Concerned Women for America: Bush will veto ENDA

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 15:15:00 PM EDT

Right from the fundie source, Christian Newswire:

Concerned Women for America (CWA) thanks President Bush for signaling a likely veto should the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) be approved in Congress this week.  Matt Barber, CWA's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, "This dangerous bill would pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion, a situation which is unconstitutional on its face.  Members of Congress should join the President and exercise their sworn duty to defend the U.S. Constitution by voting 'no' on ENDA." 

Read the statement from the White House after the jump.

Continuing from the Christian Newswire release...and tell me how this burdens free exercise of religion when all it is doing is adding yet another group of people to existing anti-discrimination laws. Religious beliefs were used to allow discrimination against people of color; why all of a sudden, must they fall back on this hoary excuse:

The Executive Office of the President issued the following Statement of Administration Policy today:

H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish "a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."  The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible.  H.R. 3685 does not meet this standard.  For instance, schools that are owned by or directed toward a particular religion are exempted by the bill; but those that emphasize religious principles broadly will find their religious liberties burdened by H.R. 3685.  

A second concern is H.R. 3685's authorization of Federal civil damage actions against State entities, which may violate States' immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill turns on imprecise and subjective terms that would make interpretation, compliance, and enforcement extremely difficult.  For instance, the bill establishes liability for acting on "perceived" sexual orientation, or "association" with individuals of a particular sexual orientation.  If passed, H.R. 3685 is virtually certain to encourage burdensome litigation beyond the cases that the bill is intended to reach.  

Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law.  These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman.  The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.

 Blender Daimeon sent out a letter to Matt "Bam Bam" Barber on the latest CWA hysterics over ENDA:

Mr. Barber,
 
Seriously?  You really expect people to believe this?

   "ENDA pits the government directly against religion, which is unconstitutional on its face. It would force employers to check their First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door. It would make federal lawbreakers out of Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners who honor their faith and would require that newfangled 'gay rights' based entirely upon individuals' sexual choices trump employers' enumerated constitutional rights.

    "ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption which would leave individual business owners entirely unprotected. For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, it would have to follow the individual business owner. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. This applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation. It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his business.

    "ENDA would force business owners to betray their faith and adopt a view of sexual morality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of that faith. It would give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for an exemption. It represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys and would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith."

Based on the logic of your arguments above it should be perfectly legal for someone to fire an individual because they dye their hair to hide grays or disclose to you that they have a tattoo that you can't even see.  That job performance, takes a back seat to a chosen set of religious beliefs.
 
What if you worked for a company where the person in charge was athiest and had a deep resentment for people of faith, especially those that expressed that faith, not just by evangelizing on the job, but simply by putting up their favorite prayer or passage in their cubicle.  Now imagine that employer firing that person for even the smallest expression of their chosen faith regardless of the fact that the person might be the hardest, and most efficient worker for that company.  Wouldn't that just get your blood boiling?
 
That's essentially the same thing that you argue for.  You argue for a person of a chosen faith to be able to use their deep resentment of a person who identifies (whether that's choice or not, or changable or not is irrelevant to this argument) as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (not the same as someone who cross dresses for fun) can fire that employee regardless of the fact that the person might be the hardest, and most efficient worker for that company.  Hopefully you can see the comparison.
 
And as always you fail to mention that a person's chosen religion is already considered a protected class under current federal laws protecting non-discrimination practices in hiring and employment.
 
I thank you in advance for your time and look forward to your prompt response.