Susan's Place Logo

News:

Based on internal web log processing I show 3,417,511 Users made 5,324,115 Visits Accounting for 199,729,420 pageviews and 8.954.49 TB of data transfer for 2017, all on a little over $2,000 per month.

Help support this website by Donating or Subscribing! (Updated)

Main Menu

Transgender/Gender Identity Inclusive ENDA Headed To The Floor In March?

Started by Shana A, February 22, 2010, 04:33:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shana A

Transgender/Gender Identity Inclusive ENDA Headed To The Floor In March?
Posted by De Sube at 2/22/2010 04:22:00 PM

http://destrantalk.blogspot.com/2010/02/transgendergender-identity-inclusive.html

    Hold your breath everyone. It looks like the Employment Non Discrimination Act - ENDA might be headed out of committee and into the House for a vote in March.
The question remains if the bill will be a fully Transgender inclusive ENDA or a non-Transgender, non-gender identity watered down version. Such has been the case in the past. If history repeats itself, as it tends to do, there will be some who say something is better than nothing. A local gay lawyer said, "If it means all gay men will be protected from employment discrimination, I would be more than willing to drop gender identity from the bill."
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." Oscar Wilde


  •  

Jasmine.m

[rant]
This makes me so angry.  >:( A House full of so-called Liberals, a Senate full left wing Dems, a President I fully supported during the election and it's questionable if the bill will be fully Transgender inclusive? What the hell?? We may not have another shot at this for a loooooong time. Now's the time!!

and this?

QuoteIf it means all gay men will be protected from employment discrimination, I would be more than willing to drop gender identity from the bill.

That just makes me sad...
[/rant]
  •  

Janet_Girl

QuoteOpponents of the bill say the legislation impinges on religious freedoms.
"This bill will mean that employers will be forced to make employment decisions against their religious beliefs," Ashley Home, federal policy analyst for the Christian-based group Focus on the Family, told Citizen Link.

BS.  Fear mongering.  If you are not in that faith, why in the hell would you want to work for some organization that hates you.
  •  

Flan

QuoteOpponents of the bill say the legislation impinges on religious freedoms.
"This bill will mean that employers will be forced to make employment decisions against their religious beliefs," Ashley Home, federal policy analyst for the Christian-based group Focus on the Family, told Citizen Link.

I prefer to think of it translated this way, if the bill is passed employers won't be legally allowed to make excuses to not hire (or fire) based on the desire to discriminate against persons who happen to be under the LGBT umbrella. (never mind there are still legal ways to squeeze an employee out of the workplace x_x a good excuse to pass an employees "bill of rights")
Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur. Happy kitty, sleepy kitty, purr, purr, purr.
  •  

tekla

a good excuse to pass an employees "bill of rights"

I doubt that it would ever happen for any private sector work, but if it did, it would suck very hard, very, very fast.  For a huge number of younger workers it would make advancement all but impossible.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Tammy Hope

Quote from: Janet Lynn on February 22, 2010, 08:26:20 PM
BS.  Fear mongering.  If you are not in that faith, why in the hell would you want to work for some organization that hates you.

Well, There are occasions where there might be conflict (say a teacher who might apply at a private school) and I sympathize with the reservation that FotF has IF the exemption were narrowly drawn (for instance, only in cases where the conflict in beliefs bears on the job duties as in a specific ministry or something)

And before you say "no trans person would want to work for (for instance) FotF" I would disagree because there will always be someone who does "stunt applying" just looking for a chance to drag the offender into court.

As much as I want equality for us in the open job market, I do respect the rights of a religious organization to take things which conflict with their faith into account, even when I disagree with the article of faith involved. but I think it has to apply only when the conflict reflects on the organization in a way that undermines their professed claim.

for instance, if a church is looking to hire a cleaning person, or an accountant, then that isn't a "face of the ministry" type job and is, for all intents, a secular hiring.

If they are hiring a choir director or an education minister, then that's different IMO.


Post Merge: February 23, 2010, 01:06:02 AM

QuoteOpponents of the bill say the legislation impinges on religious freedoms.
"This bill will mean that employers will be forced to make employment decisions against their religious beliefs," Ashley Home, federal policy analyst for the Christian-based group Focus on the Family, told Citizen Link.

