The Traditional Values Coalition’s Argument

The Traditional Values Coalition made some radical claims about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). They base their arguments on the religious aspect of tradition but the claims they make are not very well supported and are flawed. It almost seems like the definition of the act itself is not being understood because of all the claims made against it.

They claim that this act will “[grant] special protection for perverted acts such as incest, pedophilia, and cross-dressing”. This argument is flawed because this act focuses on preventing discrimination based on sexual identity and sexual orientation and saying it grants protection for illegal acts such as incest and pedophilia is neither here nor there. These acts are illegal and endanger the well-being of people while sexual orientation harms no one. Their claim is outrageous because they make a correlation out of the blue between sexual orientation and incest and pedophilia. They provide no evidence that supports their correlation.

They also claim that “this fight is not about job discrimination; it’s about forcing Christians and Americans to affirm transgender sexual conduct and other perverted lifestyles”. This claim also has flawed logic. ENDA is not forcing anything on anyone; all it is doing is protecting people from being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. It is in no way forcing any kind of lifestyle on anyone. They also cannot claim that this act is not about job discrimination. This act wants to protect people from being fired/not hired because of their sexual orientation. It does not force or advertise people to be a certain way. And the fact that their claim calls certain lifestyles perverted weaken their credibility. Even if you don’t agree with something and you’re arguing against it, it doesn’t mean you can’t approach it from a respectful point of view. Insulting a group of people doesn’t make your argument any stronger, it does the contrary.

Moreover, they claim that ENDA is “the LGBT lobby’s sinister plan to silence people of faith”. First off, ENDA has nothing to do with people’s faith. It deals with equal opportunity and acceptance towards people of all sexual orientations. If people want to keep whatever faith they have, this act will do absolutely nothing to interfere with it. People can choice what they want to believe in, so why should people be discriminated based on their identity. Also, this act will not silence anyone; it actually promotes free speech because with this act people won’t be afraid of openly being any sexual orientation without being afraid to say anything that might suggest a certain sexual orientation which can potentially fire them.

All in all, they don’t provide any evidence for correlations made, stray away from the definition of the act, are disrespectful in their language and do not provide sufficient explanations to their allegations making their argument flawed.

The Effect on Religious Organizations

The Family Research Council (FRC), a vocal opponent of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), sent out a mailing that asked recipients to sign a petition that opposes the passing of ENDA. The FRC’s letter informs recipients that ENDA: “would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior. It will force Christian schools and colleges, Christian-owned businesses, day care centers, and other organizations to employ people who make their sexual behavior an issue as they parade their proclivities in the workplace.” The author of the mailing concludes by strongly urging supporters to sign the petition against ENDA based on the following reasons: So that Christians will not be fired for their faith, to keep Christian schools and businesses from being forced to employ homosexual teachers and cross-dressers, and that Christians will not be fired for “anti-gay harassment simply because he kept a Bible on his desk.”

The problem with the FRC’s stated reasoning is that ENDA would not actually produce those results. ENDA includes a special exemption for religious organizations which would protect against the FRC’s prominent complaints about ENDA. The bill itself has the following provision: “This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.” Therefore, the FRC’s fear that Christian schools and businesses would be required to hire “homosexuals and cross-dressers” does not apply. According to civilrights.org, ENDA “also acknowledges that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees of religious organizations should be aware that they could lose their jobs, even jobs that do not serve a clearly religious function, because of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Ironically, it would seem that if the FRC’s basis for opposing ENDA is mostly based on religious reasons, then group should be in favor of this bill that cements into law the exemption of religious organizations from employment non-discrimination.

“Good” Discrimination

Opponents of ENDA, such as Peter Sprigg, the Vice President for Policy at Family Research Council (FRC) in D.C., have brought up the idea of a “right” kind of discrimination. In his post on the FRC website, Sprigg mentions that the bill’s advocates rely heavily on discrimination as an “unmitigated evil.” He suggests a different, more literal definition of discrimination. He defines discrimination as making a distinction between things. Given this definition, he explains that employers do “discriminate” all the time and even do so necessarily. Sprigg argues that instead of condemning all forms of discrimination, some should be allowed. He claims that, more importantly than protecting rightful citizens, ENDA deprives employers of a measure of freedom.

An editorial written by the Washington Times in 2010 invokes a similar definition for discrimination. The author claims that, “On some matters, it is good to be discriminating….it assuredly is right to be discriminating in choosing who teaches our children.” I agree. We should certainly keep checking the backgrounds of candidates before we hire them to teach in our schools. But this is not the “discrimination” that advocates of ENDA are talking about. The denotative definition of discrimination is not enough for this issue. Both Sprigg and the author of this editorial wrongfully ignore the connotative definition. The reality is that discrimination today and throughout history is not so neutral; it does not just mean drawing a distinction between things. The discrimination that is truly problematic and which ENDA is trying to fix is the prejudicial, harmful mistreatment of a class of citizens based on certain traits deemed inferior or abnormal – such as sexual orientation or gender identity.

ENDA’s aims and provisions are very similar to those of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Sprigg accepts. He claims that in comparison to the types of discrimination addressed by the Civil Rights Act – which included centuries of slavery and segregation for African Americans and the denial of the right to vote for women – “[h]omosexuals can claim no comparable disadvantage.” Why are gay citizens so different? The discrimination that African Americans and women faced in the workplace before the Act was passed is the same discrimination that gays face now. In effect, gays are also segregated in society as they are largely unable to occupy the same work-space as straight Americans. Further, outside of the workplace, gays face similar struggles as these other groups. Many gay adolescents are constantly bullied at school and many gay couples are still unable to attain a marriage license or federal marital benefits. How is this type of discrimination significantly different from the discrimination faced by other groups of Americans throughout history?

The difference, according to Sprigg, is that the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on inborn or Constitutional characteristics, such as race and sex. However, in regard to ENDA, Sprigg explains that homosexual behavior does not meet these criteria. Sprigg is right; there is no reason for there to be legal protections for practicing homosexual behavior within the workplace. For that matter, there shouldn’t be legal protections for practicing heterosexual behavior within the workplace either. Sprigg’s understanding of ENDA and the desires of gay and transgender citizens are inaccurate. ENDA will not lead to “sexualization” of the workplace because it does not introduce a right to act sexually in the workplace. Gay and transgender citizens are not asking to behave homosexually in the workplace; they are asking that their sexual orientation does not affect their treatment in the workplace. The enactment of ENDA will not lead to increased instances of employers walking in on two gay employees having sex at work. Offices around the country will not turn into a reenactment of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. That type of behavior would still be unacceptable in the workplace, whether it was between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.

The author of the Washington Times editorial demonstrates a similar fear about what the workplace will look like after ENDA. The author suggests that, with the passage of ENDA, classrooms will be occupied by “a ‘she-male’ who insists on exposing her pupils to her unnatural transformation.” Again, this is a misinterpretation of what gay and transgender citizens are asking for. Gay and transgender citizens are not “insisting” on “exposing” their “unnatural transformation[s].” Rather, they are asking that these parts of their identities do not come in the way of their work. They want to be able to assimilate into the workplace just as straight employees do. It is not a matter of flaunting their sexual orientations or gender identities in the workplace; it is simply a matter of not having to hide these things in fear of discrimination.