In Opposing ENDA, Heritage Tells Gay People To Hide In The Closet

By Zack Beauchamp   on November 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/11/02/2879921/opposing-enda-heritage-tells-gay-people-hide-closet/

The Heritage Foundation, arguably the most powerful ideological force in the modern conservative movement, has declared war against LGBT workplace rights.

Heritage's Action Fund announced on Friday it would "score" an upcoming Senate vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), meaning that any Republican who votes for ENDA would get a black mark on Heritage's influential legislative scorecard. Though protecting LGBT Americans from being fired on solely on the basis of the sexual or gender identity is massively popular, Heritage's threat could scare off Senate Republicans wary of a Tea Party primary challenger.

This move is distressing, but not surprising. What's more interesting is Heritage's reason for opposing ENDA, which boils down to an astonishingly anachronistic demand for gay and transgender Americans to jump back in the closet and stay there. It's argument for a certain kind of corporate feudalism that's incompatible with the ideals of individual rights Heritage so often claims as its lodestar.

Heritage Action's decision is entirely sourced to a Heritage paper written by Ryan Anderson, the Foundation's go-to expert on LGBT issues and a leader in the campaign against marriage equality.

... Am I the only one who thinks that any republican who votes for ENDA becomes a hero in my eyes? I can see democrats voting for it, but I'm sure at least some of them would do so just to win over their base. Any republican that votes for ENDA would most likely get my vote in the next election, me leaning toward liberal or not ...

Are those republican candidates willing to do the right thing? We shall see.

The Anderson paper mentioned in the article

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/enda-threatens-fundamental-civil-liberties

This is why politics should be de jure non-partisan.

Why is there no one to answer these folks?

If someone said something similar about, say, discrimination against people of color, there would be a dozen groups piling on within minutes.

But say that about LGBT and they go largely unchallenged.

When are we going to find our voice?

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 03, 2013, 10:50:50 AM
The Anderson paper mentioned in the article

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/enda-threatens-fundamental-civil-liberties

They do make some valid points about government interference in the free market. Do you tell church's they have to hire us even if it goes against their beliefs? On the outside it sounds like a good bill but it also could interfere with other peoples rights and gives an already bloated government more interference in a businesses right to hire who they want. Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company that the only reason they keep me around is because they are afraid of some law. I hope the quality of my work is the reason I have a job.

Quote from: Heather on November 03, 2013, 01:28:13 PM
Do you tell church's they have to hire us even if it goes against their beliefs?

Religious organizations should not have the freedom to discriminate in hiring any more than any other organization.

Not hiring someone because of a philosophical disagreement is not the same as categorically excluding them.

imho, the "free market" is vastly overrated. History shows that businesspeople can be greedy SOB's who'd rather have their employees die than provide a safe environment, have them work 6-7 days/week, not pay overtime, and not hire anyone they deem to be "undesirable."

There are some things that only the government can do, and protecting individuals and groups from discrimination (and its opposite, exploitation) is definitely one of them.

Yes Heather, there are companies who look at the quality of the work, and are proud of the product/service they provide...but there are also a great many who don't care about quality work, just if the work is "good enough" and there are enough customers. I won't mention how some companies actively seek out illegal activities, things that can be covered up if the employees are kept silent, lest they be fired. (Oh wait, I did, didn't I? Oops, my bad!  )

I just wish conservatives would apply the golden rule to themselves once in a while...and take a broader view of the world, not just their own house, work, and place of worship.

Quote from: Just Gwynne! on November 03, 2013, 01:34:37 PM
Religious organizations should not have the freedom to discriminate in hiring any more than any other organization.

Not hiring someone because of a philosophical disagreement is not the same as categorically excluding them.

However, the practice religion in the United States are largely exempt from government oversight by the First Amendment.  That is construed to include hiring those who run the church functions.

Quote from: Amy The Bookworm on November 03, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
... Am I the only one who thinks that any republican who votes for ENDA becomes a hero in my eyes? I can see democrats voting for it, but I'm sure at least some of them would do so just to win over their base. Any republican that votes for ENDA would most likely get my vote in the next election, me leaning toward liberal or not ...

I never did get a reasonable answer to this during the last presidential election.  Perhaps you can explain why, when the Democrats controlled the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and had 60 votes in the Senate, for much of 2009 to 2011, the passage of ENDA and the repeal of DOMA was never even brought up for a vote, and no official statement was issued from the White House?

