American workers are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bars discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion. Everyone that walks this earth would fall within one of those categories and yet, ENDA is being pushed by the left and homosexual advocates to achieve what? Certainly not equal rights!
ENDA adds “special privileged rights” for homosexuals and transgenders in the workplace, effectively applying reverse discrimination toward anyone who isn’t gay.
While there is a limited “religious exemption” in the bill, for now, it isn’t adequate to protect religion against the homosexual assault nor will it likely withstand a court challenge. While Churches themselves may be exempt for the time being, separate ministries conducted by those churches, such as schools or day care facilities not expressly religious or where all employees are not required to subscribe to church doctrine, will be affected. The bill does not include an exemption for bathrooms, which means that employers at day care centers, public schools, and Christian businesses would all have to change their restroom and shower policies to accommodate men who dress like women and vice-versa.
ENDA was primarily authored by Chai Feldblum, a self-avowed lesbian handpicked by Obama to serve on the EEOC, the agency which will enforce ENDA against businesses and religious organizations.
Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. When speaking at the Becket Fund Symposium in 2005, Feldblum said: “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” (Christians) to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….”
To Feldblum the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real: “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” She believes that “most” of the time the need to protect the dignity of homosexuals justifies burdening religious belief. While she admits that one has to consider religious beliefs, it doesn’t mean that “religion should prevail. “
When push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, Feldblum admited, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win. Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”
The main purpose of ENDA is to provide new ground for homosexual activists and a further destruction of religious rights. Since the provisions in the bill include feelings rather than realities, employers could be hit with expensive suits for discrimination on something they are not even aware exists, money that could better be spent on creating jobs or providing raises for their employees. It will undermine the right of employers to impose reasonable dress and grooming standards, by forbidding them to use the most fundamental standard of all — that people be dressed in a manner that is appropriate for their biological sex.
This law will supersede all state laws. Can you imagine walking into your child’s classroom and seeing his or her teacher dressed in drag, or that same teacher using the restroom with your child? Apparently Senate liberals can!Senator Harry Reid’s position which would require employers (like preschools) to hire transvestites, transsexuals, drag queens, and drag kings — was considered “too radical” even for homosexual congressman Barney Frank!
“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They shall be recast in our image. They will come to crave us and adore us.” The Homosexual Manifesto, Michael Swift, 1987