ENDA – The End of Religious Freedom? (Guest Post)

By 6 Comments 777 views

ENDA

The first amendment to the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.   [emphasis mine]

Now that the ground rules have been established, have you ever heard of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)? It has been around since 1994, but has never been passed. Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama supports ENDA’s passage.

So, just what is ENDA? From (the very liberal) Human Rights Campaign, we learn that ENDA proposes to “afford to all Americans basic employment protection from discrimination based on irrational prejudice.” [emphasis mine]

ENDA will:

  • Prohibit employers, employment agencies, and labor unions from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for employment decisions
  • Prohibit covered entities from subjecting an individual to different standards or treatment based on that individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity
  • Extend fair employment practices to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people

Sounds great! ENDA supporters want it to be viewed as a pro-civil rights bill, with those opposed viewed as anti-homosexual and bigoted. What American would be for discrimination? But, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, “Here is the REST OF THE STORY.”

ENDA will force people to engage in activities against their religious conscience and beliefs. ENDA will punish people who wish to refrain from participating in activities they do not condone. ENDA is modeled on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to discriminate against people simply because of who they are.

ENDA will impose hiring quotas. Progressives/Liberals/Democrats (PLDs) think that businesses are vehicles for social engineering. Hiring quotas will require that all businesses, even religious organizations, hire Lesbians, Homosexuals, Bi-sexuals, Transsexuals, and Queers (LHBTQ) who do not necessarily subscribe to the mission of the business or organization, and LHBTQ actions may be against some of its beliefs. PDLs don’t seem to realize (on purpose?) that businesses exist to make a profit, not to further social engineering. Personal note: I just can’t use the hijacked word “gay” here.

ENDA will permit the government to use its heavy-handed tactics to “go after” businesses that, in its opinion, don’t adhere to the bill’s intent. Government lawyers would give businesses two choices: Surrender your beliefs or be sued into bankruptcy and/or be jailed. We can expect even more of what has already happened. Two bakeries, one in Oregon, one in Colorado, illustrate what we can expect. In Oregon, the lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state, accusing the bakery owners of discrimination. The Colorado baker was ordered to serve the homosexuals or go to jail for a year.

What part of the first amendment do the LHBTQ crowd and supporters of ENDA in Congress not understand? It would be offensive if we had no basis for our actions. But the Bible is replete with examples of condemnation of the LHBTQ lifestyle. For example, Leviticus 18:22 states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Irrational? I don’t think so. In fact, dictionary.reference.com defines irrational as being without reason. Here “reason” means “illogical.” But, by Biblical logic, reasons abound.

By the way, the Senate passed ENDA in November 2103, 64-32. But its future doesn’t look so bright in the House of Representatives.

The primary question, if ENDA ever passes, is whether or not the justices on the US Supreme Court will bother to read the first amendment and therefore rule ENDA unconstitutional, or will a majority of them, in classic PLD “knee-jerk” fashion, rule that our constitution discriminates against LHBTQs. We can already predict how Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor will vote.

But that’s just my opinion FWIW.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my very conservative web site.

6 Responses to “ENDA – The End of Religious Freedom? (Guest Post)”

  1. 1

    Tired American

    One thing I’ve learned is that we Americans should never willingly give the US government any more power. No matter how good the law seems at the moment, it usually comes back to haunt us in the end- The Patriot Act.

  2. 2

    retire05

    The rules of “quotas” only applies to certain businesses, those NOT minority owned.

    Ever walk into a Mexican restaurant and seen staff that isn’t Hispanic? How about a Chinese restaurant? Nope, no white people there. Ever notice that minority construction companies hire only like-skinned minorities? I know of at least two McDonald’s, in primarily white areas, that are owned by blacks. Every employee there is also black. Not one white person has ever been working at these McDonald’s when I have been there. Same with WhattaBurger.

    Why isn’t the EEOC pounding on those companies to demand they have the appropriate number of white employees? Or the proper number of Native American employees?

    A person who owns a business should be able to hire employees that will benefit their business, and the government needs to stay out of private business.

    Oh, and about the vote for the EDNA; when did Kelly Ayotte and Jeff Flake sell their souls to cultural Marxism?

  3. 3

    Dink Newcomb

    @retire05:
    I will give you an even better example of that absurdity.
    Somewhere around 2005, the State of Georgia informed Savannah State University, with a student body heavily skewed toward negro, that they would have to actively start recruiting other races to bring their students into conformity with existing “diversity” laws. RAAAACISSSSSM!! abruptly resounded loudly from the Georgian left side with an alarming fervor that was comical to me in another state. For weeks, the media was full of “but its the law” and “whites always have to destroy the good things in black culture” or “this HAS ALWAYS been a black school” to “suck it up, we all have to do it”.

    I remember telling my girlfriend’s son (a disinterested, mediocre student whose Mother could not afford to put him through school) that SSU would probably be a great place to apply since he would probably get breaks on tuition and “help” with shaky grades. Without irony or snarkiness! He did not seem inclined to heed my advice and plunged into work as defined by working at Home Depot.

    The controversy even bled over into SC and at work I was discussing it with a black guy (he brought the subject up) and he was adamant about the injustice and the fact that SSU was a traditional black school and it was wrong that they were to destroy their “heritage”. I mumbled in assent and agreed that yes it was a crisis and I remembered that happening before and how much it sucked. “Of course.”, I said “What I am remembering was in the ’50s and back then it was called integration!” End of conversation. Irate black racist exit stage left! Does disingenuous have a different meaning in left wing parlance?

    After a few weeks, the fuss died down and the state seemed to back off– I was experiencing some things then that occupied much of my brain cells and I can not at this late date tell you how it was resolved but the school is still predominately black and there seems to no longer be a fuss.

  4. 4

    Nanny G

    Utah has begun running ads from this org:
    http://fairtoall.org/
    It opposes this ”nondiscrimination” law.
    It makes some excellent points…..

    The problem is that it would give special rights to some people at the expense of other people. In fact, it would give special rights to some that conflict with the first freedoms of others.

    Utah courts would be compelled to recognize special rights at the expense of the most basic rights of others. The first freedoms of all Utahns will be put in jeopardy – foundational freedoms such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, the right to make a living, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

    We know this will happen because it already has—in every state that has passed legislation giving special rights to some at the expense of the rights of others.

    They recommend a solution:

    If real discrimination is a public concern, there are effective ways to address it. Every legislative attempt to alleviate real discrimination must rest on two pillars: 1) we cannot create new discrimination and 2) we must protect everyone’s first freedoms. To this end, the First Freedoms Coalition has created a compact consisting of five principles to guide our efforts.

    First Freedoms
    All people in a free society share equally the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the right to make a living.

    Tolerance
    Pluralism within a free society requires all people to adopt a “live and let live” approach to secular and religious expressions intended for the betterment of mankind. This is especially true when people of varying beliefs disagree about those expressions.

    Fairness
    All people are to be treated reasonably and with fairness in their public and commercial interactions. No single group should be elevated to a “special class” above others with special rights that infringe on the first freedoms of everyone else.
    Mutual Respect

    Conflicting rights are inherent in a free society, and conflicts requiring public mediation should be handled rationally, respectfully and lawfully. Rational disagreements on sensitive issues are not justification for accusations of hatred, intolerance or bigotry.

    The Common Good
    Governance in a free society must differentiate between private and public concerns – respecting the right of people to work out their lives as they see fit while also respecting public policies intended to protect freedom and advance the common good.

  5. 5

    Steve

    In the early 1600’s before the sailing of the Mayflower the king and queen of England want to incorporate religion with government to establish control, William Bradford and John Carver protested by having religion seperate from government rule, they exilled from England to maintain the freedom to rightly express the freedom to practice religion, this is what this country is doing to religion in the United States, the bible is basically non existant in any form of our government presently speaking, with the passing of marriage of gays, this goes far against the bible, God destroyed the sodom and gamorah era showing it was violence against the sexual being, not a natural process. I am lost as to why this country would turn against the doctorine that the bible implemented as a protection from the evil that was eradicated by God himself. The morals of this country have been overturned by the liberals who want what is right for the citizens, the rights are of the people are no longer free to express, there seems to be punishment for saying what is true, no one wants to see or hear the truth, hear no evil ! see no evil speak no evil! people just turn away from what is hidden but smacking them in the face, when are people going to wake up? I dont know, maybe when something happens that affects them to an extreme that will be everlasting…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *