Connect with us

I Was Once Fired for Being LGBTQ, But ENDA Should Be Thrown Out

Published

on

I’ve been fighting for workplace and housing protections for more than a decade, both in my native home of Utah and on the national level. In my opinion, there is no more important issue for LGBTQ Americans than making sure we cannot be fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes just because of who we are. It once happened to me, and that’s why I no longer support ENDA.

In a virtually unprecedented broad landscape of support, banning workplace and housing discrimination against LGBTQ people has majority support in every single congressional district in the country. Liberals and Conservatives alike have all stood up and said it is absolutely wrong for an employer or a landlord to fire or evict someone just because they happen to be of a different sexual orientation or gender identity. Think about that for a minute, can you come up with any other national issue the country is facing right now that could claim the same level of consensus? 

Yet the livelihoods, families, and well-being of LGBTQ people are still in constant danger, thanks primarily to conservative state legislatures who have refused to pass this most basic of protections. 

The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would ban such employment discrimination, has been proposed in Congress almost every year since the 1990s, and almost always with the same small support from a handful of Democratic Congresspeople, but without any results. That changed last year, when the U.S. Senate marked history by passing the bill (it’s still sitting in the House, without much chance of the Republicans allowing it to be heard). 

But now, something has changed about the bill. Thanks to hard lobbying about conservative groups such as the Family Research Council and Heritage Institute (including their State Policy Network groups in every state in the country), ENDA has been altered to now include “religious exemptions” for business owners. 

Are religious exemptions to ENDA really so bad that they warranted the recent withdrawal of support for ENDA by The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Transgender Law Center, as happened yesterday? To be precise, yes. 

Religious exemptions to laws are an extremely slippery slope, judicially. While religions themselves, and businesses owned by religions have always (and will always) be exempt from certain employment practices, the idea of allowing a private, for-profit business the right to decide unilaterally to impose the religious beliefs of its owners on employees (and customers for that matter) is a deadly road. 

As we have now seen happen with Hobby Lobby, the Right has twisted the meaning of religious liberty and religious freedom. Principles which used to mean the right of an individual to believe, or not believe, as they saw fit, are now being erroneously applied to businesses—allowing these institutions to legally force employees to comply with the owner’s beliefs, or face unemployment. 

It’s a widespread campaign by the Right, who are pushing so hard for these religious exemptions in the courts, state legislatures, and in the press because they know that if they succeed in codifying them into law, and employers can simply use religion as a legal justification for discrimination, then ENDA (along with women’s access to reproductive health care and birth control) mean very little. 

I was furious when I saw the Human Rights Campaign double down on their ENDA support. HRC president Chad Griffin would have us believe that nothing has changed, that “the red line” hasn’t been crossed yet, and has reiterated the support of his enormous (and predominantly White, gay and male focused) organization for ENDA as-is.

But just because HRC is willing to throw ENDA under the bus to get a “win” doesn’t mean the rest of us should. 

“But Eric,” a Facebook commenter said to me last night, “equality will never be achieved all at once. We shouldn’t be willing to throw away good for perfect. Think of it like the minimum wage! If you ask for $20 an hour, and they offer you $15 an hour, would you turn that down?” 

Let’s once and for all set the record straight on religious exemptions for for-profit businesses. Allowing the Right to poison ENDA and legalize corporations using the religious beliefs of their owners (sincerely held or not) to dictate the beliefs of their employees isn’t taking the $15 instead of the $20. It’s letting them call it $20 an hour, but still only getting paid $7.25. 

I will never stop fighting for employment and workplace protections. But we can’t support a bill outlawing discrimination that also includes a provision to permanently legalize it.

 

Image by Rich Renomeron via Flickr 

 

Follow Author Eric Ethington on Twitter @EricEthington

Eric Ethington has been specializing in political messaging, communications strategy, and public relations for more than a decade. Originally hailing from Salt Lake City, he now works in Boston for a social justice think tank. Eric’s writing, advocacy work, and research have been featured on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, CNBC, the New York Times, The Telegraph, and The Public Eye magazine. He’s worked as a radio host, pundit, blogger, activist and electoral campaign strategist. He also writes at NuanceStillMatters.com

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Backtracking and Blowing Things Up’ Defines Trump’s ‘Whiplash’ Second Year: Report

Published

on

If Americans during President Donald Trump’s first term were exhausted by his “controversy and chaos,” they now appear to be similarly distressed by his “backtracking and blowing things up,” according to a report by Politico.

In the second year of his second term, President Trump “intensified the volatility” from year one “with a succession of whiplash-inducing policy swings, several of which have almost immediately withered in the face of Republican opposition and public outcry.”

For example, the Trump administration just withdrew thousands of federal law enforcement officers from Minneapolis, following the two violent deaths of U.S. citizens and after “clashes with protesters turned the tide of public opinion against the president’s immigration crackdown.”

READ MORE: Far Right Extremist Leader Puts Trump on Notice Over Epstein Files

There is the Greenland gambit, which appears to be paused, at least for now. There were the “Liberation Day” tariffs he announced in April, only to partially, but quickly, lower them “within days following tremors in global bond markets.”

Trump threatened to decertify Canadian aircraft, then dropped the threat. He declared he would drop credit card interest rates to ten percent, then dropped that, too, and in a rare move, asked Congress for legislation to do so. His push to create 50-year mortgages appears to have subsided.

He paused millions of dollars in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding for state programs, then reversed course about a day later.

“The whiplash has real implications,” Chrissie Juliano, the executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, told Politico. “It’s incredibly disruptive, even if you can get back to continuing the work, you know, two days later.”

Domestically and internationally, Trump’s “unpredictability” has become a “feature, not a bug.”

“In many matters, especially negotiations with other countries, his mercurial opacity is often an attempt to gain leverage, but his threats seemingly lead just as often to backtracking as blowing things up, be they Iranian missile depots, Venezuelan drug boats or the transatlantic alliance,” Politico reported.

READ MORE: ‘No Going Back’: Report Warns Post-MAGA America Will Never Be the Same

The risks are real.

“Even proposals that don’t ultimately move forward have consequences,” a financial industry insider, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly without fear of blowback from the White House, told Politico. “Markets react. Issuers reassess risk. When policymakers float price controls, it creates uncertainty that can translate into tighter underwriting and reduced access — particularly for higher-risk or lower-income consumers.”

Trump’s poll numbers are now at the lowest point of his second term, Republican pollster Whit Ayres told Politico.

“There’s a sense that this is a pretty chaotic administration and seems to remind people of the pandemic period in the first term,” Ayres said.

When a president’s approval rating is above 50 percent, the party in the White House loses House seats in the midterms, “but not that many,” Ayres noted. “When the president’s job approval is below, the average loss of seats is 32.”

Ayres “said that Trump’s approval numbers largely mirror those from his first term, when the public over four years grew exhausted by constant controversy and chaos.”

“Joe Biden’s fundamental message in 2020 was to restore normalcy,” Ayres said. “And that seemed to be persuasive to enough people to get him elected.”

READ MORE: ‘Political Stunt’: Trump Admin Rages After NYC Re-Raises Pride Flag at Stonewall

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Rogan on Epstein Files: ‘Looks Terrible’ for Trump

Published

on

Prominent podcaster Joe Rogan warned that the handling of the Epstein files “looks terrible” for President Donald Trump and his administration.

“During Tuesday and Thursday’s episodes, Rogan criticized redactions the Department of Justice made from the files,” The Hill reported.

“Who knows what f — — happens with all this Epstein files s — —,” he said, according to video of his streaming show. “It just keeps getting crazier and crazier and crazier and deeper and deeper.”

“Why would your name be redacted if you’re not a victim?” Rogan also asked. “Like, this is what’s crazy about all this. Like, how come you redact some people and you don’t redact other people?”

READ MORE: Far Right Extremist Leader Puts Trump on Notice Over Epstein Files

“Like, what is this?” the podcaster continued. “This is not good. None of this is good for this administration. It looks f — — terrible. It looks terrible. It looks terrible for Trump when he was saying that none of this was real. This is all a hoax. This is not a hoax. Like, did you not know?”

“Maybe he didn’t know if you want to be charitable? But this is definitely not a hoax. And if you’ve got redacted people’s names, and these people aren’t victims, you’re not protecting the victim. So what are you doing?”

“And how come all this s — — is not released?” Rogan asked.

 

READ MORE: ‘No Going Back’: Report Warns Post-MAGA America Will Never Be the Same

 

Continue Reading

News

Far Right Extremist Leader Puts Trump on Notice Over Epstein Files

Published

on

Far-right extremist livestreamer Nick Fuentes — who leads a “Groyper” following of mostly young men and brands himself “America First” — is putting President Donald Trump on notice ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“I won’t even consider voting in the midterms unless the Epstein Files are fully unredacted, mass deportations resume, and we don’t go to war with Iran,” wrote Fuentes, who has 1.2 million followers on the X social media platform.

Some of Trump’s MAGA allies were furious this week as Attorney General Pam Bondi deflected numerous questions in a congressional hearing on that very topic.

Even before Bondi’s widely-criticized performance, Fuentes had called for her impeachment.

READ MORE: Trump’s Pardon ‘Blizzard’ Grows With Clemency for Five Former NFL Players

“Pam Bondi needs to be impeached,” he said on his February 9 Rumble show, “America First,” as The Daily Beast reported. “You lied about the existence of the files. You lied about unindicted collaborators and accomplices.”

Fuentes has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “white nationalist,” an “admirer of fascists,” and someone who “frequently relies on antisemitic tropes.”

According to the Anti-Defamation League, “Fuentes has used his platforms to make numerous antisemitic, racist, homophobic and misogynistic comments,” and spreads “white supremacist propaganda.”

President Trump “has not condemned Fuentes,” and Vice President JD Vance “has only criticized him for attacking his wife,” The Week reported last month. “But Vance also appears keen to avoid alienating young Fuentes supporters, who could help him secure the GOP presidential nomination in 2028.”

READ MORE: ‘No Going Back’: Report Warns Post-MAGA America Will Never Be the Same

 

Image via Reuters 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.