Show your love of liberty and justice -- support ENDA

[Liberty and justice for all?]

At the end of yesterday's blog post I briefly mentioned ENDA, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which is making it's way through the US Senate. As the title of the bill suggests, the law prohibits workplace discrimination because of factors such as gender-identity and sexual orientation.

While the bill is going to pass the Senate and the President is ready to sign it, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, released a statement through a spokesperson yesterday declaring that he "believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs." Later his office added that Boehner believes the bill is unnecessary because such workplaces protections are already protected under existing law.

The claim that federal law already guarantees such protections is not tenable, and most states don't have such explicit protections. If such legal protections already existed, then the possibility of lawsuits for unfair labor practices based on gender and sexual orientation would also exist. So the two statements eat each other.

But let's get back to the initial press release. There are two important things that are being explicitly said.

First, it is saying that LGBQT* rights aren't worth protecting. How can a lawsuit for equal protection and freedom from discrimination be frivolous unless the rights and protections themselves are viewed as unimportant? While one could argue that people could use the law to file false suits, how is that an argument against protecting people's rights? Does that mean we should repeal all workplace discrimination law to reduce frivolous lawsuits, or is it just the LGBQT* community (and maybe women and minorities) who don't count under the eyes of the law?

Second, it is saying that corporate profits are more important than the rights and legal protections of citizens. If  promoting or defending rights costs too much or is too much of an imposition to the business community, it isn't worthy doing. The fact that states with such protections haven't seen a spike in related frivolous lawsuits takes the stale air out of the "too costly" argument anyway.

So why would Boehner make such arguments against ENDA?

It is possible that Boehner and his fellow GOP House members believe these things. If so, vote for them at your peril lest your rights and legal protections be deemed too costly one day.

It is also possible, and more likely, that this is an extension of the culture war waged by the religious far right through their members and proxies elected to the House and Senate, with the redundancy and cost arguments as translucent cover for religion-based bigotry. Liberty and justice in the United States isn't supposed to be guaranteed at the whim of a particular religious sect or movement, let alone its political arm, which is why such motivations have to be given the pretense of legitimate cover.

It is also possible, of course that both of the preceding possibilities are true. Moreover, it's increasingly likely that US citizens will come to believe that one or both are true. If the Republican Party wants to change its image, it is going the wrong way here.

If you don't think that a particular religious movement or unfounded arguments about financial burdens should trump fair and equal protection under the law, then urge your representatives in Congress to support ENDA.

Be well.