Thursday, January 13, 2011

The ENDA Freedom Bill

Last week I overheard as two men discussed the ENDA bill (Employment Non Discrimination Act) and how it is necessary because certain states have instituted laws that GASP ... allow employers to hire and fire who they want to.

In certain states employers are allowed to not hire someone based on their sexual orientation. EX: if a cross dresser comes in to apply for a daycare position, the employer has the right not to hire them because they feel it is inappropriate to hire a cross dresser to care for children, and it could negatively affect business. ( I certainly wouldn’t send my kids there)

The men's argument for the bill went something like this:

“states are passing laws to allow businesses to discriminate against gays, and since that is so against what our country was founded upon the federal government feels as though it has to intervene. we cant support discrimination blah blah blah.”

Lets break this down:

1) So this country was founded upon FORCING employers to hire homosexuals??? wth?

Ii thought it was founded upon freedom, wouldn’t allowing employers to hire and fire who they please be an expression of freedom?? not only that, but most states during and after our founding years had life imprisonment &/or death penalties for sodomy and these laws were supported by our founding fathers.

I don’t exactly call that "gay friendly" our country was founded on many things.... but i cant seem to find the words "give all homosexuals jobs" anywhere in the constitution. You can give your reasons for or against gay rights, but I’d stay away from the argument "this is what our country was founded on" because if you are “pro gay” you definitely don’t want us going there.

2) Why can’t we support discrimination? ok i get that gay people can’t resist their "feelings" This is no different than stupid people who can’t help being stupid. Does this mean we should hire morons as brain surgeons for the sake of "equal rights"?.... or should we use a little discrimination and decide against that? Most people have set personalities, yet we dont have laws saying we arent allowed to discriminate against hiring unpleasant or boring people. (they cant help it they are boring)

Our founding documents grant us "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", not the guarantee of happiness, and if being "homosexual" prevents someone from getting a certain type of job, then that’s no different than someone who was born with a low IQ having certain limitations on their job options. Gay people earn more than almost any other demographic, i am sure they can find a nice gay friendly job somewhere else.

If you have a conservative business and all your other employees are straight males with traditional values, a gay person would make everyone on the job uncomfortable. Wouldn’t it be best for the employer to hire someone who fits their company better?? I see nothing wrong with discrimination in this context. That is like telling someone they HAVE to let someone in their home they do not want in their home. It is their home and they have a right to say who goes in there or not. It is their business; they have a right to say who works there or not.

I am not trying to make comparisons between gays and other minority groups... but even if someone chose not to hire someone because of their skin color or gender I think that should be allowed,

ex 1: a woman wants to start her own company and hire an all female staff... are you saying shes not allowed to do that???

ex2: A latino organization wants to bring on a new staff person as their spokesperson, are you saying they dont have the right to give preference to a fellow latino??

I am NOT saying I think that would be right or good for them to do so, I personally believe "all white" or "all latino" or "all black" groups are pointless and counterproductive, but it is THEIR RIGHT.

3) Doesnt our constitution support states rights? This is no business of the federal government whatsoever.

Just look at the idiotic arguments for this bill. It says this is not about “gay rights” but about “universal rights” because if a heterosexual was not hired at a gay bar because of their heterosexuality they could sue too!! < I am not joking. That is a literal argument for this bill.


  1. I agree; people should be FREE to discriminate. It's not government's job or duty to tell us who to hire, fire, associate with, etc.

  2. You say that you don't agree with "all white", "all latino", and "all black" groups and that they are counterproductive yet you say that gay people should go work in gay friendly places? So all gays should stay together and all straights should stay together but all of the races can intermingle? What is the difference between these two groups? How is what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom any concern of yours?