Madison's own U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin has been highly visible in her support of a long overdue measure that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007.
The bill - passed in the House of Representatives on Nov. 7 - is the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., reportedly plans to introduce its counterpart in the Senate soon. Does the future look bright for the eradication of sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace? Not necessarily.
President Bush is expected to veto the measure if it passes the Senate, having threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill. So what is there about the proposal to object to - equal treatment in the workplace for all citizens? Insanity! We can't have people judged solely on their skills and qualifications. Preposterous!
Bush and White House officials have cited constitutional concerns and stated the proposal could trample religious rights. According to a Nov. 7 Associated Press report, Republicans said the bill could undermine the rights of people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons and lead to an onslaught of dubious discrimination lawsuits.""
What religious rights would be trampled? The inalienable right to discriminate based on religious beliefs? The concept of allowing employers to discriminate based on religious beliefs, and then upholding laws banning religious discrimination is seething with irony.
Since when is it a ""right"" to discriminate against people in the workplace based on religious beliefs? Firing an employee based on their perceived sexual orientation isn't any more acceptable than firing an individual based on their ""Catholicism.""
A person's sexual orientation should not be a factor in the hiring process based on the principle that every worker should be judged strictly on qualifications and job performance, not identity. At any rate, for those who object to hiring gays and lesbians based on religious beliefs, tell me where in the Bible it says, ""Man shalt not lie with man and then gain employment at a desk job.""
Abolishing sexual orientation-based discrimination is not a religious issue - it is a civil rights issue - the right to full legal, social and economic equality, the right to equal protection under the law and freedom from discrimination. Subsequently, extending civil rights to all U.S. citizens regardless of sexual orientation should not be a partisan issue.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Laws should not be justified with religious reasoning, but because they enrich liberty and equality and defend justice. The invasion of religion into national and local politics should be rejected with the same rigor that we constitutionally reject the invasion of government in religion.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. The measure would exempt churches and the military.
Opponents to the bill also cite similar state laws already in place banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and label the measure intrusive. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia already have laws barring sexual-orientation discrimination.
Federal law currently bans job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, age, disability and religion. Are these laws too intrusive as well? Sexual orientation should not be an exception. According to a May 2007 Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans support such a ban, with 89 percent of respondents reporting support for the principle of equal job opportunities for gay and lesbian Americans.
Employers citing ""workplace cohesion"" in opposition to the bill is also unmerited, as it is not an argument that would be acceptable in modern employment practices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, as outlawed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act incorporates language similar to that of the Civil Rights Act. Additional reasons supplied by opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act also mirror those given against every civil rights bills like this in the past - that it is
intrusive, and that it would be burdensome on businesses and lead to excessive litigation, which have proven to be unfounded concerns.
As an op-ed in the New York Times pointed out, the parallel should inspire Bush and other opponents to ""reconsider whether they want to be on the side of bigotry and on the wrong side of history.""
Michelle Turcotte is a senior majoring in journalism. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
