Who Opposes ENDA and Why?

Actually, you hit the crux of the problem in this post. There’s a basic difference of opinion on a key matter. You believe gays are being discriminated against because of who or what they are. Your opponents believe gays are being ostracized because of what they do.

I’ll approach your 2nd point first. There’s not an equivalence between religion and behavior in regards to discrimination. Religion is a belief whereas many view homosexuality as an action.

As for the “born that way” vs. “chose to do that” argument, I lean towards your views. I also have to look at the prevalence of homosexuality in Rome and other cultures where it was obvious a choice. There’s also the prison system to consider… These things cloud the issue.

As for the identity component, my belief is that that is crap science. I know plenty of gays whose sexuality is not their identifying center. I believe that allowing your homosexuality to be your identifier is a social construct strongly linked to victimology.

BTW: To clarify my overall position, since I might be sounding harsh - I don’t really care who anybody has sex with as long as I can choose NOT to see it. LOL

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is one of those pieces of law with such a great name that you wonder how anyone could ever have a problem with it; in that way it is kind of like the Equal Rights Amendment. Who could be against equal rights or for discrimination? Well, I seriously do wonder what arguments the opponents of ENDA are making against a law that is so clearly justified.

I’m a fan of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. But, I hate to break it to you: your first statement is a load of crap. Just because you name something one thing, doesn’t mean it actually takes on the characteristics of it’s name. The “Fair Tax” isn’t necessarily “Fair.” Fair Trade isn’t necessarily “Fair” just because it’s named that. Almost everyone would prefer fair taxes and fair trade, they just don’t prefer the things that have assumed those names for themselves. In the same way most people are probably for “Equal Rights” and “Non-Discrimination” but naming an act after those things doesn’t necessarily make the Act “Equal” or “Non-Discriminatory”

I oppose ENDA because it was a weak and a watered down version that passed the House. The original version extended protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identification. The current language omits that protection. This means that transsexual individuals can still be legally discriminated against and that homosexual men can be fired for being too effeminate and that lesbian women can be fired if they are too manly. Those reasons for terminating at will employment are perfectly acceptable under the current language. Many in the LGBT community are also unhappy with the language of the bill. http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/lambda-legals-analysis-enda.html

And I forgot to add that ENDA just masks the problem and lets people in the center left feel like they’ve done something to fix the promblem when they haven’t done anything. The current version of ENDA is as much a solution to sexual orientation discrimination as placing a moratorium of the federal gas tax is for high gas prices.

The prevalence of traditional social mores regarding sexual orientation will have to be dealt with as long as nondiscrimination is pursued through the political process. Far too many people in too many politically important places have unacceptable and bigoted views on these issues, and their intransigence and resistance to faster progress necessitates some adherence to a process of gradual change. Society is not as tolerant as we would want it to be, but it is better than it was and I am confident that it will continue to improve. The fastest way to effect change is through the courts, and even this would require political success for the forces of tolerance. The sad fact of the matter is that the Right can use liberal and moderate identification with “otherness” (in this case homosexuals) as a political cudgel to cleave older, more traditional voters from a political movement with which they are otherwise likely to identify. I think that this is becoming less and less useful, but I’m not sure the moment of its irrelevance has arrived. Would the ENDA solve all of the problems of workplace discrimination in American society? Hardly. But it would be an improvement. It isn’t perfect, but it isn’t nothing and it certainly isn’t a gas tax.

The masking argument is made, form a legilative slant, when one problem or issue cannot be fully solved. However compelling this argument may seem, it doesn’t accurately represent the law-making process. No major movement comes to fruition in one solve-all piece of legislation; it comes about incrementally.

As I think Kolby was hinting at, this is an incremental step towards greater equality amongst people. The two other major social movements of our nation, equality for blacks and women, wasn’t solved in one major legislative swoop. It took time and political capital — something that the sexual preference movement seems to be gaining, relatively speaking.

You also have to consider the alternative, which is to do nothing and leave it at the status quo. If you oppose the bill because it doesn’t cover gender identification what are you accomplishing? Contrary to the status quo, ENDA provides legislative change for more equality amongst people.

