Stripping Down The Opposition To ENDA

Let's take a close look at what exactly the opposition is saying. These are my unprofessional opinions, however I did glance at HRC's web site to learn a little more before I finished typing this up.


ENDA is aimed at providing heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior- homosexuality. It would grant special consideration on the basis of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" that would not be extended to other employees in the workplace. That could spell trouble for Christian business owners, churches and faith-based groups.

ENDA grants protection. It does not grant special rights to anyone. It ensures that specific groups are protected from unfair treatment.


The issue is not job discrimination: It is whether private businesses will be forced by law to accommodate homosexual activists' attempts to legitimize homosexual behavior.

This is an attempt to confuse the issue. There is no mention of accomodating anyone. Wait a minute: let me pull out my pocket version of The Idiot's Guide To The Gay Agenda out of my ass.. ;-)


The first "religious exemption" clause is very narrow and offers no clear protection to church-related businesses: Religious schools or charitable organizations, religious bookstores, or any business affiliated with a church or denomination fall outside this narrow definition, and could presumably be required to hire homosexual applicants.

Look! Another attempt to confuse the issue. The law does not apply to religious organizations. If any given entity says they are for everyone and THEN bans gays, or any specific group for that matter, then I start getting a little upset.


The second "religious exemption" clause fails to offer protection for all hiring by church-related organizations or businesses. The position of a teacher of religion at a church-related school would be exempt, but, e.g., that of a biology teacher would not. Thus, most of the teachers and staff at a religious school would be covered by ENDA, which means that the church would be forced to hire homosexual applicants for such positions-despite the fact that their lifestyle would be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs of the organization or company.

This doesn't look very true either. Again: if an entity such as a religious business, religious organization, or private organization mission visibly bans gays, why would I want to join them? Its when you say that you're for everyone and THEN treat any specific group unfairly that gets me going.


It is unlikely that the "religious exemption" included in the bill would survive court challenge: Institutions that could be targeted include religious summer camps, the Boy Scouts, Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, religious television and radio stations, and any business with fifteen or more employees.

There's a true statement hidden here. The law does apply to businesses with 15 employees or more. They bring up the Boy Scouts: this is a private organization, freely able to have, interpret, and apply their mission. The problem here is this: their mission visibly states they serve all, and have Supreme Court backing to discriminate against gays. AGAIN: see above.


ENDA violates employers' and employees' Constitutional freedoms of religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people's lives.

Anyone need a reminder of what Supreme Court did regarding the Boy Scouts? Again, another blatant attempt to confuse the issue. Oh, and by the way: there is already an unprecedented intrusion by the government into people's lives. Let's not forget that some governments still ban gay sex between consenting adults. And, not everyone is allowed to establish the civil contract portion of marriage.


ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by many into the public square. By declaring that all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy supporting marriage and family.

ENDA is not about changing national policy towards religious beliefs. It is about protecting a group of workers from discrimination.


Clearly, this is an enormous threat to the freedom of religion and also places unfair burdens on businesses, which should be allowed to make employment decisions based on their religious convictions and business needs.

Wow. Gay people are a threat. Love the power that the opposition wields us. Need I say more?


Click here for an objective view for and against ENDA, and here for a Wiki page.