I agree, the passage of non-discriminatory legislation will happen when a political majority can be gathered from those who understand the issues and the ramifications.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 03, 2013, 01:45:22 PM
However, the practice religion in the United States are largely exempt from government oversight by the First Amendment.  That is construed to include hiring those who run the church functions.

Key word being should. There's a legitimate (and I'd argue overdue) Supreme Court discussion to be had around this traditional distinction. Organizations are organizations.

Quote from: Just Gwynne! on November 03, 2013, 01:34:37 PM
Religious organizations should not have the freedom to discriminate in hiring any more than any other organization.

Not hiring someone because of a philosophical disagreement is not the same as categorically excluding them.

I believe in the separation of church and state as the church has no business in government affairs and government has no business in church affairs. This country was founded on freedom of religion and once you start telling people what they can believe in you might as well throw the rest of our rights away too. I don't believe you can legislate your way to making people like you.

Quote from: Heather on November 03, 2013, 01:28:13 PM
They do make some valid points about government interference in the free market. Do you tell church's they have to hire us even if it goes against their beliefs? On the outside it sounds like a good bill but it also could interfere with other peoples rights and gives an already bloated government more interference in a businesses right to hire who they want. Personally I wouldn't want to work for a company that the only reason they keep me around is because they are afraid of some law. I hope the quality of my work is the reason I have a job.

Heather, consider the economic disadvantage that puts us at.  The fact is we all don't have the ability to choose our place of employment.  In an economy where jobs are few, it helps to have such protections to ensure we are able to secure employment for our abilities regardless of how we identify or whom we love.  And what if all jobs made the conscious decision to fire gay or trans employees? Perhaps that is unlikely, but shouldn't there be some safe guards to prevent such widespread discrimination.  The same exists for other social classes, so why should we be exempt from this protection?  Should there be no discrimination laws in place at all?  How about not hiring women or black people? We are not saying there should be an affirmative action plan, but rather that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity.  Businesses can still hire who they please on the basis of character and skills, they just shouldn't decide not to hire someone because of their orientation.  The bill says nothing about the hiring managers ability to consider relevant and important factors during the hiring process.  It's simply saying don't judge someone for an irrelevant purpose because of some unwarranted prejudice. 

They can also hire based on weird things like looks or other physical attributes such as height. One would hope that it is job related, but nothing says it has to be. Age discrimination is legal under age 40.

Quote from: learningtolive on November 03, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
Heather, consider the economic disadvantage that puts us at.  The fact is we all don't have the ability to choose our place of employment.  In an economy where jobs are few, it helps to have such protections to ensure we are able to secure employment for our abilities regardless of how we identify or whom we love.  And what if all jobs made the conscious decision to fire gay or trans employees? Perhaps that is unlikely, but shouldn't there be some safe guards to prevent such widespread discrimination.  The same exists for other social classes, so why should we be exempt from this protection?  Should there be no discrimination laws in place at all?  How about not hiring women or black people? We are not saying there should be an affirmative action plan, but rather that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity.  Businesses can still hire who they please on the basis of character and skills, they just shouldn't decide not to hire someone because of their orientation.  The bill says nothing about the hiring managers ability to consider relevant and important factors during the hiring process.  It's simply saying don't judge someone for an irrelevant purpose because of some unwarranted prejudice.

The focus should be on building a stronger economy then.

I personally don't want any workplace protections (other than protecting physical safety). The easier it is to fire me, the easier it is to hire me. Companies know it can become very difficult to fire anyone who fits in a 'special' class even for cause. I live in a 'right to work' state and the economy is doing well and there are many good jobs available.

Most companies don't care about your personal life, they care whether you are the best person for the job.

Quote from: Nikko on November 03, 2013, 03:33:10 PM
The focus should be on building a stronger economy then.

I personally don't want any workplace protections (other than protecting physical safety). The easier it is to fire me, the easier it is to hire me. Companies know it can become very difficult to fire anyone who fits in a 'special' class even for cause. I live in a 'right to work' state and the economy is doing well and there are many good jobs available.

Most companies don't care about your personal life, they care whether you are the best person for the job.

I agree building a better economy is a good priority.  Still, I do think work place protections are important.  As for most companies not caring about our personal life, why is there a higher unemployment rate for trans individuals?  Correlation doesn't equal causation, but I think there is something to be said about employers not wanting to hire trans people when they can get a "normal straight person".  I've been discriminated at work for being "queer" and this happened in a very left wing establishment.  That only highlighted to me why these protections are important.   

They could make it all very easy by making it illegal to hire or fire for anything not explicit to work related things.