Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush To Veto Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Posted by Amanda Terkel at 6:08 AM on October 24, 2007.


Amanda Terkel: White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill.
endasign2

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Suzanne Braun Levine SuzanneBraunLevine.com

Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
Amanda Think Progress

Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

Today, the House is expected to vote on the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation.

To obtain White House support for ENDA, lawmakers compromised by exempting "small businesses, religious organizations and the uniformed members of the armed forces" from the bill. Yesterday, an article on the right-wing site WorldNetDaily revealed that White House staffers had helped craft these exemptions:

"Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill," according to Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth organization.

After the meeting, officials refused to say whether or not the President would veto the bill. But today the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy making clear that despite the exemption compromise, "senior advisors" will still recommend that President Bush veto the bill:

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish "a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

While the vast majority -- nearly 90 percent -- of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are surprisingly no federal prohibitions against such discriminatory behavior. ENDA would ensure that for the first time ever, gay and lesbian employees are afforded this critical federal protection.

Urge your senators to support ENDA here.

UPDATE: Pam's House Blend has more.

UPDATE II: The Center for American Progress's Winnie Stachelberg explains why this bill is a necessary first step, even though it "is not as inclusive as policies in many major companies and a growing number of states."

UPDATE III: Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, put out a statement in response to the White House's statement:

Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.

Digg!

Tagged as: job discrimination, enda, bush administration, barney frank, homosexuality

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
huh?
Posted by: Fairybear on Oct 24, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand "policy grounds" Republicans have institutionalized bigotry but can somebody please explain what "constitutional grounds" ?
I find it maddening that I can't refuse to hire a homophobic Christian/Muslim/Jew but they can refuse to hire me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: huh? Posted by: Urgelt
It's Still OK to Discriminate in the Workplace Based on Gender
Posted by: terradea42 on Oct 24, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ERA was never ratified, so workplace discrimination based on gender is still Constitutional. It's a disgrace. If we can't get equal rights for women in the workplace in the 21st century, how can we hope to get equal rights for gays?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too much use of words like "Hate" and "Bigotry"
Posted by: rcase on Oct 24, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not appreciate being labeled hateful or a bigot when I need to make employment choices. Some months ago as a pastor I was going to place an ad in the local newspaper for a church secretary. The ad listed one of the qualifications as a "Christian." The newspaper refused to run the ad citing government (and paper) anti-discrimination policies. It took a lawyer to get the ad listed (not that it was that big a deal). For wanting a secretary who is a Christian I am labeled a bigot. I also want someone with a college education, but of course that is discrimination against non-college graduates. At the local Rescue Mission where I am involved we wanted to hire a cook who was a Christian (there are many good reasons for this). Despite the fact that this was hardly a sought-after and high paying job, one person who did not get the job filed a discrimination suit against us because he was not a Christian. It took a lot of money to defend that case (decided in our favor). At the same time our mission has used sex offenders and ex-convicts when other employers would not touch them. Because employees at a church or a Rescue Mission are also in ministry (in addition to doing other tasks) it is an intrusion of the state (violation of church and state) but the state to tell me who is and who is not qualified to work in my ministry. In mission work most of our residents and many of our employees are recovering from some addiction or another. We must insist on a moral standard: faithfulness in marriage and celebacy in singleness. It is obvious the GLBT lobby does not buy into that moral standard. That is all right but now they want the government to legislate and force the rest of the world to bow to their ideology and those who don't will be labeled hateful and bigots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOW, where does it end?
Posted by: kewpie on Oct 26, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, if an employer can discriminate a person's sexual orientation than can the employer or anyone else in power discriminate by gender,race,creed,age,height,weight,or appearance? How far will this go before it gets really ridiculous? Who will stop the insanity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]