ENDA: Paragon of Intolerance

     The Senate passed the “Employee Non-Discrimination Act” which purportedly bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

     The ironic thing is that the so-called “Employee Non-Discrimination Act” is itself a paragon of discrimination.  It requires people, as a condition of running a business with employees, to suspend their inalienable rights to freedom of speech and of religion.  It destroys the ability of private parties to make their own moral judgements:

“While the government must respect equality before the law, private actors should be free to make reasonable judgments and distinctions—including reasonable moral judgments and distinctions—in their economic activities. Citizens should be free to live their professional lives according to their moral and religious beliefs.”

     Unlike race, sexual preference/orientation is, by definition, linked to actions.  If this were just a proposed law that bans discrimination against someone for being gay, that would be one thing.  The problem is that it enshrines the choice to engage in sexual acts as being protected to the point where you can effectively force acceptance on others.   Further, that choice is hardly objective:  “It would impose liability on employers for alleged ‘discrimination’ based not on objective employee traits, but on subjective and unverifiable identities.”  Further, the definitions ENDA uses are nebulous:

“ENDA defines ‘sexual orientation’ as ‘homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality’ but offers no definition of those terms or what principle limits ‘orientation’ to those three. Likewise, ENDA defines ‘gender identity’ as ‘the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.’ In other words, unlike previous versions of the bill, ENDA’s current incarnation now 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 at the workplace.


“[U]nlike race, sexual orientation and gender identity are usually understood to include behaviors. An employer’s decisions reasonably taking into account the behavior of employees are core personnel decisions best left to businesses themselves, not to the federal government.

“… Compounding these legal problems is the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions. Consequently, ENDA would prohibit reasonable decisions to base employment on behavior. By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.”

     Further, it would force people to lie.  If a man wants to call himself a woman, than it would be illegal to refer to him as a “him” because it would cause a “hostile work environment.”  It even goes beyond work, since the City of San Antonio has banned employment for anyone who has ever said a politically incorrect thing.

     When it comes to possible litigation, there hasn’t been much in states that adopted ENDA style legislation, which “[f]rom a conservative point of view, however, it’s an argument for not legislating. The flood of litigation that followed the ban on race discrimination in employment, once that ban got some teeth, confirmed the need for such legislation. Lack of litigation suggests lack of need.”  But then, perhaps why we haven’t seen much litigation, yet, is because supporters of ENDA don’t want to spook people by a bevy of lawsuits against people… or perhaps those who are gay or transvestites at least have the decency to let others live their own life (for now at any rate).

     This isn’t about “equality.”  It is about purging society of its norms and values and replacing it with a false equality.  Men are not women, and women are not men.  The Progressive idea of “Kyriarchy” maintains that straight and “cis-gendered” individuals can never be discriminated against because of their “privilege.”  Thus, ENDA is clearly about elevating some people, and their voluntary behaviors, receive special and unequal protection.

     It all comes back to the notion that “gender is a social construct” (which itself is a social construct).  On that basis, the only difference between the biological sexes is who has what reproductive organs.  Even there, the LGBTQ political advocates wish to deny the basic science of biology!  EDNA refers to ones “sex assigned at birth” as if it were a choice of the parents or doctors.  In California, a gay couple can receive “infertility treatment” if they can’t naturally have a child between them!

     It is this warped ideology that there must be no gender/sex distinction whatsoever that is false and oppressive.  There are differences, both physically and physiologically.

     This false equality contradicts nature and basic biological science – it is a denial of reality itself.  In the end, reality will win out.  But, oh, the damage these delusions of equivalency will cause!

This entry was posted in Progressives and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to ENDA: Paragon of Intolerance