ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is up for vote. Obama posted a blog encouraging its passage yesterday.
Is it necessary?
![[Image: 130910_barack_obama_ap_605.jpg]](http://images.politico.com/global/2013/10/10/130910_barack_obama_ap_605.jpg)
"Americans ought to be judged by one thing only in their workplaces: their ability to get their jobs done. Does it make a difference if the firefighter who rescues you is gay -- or the accountant who does your taxes, or the mechanic who fixes your car? If someone works hard every day, does everything he or she is asked, is responsible and trustworthy and a good colleague, that's all that should matter."'
ENDA would make it illegal to discriminate against or fire employees for being gay or for their sexual identity orientation.
Many states and businesses already have such laws/policies in place, but ENDA would make it a federal law.
The ENDA bill is expected to pass the Senate with some Republican senators now supporting it.
However, SHOCKER, John Boehner - House Speaker - announced this morning that he will oppose ENDA, making it less likely that ENDA will move forward.
![[Image: n-JOHN-BOEHNER-large570.jpg?9]](http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1442575/thumbs/n-JOHN-BOEHNER-large570.jpg?9)
"The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.
Ref:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-oba...09115.html
The bill or baraccoli's blog?
Fricken crybaby Boner.
I don't think this Bill is necessary. I don't like it when the Fed's get involved with how states do their thing.
(11-04-2013, 12:35 PM)Spomd Wrote: [ -> ]The bill or baraccoli's blog?
The bill, the blog - take your pick. It's a free for all.
As for the proposed law, as a small business owner, I'm always leery about additional labor and discrimination laws hitting the books. But, then, I appreciate diversity personally and professionally, and know that my business would suffer if I didn't treat all of my employees fairly - they're my strongest asset by far. So, if ENDA were to be passed into law, it wouldn't affect how I conduct my business or have any effect, unless someone who wasn't hired or was fired filed a bogus suit claiming it was due to their sexual orientation.
ENDA has made its way to vote with every Congress since 1994. Doesn't look likely it's going to pass this time out either and many Republicans contend that ENDA's protections are already covered in existing anti-discrimination laws.
I'm curious as to whether others see ENDA as something that's necessary to protect the LGBT community from employment discrimination.
Its just like anything else. If you dont like the wart on a persons nose or the way they smell you just don't have to hire them. same-same.
I shot my mouth off up there ^^^^^. I thought society had come a long ways in being tolerant of gays and while that may be true in those I associate with, it's not true in the US as a whole. There are 29 states where one can be fired for their sexuality, it can and does happen.
(11-04-2013, 03:13 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I shot my mouth off up there ^^^^^. I thought society had come a long ways in being tolerant of gays and while that may be true in those I associate with, it's not true in the US as a whole. There are 29 states where one can be fired for their sexuality, it can and does happen.
It's like gay marriage, the death penalty, medicinal marijuana, concealed carry, etc... Different states, different laws reflecting different levels of support, acceptance and/or tolerance.
When it comes to serious controversial topics like these, I sometimes wish there would be more federal/national consistency (in line with my personal stances - haha). But, overall, I think state's sovereignty is crucial and don't like to see it infringed upon unnecessarily.
As a result, I find myself conflicted quite often when it comes to passing new federal laws - whether my opinion is in adherence or opposition to the law's content.
(11-04-2013, 03:27 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ](in line with my personal stances - haha).
I hear ya!
I agree too.
Federalizing private matters....that is how I see it. Will there be a section under race on applications now: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, other? (Other LOL)
So will they now be minorities? Maybe we can do this for cup size next?
That said, I do think gays need some coverage, certainly some states more so than others. Then again, age isn't protected yet either and lord knows it isn't easy for people closer to retirement to get jobs.
I'm not a politician for this very reason LOl
I have a hard time believing a He-She would be a good thing for any work environment you are just opening the door to a lawsuit just because of peer pressure. There are plenty of hairdressing jobs out there and female basketball coaches to go around. But I would be a bit uncomfortable around Lola.
No one, gay or straight, should be flaunting their sexuality in the workplace. You don't want an office slut any more than you would want an office queen.
And then we need to discuss bath rooming, was it Cali that just passed a ruling kids can use whatever locker room to match their gender feeling, with no protocol. Free for all locker rooms and restrooms in schools. Brilliance that will surely cause no problems at all. I need to dig that one up and post if not here somewhere already.
(11-04-2013, 07:56 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
You don't want an office slut any more than you would want an office queen.
IDK. I know some men who would vehemently disagree with you about the office slut.
Dirty bastards!
(11-04-2013, 08:30 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]IDK. I know some men who would vehemently disagree with you about the office slut.
Especially a slut with big hooters!
ENDA END, BY-PASSING CONGRESS MAY MAKE LGBT EMPLOYMENT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION A FEDERAL LAW
President Barack Obama has directed his staff to draft an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors, a White House official told The Huffington Post.
The move is the clearest indication to date that the administration is prepared to take action on LGBT rights where Congress has fallen short.
"The president’s intentions are clear," the official said, when asked whether Obama would sign the order. "We will keep you posted."
The administration has been calling on Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal for employers nationwide to fire or harass someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill passed the Senate, but as it stalled in the House, pressure mounted on the president to act in ways that don't require legislative approval.
An executive order banning workplace discrimination against employees of federal contractors could affect as many as 16 million workers, but Obama has not issued one, despite pledges to do so during the 2008 campaign.
The executive order being drafted by the president's staff would "build upon existing protections, which generally prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," according to the White House official.
The timing of the announcement comes a day before Obama is set to give remarks at a Democratic National Committee LGBT gala in New York City and coincides nicely with his designation of June as LGBT Pride Month. It also comes in a year when the president has vowed to use his executive authority whenever he can in the absence of needed congressional action.
Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16...99377.html
I don't really care if a person is gay but if he is overtly gay and flamboyant I would not hire him. He would get picked on leaving the door open for a lawsuit. in that case I would just say the opening has been filled. gay is fine but keep your sex life outta work its not the place.
Yup. Trouble. Kinda like employing a slut who was giving hummers in the parking lot on her lunch hour. Trouble!
xactly now some fields it may not matter but to say all fields of work needs compliance is wrong.
(06-16-2014, 02:42 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really care if a person is gay but if he is overtly gay and flamboyant I would not hire him. He would get picked on leaving the door open for a lawsuit. in that case I would just say the opening has been filled. gay is fine but keep your sex life outta work its not the place.
You hit that right on the nail!
NO ENDA, BUT FEDERAL EMPLOYERS PROHIBITED FROM DISCRIMINATION UNDER NEW EXEC ORDER
It is still legal in 32 states to fire or harass someone at work for being LGBT. The Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the House.
On a related note, today President Obama signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination against millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government.
The executive order has two parts: It makes it illegal to fire or harass employees of federal contractors based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, and it explicitly bans discrimination against transgender employees of the federal government. The part targeting federal contractors affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation's workforce.
The provision affecting federal employees takes effect immediately, while employees of federal contractors will have their new protections in place by early next year, according to senior administration officials.
To the relief of the LGBT community, Obama did not include a sweeping religious exemption in the executive order -- something the community feared could happen in the wake of last month's Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.
Instead, Obama simply added the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing executive order that protects employees of federal contractors from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. President George W. Bush amended that executive order in 2002 to allow religiously affiliated federal contractors to prioritize hiring employees of their particular religion, however, and Obama is keeping that language intact.
Ref:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21...05482.html