Yes, the business of Government must move along with more than one issue, but, in reality, Obama jumping in on ENDA, the Employer Non-Discrimination Act, is simply red meat thrown to Democrats who have lost faith in him over the idiocy of Obamacare and NSA spying. He just tried the same thing last week with new “rules” on “climate change” (which, incidentally, vastly increased the power of the executive branch of the federal government in your lives). He’s also attempting to gin up yet another fight with Republicans
Congress Needs to Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Here in the United States, we’re united by a fundamental principle: we’re all created equal and every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. We believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve the chance to follow your dreams and pursue your happiness. That’s America’s promise.
Funny, because agencies under his direction are not treating American citizens equally. Also funny, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.” The Act a good chunk of Democrats opposed. And that there are many laws that bar discrimination. Including ENDA in 2007.
That’s why, for instance, Americans can’t be fired from their jobs just because of the color of their skin or for being Christian or Jewish or a woman or an individual with a disability. That kind of discrimination has no place in our nation. And yet, right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
As a result, millions of LGBT Americans go to work every day fearing that, without any warning, they could lose their jobs — not because of anything they’ve done, but simply because of who they are.
Interestingly, he fails to include one single example of people being fired for being gay or cross-dressers. I’m sure there are a tiny, miniscule number of stories of LGBT’s being terminated, some, if not most, of which are really about being a substandard employee or having engaged in misconduct rather than being LGBT. Oh, and conservatives and their groups have been singled out by the Obama regime.
That’s why Congress needs to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, also known as ENDA, which would provide strong federal protections against discrimination, making it explicitly illegal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This bill has strong bipartisan support and the support of a vast majority of Americans. It ought to be the law of the land.
Really? I doubt most have ever heard of it before or know what it does.
Business agrees. The majority of Fortune 500 companies and small businesses already have nondiscrimination policies that protect LGBT employees. These companies know that it’s both the right thing to do and makes good economic sense. They want to attract and retain the best workers, and discrimination makes it harder to do that.
So most businesses already have policies? So why is there a need for Government? And here’s where he really shows why the country is mired in economic malaise during his presidency
So too with our nation. If we want to create more jobs and economic growth and keep our country competitive in the global economy, we need everyone working hard, contributing their ideas, and putting their abilities to use doing what they do best. We need to harness the creativity and talents of every American.
He seems to think that jobs just magically appear because people are creative and because they want them. And because LGBT’s can’t be fired for being LGBT. And that increasing the power of the Federal Government will somehow increase hiring. But, then, can we really expect more from the Most Partisan President Ever, who has never run a business, never had to make a payroll, never had to deal with tough employee situations?
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
We have dozens of statutes protecting employees from unlawful termination. Do you really think a statute restricting employers from firing LGBT employees for their sexual preferences harms the economy? (On the other hand, it won’t help the economy much either.)
Our economy is driven by demand for the goods and services we produce and offer. This demand comes from domestic and overseas markets. We can increase government spending (more domestic demand); we can devalue the dollar (more foreign demand); or we can wait it out. Conservatives won and we are waiting it out.
Yes, the law most likely will hurt the economy Jeffy as now more people will be in a “protected class” which will result in companies spending more money to defend themselves against meritless lawsuits.
Those lawsuits will have the employer having to prove why the termination of an employee was justified instead of an employee having to prove they were discriminated against.
Furthermore, ENDA, like many employment laws, are not within the Constitutional power and authority of the Federal government and in fact, trample on the rights of people to associate with whom they please.
At some point in time we have to let employers hire and fire people without making everyone a protected class.
As for the government spending Jeffy advocates, we have seen time and time again how that is a failure but some people will never learn.
Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?”
Yet there are people who believe that the failed policy of government spending is better for the economy. It hasn’t worked in the past, but that is their insane belief.
gittyup,
So you favor discriminating against groups of people. Hardly surprising, as it’s the cornerstone of far-right conservatism. Fortunately, most Americans disagree with your “thinking”, such as it is.
Do you think it is my right as an employer to refuse to hire, or to fire, evangelical Christians? Do you also think that child labor laws violate the Constitution? Should establishments of public accommodation be able to refuse service to Blacks, Muslims, Tea Party members or women?
