Employment Non-Discrimination Act Introduced

[Rick336]

WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese joined with Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.; and Chris Shays, R-Conn., to introduce the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. House of Representatives today. The bill would address discrimination in the workplace by making it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“We are a nation predicated on equality, and over the years, we have embraced an increasingly broader and more inclusive vision of what that means,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “By passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, our country will simply be adding another proud chapter to the amazing American story of opportunity.”

The bill would be similar to policies that are already in place at America’s most profitable companies, with 87 percent of Fortune 500 companies including sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies. In addition, 10 times the number of Fortune 500 companies cover gender identity in their discrimination policies today compared to 2001. A growing list of major companies, currently 20, have joined the Business Coalition for Workplace Fairness in support of a federal non-discrimination law. These businesses represent the financial, high-tech, food and beverage, apparel and insurance industries as well as others.

“Nationwide’s equal employment opportunity, non-discrimination and harassment policies specifically state that we will not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any associate based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Steven Keyes, vice president for compensation, benefits and human resources policy at Nationwide, a member of the business coalition. “Having a corporate culture that embraces diversity improves the productivity of our associates, helps the company recruit the best talent and makes Nationwide more competitive in the insurance and financial services industry.”

Currently, federal law provides legal protection against employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin and disability, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. In 33 states across America, it is still legal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and in 42 states, it is still legal to fire someone for being transgender.

Qualified, hardworking Americans are denied job opportunities, fired or otherwise discriminated against for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance and abilities. Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, whether such orientation or identity is real or perceived, denies qualified individuals equal opportunities in the workplace. Those who experience this form of discrimination have no recourse under current federal law or under the Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts.

Said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass:

“This is a protection against discrimination that has been tried in a number of states, beginning in Wisconsin more than 20 years ago, and it has worked extremely well. It has caused none of the problems that opponents inaccurately claimed it would and it has provided job protection for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who ask simply to be allowed do their jobs and be judged on their job performance.”

Said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio:

“This legislation is first and foremost about fairness — about allowing all Americans to pursue their right to earn a living. Workplace discrimination of any kind is wrong, period — yet, in 33 states, it is legal to fire an employee based solely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.”

Said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc.:

“Twenty-five years ago, my own state of Wisconsin was the first in the nation to add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination statutes. Since then, 16 states have done the same. We call on Congress now to set a new and higher standard. With the support of the House leadership and members of both parties, I am hopeful that this Congress will close this loophole in existing law and pass a truly comprehensive and inclusive bill to outlaw employment discrimination.”

Said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.:

“In my judgment, this is common-sense legislation. Working men and women should be judged on the basis of their performance at work. They should not have to fear being fired because of their sexual orientation.”

Said the Rev. Dr. Dennis Wiley of Covenant Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.:

“My question for you today is, how could you consider not passing this bill if it will help to protect the citizens of this country from discrimination and ensure that all enjoy the right to work, to earn a living, to provide for themselves and their families and to realize their full God-given potential. I know something about this because, as a black man in America, I have experienced firsthand the injustice of being discriminated against not because of what I could do, but simply because of who I was. Consequently, I made up my mind a long time ago that I would never intentionally oppress others in the manner in which I myself have been oppressed.”



The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

[Zerbie]

Awright!

It's lobbyin' time, folks!

Pull out the old-fashioned paper letters. Emails. And phone calls. Ask your Rep to support the federal ENDA.

[Emproph]

Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

As of late Wednesday, it appeared likely that the trans provision would be removed, setting up a potentially divisive fight within gay activist circles over whether or not to support an ENDA bill that excludes trans people.

Now here is the question - will those with influence and access to the media in the lgbt community recognize this demonization of the trangender community as a tactic of the anti-gay industry to divide and conquer us?

From Pam's House Blend:

San Francisco Chronicle

Gay rights groups angered by weaker antidiscrimination bill

Leading gay rights organizations, with the pointed exception of the Human Rights Campaign, withdrew their support Monday from a landmark gay civil rights bill after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., pulled transgender people from the legislation that would protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination.

[Zerbie]

Yaaa, I've been surprised no one here is gabbing about this one lately. Has anyone followed the most up-to-the-minute reports about what's happened with it today?

Last I heard they were taking out protections for gender identity. I meant to send emails and make phone calls about it, but put that off for when I would feel more "done" with the 7SN planning, which means it got lost in the shuffle. If there's still a chance to contact the legislators, I agree with those who say, if a legislator is willing to vote to protect gays and lesbians, they'll be willing to vote to protect the trans community as well.

Is there still time to contact them? Anyone remember who/how/why - about the gender identity protection being stripped? Who should we contact? If it isn't too late.

[andrewlittle]

Here is a link to the HRC site and page dealing with their slow decision to drop support for the bill unless it includes transgender people.

Did they want to use utilitarian ethics* to "hang an innocent person to prevent a riot" or did they really need the time to network, and finally decided to join all the GLBT organizations who vowed to push on for FULL protection? You decide.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/10/...-previous.html

* Bawdy description of utilitarian ethic - screw the minority within the minority, lets get as much advantage as we can for the majority within the minority.

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by u-dog

does it matter? complicated moral decisions are hard to make. All the GLBT players have now made the right choice (I think) Let the congress do the best that they think they can. Let the GLBT community continue to demand what is right. Let the chips fall where they might.

Finally justice NEVER COMES by stepping on the heads of others. If society cannot see clear to treat Transgendered folk justly and that means that the rest of the GLBT community has to wait for justice as well... then thats what it means. Either we all make it "home" or none of us do. We are the community that everyone loves to "throw under the bus" . We can't do it ourselves.

Lots of GLBT fought for racial justice for Black people in the 50s and 60s only to be tossed under the bus by SOME African American religious leaders. That sucks. We can't start doing it too

I agree ... I think one of HRC's strong points is how they do everything in a carefully reasoned way ... they don't simply react. I take nothing away from any other groups, but I think the HRC approach is important to the general public not dismissing us as "reactionaries" or "radicals" ... that being said, HRC has strongly reaffirmed their stance for inclusion for ALL. If they had not, and were still supporting the bill without transgendered protections, I've have a bit of a "scruple" (Presbyterian joke) with that!

[Progo35]

Okay, I'll get moving

[Alecto]

HRC is a political group, through and through, complete with all of the connotations of compromise that P-word carries. Some would argue that they wouldn't have gotten as much done as they have if they weren't willing to make certain compromises: that said, in my personal estimation, they have in the past been all too eager to sell our trans brothers and sisters down the river; their rights are an afterthought to GLB rights. I'll admit that, in spite of my negative view of their past, I am pleased to see that they've come through this time (even if it took some time to). I could sit here and be cynical about why, but I choose not to.

[Emproph]

From an article and conversation at BTB.

One school of thought basically says this:

One could argue, were transgenders “abandoned” in California, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Washington DC which all passed sexual orientation protections before gender identity?

In California, GLBT people have as many rights and protections as anywhere in the nation (other than the title marriage). But the reason they exist is because we took an incremental approach.

But don’t be mistaken into believing that this was universally acclaimed by our community. Many people took an “all or nothing” stance at every incremental step, insisting that any compromise was a recipe for doom. They were not correct.

The other school says this:

Originally Posted by Jason

ENDA without gender indentity protections means that they can’t fire you for BEING gay, but they CAN fire you for ACTING gay.

He expounds on this by quoting from another article:

What attorneys saw on the front lines of handling discrimination cases, was that when the situation involved a gay man being harassed by co-workers for being a ‘fairy’ or a lesbian being told they need to start painting their nails and curling their hair to get their promotion, the words ’sexual orientation’ in the law actually didn’t help.

Unless the offending harassers, bosses or policies said something specific about sexual acts with someone of the same gender, the ’sexual orientation’ provision in the law wouldn’t apply. At least half of the egregious cases of discrimination were impossible to address with those legal terms.

