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.

Science Supports ENDA and You Should Too!

Let’s look at this issue through a scientific lens. Is there any evidence that shows being gay can adversely affect someone’s performance in the work place? The American Psychological Association did the research by asking the following questions: “Are lesbians and gay men psychologically abnormal, which would justify work place discrimination? and Does being gay or lesbian affect a person’s work?” Through psychological testing, they found that the heterosexual and homosexual group both had normal scores and showed to have the same level of psychological health. In another study, they found that homosexuality only affects the workplace when other people openly discriminate against gay co-workers. Being gay also affects work performance when they are anxious about getting discriminated against for their sexual orientation, something that would be, in part, eliminated by ENDA.

The findings from the American Psychological Association’s study show that being gay does not affect a person’s ability to perform their job admirably. Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, therefore, cannot be justified and is completely unfair. A person’s ability to keep or receive a job should be based on skill, professionalism in the workplace, and job performance. None of these factors are related to the sexual orientation of the worker, so it should not be a factor in whether or not they can retain a job.

American Psychological Association

 

Crushing Dreams and Breaking Banks

Everyone should have the right to not be afraid of being fired due to their personal lives, sexual orientation or sexual identity. It should be a fundamental right of all citizens.

Job discrimination is a bigger issue than what meets the eye. People are experiencing discrimination and harassment and can be fired for their sexual orientation and only a few states provide laws against this.

It is almost unbelievable how many states do not have laws protecting citizens from job discrimination due to sexual orientation. According to The New Civil Rights Movement, in 38 states today you can potentially be fired for gender identity including being transgender. Only 12 states including Washington, D.C outlaw employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. On top of that, 29 states can fire employees for being gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Here is a story about Michael from Massachusetts. Michael’s childhood dream was to become a police officer. His dream came true when right after college he entered the police force. At his graduation party, Michael was directed a gay joke and quickly learned that he had to keep his sexual orientation a secret. He went through years of living a double life and risking everything in the process. Michael started drinking and fell into a depression. He then left the police force. Later, he came out and reapplied to be a police officer as an openly gay man. He reapplied with four other fellow former officers but only he was denied reinstatement. Fortunately for Michael, Massachusetts had a law that protected him and after a two-and-a-half-year investigation he got to get his job back.

Harassment is also a big issue that will be dealt with if ENDA is passed. According to the Center of American Progress, studies have shown that “anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay people have experienced some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace” and “a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers report some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job”.

On top of all of this, not only can you get fired and are not legally protected from that, this job discrimination affects people’s incomes and has economic consequences. According to the Williams Institute, job discrimination affects income levels for gay men. It has been found that gay men earn 10% to 32% less than “similarly qualified” heterosexual men. They also point out that transgender people experience high rates of unemployment and low earnings. According to the Center for American Progress, “transgender individuals are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty”.

Overall, discrimination affects peoples live in a very negative way; it doesn’t protect their rights and is harmful emotionally and economically. Whether someone is qualified for a job should not be based on sexual orientation. Job discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation goes against Americans value system of quality and justice for all. Everyone should have the same protection under the law. Equal rights are not something that should go underestimated in all states.

The Effects of Employment Discrimination on LGBT Individuals

The following three sources combine a mixture of theoretical, statistical and exemplary information about the current state of discrimination against LGBT individuals in the workplace. These sources help support our cause to promote to enactment of ENDA by providing a historical and political background of the issue, discussing the effects of workplace discrimination on the psychological and physical well-being of LGBT individuals, and recounting the personal stories of American citizens that have been fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

1. Burdge, Barbara J. “Legal Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Employees: A Multi-Theoretical Model to Explain an Elusive Civil Rights Law.” Journal of Policy Practice 8.1 (2009): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

In her article, Burdge offers a multi-theoretical approach – exploring value, historical, institutional and critical perspectives – to explain the many factors that play into the denial of workplace protections for LGB individuals. She defines this discrimination as a human rights issue that violates the equal protection of the law promised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Burdge concludes that this failure to provide LGB citizens with basic workplace protections “violates core principles of justice, including equality and human dignity, as it leaves LGB persons at risk for economic deprivation and social segregation” (17).

This article is useful for our efforts to promote ENDA because it covers all of the diverse factors that are at play in workplace discrimination against LGB individuals. For example, Burdge explores opponents’ arguments against ENDA, including those that believe ENDA would give LGBT individuals “special rights” and those that believe that LGBT individuals choose their lifestyle (14). It is important for us to understand the arguments of opponents so that we can effectively refute these arguments and frame our own arguments in a proper way.