Conservatives: Building a Bridge to the 19th Century!
You’ve already proven you know nothing about economics.
I don’t favor that at all, Jeffy, which is why I am against bills and laws that encourage people to look at others as classes of people rather than just people.
And as I said (and you did not comprehend) these bills are always set up where the employer must prove their innocence rather than the employee proving the guilt of the employer.
Furthermore, do you really believe that the government has a right or a say in every personnel decision a company makes?
Lastly, I appreciate your response to the economics part of your previous post. As usual, your response attacks the person rather than dealing with facts.
Oh, and by the way Jeffy, to demonstrate your ignorance once again, you mentioned “child labor laws.”
Initially these laws were established because of working conditions in factories, etc. Do I think that the laws were valid under the Constitution? Maybe. A case can be made that the laws were valid under the “general welfare” clause, but even then, it would have been much better for individual states to handle the issue of kids working in harsh, dangerous conditions at the expense of an education.
However, those laws have now evolved to way outside of even having a pretense of “protecting kids.” For example, a few years ago a law was passed that prevented kids from working on their family farms. (It was changed, but it never should have been passed to begin with.)
You are aware, of course, that a 12, 13, or 14 year old having a paper route is now illegal, right? A kid can’t have a grass cutting business on the side where he cuts the same lawn every week at a certain time.
I used to volunteer as an assignor for sports officials covering youth sports. For games involving young kids, the leagues would hire kids in their early teens. They would get training and their games would be monitored. The kids loved it as they got to hang around the fields and the gym. They also got to make a little money. Parents loved it because it helped teach their kids responsibility and maturity.
Officiating by kids of that age is now illegal under Federal law.
There is no societal benefit that restricting kids from all economic activity, but that is what you believe because in your mind, the kids don’t belong to the parents, they belong to the government. In your mind, the government is a better parent than actual parents. In your mind any law that is passed that restricts people exercising freedom must be a good law.
Finally, you also believe that the government has a compelling interest in interfering with contracts between employees and employers.
In other words, you can’t be trusted to do what is right or to follow your own beliefs so you wait for the government to force you to do it.
You hate freedom Jeffy.
gidiot,
Yes, it’s the law that makes right-wingers view Blacks, gays, Muslims, Jews and Hispanics as “groups” and not individuals. It’s the law that forced companies to discriminate.
Teens still call the balls and strikes at our 11 diamond complex just outside St. Louis.
I think you should read up on the Fair Labor Standards Act before your next treatise. Some naïve person may read your falsehoods.
Who enforces contracts between individuals? Huh? Cat got your tongue? What’s that? Oh, the government, you say. So yes, why would the government take an interest in contracts. What’s next? Are you going to insist the government stay out of your disability payments?
J-“We can increase government spending ( for more domestic demand).” To increase demand, let the populace keep more of their hard-earned dollars through tax cuts, thereby giving them more money to spend. Government spending, besides being incredibly inefficient, takes money out of the private sector through taxes, where it could be much more effectively used. Now, who doesn’t know much about economics?
It doesn’t make right wingers view them as “groups,” it makes everyone view them that way.
Of course as a liberal who likes to discriminate, you find nothing wrong with viewing people as a group as opposed to as an individual. You don’t care what the individual can bring to a company, you only care about what group they fit in.
How sad for you that you are happy being a bigot.
I am sure that teens can call ball. There is nothing in the law that prevents teens 15 and older from calling balls and strikes.
Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote? Not that that would be a surprise as you continue to demonstrate your lack of comprehension skills.
Even a person like you should understand that difference between adjudicating a dispute between two parties in a contract and third party such as the government forcing conditions of a contract between the other two parties.
But speaking of cats, I guess you have never heard of arbitrators who do not work for the government and settle contractual disputes all the time.
So the cat is really saying “me-OW! What an uninformed person that Jeffy-Pop-Off-At-The-Mouth is.”
The rest of us are saying “what else is new?” but the cat may still be surprised at the depth of your lack of integrity, knowledge and comprehension.