Another thought - If the law did have some sort of "religious liberty" exemption, I think that it should require the person in question to be able to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that there was a reasonable chance they did in fact have a religious view on the subject of ->-bleeped-<-.

A person who suddenly finds religion when religion makes a handy cover for discrimination ought to find that difficult to do.

But then, you start making the exemption VERY complex.

At the end of the day, while i do sympathize with the concerns - we have laws which require landlords to rent to people who are unmarried couples or gay even if it's against their religious idea of what ought be done on their property....it would seem to me that it falls under the same logic than an employer has to hire (and retain employees) fairly in spite of such a conflict with their beliefs.

if it's an infringement in employment, it is likewise in housing, and vice versa.
Disclaimer: due to serious injury, most of my posts are made via Dragon Dictation which sometimes butchers grammar and mis-hears my words. I'm also too lazy to closely proof-read which means some of my comments will seem strange.


http://eachvoicepub.com/PaintedPonies.php
  •  

PanoramaIsland

I don't think religion should have special exemptions for anything, ever. There is no logical reason for it to occupy a special position. It is just a set of beliefs and cultural practices, like being a Democrat or believing in energy healing. That religion is deeply ingrained in culture means it should be handled sensitively, sure, but to give it exemptions from anything - anti-discrimination laws, taxes, anything - is going too far.

I don't expect the government to provide tax exemption or exemption from anti-discrimination laws (or anything else) for the ACLU or the American Humanist Association. Religious people shouldn't expect such exemptions for their organizations either.
  •  

tekla

Back in the 1830s Andrew Jackson said: John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!  Laws can be written, but what's the enforcement mechanism?  Who is going to be out seeing the laws are followed to the letter?  How hard is it to give another reason - not qualified enough, overqualified, too mellow, too stressed out.  Proving something in court is not always open and shut.  Granted there was the McDonalds that made that stupid phone call to the trans applicant - but that was one story, I don't see them every day as people who get paid to do HR are pretty tuned into what they can and can not say.

And there is a religious exemption (of course), a huge one. 
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) includes a broad exemption for religious organizations. ENDA's religious exemption recognizes that the U.S. Constitution protects certain employment decisions of religious organizations and that some religious organizations may have a specific and significant religious reason to make employment decisions, even those that take an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity into account. It also acknowledges that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees of religious organizations should be aware that they could lose their jobs, even jobs that do not serve a clearly religious function, because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The exemption consists of three parts:

A complete exemption for houses of worship, parochial and similar religious schools, and missions
A codification of the so-called "ministerial exemption" recognized by many federal courts, exempting positions at religious organizations that involve the teaching or spreading religion, religious governance, or the supervision of individuals engaged in these activities
A provision allowing religious organizations, for classes of jobs, to require employees and applicants to conform to a declared set of significant religious tenets, including ones which would bar LGBT people from holding the position
In the third section of the exemption, the declaration of an employer's significant tenets is not subject to judicial review and is only applicable in proceedings under ENDA.

In practice, this language continues to exempt many jobs with religious organizations. Under the first section of the exemption, for example, a priest or minister is clearly exempt, as well as the church secretary and the administrator of Sunday School programs. Under the second paragraph, the chaplain at a religiously-affiliated hospital and the teacher of canon law at a religious university are also exempt.

Under the third part of the exemption, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may decide to apply its religious tenets to classes of employees. Although this provision gives, as most courts would give, deference to religious organizations in declaring significant religious tenets, it means that ENDA will apply to some positions but not others at these employers. For example, a religiously-affiliated hospital could choose to require all nurses to follow a declared set of significant religious tenets, including avoiding same-sex sexual activity, and be able to terminate a male nurse who they subsequently learn is in a relationship with another man. Similarly, a social services agency run by a religious sect could require its executive director to subscribe to a set of tenets that it declares significant, including one that bars LGBT people from holding the job, but choose not impose the same requirement on its social workers or other classes of employees


So no one is going to be forcing churches to hire anyone.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •