• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think the ENDA bill will finally pass? (Employment Non-Discrimination Act)

Do you think the ENDA Bill will finally pass? (Employment Non-discrimination Act)

  • Total voters
    16
Henrin said:
The only thing I would agree to is the complete repeal of all public accommodation laws. I see no benefit in expanding something that violates the rights of people.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, and I would say that in an ideal society truly private businesses (those not taking subsidies, receiving contracts from the government, targeted tax breaks, etc. ) should be able to discriminate, for whatever reason or without reason whatsoever - while we should diligently boycott those that actually do.

However, I don't believe the "expansion of the violation" argument holds water. When we institute an unjust law, and then make some people exempt from it, we are not curbing the injustice but adding to it.

Let's say, anti-discrimination laws are unjust; does it improve the situation if you exempt one particular group - the gay-haters - while taking away the freedom of association of the racists, the misogynists, the religion-bashers, and occasional innocent bystanders?
 
For the public sector, discrimination based on orientation is wrong.

For the private sector, I support the business owner. If he doesn't want to hire you because you're gay, black, atheist, or because you have a nose growing out of your forehead, bummer for you. Commerce reigns absolute over a bunch of people bitching about some odd perception of "fair".

Legislation like this is a tool for the weak.
 
PirateMk1 said:
1.)So it applies to public and private entities alike regardless of size?
2.)You misunderstand, if it is illegal to discriminate on this basis, what legal remedies do those who claim to be harmed, have?
Click to expand...

the many links in the OP and the thread give this information

it effects businesses with 15 or more employees

2.) no i didnt misunderstand there really are no real remedies.

Just like now if a company breaks the law they may get caught on their own or someone may report them and press charges.
 
AGENT J said:
the many links in the OP and the thread give this information

it effects businesses with 15 or more employees

2.) no i didnt misunderstand there really are no real remedies.

Just like now if a company breaks the law they may get caught on their own or someone may report them and press charges.
Click to expand...

If someone presses charges what are their legal remedies? What relief are they then entitled to should they prevail?
 
First off, mashed potatoes are awesome.

Secondly, I hope it passes, but I don't believe it will, sadly.
 
PirateMk1 said:
1.)If someone presses charges what are their legal remedies?
2.) What relief are they then entitled to should they prevail?
Click to expand...


1.)again there are not real remedies
2.) entitled too??? just like now, when people are wrong NOTHING really, at least nothing "uniform" or legislated.
what are people "entitled" to if they are fired for just being christian, black, male etc?
are you really that unfamiliar with this topic of what happens when a person is terminated for being a Christian or woman or black etc?


its the same the exists now, some people sue and receive money, some people simply retain their job, some companies simply pay a fine, some companies lose government licences etc etc

like i said there is no actual remedy
 
An employer is not allowed to ask your orientation in an interview, so I don't really see the problem.

If you were fired for being gay, you shouldn't want to work there anyway. I mean, if you want to stay there to flaunt it and to make waves, you can - and then you'd be heckled by employees there and meant to feel miserable.

And you'd deserve it.
 
AGENT J said:
1.)again there are not real remedies
2.) entitled too??? just like now, when people are wrong NOTHING really, at least nothing "uniform" or legislated.
what are people "entitled" to if they are fired for just being christian, black, male etc?
are you really that unfamiliar with this topic of what happens when a person is terminated for being a Christian or woman or black etc?


its the same the exists now, some people sue and receive money, some people simply retain their job, some companies simply pay a fine, some companies lose government licences etc etc

like i said there is no actual remedy
Click to expand...

Not familiar with the law as it something I am not interested in. I would have to say that when I talk to my rep I am going to oppose this law. Unless it applies to only government or a publicly owned corporation I believe it interferes with the fundamental rights of freedom of association and freedom of commerce amongst others. I have always been against broad application of antidiscrimination laws. They should be focused on public entities and narrowly defined which as they currently stand are not. There is too much room for interpretation and most certainly plenty of room for extortion and abuse of the law. Just like the current law is now, with the current civil standards of proof. Now if the standards of proof were beyond reasonable doubt then I might be more amenable with certain caveats, but as it stands now its just another way for attorneys to rip people off or extort them.
 
AGENT J said:
THe bill has recently been gaining bipartisan support and there is even stories from within the GOP that insiders are also pushing for members to become supportive on this bill as it is a bill that will help be be judged on their merits and ability and not prejudiced.

If you are unfamiliar with the bill and history read below:
Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Employment Non- Discrimination Act | Human Rights Campaign
https://www.aclu.org/hiv-aids_lgbt-rights/employment-non-discrimination-act

Heres a recent article:
Bipartisan support boosts gay rights legislation


I myself am skeptical that it will pass but this, IMO has been the most optimistic views on it, its been around since 95 or so i believe.

Im going to vote yes but Im not too confident, its seems one of my own state senators could be part of the deciding votes. Ive already written to him and expressed how he should definitely support this bill and protect the right of fellow americans against discrimination whether they have different views or not becaue they are worthy of the same rights and protections as the rest of us.


Additional News Links:
Opinion: Workplace equality for gays gets serious support - CNN.com
Gay rights groups pressure Toomey on vote
ENDA gains bipartisan support, test vote Monday | Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida
Toomey pushed to back anti-discrimination bill | TribLIVE
Observer-Reporter | Gay rights groups pressure Toomey


So do you think the bill will pass? this isnt whether you support the bill or not the question is do you think it will pass?

Yes
No
Not sure
I like mashed Potatoes
View attachment 67156084
Click to expand...

I think it will pass the in the senate without too much problem. But will never be brought up in the house. So that makes me a yes and a no.
 
PirateMk1 said:
1.)Not familiar with the law as it something I am not interested in. I would have to say that when I talk to my rep I am going to oppose this law.
2.) Unless it applies to only government or a publicly owned corporation I believe it interferes with the fundamental rights of freedom of association and freedom of commerce amongst others.
3.) I have always been against broad application of antidiscrimination laws.
4.) They should be focused on public entities and narrowly defined which as they currently stand are not.
5.) There is too much room for interpretation and most certainly plenty of room for extortion and abuse of the law.
6.)Just like the current law is now, with the current civil standards of proof.
7.)Now if the standards of proof were beyond reasonable doubt then I might be more amenable with certain caveats, but as it stands now its just another way for attorneys to rip people off or extort them.
Click to expand...

1.) then you should study up on it before making a decision based on guess, just saying that would be logical
2.) freedom of association is fully intact just like it is now for everything else. Unless you somehow believe its already doesn't exists.
3.) whats broad about specifically specifying who is protected and how?
4.) why arent they? i think they are VERY specific by definition.
5.) this isnt a problem with the protections but people, companies and lawyers. the Whole system has this flaw doesnt mean you get rid of it you figure out how to curb the actual problem.
6.) again see #5 i dont see any proof.
7,9 again your issue is with bad lawyers not the law

Ill take equalty and rights being protected everytime with people trying to use loop holes for personal gain than i will just abandoning protecting those qualities and rights. Its not even a contest IMO.
 
Gipper said:
An employer is not allowed to ask your orientation in an interview, so I don't really see the problem.

If you were fired for being gay, you shouldn't want to work there anyway. I mean, if you want to stay there to flaunt it and to make waves, you can - and then you'd be heckled by employees there and meant to feel miserable.

And you'd deserve it.
Click to expand...

Actually where state or city law doesn't ban it, they can ask at the interview. It sure didn't stop the NFL from asking rookies. I've also worked at a few dead end summer jobs in rural area and the coworkers do get all nosy about your private life. Even office jobs, they have pictures of their wife and kids and bring them to functions, so i can understand why gay employees would want to do the same.

In my uncle's case at a regional bank, the other workers would have been fine with it so he would not have been heckled. It's just his boss was a religious nut. Obviously if his boss had found out and he was fired, he wasn't going to get a positive work reference from them, benefits he had worked 25 years for, or treated any differently from a worker who stole from the company. In this case under ENDA, his boss would have to weigh the risk of getting sued. There is that minimal protection at least.

As to why work there, he left at the earliest opportunity, but in the meantime it's very stressful. Consider that older workers started with companies decades ago, when there was no alternative. Even a lateral career move across the country is difficult and takes time in your 50s, especially if you've just been fired.
 
With the right wing nuts in the house currently, no.
 
it effects businesses with 15 or more employees
Click to expand...
If it's a right and just concept, and it doesn't require some outrageous outlay of money to implement like an ADA upgrade would, then why allow smaller businesses to be exempt? Doesn't this just re-enforce the inequality concept even more?
 
AGENT J said:
1.) then you should study up on it before making a decision based on guess, just saying that would be logical
2.) freedom of association is fully intact just like it is now for everything else. Unless you somehow believe its already doesn't exists.
3.) whats broad about specifically specifying who is protected and how?
4.) why arent they? i think they are VERY specific by definition.
5.) this isnt a problem with the protections but people, companies and lawyers. the Whole system has this flaw doesnt mean you get rid of it you figure out how to curb the actual problem.
6.) again see #5 i dont see any proof.
7,9 again your issue is with bad lawyers not the law

Ill take equalty and rights being protected everytime with people trying to use loop holes for personal gain than i will just abandoning protecting those qualities and rights. Its not even a contest IMO.
Click to expand...

You want more law I want less. You seem to be under the impression that more law equals equality. I believe you are mistaken.

Freedom of association is just that the freedom to associate or not associate with whomever you want in what ever capacity you want. This law basically says if I have a business that employs more than 15 people I must keep or hire people I may not associate with otherwise. That by definition is a limitation of my freedom of association no matter how much you protest otherwise. It is MY subjective view that counts and I see it as an abridgement. Therefor I cannot and will not support the law and will fight it. I also believe it and abridgement of my right to property and commerce.

If we were talking about and making law for just public entities such as government and publicly held corporations I would be saying anything other than regulating asshatery is a pointless endeavor.

The partial cure to the problem would be to make the standard of proof in civil cases the same as criminal cases. Beyond reasonable doubt and unanimous verdicts. Quite frankly no more laws of ANY kind should be passed until such time as the mess we call the justice system is cleaned up.

As a side note. If I have a business under 15 people I don't have to comply. What kind of unethical horse crap is that? Either ALL private entities have to comply or none.
 
PirateMk1 said:
1.)You want more law I want less.
2.) You seem to be under the impression that more law equals equality. I believe you are mistaken.
3.) Freedom of association is just that the freedom to associate or not associate with whomever you want in what ever capacity you want.
4.) This law basically says if I have a business that employs more than 15 people I must keep or hire people I may not associate with otherwise.
5.) That by definition is a limitation of my freedom of association no matter how much you protest otherwise.
6.) It is MY subjective view that counts and I see it as an abridgment. Therefor I cannot and will not support the law and will fight it. I also believe it and abridgement of my right to property and commerce.
7.) If we were talking about and making law for just public entities such as government and publicly held corporations I would be saying anything other than regulating asshatery is a pointless endeavor.
8.) The partial cure to the problem would be to make the standard of proof in civil cases the same as criminal cases. Beyond reasonable doubt and unanimous verdicts. Quite frankly no more laws of ANY kind should be passed until such time as the mess we call the justice system is cleaned up.
9.) As a side note. If I have a business under 15 people I don't have to comply. What kind of unethical horse crap is that? Either ALL private entities have to comply or none.
Click to expand...

1.) no i just want rights protected, you do not
2.) nope never even suggested that but law needs to protect rights
3.) yes i know and that exists right now
4.) 100% false
5.) see 4#
6.) no your subjective view is meaningless to facts but yes you are free to fill however you want no matter how much proves otherwise
7.) but we arent
8.) im fine with this again thats a problem with people, judges, lawyers etc, not the law.
Fight to clean up the justice system i also fight for that but at no time will i abandon my fellow citizens and allow them to be illegally discriminated against and not have equal rights.
9.) I also think this is weird and it shouldnt be in thier but id bet anything it was added by a opponent to the bill.

like i said Ill take equality and rights being protected everytime with people trying to use loop holes for personal gain than i will just abandoning protecting those qualities and rights. Its not even a contest IMO.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) no i just want rights protected, you do not
2.) nope never even suggested that but law needs to protect rights
3.) yes i know and that exists right now
4.) 100% false
5.) see 4#
6.) no your subjective view is meaningless to facts but yes you are free to fill however you want no matter how much proves otherwise
7.) but we arent
8.) im fine with this again thats a problem with people, judges, lawyers etc, not the law.
Fight to clean up the justice system i also fight for that but at no time will i abandon my fellow citizens and allow them to be illegally discriminated against and not have equal rights.
9.) I also think this is weird and it shouldnt be in thier but id bet anything it was added by a opponent to the bill.

like i said Ill take equality and rights being protected everytime with people trying to use loop holes for personal gain than i will just abandoning protecting those qualities and rights. Its not even a contest IMO.
Click to expand...

1) I do want rights protected. MINE. I want the freedom to hire whoever I choose that is willing to work for me for whatever reasons I deem to be important. You don't want to protect MY rights. Like I said I don't want more law I want less. You are fine with more, and imposing YOUR views upon me and forcing me to do what you want me to. I am saying NO.
6)My view is as meaningful or less as yours is as I have the same influence with my rep you do. I oppose the law. I support the people opposing the law. I give those opposing money. I want MY rights protected the law does NOT do that. It discriminates against ME. I am not fine with that.
1) This law IS a restriction on MY rights to association and to MY rights to commerce. Fact. I cant help it you are blind to that. That's also a fact.
4) It is 100% correct. To do otherwise would be to invite a lawsuit. The law prohibits discrimination against suspect classes and extends protection to same said suspect classes and this law makes trannies and homosexuals and others protected. I would be required to PROVE I did not discriminate. That is completely unacceptable to me. Ask an attorney.
7) Because the law is being applied to me and to private entities I cannot and will not support it.

Rights are sovereign privilege, nothing more. Might does make right and rights. Right now your side has the might, and so you are taking rights. Just remember that what you take can be taken in turn.
 
PirateMk1 said:
1) I do want rights protected. MINE. I want the freedom to hire whoever I choose that is willing to work for me for whatever reasons I deem to be important. You don't want to protect MY rights.
2.) Like I said I don't want more law I want less. You are fine with more, and imposing YOUR views upon me and forcing me to do what you want me to. I am saying NO.
3)My view is as meaningful or less as yours is as I have the same influence with my rep you do. I oppose the law. I support the people opposing the law. I give those opposing money. I want MY rights protected the law does NOT do that.
4.) It discriminates against ME. I am not fine with that.
5.) This law IS a restriction on MY rights to association and to MY rights to commerce. Fact.
6.) I cant help it you are blind to that. That's also a fact.
7.) It is 100% correct.
8.)To do otherwise would be to invite a lawsuit.
9.) The law prohibits discrimination against suspect classes and extends protection to same said suspect classes and this law makes trannies and homosexuals and others protected.
10.) I would be required to PROVE I did not discriminate.
11.) That is completely unacceptable to me. Ask an attorney.
12.) Because the law is being applied to me and to private entities I cannot and will not support it.
13.) Rights are sovereign privilege, nothing more. Might does make right and rights. Right now your side has the might, and so you are taking rights. Just remember that what you take can be taken in turn.
Click to expand...

1.) this right isnt being changed so you are good, like i told you earlier you should probably educate yourself on what this actually does, you said you didnt know :shrug:
2.) 100% false, nice try though, see #1 and it has nothing to do with my views or force lol
3.) we arent talking about my views you rights are being protected
4.) nope it factually does not, please feel free to continue to make stuff up though
5.) sorry its factually not, like i said educate yourself on whats actually going on. If you think this law does any of that you are mistaken and you have no right to commerce now lol
6.) not a fact you made it up
7.) see #6
8.) only if you break the law and violate rights which can already happen
9.) yes this laws protects peoples rights just like gender, race, age, religion etc
10.) if there was enough evidence that you did yes, just like every other law on the books, murder, theft etc
11.) then move to a country without laws because this particular one isnt going to make that anything new its how all laws work
12.) this is your right but my guess along with the other laws that protect rights of ALL OF US, gender, race, religions etc this will pass sooner or later. Equal rights has a habit of doing that.
13.) more fantasy, I have no side, im mot making any rights, rights or people that were not being protected now simply might, hopefully they will be

let me know what eles you d like to make up and maybe read the bill so you understand it and dont post so many things that area factually wrong next time
good luck! :D
 
AGENT J said:
1.) this right isnt being changed so you are good, like i told you earlier you should probably educate yourself on what this actually does, you said you didnt know :shrug:
2.) 100% false, nice try though, see #1 and it has nothing to do with my views or force lol
3.) we arent talking about my views you rights are being protected
4.) nope it factually does not, please feel free to continue to make stuff up though
5.) sorry its factually not, like i said educate yourself on whats actually going on. If you think this law does any of that you are mistaken and you have no right to commerce now lol
6.) not a fact you made it up
7.) see #6
8.) only if you break the law and violate rights which can already happen
9.) yes this laws protects peoples rights just like gender, race, age, religion etc
10.) if there was enough evidence that you did yes, just like every other law on the books, murder, theft etc
11.) then move to a country without laws because this particular one isnt going to make that anything new its how all laws work
12.) this is your right but my guess along with the other laws that protect rights of ALL OF US, gender, race, religions etc this will pass sooner or later. Equal rights has a habit of doing that.
13.) more fantasy, I have no side, im mot making any rights, rights or people that were not being protected now simply might, hopefully they will be

let me know what eles you d like to make up and maybe read the bill so you understand it and dont post so many things that area factually wrong next time
good luck! :D
Click to expand...

Sorry but everything you wrote is wrong. I am fighting your imposition.
 
It looks like my NV rep Dean Heller will be vote 60 and this will pass.

I do understand the feelings of PirateMK, my fellow Martian. But I can see why "rights" are a thing of the past. The bad apples (who would definitely discriminate) have caused all of us to lose some of our powers of choice.

Just hire one black M2F and sit them by the door. (I stole that from the book The Spook Who Sat By The Door, a very old book about discrimination in the CIA).

So, yeah, here comes ENDA, like it or not.
 
radcen said:
If it's a right and just concept, and it doesn't require some outrageous outlay of money to implement like an ADA upgrade would, then why allow smaller businesses to be exempt? Doesn't this just re-enforce the inequality concept even more?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the logic there, but i believe that exemption is in place for ENDA currently. It would also be a lot harder to enforce, since many of them are just some family running it. They don't even take applications. Still, this says 7 in 10 have policies already:

10 Things to Know About the Employment Non-Discrimination Act | Center for American Progress

I like how they lay it on obama for not banning federal contractors from discriminating. That's really inexcusable.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Sorry but everything you wrote is wrong. I am fighting your imposition.
Click to expand...
thats what i thought you got nothing
thread history facts, laws, reality and rights all prove your statement to be false

good luck in your fight against having rights protected, luckily for you in this country you can do that
 
Well it cleared the senate in the first round of voting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/u...-appears-set-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html?_r=0

Bill on Workplace Bias Clears Senate Hurdle

WASHINGTON — A measure that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity overcame a significant obstacle in the Senate on Monday as seven Republicans crossed party lines and voted to begin debate on the bill.


The 61-to-30 vote means that the full Senate will consider a measure to extend federal nondiscrimination law to gay, lesbian and bisexual people for the first time since 1996 – a stark reminder, supporters said, that as the public has come around to accepting gay rights, Congress has been slow to keep pace.

Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, one of the Republicans who voted to open debate, had announced Monday that he would vote yes on the bill, known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, saying that after conversations with voters at home and colleagues in the Senate, he had come to the determination that “supporting this legislation is the right thing to do.”
Click to expand...
 
AGENT J said:
THe bill has recently been gaining bipartisan support and there is even stories from within the GOP that insiders are also pushing for members to become supportive on this bill as it is a bill that will help be be judged on their merits and ability and not prejudiced.

If you are unfamiliar with the bill and history read below:
Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Employment Non- Discrimination Act | Human Rights Campaign
https://www.aclu.org/hiv-aids_lgbt-rights/employment-non-discrimination-act

Heres a recent article:
Bipartisan support boosts gay rights legislation


I myself am skeptical that it will pass but this, IMO has been the most optimistic views on it, its been around since 95 or so i believe.

Im going to vote yes but Im not too confident, its seems one of my own state senators could be part of the deciding votes. Ive already written to him and expressed how he should definitely support this bill and protect the right of fellow americans against discrimination whether they have different views or not becaue they are worthy of the same rights and protections as the rest of us.


Additional News Links:
Opinion: Workplace equality for gays gets serious support - CNN.com
Gay rights groups pressure Toomey on vote
ENDA gains bipartisan support, test vote Monday | Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida
Toomey pushed to back anti-discrimination bill | TribLIVE
Observer-Reporter | Gay rights groups pressure Toomey


So do you think the bill will pass? this isnt whether you support the bill or not the question is do you think it will pass?

Yes
No
Not sure
I like mashed Potatoes
View attachment 67156084
Click to expand...

It passed in the senate but never will in the house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom