By Meg Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, DC, September 6, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In accord with the agenda of almost every leading Democratic presidential contender, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has once again been brought to the legislative table in Washington, DC. Several news sources report that hearings for the newest version of the Act, also known as H.R. 2015, are being held this week in front of a House subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions.
The current version of ENDA, first introduced to the US House on April 24, 2007 by members of Congress Barney Frank, Chris Shays, Tammy Baldwin, and Deborah Pryce, includes protection based on sexual orientation and ‘gender identity.’ The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force was a leading impetus behind the addition of ‘gender identity.’
When a similar homosexual non-discrimination bill was introduced (and later defeated) in 2001, religious groups were given a blanket exemption. The bill then clearly stated, “This Act shall not apply to a religious organization.” However, ENDA, as it is now being considered, requires religious groups to officially pronounce “which of its religious tenets are significant” and to include a condemnation of homosexuality as a significant tenet in order to qualify for the ‘religious exemption’.
According to the New York Sun, if adopted, “the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would carry a blanket exemption for the hiring practices of religious congregations, as well as schools with a primary purpose of worship. Summer camps, nursing homes, soup kitchens, charities, and other institutions linked to a congregation would not be exempt, unless they made a declaration of significant ‘religious tenets.’”
The wording of this current draft is proving alarming to religious groups across the country. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists collaborated in a letter addressed to the members of the subcommittee to express their concern regarding the proposed wording change to the exemption.
The letter expressed “serious concerns” and stated that the current version of ENDA “leaves religious institutions with insufficient protection from the infringement of their religious liberties.”
An independent editorial in the New York Sun summed up concerns: “They fear a violation of constitutionally protected religious rights every bit as significant as the discrimination the law is trying to end.”
Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America spoke to LifeSiteNews.com on the proposed legislation and explained the “illusory” nature of the religious exemption as it stands in the present version of ENDA. “The religious exemption portion of ENDA is really illusory – there is no true religious exemption. Only churches and essentially only pastors would be exempt from the provisions of ENDA. If an owner of a bible book store who had a sincerely held religious belief that homosexuality or cross dressing was immoral and refused to hire such an individual, [the store owner] would be engaging in discrimination and suffer government sanctions for refusing to hire that person.”
Barber elaborated saying that ENDA would, essentially force Jewish, Christian & Muslim business owners to hire individuals who openly engage in homosexuality or cross dressing despite a sincere belief that such behavior was immoral and dangerous. “ENDA would essentially force employers to check first amendments rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the work place door.
While supporters of the bill frequently liken it to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Barber asserted that it is merely an “attempt to gain official government recognition of a chosen sexual lifestyle and chosen deviant sexual behaviors.”
“In the past, minority status has been defined by an immutable characteristic, a group that is economically deprived or a group that has suffered a history of discrimination.” Barber explained that homosexuals and trans-gendered individuals do not fit any of the three characteristics as defined above, “despite what they might have you think.”
Barber also warned of an angle of ENDA that he says few people have discussed so far. According to the wording of the bill, “denial of access” to a workplace facility based on gender is only limited to “shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable.”
Because of the inclusion of these ‘gender identity’ clauses in the new bill, heterosexual individuals would be forced to share restroom facilities with ‘trans-gendered’ individuals. Barber warned that such stipulations would make business owners equally vulnerable to legal action brought by heterosexual individuals who allege sexual harassment at having to share restrooms facilities with ‘trans-gendered’ individuals.
Barber told LifeSiteNews.com that CWA would work to mobilize citizens to contact their senators to vote ‘no’ on ENDA. If it became necessary, CWA would lobby President Bush to veto the bill as it “is [a] clear and present danger to true civil freedom.”
According to the Sun article, the subcommittee chairman, New Jersey Democrat Robert Andrews, is determined to see the bill pass and does not see any change in its ‘religious exemption clause’. Andrews said, “It’s my intention to see this bill enacted.” He also insisted that the present version of the bill does not “broade[n] or narrow[w]” the religious exemption but merely “restates” it.