Action Alerts

CWA informs us:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act 2/27/2002 By Robert H. Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin, II

The Employment Non-Discrinination Act (ENDA) has once again been introduced in Congress. 1ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on "sexual orientation", thus opening businesses with 15 or more employees to harassment by homosexual activist lawyers.

ENDA is billed as an expansion of equality, but it is really a "gay" power grab taht would severely curb constitutionallty guaranteed unalienable rights that Americans hold dear, including the freedons of speech, religion and association.


Please take action, call your Representative today. 1.202.224.3121
Use the below talking points from CWA.
Talking Points:
In brief, ENDA would:

Turn groups like the Boy Scouts into targets of federally funded lawsuits. While he was Vice President, Al Gore said on Good Morning America, 2 in answer to a question about the Boy Scouts, that he hoped ENDA would do away with all “discrimination” by public and private groups.

Constitute a major expansion of federal power over the workplace and create a new way for the government to manipulate employers. ENDA’s intent is to create grounds for lawsuits. By injecting sexuality into civil rights law, ENDA opens a Pandora’s box of ways for the government to dictate to businesses.

Make people’s sexual temptations a source of material for federal lawsuits. The law properly deals with actions, not beliefs. ENDA creates a new class based on the fuzzy grounds of perception and intention. This is far removed from laws designed to end racial discrimination, because not only is race evident but also it has no moral aspect. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral consequences.

Elevate multiple-sex-partner relationships into a federally protected “right.” By including “bisexuality” in the definition of sexual orientations, the government would go on record supporting the practice of having sex with more than one person. This is a direct challenge to the intent behind the Defense of Marriage Act and other laws designed to protect marriage.

Put the federal government in the position of adopting a view of sexuality utterly at odds with that propounded by the major faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All major faiths support marriage and oppose homosexual conduct. The U.S. government would be placing people with traditional views of morality into opposition to their own government. King George never intruded this deeply into Americans’ lives.

Prohibit employers from taking into account sexual conduct in the hiring of education and child care worker positions. Because ENDA is so sweeping, employers could not take into account any sexual conduct, even that which might severely impact children.

Afford special protections to an already privileged group. Statistically, homosexuals do not qualify as a bona fide minority group, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Homosexuals are not defined by an immutable characteristic, they are not economically deprived, nor do they suffer from a history of discrimination and political powerlessness.

Change national policy by forcing the government to abandon support for marriage – the bedrock of every healthy society. By declaring traditional morality regarding sexuality as a form of “discrimination,” ENDA will undermine the special status of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Lead to further demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and unhealthy sexual behavior. Many corporations that adopted “sexual orientation” policies soon found themselves besieged by demands for outright “gay pride” celebrations. Anything less than open promotion is regarded by many homosexual activists as “discriminatory.”

THREATENING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
ENDA proponents point to the religious exemption in the legislation. But the exemption narrowly applies only to church-related organizations. Anyone else is unprotected. The bill utterly ignores freedom of conscience for individuals. And the question must be asked: If there is a presumption that it would be immoral to impose ENDA on religious bodies, why is it moral to impose it on everyone else?

Religious bodies are exempt from taxation, but this is not based on the idea that taxation per se is repugnant to the religion’s beliefs. Religion needs protection from Caesar, who could use the power to tax as a way to destroy conscience. ENDA, however, actually imposes a new moral order, with a religious opt-out—but not for everyone.

Despite ENDA’s religious exemption, certain religious and charitable organizations could still find their tax-exempt status in danger unless they provide special advantages for homosexuals. Businesses owned by devout Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality at odds with that taught by their faiths.

Even church-related institutions will be subject to harassment, as overzealous courts trample on religious exemptions in order to promote sexual “equality.”

Although there is a world of difference between skin color and sexual behavior, liberal courts are likely to blur the distinction and to regard traditional morality as a form of “bigotry.”

Civil rights attorney Joseph E. Broadus, who testified during Senate hearings on ENDA in 1996, summarizes the problem with ENDA’s religious provisions:

"The exemption language is at best problematic. An exemption should provide some clear area of protected activity with only marginal uncertainty. With ENDA, the uncertainty is at the heart of the provision.
ENDA trashes the traditional respect for and accommodation of religious faith and practice found in civil rights laws. It seeks to chill and suppress religious expression and freedom of speech by using the law to transform or extinguish religious practices that are disfavored by the elite, such as the practice of declaring homosexuality a ‘sin.’ Because of its stealth design, ENDA discourages discussion of such issues.”3

SUMMARY
Current national policy is committed to upholding and supporting marriage and family. ENDA would initiate an inevitable assault on marriage as “discriminatory” and further weaken efforts to restore marriage to its societal primacy.

ENDA puts the federal government in an adversarial role against the basic sexual morality of the major faiths in America. It is so sweeping that it threatens the freedoms of speech, religion and association. Furthermore, it would balkanize America by granting freedom of conscience to employers with fewer than 15 employees while denying it to employers with 15 or more employees.

ENDA will inspire lawsuits by homosexual activists, who will cry “homophobia” when an employer cleaves to policies that favor marriage, family and traditional sexual morality.
***
Robert H. Knight is director of the Culture and Family Institute (CFI), an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. Kenneth L. Ervin, II is CFI’s projects coordinator.
ENDNOTES
1. S. 1284 by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), H.R. 2692 by Rep. Christopher Shays
(R-Connecticut).
2. Charlie Gibson’s interview with Vice President Al Gore, ABC’s Good Morning America, October 26, 2000.
3. Joseph E. Broadus, “ENDA: A Religious Liberties Threat,” Family Research Council monograph, 1998.

Shalom~