Congress Needs to Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

[Shana A]

Barack Obama
President of the United States

Congress Needs to Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Posted: 11/03/2013 10:00 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/enda-congress_b_4209115.html?1383534092&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

That's why, for instance, Americans can't be fired from their jobs just because of the color of their skin or for being Christian or Jewish or a woman or an individual with a disability. That kind of discrimination has no place in our nation. And yet, right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

As a result, millions of LGBT Americans go to work every day fearing that, without any warning, they could lose their jobs -- not because of anything they've done, but simply because of who they are.

It's offensive. It's wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense.

That's why Congress needs to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which would provide strong federal protections against discrimination, making it explicitly illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill has strong bipartisan support and the support of a vast majority of Americans. It ought to be the law of the land.

[Xhianil]

If you ask me, all it will do is look pretty, it'll still happen.

[Amy The Bookworm]

If you ask me, all it will do is look pretty, it'll still happen.

It can't hurt, though, Xhianil. I like to think people will think twice about it. Or at the very least, it would give us more opportunities for legal recourse to fight back, which is something a lot of us just don't have.

[Xhianil]

It can't hurt, though, Xhianil. I like to think people will think twice about it. Or at the very least, it would give us more opportunities for legal recourse to fight back, which is something a lot of us just don't have.

I'm probably not the best to argue about this with, my experience is limited to a very anti-LBGT area.

[TaoRaven]

Sadly, it will never pass in the House. It will likely never see a vote. The President knows this, and is using it to his political advantage....by supporting it, he makes himself look good, while further vilifying Boehner and his hate-mongering backers.

[Jamie D]

Sadly, it will never pass in the House. It will likely never see a vote. The President knows this, and is using it to his political advantage....by supporting it, he makes himself look good, while further vilifying Boehner and his hate-mongering backers.

And Obama did not support it from 2009 to 2011, when he had the House and 60 seats in the Senate.

This is all about grandstanding prior to the 2014 elections.

[Amy The Bookworm]

I'm probably not the best to argue about this with, my experience is limited to a very anti-LBGT area.

Hah. Tell me about it. >< I live in a town in north east Kansas: population 450.

Honestly, you're probably right. But ... I guess I just feel I need to be optimistic. If nothing else to maintain my sanity some days.

[Xhianil]

Hah. Tell me about it. >< I live in a town in north east Kansas: population 450.

Honestly, you're probably right. But ... I guess I just feel I need to be optimistic. If nothing else to maintain my sanity some days.

Too bad I'm too much of a realist, some optimism would really help sometimes.

[Tessa James]

And Obama did not support it from 2009 to 2011, when he had the House and 60 seats in the Senate.

This is all about grandstanding prior to the 2014 elections.

It is hard for me to be as certain of motivation but yes, that is a pretty grand stand to take on behalf of fairness and protection for GLBT people.  I welcome any such political support from any of our members of congress of any party or none.

[androgynouspainter26]

If reaching a consensus on a budget to maintain the government's basic functions are beyond the house majority, than this is off limits.  Sorry, but this is not happening until the midterm elections are done and over with.

[Jamie D]

It is hard for me to be as certain of motivation but yes, that is a pretty grand stand to take on behalf of fairness and protection for GLBT people.  I welcome any such political support from any of our members of congress of any party or none.

Nice play on words! 

But realistically, actions speak louder than words, and from 2009 to 2011, the Dems sat on their hands with regard to ENDA, DOMA, etc.  Historical fact.  During his two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama never voted for ENDA - never even mentioned it!  Mr. Obama has little or no credibility left on these sorts of issues.

Van Jones (!) on ABC News, Sunday; [Obama] will pay a price.  "Mission accomplished" - you pay a price.  "No new taxes" - you pay a price.  "You keep your plan" - you pay a price.

Insurance cancellations up to 3.5 million.  Gallup poll on Obama's "Job Approval" (11/1-3/2013) Approve - 40% Disapprove - 53%

[Tessa James]

Many people and, that includes politicians, can and do evolve.  We may also be influenced by cynical and less lofty motivations like campaign funds from wealthy corporate interests.

It is my understanding that ENDA last came up for a vote in the senate in 1996.  How could he vote for it if it is not an introduced piece of legislation?

And how would we like or expect to see ENDA enacted?  It is a goal we share I trust?

[Jamie D]

Many people and, that includes politicians, can and do evolve.  We may also be influenced by cynical and less lofty motivations like campaign funds from wealthy corporate interests.

It is my understanding that ENDA last came up for a vote in the senate in 1996.  How could he vote for it if it is not an introduced piece of legislation?

And how would we like or expect to see ENDA enacted?  It is a goal we share I trust?

You asked the key question!  Why not indeed?

Mr Obama could have re-introduced the legislation at any time.  From 2007-2009, the 10th Congress, Mr 0bama served in the majority in the Senate. 

"[ENDA] gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party broke twelve years of Republican Congressional rule in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2007, gender identity protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate.

Died in the Democrat-controlled Senate, without so much as a peep out of Illinois's junior Senator.

I believe that discrimination based on gender identity should be unlawful.  I am not sure of the specific wording of the proposal, so I can't comment in anything more than generalities.

My point, of course, can be summed up in the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  Do I think this is a serious effort on behalf of the Administration?  Not really.  I see it as politicking.

[Tessa James]

Politicking would be something elected politicians do and introducing a bill is long way from getting to vote on it.  ENDA with transgender included has been endorsed by exactly one President.  I find that encouraging progress.  Have other Presidents made a more "serious" effort to end LGBT discrimination in your estimation?

But on a positive note considering loud "actions" it was the Obama administration that ended Don't ask/Don't tell and is currently enforcing that ruling in several States where some governors refuse to bring their State military into compliance perhaps because of party ideology?

Good night Jamie

[DanicaCarin]

You asked the key question!  Why not indeed?

Mr Obama could have re-introduced the legislation at any time.  From 2007-2009, the 10th Congress, Mr 0bama served in the majority in the Senate. 

"[ENDA] gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party broke twelve years of Republican Congressional rule in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2007, gender identity protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate.

Died in the Democrat-controlled Senate, without so much as a peep out of Illinois's junior Senator.

I believe that discrimination based on gender identity should be unlawful.  I am not sure of the specific wording of the proposal, so I can't comment in anything more than generalities.

My point, of course, can be summed up in the old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  Do I think this is a serious effort on behalf of the Administration?  Not really.  I see it as politicking.

+ 1000