News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Shana A on August 30, 2009, 12:20:07 AM Return to Full Version

Title: The New York Times Explains One Reason Why A Fully Inclusive ENDA Is Likely Thi
Post by: Shana A on August 30, 2009, 12:20:07 AM
The New York Times Explains One Reason Why A Fully Inclusive ENDA Is Likely This Year
by: Autumn Sandeen
Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 23:00:00 PM EDT

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12729/the-new-york-times-explains-one-reason-why-a-fully-inclusive-enda-is-likely-this-year (http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12729/the-new-york-times-explains-one-reason-why-a-fully-inclusive-enda-is-likely-this-year)

From the New York Times' New Impetus for Bill Banning Anti-Gay Bias at Work:

    Momentum is building for Congress to pass the first major civil rights act protecting gays and transsexuals, supporters say, and one of the stars in the debate is a barrier-breaking transgender staffer on Capitol Hill.

    The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, would prohibit workplace discrimination -- including decisions about hiring, firing and wages -- based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It would exempt religious organizations, the military and businesses with less than 15 workers.
Title: Re: The New York Times Explains One Reason Why A Fully Inclusive ENDA Is Likely Thi
Post by: Autumn on August 30, 2009, 02:33:08 AM
For people who don't click links

QuoteThere is another difference from 2007. Frank now has a policy adviser who is a female-to-male transsexual. Diego Sanchez is the first transgender person hired for a senior congressional staff position on Capitol Hill.

Sanchez has done extensive face-to-face lobbying for ENDA, and Frank says that's enabled some members of Congress to get to know a transsexual for the first time.

''He interacts with a lot of people,'' Frank said. ''Prejudice is literally ignorance.''
Title: Re: The New York Times Explains One Reason Why A Fully Inclusive ENDA Is Likely Thi
Post by: LordKAT on August 30, 2009, 05:23:50 AM
Inclusive with exceptions. I understand religions, but not small businesses nor the military.