Tea Party Republican Supports ENDA

[Shana A]

Tea Party Republican Supports ENDA
BY Michelle Garcia
October 09 2012 3:33 PM ET

http://www.advocate.com/society/law/2012/10/09/tea-party-republican-supports-enda

A Tea Party Republican said that he supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect workers from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

"I'm a businessman," Colorado Republican Scott Tipton told Think Progress last week. "When you walk in the door, if you're able to do the job and you're focused on your job, that's all that's important ... I think we've got a good policy in this country of not being discriminatory, and we should not be in regards to people's personal lives."

--------

Tea Party Congressman Announces Support For Bill That Makes It Illegal To Fire Someone For Being Gay

By Scott Keyes on Oct 5, 2012 at 9:05 am

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/05/964121/scott-tipton-enda/?mobile=nc

DENVER, Colorado — A Republican Congressman has broken with his party and announced his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a key piece of legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT individuals in the workplace.

[...]

    KEYES: I assume you wouldn't fire someone for being gay. But do you think it should be illegal for other businesses to do that?

    TIPTON: I think we've got a good policy in this country of not being discriminatory and we should not be in regards to people's personal lives. It is in the employment into the world. It's about the ability to be able to do the job. That's certainly my focus.

[Jamie D]

Good article until the last paragraph:

ENDA has floundered in Congress because Tipton's colleagues in the Republican caucus have repeatedly voted it down. Their rationales have ranged from believing homosexuality is a "choice" to calling the legislation a "war on religion".

First of all, the proper verb is "foundered."

Second, Republicans had no ability to block ENDA in the House or Senate from 2009 to 2011.  It foundered then solely because of the Democrats and the President.  I interpret that to mean the Democrats only give lip service to meaningful reform.

[Snowpaw]

Good article until the last paragraph:

ENDA has floundered in Congress because Tipton's colleagues in the Republican caucus have repeatedly voted it down. Their rationales have ranged from believing homosexuality is a "choice" to calling the legislation a "war on religion".

First of all, the proper verb is "foundered."

To be fair on 2 points. 1. One misspelled word does not defeat the entire article. 2. Conflicting I know but advocate is hardly known for using proper spell check let alone proper pronouns on transgender. If people can call certain things a boys club I would say many news sources/"equality groups" are gay and lesbian clubs. We merely tag along. /rant off.

The other stuff, I wouldn't argue with you there. both sides merely pay lip service like you said.

[Jamie D]

To be fair on 2 points. 1. One misspelled word does not defeat the entire article. 2. Conflicting I know but advocate is hardly known for using proper spell check let alone proper pronouns on transgender. If people can call certain things a boys club I would say many news sources/"equality groups" are gay and lesbian clubs. We merely tag along. /rant off.

The other stuff, I wouldn't argue with you there. both sides merely pay lip service like you said.

Not misspelled.  Just a common mistake.  A trained journalist would know better.

I always enjoy a good rant!

[Snowpaw]

Not misspelled.  Just a common mistake.  A trained journalist would know better.

I always enjoy a good rant!

Ha that would imply they had any. Most of the articles they have just link to other sites

[dalebert]

Isn't it possible they actually meant floundered? If their attempts to push it through were sort of half-assed and it just didn't seem to go anywhere rather than being overtly shot down...

Floundered  
verb (used without object)
1.
to struggle with stumbling or plunging movements (usually followed by about, along, on, through,  etc.): He saw the child floundering about in the water.
2.
to struggle clumsily or helplessly: He floundered helplessly on the first day of his new job.

Foundered
verb (used without object)
1.
(of a ship, boat, etc.) to fill with water and sink.
2.
to fall or sink down, as buildings, ground, etc.: Built on a former lake bed, the building has foundered nearly ten feet.
3.
to become wrecked; fail utterly: The project foundered because public support was lacking.
4.
to stumble, break down, or go lame, as a horse: His mount foundered on the rocky path.
5.
to become ill from overeating.

[justmeinoz]

Well, David Cameron UK Conservative PM did say that Conservatives should be in favour of minimal Govt interference in people's lives, and that was why he was in favour of gay rights.  Also probably lose half the Tory party if they banned gays from joining, judging by their past history! 

