Discriminating Tastes

This past fall, after contentious and emotional debate, the House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which profits businesses with 15 or more employees from discriminating against individuals based upon sexual orientation. Facing a veto threat by President Bush, the bill languished in the Senate and was not debated before the Christmas recess. It is expected that the Senate will take up the bill again soon.

Supporters hail the approval as historic, continuing the work began by the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s, putting an end to discrimination based on race, gender, religion and eventually, age and disability. Critics argue that this would create precedents that potentially could lead to complaints and litigation against religion. As quoted in a Los Angeles Times article, Representative Mark Souder, a Indiana Republican, stated that “religious rights will now be trumped by sexual rights.” For his part, President Bush suggested in the same article that the bill could weaken the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation passed under President Clinton that defines marriage as an act between a man and a woman.

An important caveat to note is that the Act in its present form exempts the armed forces, private clubs and religious organizations. Also, 20 states outlaw discrimination based upon sexual orientation, as do 90% of Fortune 500 companies, as stated by the same L.A. Times article. This applies on a federal level, which then supercedes the states in discrimination laws.

Unfortunately, much of the debate swirled around the notions that barring discrimination against GLBT (in fact, the legislation doesn’t include transgender workers because that still is seen as far beyond the mainstream) workers is an infringement on religion. House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, asserts, “the freedom to practice one’s religion is one of our most fundamental, inalienable rights bestowed upon us. This innocently enough named bill would actually have the effect of rolling back these protections.”

Described by another representative as “a trial lawyer’s dream,” opponents fear that those that oppose homosexuality based upon religious grounds are now more susceptible to frivolous lawsuits and complaints by those that feel discriminated against. While the bill does exempt religious organizations (and churches are included in that purview), the fear is that doesn’t go far enough to protect religious belief and practices.

Simply put, hogwash.

Let’s be clear: it is within one’s prerogative to have any religious view s/he desires. Also, there is no doubt that homosexuality is a wedge issue in religion, with strong opinions on all sides. If religious organizations were included in the ban, then there could be justifiable concern about the viability of exercising discretion based upon religion. However, this isn’t a religious issue. In fact, religion has little to do with this. This is a Constitutional issue and a legal issue.

Civil Rights legislation, furthered by legislation addressing ageism and disabilities, has provided frameworks that have are desperately needed. For too long, individuals were marginalized and oppressed based upon aspects of Self. It’s a tragic part of American history, a history that social justice seeks to fix. Further, this isn’t a gay rights issue as it is a human rights issue. Individuals seek employment and other opportunities in this country should be afforded the guarantee that they will be judged on qualifications, not identity affiliations.

If this were truly an issue of infringing on religious belief, then there would be a bigger fuss over hiring based upon religion. Many who are religious believe that other religions are not correct and in some cases, even denominations within the same religion that have erred theologically. Yet, one cannot discriminate against a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist or agnostic because he/she is a Christian, or vice versa.

In addition, not only does the First Amendment guarantee the freedom of religion from government constraint, it also guarantees the freedom from religion. It is imperative that our leaders continue the admonition of the founding fathers that we be a nation of laws, not of humans. The law states that discrimination is not acceptable. We need to keep that intact whenever and wherever possible.

The quest for social justice often dictates that we work to protect the rights of others, even if whose views we may not agree. As Voltaire says, “I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” We who are believers are taught to do until others as they would do unto you. One might not agree with homosexuality, but one cannot disagree with justice and opportunity for all. Plus, I wonder how not hiring someone based upon sexual orientation is considered an exercise of religion, especially if it’s a secular job in a secular workplace. I for one don’t want that kind of religion.