Luckily, as has been pointed out on this blog before, the discrimination against homosexuals seems to be a generational phenomenon and an ongoing crusade of the Religious Right. “Mainstream” young America (us) doesn’t see all that ardent in the continuation of discrimination against homosexuals.

As David notes in his post, this resolution is likely to get “Bushed” in the Oval if it makes it past the Senate, and I don’t think it will make it past the Senate to begin with.

However, as Kolby and Denney have already alluded to, it’s a good start and needs to be met with serious, open-minded consideration.

Denney: I would almost say that the discrimination against homosexuals is more of a multi-generational phenomenon, no? Obviously, the Religious Right and neo-con media has waged a ridiculous war on the idea of homosexuality, but I believe it’s always been present in theory (at least in the US).

“neocon media”? What the hell is that? Neoconservatism doesn’t have a whole lot to do with sexual issues, and the overwhelming majority of media coverage of gay issues is fairly friendly. Can we stop using “neocon” as shorthand for something we don’t like?

I think Steven was referring to the fact that in today’s society opposition to homosexuality is much higher among higher age groups. Even religious young people have much less quarrel with gays than their older compatriots. Of course anti-gay sentiment has always been around. Its better now than it has been, but I’m fairly certain it won’t ever go away.

Nor will racism or bigotry, for that matter . . .

As for neo-conservatives, “they” are a part of an international paradigm (state building, unilateral intervention, etc.). I wouldn’t use the term very much when it comes to domestic issues, albeit they were behind the Iraq disinformation campaign. The “media” that is against homosexuals is represented by the Religious Right and religious pundits like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. It’s no secret that Bush paraded to this constituency, but I wouldn’t group them in the same category as the neo-cons. Although this constituency may have been supportive (and still is) of the neo-con administration’s foreign policy, to mark them as in-bed together may be a bit of a stretch.

I didn’t realize it was tongue-in-cheek. My bad. Otherwise it was an interesting post.

what’s wrong with discrimination?

doesn’t everybody discriminate every day?

i don’t care for the other arguments, this is the one that’s important:

“ENDA gives special privileges to homosexuals.”

and the problem is that it’s phrased wrongly. i assume this is the case because it is seemingly obvious that David believes in positivistic rights. right?

i am curious what this argument would sound like if David was trying to defend negative rights, and would therefore have to phrase this argument from a different perspective.

excuse me, i should rephrase my wording.

“David believes in positivistic rights”

i don’t want to use the word belief. it’s more accurate to say david is advocating ‘enforcement’ of measures that promote positivistic “rights”.

What are we meaning by “positivistic rights” (the both of you)?

From my understanding, a positivistic approach to “legal rights” is that the government should intervene in order to uphold the “legal rights” of citizens as codified by rules and laws. Moreover, positivism is a political/legal philosophy that believes that not only can the government intervene for the betterment of its citizens, but that the government should intervene in order to protect the betterment of its citizens. Essentially, a law is a valid law if posited, in the proper manner, by a recognized authority, regardless of its moral implications. This, of course, means that laws can be enacted that are essentially wrong, unjust, or immoral. Not that I think ENDA is any of the three.

Maybe I’m reading too far into this?

David, it seems like your drawing a comparison similar to the difference between regular action (laws) and affirmative action (laws plus special or additional rights). I think there’s a slight difference between positivistic legal theory and affirmative action legal theory.

The difference is that affirmative action legal theory is one applied example of the larger concept of positivistic legal theory. They’re not two peered ideas.

but what about freedom of association?
why should i have to hire or maintain employment for someone even if i don’t want to? let’s say i hire someone, then find out there is something about them i don’t like. will i be honest about why i fired them? someone can just lie and say that im homophobic. if there is no evidence that i am homophobic then i would hope im not convicted. but if there is evidence that i am homophobic, i guess that’s illegal now isn’t it.

right?

shouldn’t i have the right to hire or fire anyone i want?

if i am searching for a roommate….is it wrong for me to say i only want a male roomomate? can i ask for a homosexual roommate only? aren’t i discriminating?
am i now a criminal?

condemning my questions validate what you are advocating?

do you know anyone who is racist? do you go to their house? do you bring friends over with you that they don’t consider “friends”? don’t you think it’s “right” to force integration?

hey man….you don’t know me anyway….im just talking here….you want to know why people oppose enda. i want to know why people think that laws change minds.

