The religious right is rolling out talking points in opposition to the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), hoping to prevent the Senate from
passing the bill in the coming weeks. In addition to
outlandish statements that conservatives have made over the past few years, groups like the
Liberty Counsel,
Traditional Values Coalition,
Heritage Foundation, and
Family Research Council have distinct talking points they are feeding to Republican lawmakers to try to stall ENDA.
Here’s a look at 10 of the myths they’re spreading about the proposed employment protections for LGBT people:
1. ENDA “Abolishes Gender”
Much of the opposition to ENDA focuses on the protections for transgender people.
This talking point
portrays respecting trans people’s gender identity as a “radical
notion,” essentially suggesting that there is no such thing as gender
identity and that it should be fine to discriminate against transgender
people. The American Psychiatric Association, however, does
recognize “gender dysphoria”
as a real human condition and encourages transition when it’s in the
best interest of an individual’s mental health. ENDA does not abolish
gender; it actually recognizes it in all its forms.
2. ENDA Requires Access To Shared Facilities With The Opposite Sex
Conservatives are particularly concerned about trans people using the
bathroom that matches their gender identity. ENDA doesn’t impact public
accommodations, but it would impact what facilities employees at a
business are allowed to use. Believe it or not, trans people have to go
to the bathroom just like everybody else — and
they already do.
But trans people’s day-to-day life is framed by their gender, not their
biological sex, so suggesting that ENDA allows the “opposite sex” into
the restroom actually erases trans identities. Conservatives also imply
that trans people flip-flop their gender on a day-to-day basis, which
simply isn’t true; gender identity is an
internal and consistent phenomenon, not a whimsical hobby.
As a
recent study found,
people often are more comfortable with employment protections for trans
people than they are facility protections, but an employee has to be
allowed to safely go to the bathroom without being humiliated, so the
two can’t realistically be separated. Conservatives who express this
bathroom panic can rarely provide an answer to the question, “So then
where should trans people pee?”
3. ENDA Mandates Dress And Grooming Standards
This talking point speaks to how the bill would allow trans people to
dress according to their gender identity. As the Liberty Counsel
writes, “ENDA would force employers to hire individuals that may be
contrary to the employer’s image it wishes to portray.” The Family
Research Council similarly warns that employers would be forced to
“accept as normal” any person with a gender identity variation. In other
words, if an employer thinks trans people are ugly or deviant, that
should be reason enough not to hire them or justification for firing
them. This is an appeal to superficial prejudice and stigma — nothing
more.
4. ENDA Harms The Institution Of Marriage
The Liberty Counsel alleges that in states that do not have marriage
equality, ENDA will force employers to provide partner benefits to
employees with a same-sex spouse or partner. The words “marriage,”
“spouse,” “partner,” “benefit,” “entitlement,” and “insurance” appear
nowhere in the legislation. ENDA only offers protections in regards to
hiring, firing, promoting, and compensation; it does not change states’
marriage laws nor impact how employers abide by them.
5. ENDA Threatens Future Attempts To Ban Same-Sex Marriage
The final solution for conservatives to fight back against the
amazing progress marriage equality has made is an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution banning same-sex marriage for the entire country (a.k.a.
the “federal marriage amendment” or FMA) — a virtual impossibility. The
Liberty Counsel warns that ENDA would create precedent for protecting
LGBT people and thus make “traditional sexual morality a form of
discrimination.” The Constitution, however, is the final word on the
law, so ENDA wouldn’t actually change the validity of the FMA in the
improbable event it ever advanced. Given that people
overwhelmingly believe ENDA is already law,
the only actual consequence of its passage might be that anti-LGBT
discrimination of any kind — in the definition of marriage or otherwise —
could become even less popular.
6. ENDA Will Have A “Chilling Effect” On Free Speech And “Religious Liberty”
The Traditional Values Coalition worries that employers with
“conscience objections or religious reservations” will be threatened
with lawsuits from LGBT people. ENDA has two protections against this.
First, its
religious exemption
guarantees that any organization that is already protected under law to
discriminate on the basis of religious identity will be allowed to
continue discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity as well. There is also a provision prohibiting legal
retaliation against anybody who opposes ENDA. The only truth to this
claim is that people who are not part of religious organizations who
want to discriminate against LGBT people just for discrimination’s sake
would be liable under the law; that is the whole point of ENDA.
7. ENDA Will Overrule States’ Nondiscrimination Laws
Currently,
there are 21 states that protect sexual orientation, including 17 that
also protect gender identity. In the rest of the country, anti-LGBT
discrimination is otherwise perfectly legal. The Traditional Values
Coalition warns that ENDA will “overrule” those 34 other states’ laws by
imposing LGBT protections. Just because the states don’t protect LGBT
people from discrimination doesn’t mean that they have laws guaranteeing
or mandating discrimination; they simply don’t have laws that say
anything about LGBT discrimination. In other words, there’s nothing to
overrule.
8. Children Will Be Confused By Teachers “Experimenting With Their Gender Identities”
This talking point does nothing but stigmatize transgender
identities. All people should have the right to be their authentic
selves, including transitioning if that is what allows them to be happy
and fulfilled in their day-to-day lives. The same goes for children. If
they learn that trans people exist, that isn’t going to make them trans.
As
Harvey Milk joked over 35
years ago defending gay teachers from the same scare tactics, “If
teachers are going to affect you as role models, there’d be a lot of
nuns running around the streets today.” If anything, learning that trans
people exists might help a few young people understand their own
struggles with gender identity, which could lead to a huge benefit for
their mental health. Fear-mongering about trans educators only
reinforces disapproval of transgender identities.
9. Employers Will Be “Forced To Employ And Affirm” Transgender People
ENDA specifically prohibits quotas and any kind of preferential
treatment, so there is no “forced” employment. If an employee comes out
as transgender and begins to transition, then yes, ENDA would protect
that individual from being fired. That is the express purpose of the
law: to protect people from being fired for their identity. Being
transgender is not a disqualification from any occupation.
10. Comparing ENDA To Civil Rights Is Just An Attempt To “Stigmatize Public Debate”
Having the freedom to work is not only a basic civil right; it’s the
foundation of the American dream. People’s capacity to get a job done
and earn a fair wage should not be tied to their identity, whether it’s
their sex, race, religion, ability, sexual orientation, or gender
identity. ENDA simply guarantees that LGBT people have the same access
to participating in the economy as everybody else. This is particularly
important for the trans community, which experiences epic rates of
unemployment, homelessness, and poverty specifically because of discrimination.
The myths used to oppose ENDA play into prejudice and stigma that
some people may already feel about the LGBT community. These biases may
well be unintentional and the product of a lack of understanding about
sexual orientation and gender identity. Nevertheless, the bill is
designed to protect the well-being of people living authentic lives, and
such biases must be overcome.
Make the jump here to read the original article at ThinkProgress
From one end of the country to the other, the overlapping developments on a single day underscored what a historic year 2013 has been for the U.S. gay-rights movement — "the gayest year in gay history," according to Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, the movement's largest advocacy group.
Yet each of Monday's developments, while heralded by activists, revealed ways in which the gay-rights debate remains complex and challenging for many Americans.
Republicans, for example, are increasingly split on how to address gay-rights issues — some want to expand their party's following, while others want to satisfy the religious conservatives who make up a key part of the GOP base. More than 40 percent of Americans remain opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. And even some prominent gays remain uncertain whether they should make their sexual orientation known to the world at large.
Mike Michaud, the Democratic congressman from Maine, said he came out to dispel "whisper campaigns" about his sexuality as the three-way race for governor began to take shape. Through his six terms, he'd never before spoken publicly about his sexual orientation, and he broke the news to his mother only hours before releasing his statement.
In Hawaii, where the state House is debating a Senate-passed gay-marriage bill, thousands of citizens have signed up to testify — and the majority of those who've spoken thus far oppose the measure.
And in Washington, even as gay-rights supporters celebrated the Senate's backing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, conveyed his opposition and left it unclear whether the GOP-controlled House would even vote on the bill, known as ENDA.
Boehner "believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," said his spokesman, Michael Steel.
Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay issues, said he was on the Senate floor in 1996 when an earlier version of ENDA lost by a single vote.
"Even though we're making rapid progress on marriage equality, and the entire movement seems unstoppable, there are still big pockets of resistance," Socarides added. "It's going to cost a lot of money and require a lot of work to get us to where anti-gay discrimination no longer exists."
Monday's 61-30 vote on ENDA demonstrated that the Senate's Republican minority could not muster the votes needed to block the bill by filibuster. The legislation could win final Senate passage by week's end.
Current federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race and national origin. But it doesn't stop an employer from firing or refusing to hire workers because they are lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender. The bill would bar such discrimination by employers with 15 or more workers.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have approved laws banning workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 17 of them also prohibit such discrimination based on gender identity.
Sainz, a vice president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the most striking aspect of the ENDA debate was the division surfacing in the Republican Party — with several prominent GOP senators supporting the bill and yet Boehner signaling his opposition even before the Senate vote was held.
"There is no doubt that the American public is changing on this issue very quickly," Sainz said. "That's what makes what Boehner did today such a head-scratcher."
The Senate vote on ENDA was among a series of major victories for the gay-rights movement this year, highlighted by two Supreme Court decisions in June. One ruling cleared the way for ending a ban on same-sex marriages in California; the other struck down a 1996 law passed by Congress that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Gay marriage is now legal in 14 states and the District of Columbia, and bills are pending this week that would add Hawaii and Illinois to that group.
Read the entire article here