Thursday, October 18, 2007

E.N.D.A. To Move Through the Legislature?

A hat tip goes to Right March for bringing this story to my attention. The Employment Non Discrimination Act may find its way through the Congress soon. ENDA seeks to make gays, bisexuals, and transgenders a minority and treat their discrimination in the work place in the same manner that we currently treat age, sex, and skin color.

Now, according to this gay publication here is what Nancy Pelosi promised their lobby.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed Friday to fast-track a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act once there are enough votes to pass it.

Although a version of the bill that protects only sexual orientation will be marked up by committee and move to a floor vote next week, the San Francisco Democrat has promised to hold a floor vote on a fully inclusive ENDA without delay as soon as the political support is there.

According to Right March, the bill is making its way through House Education and Labor Comittees. The problems with such a bill are plentiful. For instance, while it protects religious organizations, it does not protect groups like the Boy Scouts. If this bill passes the Scouts may very well be force to hire openly gay scouts or face sanctions. It also violates people's freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Finally, and most importantly, homosexuality is a behavior which is totally different from someone else's skin color, age, or sex.

Let's put aside the wisdom or lack thereof of this bill. I think most people that read this page will agree with me on my position.

Instead, I want to focus on two things related to this bill. First there is the political tone deafness and utter lack of competence that the Democratic leadership continues to show. This bill is another in a long line of bills that has either been handled poorly or is simply a total political loser for them. Whatever your beliefs on this particular bill, most Americans will reject it. In fact, short of SCHIP, I can't remember the last thing the Democrats did that works for them politically.

Let's look at some examples. The Democrats tried to pass a NON BINDING resolution that condemned an act from almost one hundred years ago. As a result, our ally, the Turks, took great offense and threatened all sorts of diplomatic retaliation. Fortunately, critical mass was reached when this story saw the light of day and the bill was withdrawn. Also, A high school student wanted to include the word God in a message to his grandfather that accompanied a flag that he wanted flown over the Capitol. Initially, Nancy Pelosi resisted allowing the word God accompany the flag, however once again critical mass was reached. Finally, the leadership backed down and they let the word God stay in the message that accompanied the flag.

In August, the Senate tried to play chicken with the President on the terrorist surveillance program (known as warrantless wiretaps to most of you). Again, the leadership backed down at the last minute and extended the program for six more months. Just this past week, a bill that would outlaw sanctuary cities, something that is popular overwhelmingly with Americans, was voted down 52-42 in the Senate. All but one Democrat voted against it. Even on Iraq, the Democrats have been totally politically tone deaf and incompetent.

Which brings me back to the ENDA bill. This is another in a long line of political disasters for the Democrats. Once critical mass reaches on this bill, they will be forced to back down the way they have on everything else.

This brings me to my second point. It is now nothing less than shocking just how much the Democrat's agenda mirrors that of George Soros. This ENDA bill is right down his gay friendly secular progressive agenda, and it follows a long line of bills and maneuvers that are very friendly to his agenda.

Several months ago, The Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. All the Democratic candidates came out against this ruling and some even swore to impose a litmus test of only pro abortion Supreme Court Justices.

At their last debate, the Democratic candidates agreed that teaching second graders a story about a gay couple was perfectly acceptable. Half the candidates refused to even acknowledge that the war on terror is really a war. Here is what Soros said vis a vis the GWOT.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak on defense.

In fact, this statement is eerily similar to one made by John Edwards who called the war on terror...

"bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political

The two leading Presidential said they'd each negotiate with Iran with no conditions. What did Soros say about such matters?

President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.

In fact, when Senator Clinton voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards( responsible for among other things hijacking British sailors in international water) a terrorist organization, the rest of the Democratic Presidential contender pounced on her.

Even on the economy, the Democrats are marching in lock step with Soros. We are all well aware of the plethora of big government, quasi socialist, government giveaways. Including the granddaddy of them all, universal health care. How does this jive with Soros' view of the world? He believes in a "mixed economy". That is defined as such.

A mixed economy is an economic system that incorporates the characteristics of several different economic systems. This usually means an economy that contains both private-owned and state-owned enterprises[1] or that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, or a mix of market economy and planned economy characteristics

Of course, it should be pointed out which part of the mixed economy he fears.

Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Thus, anything that takes the decisions away from the market and puts it into the government's hands is something that Soros approves of.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, in unison with Soros open borders policy, the Democrats just this week killed a bill that would have outlawed so called sanctuary cities. Now, we have the Democrats, through ENDA, pandering to another of Soros' favorite groups, the homosexuals. The overlapping agendas of the Democrats and George Soros can be found just about anywhere you look.


Anonymous said...

And why, pray tell, should someone not be protected from discrimination based on their sexual orientation? How exactly do you believe that anyone has any more control over their sexual orientation than their race or their sex? And we already protect people from discrimination based on religion---which is something that people actually DO have control over---so even if you did believe that being gay is a choice (a concept that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense), then why protect people from discrimination based on religion, but not sexual orientation?

mike volpe said...

If we start to make behavior a protected a civil right then I want to make sure that loud people are also protected because I am loud by nature and I really can't help it.

Ksb said...

I burp......really loud, and I can't help it. I want to be protected too! Isn't that just as idiotic as Stretchface Lugosi's latest waltz into Bizarroland? Behavior shouldn't be protected by law, period.

mike volpe said...

I totally agree. That is what we call a slippery slope. What you basically have is an extemely powerful lobby. I have always said that the reason that polygamy is not yet being metioned as a proper form of marriage is because they don't have the lobby of the gays.

You are absolutely right. Once behavior becomes a civil right, then just about anything can be protected. I will also point out that trolls are so typical. Here was a condescending comment. As if they are evolved and we are not. I answered it and the person hasn't been heard from again. Very cowardly in my opinion. If you want to open a debate prepare yourself to end it as well. Don't just come up with some nonsensical point and go away.

Anonymous said...

Behavior has been an accepted basis for protection since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made employment discrimination on the basis of religion illegal.

mike volpe said...

That is some really tortured logic. Religion is not a form of behavior.

Anonymous said...

Sure it is. Let's say you're Catholic. You probably go to mass, make confession, take communion, etc. If you're Jewish, you don't do any of these things. There's a set of prescribed (or proscribed) behaviors that as a whole contribute to the practice of a person's religion. And that choice, as well as those behaviors, are protected by law.

mike volpe said...

Maybe, however, the person isn't discriminating against you because he doesn't like that you take mass, but because of your religion.

Religion is not behavior.

Anonymous said...

And how does he identify your religion? By your behaviors.

Unitarians don't cross themselves and say a prayer before eating lunch; Presbyterians don't kneel on a prayer rug and pray towards Mecca. A person can engage in the behaviors that are part of their religious practice without fear of being fired for them.

mike volpe said...

Are you serious? The reason people are bigoted against Jews for instance is because we are deemed as too successful and powerful. The rest are against because they blame us for the death of Jesus. It has little to do with the lighting of the menorah.

The person bigoted against a Muslim most likely doesn't even know about Mecca or that they pray five times a day. They just like foreign and like someone they should dislike.

The only way in which religion is different from the other protections is that religion is a choice however in tradition it is passed down from parent to child and so in most cases it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Part of the protection is that you can engage in the behaviors that are part of your religion without fear of being fired. I just don't see how an employer could get away with saying, "I'm fine with Christians, but firing you because you're wearing a crucifix around your neck." If you don't provide protection for behaviors associated with religious practices, then you aren't providing protection for the religion.

mike volpe said...

Whatever. If someone fires you because you are wearing a crucifix, it is because they are bigoted against your religion, not because of the cross. That is why they put the protection in place. That person would be bigoted against a non practicing Catholic just the same. This arguement is going round and round and is boring.

My problem with the bill is that it should never come up that someone is gay in the workplace. No one needs protection for their sexuality unless they put it out into people's faces in the work place. Thus, by providing protection to gays, for their bahavior, when it has nothing to do with work, the government is encouraging publicizing what should be a private act.

This is an unnecessary protection. No gay person should be talking about their sexuality at work, and the same goes for straight people, so by providing protection for it, you are encouraging flaunting it in the workplace.

Again, that is a behavior, unlike every other protection.

Anonymous said...

No gay person should be talking about their sexuality at work, and the same goes for straight people...

No disagreement. But like religion, there are cues that will inform those around you of your sexuality (wedding ring, picture of the family on the desk) and you should be able to reasonably express those without fear of being fired.

If someone fires you because you are wearing a crucifix, it is because they are bigoted against your religion, not because of the cross.

If someone fires you for putting a a picture of your boyfriend on your desk, they're firing you because you're gay, not because they don't like guys to put snapshots of guys on desks.

Thus, by providing protection to gays, for their bahavior [sic], when it has nothing to do with work, the government is encouraging publicizing what should be a private act.

Except it's just the opposite. The employer is publicizing (assumed) private acts by making them a condition of employment. Essentially, the employer is saying "Since you're gay, I assume you do X, Y, and Z in your private life and therefore I'm firing you." As long as X, Y, and Z don't occur in the workplace and don't impact the employee's work, they're not relevant. The government is requiring employers to leave those acts private.

mike volpe said...

First of all, since everyone is remaining anonymous I don't know if this is the same person, however I will compliment you on your passion and it has brought and interesting and positive discussion. It really wasn't the point of my piece but that is fine.

In your theoretical world, someone would get fired simply because they put a picture on a desk, however in reality no one but the person that has the picture looks at those pictures. Those that do, don't actually figure that if there is another person of the same sex, that this must mean someone is gay.

The reason gays are fired for being gay when in the workplace is when they flaunt it which is why this bill is dangerous, because it encourages people flaunting their sexuality. I find it no more appropriate for a straight person to inapprorpriately speak and act about their sexuality in the workplace than a gay person. Sexuality has no business in a workplace. No one gets fired because of a picture on a desk. People get fired because their behavior makes others uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I don't have a blogger login, but all the anonymous comments except the first one are from me. Glad you've enjoyed the debate, because I certainly have.

In your theoretical world, someone would get fired simply because they put a picture on a desk...

No, they'd get fired because the picture tips off the employer that the employee is gay. And the theoretical employer doesn't like gays. Which leads to my next point...

The reason gays are fired for being gay when in the workplace is when they flaunt it...

If by saying "the reason" you mean "the only reason," I think you are incorrect. I believe there are a not insignificant number of employers who would consider firing an otherwise satisfactory employee because he turned out to be gay. Obviously gay rights supporters believe it's a concern; they've been working 30 years to get this bill passed.

If by "they flaunt it" you mean "they don't hide it," I don't think they should be required to. Essentially, employees should be required to produce satisfactory work and act appropriately in the workplace, and they should have recourse if they are terminated for something unrelated to those requirements.

mike volpe said...

Actually, they should be required to hide it, just like straight people also should be required to hide it. By that I mean, sexuality should have no part of the workplace. Again, if someone at work knows that someone is gay, that is because that person flaunted it. Obviously, everyone is assumed straight, however someone flaunting their straight sexuality is no less wrong than someone flaunting their gay sexuality.

Look you and I agree here. You said they should act appropriately and thus if someone is perceived to be gay it is because it is put out there. That is behavioral and cannot be protected or my loudness needs to also be protected.

If an employee sticks to work at work, sexuality is never an issue unless they work in a sex shop.

If a benefits analyst is perceived to be gay it is because that person is doing something at work that has absolutely nothing to do with work, and it will likely make people uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

No, I don't think we agree. I don't find it inappropriate if someone puts a picture of his boyfriend on his desk, and says who it is when asked. Unless I misunderstand, you'd call that inappropriate flaunting and grounds for termination. I'd say we're quite a ways apart.

As for the loudness, I encourage you to gather your fellow loud people and lobby your representatives for protection of your civil rights. Heck, I'll join if you serve beer. However, be prepared for stiff opposition from people with hearing aids and hangovers.

mike volpe said...

Again, in your theoretical world someone gets fired for that, however, again, almost no one but the person that puts the picture up looks at the picture. Those that do rarely ask who the person is.

Where someone gets fired for being gay is when they flaunt it.

It is no less appropriate for two guys to talk with crude language about some girl one of them slept with a previous night.