[Wynternight]

I was a Tea Party supporter (but not member) when they were (ostensibly) about small government and fiscal responsibility but this new hard turn to the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, religious fundamentalism crap they've taken of late is a complete and utter turn off. It seems they're all about limited government until it comes to a woman's body and the bedrooms of consenting adults.

[Shantel]

I hate to get into religious or political ethics discussions because they always turn into some sort of clusterfk however most of the stuff people wrangle about today has absolutely nothing to do with governing a nation. constitutionally and practically speaking individual life styles should not fall under any government purview as long as it does not harm the life and liberty of others. I once donned a military uniform to back the concept of Life, Liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all, how naive I was! Unfortunately there are those who have a burning desire to tell others how to live their lives, so they become politicians and bow and genuflect before the alter of every special interest because it validates them and increases their power over others. We shouldn't have to be having this conversation because this situation shouldn't exist!

[Jamie D]

I hate to get into religious or political ethics discussions because they always turn into some sort of clusterfk however most of the stuff people wrangle about today has absolutely nothing to do with governing a nation. constitutionally and practically speaking individual life styles should not fall under any government purview as long as it does not harm the life and liberty of others. I once donned a military uniform to back the concept of Life, Liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all, how naive I was! Unfortunately there are those who have a burning desire to tell others how to live their lives, so they become politicians and bow and genuflect before the alter of every special interest because it validates them and increases their power over others. We shouldn't have to be having this conversation because this situation shouldn't exist!

We have a winner!

[dalebert]

I was a Tea Party supporter (but not member) when they were (ostensibly) about small government and fiscal responsibility but this new hard turn to the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, religious fundamentalism crap they've taken of late is a complete and utter turn off. It seems they're all about limited government until it comes to a woman's body and the bedrooms of consenting adults.

This is a very concerted tactic of the larger, more powerful groups to absorb movements like this. You get a few inspired people looking for some kind of real and substantial change that don't want all the social-conservative baggage of the right-wing like the anti-gay, abortion activism, pro-war stances, etc. If it actually starts to get any traction, it becomes a threat to one of the two beheomeths, in this case the Republican party. Then the larger movement latches on with their people and of course they have the numbers and effectively just turns it into another branch. That's what happened to the Tea Party. I remember when some of the most prominent members and arguably leaders at a certain time were very publicly saying essentially "GTFO right-wingers! You're missing the point."

A relatively small group of organized dissidents like that could theoretically have a powerful impact on policy. Look at how close many elections are. They pivot over a few percentage points, often even less. Swing voters have the most power. But here's the thing. The major parties have done such a great job of demonizing the other side that everyone stays in fire-fighting mode. OMG if Romney wins, the sky will fall! Or OMG if Obama gets re-elected the sky will fall! If a sizable chunk of people were willing to stick together and actually convince a candidate that they WILL NOT VOTE for him, even if he's their preference of the two, unless they get X (gay marriage, end of certain wars for real, drastic reduction in the deficit, whatever) then they could turn an election. But that never happens.

And that's why it's so much more effective to demonize the other side than to actually offer any substantial change. Keep people in absolute terror that the other side is SO awful and you secure your base lock, stock, and barrel. Then you can avoid doing anything that will upset the non-partisan swing voters, most of whom are voting based on really shallow and silly criteria. The Ds and Rs get more indistinguishable every election.

[Shantel]

And that's why it's so much more effective to demonize the other side than to actually offer any substantial change. Keep people in absolute terror that the other side is SO awful and you secure your base lock, stock, and barrel. Then you can avoid doing anything that will upset the non-partisan swing voters, most of whom are voting based on really shallow and silly criteria. The Ds and Rs get more indistinguishable every election.

Right on Dalebert! That's what the former Soviet Union did in conjunction with the United States and they kept the rest of the world in a state of terrorized lockstep playing antagonist/protagonist. BTW - It seems as if the US got a handle on how effective the former Soviet's leadership use of disinformation worked and is employing it in the American media today.