Speaking of “sexual orientation,” I highly recommend this post as well: Why we shouldn’t use the term “sexual orientation.” The following is from John Stonestreet at Breakpoint:
ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, is set to pass the US Senate. ENDA would make it illegal for organizations or companies with at least fifteen employees, to fire, refuse to hire, or discriminate against anyone “because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”
That sounds fair, right? Well, most Americans think so. One poll found that three out of four likely voters support protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination.
But ENDA, while trying to protect employees, is anything but fair to employers—especially those with religious convictions.
ENDA’s proponents will remind us that legal steps had to be taken to prevent systematic discrimination of African-Americans. But there’s a world of difference here, as Ryan Anderson, Daily_Commentary_11_07_13writing in National Review, clarifies.
In the Jim Crow South, there were “pervasive, onerous, and legally enshrined obstacles to employment based on race.” That’s not the case with sexual orientation in today’s America. In fact, 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies already have company policies prohibiting employment decisions based on sexual orientation.
Also, one’s race is based on objective criteria. Sexual orientation, particularly in the wording of this bad law, isn’t. It’s subjective, based on personal perception or feelings. While the scientific, psychological, and moral basis of sexual orientation is far from settled, this law acts as if it is, and forces employers to agree.
So, says Anderson, instead of being about equal rights, “ENDA creates special rights for transgendered individuals— males who dress and act as females, and females who dress and act as males—and forbids employers from considering the consequences of such behavior in the workplace.”