That's a profound connection I hadn't thought of. In that sense you could say that transgender protections encompass orientation protections, not the other way around, or in any parallel way.

This issue of the Bush veto is also brought up -- that he would be less inclined to veto a non-inclusive bill. Fortunately someone mentioned that he'll veto any version of the bill.

An article by Julie Waters at Pam's House Blend expounded futher on this point, which has pretty much solidified my perspective and thus position on the matter.

This was the pith of it that convinced me.

...I posted this because, as far as the most virulent enemies of progress go, it doesn't matter whether we include transgenderism or not. We're all freakish she-male queer lesbian transvestite drag queen freaks of freakishness, out to freakishly destroy society. We're not human beings in his eyes. We're sick, diseased, filth and it's all the same to him [Lou Sheldon].

In the meantime, we've got rational conservatives (Democrat and Republican) who are nervous about voting for ENDA because they're worried about backlash from people like Sheldon.

The backlash will be the same whether they support an ENDA with or without gender identity protections. We need to find ways to effectively communicate this to these legislators. I truly believe that if they're able to be educated about GLB issues, they can be educated about gender identity as well...

...[E]ven losing the fight in a very public way is important, because one of our big enemies right now is that a lot of younger people don't realize that it's not illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Even losing this fight educates the public, especially if we lose it on the right battle.

So she's right. As far as catering to conservative voters, the antigay folk are going to scream bloody murder any way you slice it.

But I can see the logic behind the incremental approach. Higher likelihood of passage, and possible veto override, would secure a significant amount of ground, which would set the stage for future trans inclusion.

First of all I just don't think that's fair.

Secondly, that thought might have been logistically pragmatic ten years ago, but things are way too polarized right now to allow for even the perception of fragmentation on our side.

And thirdly, this fight is just going to get worse, guaranteed -- especially, and in direct relation to advances in our legal recognition. It was the strike down of the sodomy laws and the legalization of SSM in Mass. that got this whole ball of tar rolling in the first place. And now we've got the hate crimes bill which has a chance of getting through. So if ENDA without transgender protections passess, by the time the inclusion of trans protections comes back up, they'll be blaming us for everything from the common cold to global warming to original sin itself. Point being, we don't know what they'll be capable of.

So I say let's take this opportunity to educate the public and our lawmakers NOW, while we're ALL still motivated - even if we lose.

Look at the mess DADT has wrought. Clinton could have avoided the whole thing by presidential order -- with the stroke of a pen -- and everything would be exactly the same, EXCEPT we'd have more arab translators and other talented military personnel to help keep us safer.

There's only one problem that I have yet to explore, and it's a biggie, and I don't know why it's not being addressed more -- by both sides.

Transgenderism is still listed as a psychological disorder. Which I realize now, technically moots everything I just said. It's not something easily dismissed. A person or politician could make a very cogent argument for stripping trans protections from the bill, based soley on the professional understanding that homosexuality is not an illness, but transgenderism is.

This may even be the reasoning behind stripping it. And with that cliffhanger, I'm off.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by u-dog

But when do you sleep exactly?

I have always pictured Emproph as sleeping during the days, and up philosophizing all night. I have been known to analyze his login/logoff times to try and figure out if he is, in fact, sleeping in the afternoons.
Sorry, Patrick!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by u-dog

But when do you sleep exactly?

Originally Posted by Zerbie

I have always pictured Emproph as sleeping during the days, and up philosophizing all night. I have been known to analyze his login/logoff times to try and figure out if he is, in fact, sleeping in the afternoons.
Sorry, Patrick!

I do my best to sleep during the day, but one thing about people like me is we tend to black out our windows (as best we can anyway). So until the birds start chriping, or I happen to notice the time, or that it's "light" out...

Originally Posted by Zerbie

and up philosophizing all night.

Seriously though, I often wonder if it's that psychic silence that's the appeal of the night for me.

So technically and point being, I often tend to philosophize about my own ability to philosophize...