Burdge references many different scholarly sources throughout her paper. One idea that she only briefly touches on in her paper is the economic effect of workplace discrimination. She references a 2004 paper by Lind called “Legislating the family: Heterosexist bias in social welfare policy frameworks” that could provide insight into these financial obstacles. Burdge briefly mentions Lind’s argument that in order for LGBT individuals to have financial success, they might have to sacrifice their identity and be willing to “pass” as straight in the workplace (6). This idea of “passing” and the need to keep identity hidden could be an interesting idea to explore further as we advocate for the passage of ENDA.

2. Gates, Trevor G. “Why Employment Discrimination Matters: Well-Being and the Queer Employee.” Journal of Workplace Rights 16.1 (2011): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

In his paper, Gates discusses how workplace discrimination can harm the psychological well-being, subjective well-being and overall health of LGBT individuals. Because work is a deeply interwoven aspect of American life, Gates argues that this type of discrimination is detrimental not only financially, but psychologically and socially as well. Further, he argues that this type of discrimination constitutes a human rights violation based on Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that “[e]veryone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment” (Gates 109).

This source will help us promote the passage of ENDA because it explains how this issue is not limited to the economic stability of LGBT citizens or the temporary effects of workplace discrimination. This problem is more serious and urgent because it can have long-lasting effects on the well-being of many LGBT citizens. Gates also explores how this issue extends farther than just instances where LGBT individuals are fired; for LGBT citizens that do remain employed, they may face long-term discrimination within the workplace if they are disregarded for promotions or face daily harassment from coworkers.

Gates includes many insightful resources in his paper that might shed more light on the problems associated with employment discrimination. One source that might provide more statistical information and examples of employment discrimination is a 2007 paper by Badgett, Lau, Sears and Ho called “Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.”

3. Hodrick, Courtney. “5 People Who Were Fired for Being Gay, and the 29 States Where That Is Still Legal.” PolicyMic. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Hodrick tells the stories of five Americans from five different states across the country who were fired from their jobs for being gay or transgender. These individuals were not fired due to their job performance; rather, many of them were fired soon after revealing their sexual orientation or gender identity to an employer. All of these instances were fairly recent – between 2007 and 2012 – which shows the prevalence and urgency of this issue. Hodrick also includes a map that shows the 29 states where people can still be legally fired for being gay. The map is overwhelmingly covered in red states and shows just how widespread this problem of discrimination is.

By providing readers with personal testimonies of qualified individuals who were fired solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, this source offers more than just theoretical or abstract effects of workplace discrimination. This source is helpful in promoting the passage of ENDA because it gives these victims names and faces that people can relate to and understand. Readers can put themselves in the shoes of these individuals and really imagine the impact that the lack of workplace protections has on LGBT individuals.

This article links to other useful sources that go into more depth about each of the personal stories. These supplemental sources could be helpful in giving us more thorough information and background for these cases of workplace discrimination. Also, Hodrick provides a link to an article that summarizes studies about employment discrimination done by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. This other article offers statistical data and scientific research to accompany these personal stories.

Helpful Resources

1. Hunt, Jerome. “A History of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.” Americanprogress.com. Center for American Progress, 19 July 2011. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2011/07/19/10006/a-history-of-the-employment-non-discrimination-act/&gt;.

To understand why the passing of ENDA is so important, it is also important to understand what lead up to this act. Jerome Hunt provides an excellent background in his article, “A History of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.” He discusses progress that has been made with the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the repeal of Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the passing of gay marriage laws in many states. Ending discrimination is the next step in this journey to equality. This article also discusses past attempts to pass ENDA as well as the Equality Act of 1974 and why it isn’t enough to protect employment discrimination. At the very bottom of the page, there are other sources and people who you can contact for further information about ENDA and it’s journey.

2. “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).” Thetaskforce.org. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. <http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page&gt;.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is just that, a task force to protect the rights of gay and lesbian people in America. There is a lot of information about various LGBT civil right issues, including a section on ENDA. They discuss what ENDA is, why it is necessary, a brief history, and how we can help to accelerate this movement. At the end of this article, there is an option to sign their petition for the movement, to make a donation for the cause, and to apply for a membership for the website.

3. “Stop ENDA.” FightENDA. FRC Action, 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2013. <http://www.fightenda.org/&gt;.

Even though there are many people who endorse ENDA, there are also organizations that oppose it; The FRC Action is one of these organizations. Although this blog is dedicated to supporting the cause, it can be helpful to be aware of the opposing side as well. The website provided below shows the rationale behind the “stop ENDA” cause, a plea to the members of congress and President Obama to not pass this act, and the dangerous of passing ENDA. This opposing side’s main concern seems to be protecting the religious rights of workers, claiming that Employment Non-Discrimination Act infringes on the religious rights of employees. At the bottom of the website there are a few news articles for more information.