“it protects people from a harm”

how? what action must the government take to “protect” people in these circumstances?

i personally would not want to work for a racist individual. would you?
some people sue because they can, not because they should.

again, it’s obvious you and i have a very different view of government. you don’t agree with the purpose of defending individual rights but believe in a collectivist ideology. which i can’t do anything about. i’m just trying to understand…..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy103.html

Abolish Anti-Discrimination Laws
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy103.html

and again. i think that the reasons for opposition to enda cited in your original post leave out mush more plausible arguments.

I think some people believe that ENDA would be special privileges extended toward a particular group — homosexuals.

sure, it can be phrased this way i suppose. but as david is tring to point out the law doesn’t necessarily “grant” anything,

and law shouldn’t grant anything except protection of individual rights in my opinion

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ["Life, Liberty and Property"].

Professor Sadowsky:

When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use.

personally i like spooner. he definitely had it right. under the USC, despite what people may claim, slavery is illegal. and no, lincoln was not anti-slavery, nor was that what the civil war was about. maybe im a dunce, but that’s the impression i got in school. lol

http://lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm

No Treason
The Constitution of No Authority
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html

the spooner post doesn’t necessarily apply here….but the justification for some of his arguments can be linked insofar as one is discussing defense of individual rights and laws that are set forth. and one has to ask, how many laws do we need? what is sufficient? will legislation like enda actually benefit society, or is just appeasement? and how will it harm society, or rather the individuals and their family that will be the target of this legislatioin?

you did read it right?

and it’s not revisionism…..

besides, you were looking for opposition. i was simply pointing out there is more to it than what you posted….

for example. a man more eloquent than i……

“Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ”
The Trouble With Forced Integration

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty……..”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

if one gets in trouble for discrimination what do you think happens?

so how do you think that this legislation is a defense of negative rights?

-i have no right to kill anyone. therefore neither do you. i have no right to steal. therefore neither do you.

i am coming from the idea that rights are defined by each individuals’ rights. freedom is limited. yes, but only limited by other’s rights which are defined by property. the “personal bubble” or “comfort zone” are other words for property rights. it will be an intersting day indeed when people are jailed for being discriminatory. i,e, thought crimes.
remember, in US law currently, there are different definitions of property which, when defined, might give some clarity as to the seriousness of such legislation as ENDA. i,e, commercial property vs private property.

obviously the idea of “group rights” comes from the fact that “certain groups” are identified based on certain conditions.

so do i have the right to discriminate?

if we are to apply this legislation, i do not have a right to discriminate “on the basis of” or “on the grounds of” race, gender, etc.

-i think the idea of ENDA is not so much outlawing discrimination, per se, but rather, it is guaranteeing a redress for grievances, losses, etc. if such a circumstance as discrimination occurs with regards to employment.

and remember, this law can be applied even before one is ever even employed!!

so we shouldn’t be talking about discrimination, because really we are talking about breach of contract. i.e., federal legislation.

shouldn’t an employer have the choice to offer ADA or ENDA as a contract to be signed as opposed to this being federal legislation and everyone is forced to comply?

just as supermarkets may have to provide information about the products they carry so people can best discriminate between the products, this way an employee could also discriminate between employers.

(it’s early, i hope you can understand what i wrote. lol)

am i spamming still? come on folks…lol…this is juicy stuff!! it’s worth talking about right?

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/index.html

“you force yourselves to the extreme on a lot of common sense issues.”
there is only one self here…..

“The reason why ENDA deals with negative laws and the reason why it is justified is because it protects people from a harm”

so how far are you willing to support this idea?

please kill me

lol. i hear ya man.

[...] by Jesse on May 22, 2008 So I’ve been commenting on politicalcartel.com, another wordpress blog managed by several persons whom I think are all affiliated with Harding [...]