that the continued comfort of intolerant people is more worthy of protection than a person's continued secure employment/livelihood is one that I not only can't accept, but one that I can't figure out how any decent person could approve of.

just wait, forester

some bright bulb is going to say something like gays aren't tolerant of those who hate them. LOL

kinda like asking blacks to be "tolerant" of racists and Jews to be "tolerant" of anti-semites

you know darned well this circular argument will get started here - I will lay odds!