I was doing some research regarding ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act) currently being reviewed for inclusion/amendment of the Civil Rights Act. The bill called, H.R. 2015 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In my research I've disovered that the majority of Christian opposition is claiming that to enact this law would endanger the free religious exercise.

I'm trying to argue 'fairly' but in all my research I fail to find any actual examples of HOW this act would endanger the right to freedom of religion.

Can anyone offer any argument?

christian ministries sometimes hire outside help. Clerical, janitorial, etc....

I've heard concerns that gay are problematic in terms of deportment. Some traditionally gender specific duties also may be sidestepped for certain applicants.

Another concern is that male Christian leaders find it inappropriate to be alone with women during the conduct of business and ministry.

Wouldee-

I don't understand the examples... if an employer doesn't like someones conduct they can easily not hire them or let them go based on that...

As far as not hiring women to do work that they are capable of- that's already illegal and not part of the bill.

Gender identity refers to transgendered or those who have or are in the process of switching genders not to male vs. female.

Redy-

I found this link- you may have already seen it:

http://gratefuldread.net/archives/cat/001694.html

Mostly it seems to be about not wanting to hire gays to work with kids- despite the well documented fact that almot all child molesters and predators are "straight males". Sigh. Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way.

This one is similar but breaks their issues down to 14 specific objections. They also feel that churches and christians should have "special rights' but that "gays don't need special protections".

http://americansfortruth.com/news/13-good-reasons-to-oppose-hr-3685-the-enda-our-freedom-bill-bush-staffers-helped-craft-enda-exemption.html

I'm only sharing known concerns within the Christian community

and only those that I'm certain have weight with Christian Ministry.

My opinion is not available as I'm not a fan of written secular laws and have a hard enough of a time maintaining my autonomy in a world with rules and laws for rule and law breakers that need them. I would comment on the words of one of my attorneys..." laws have no teeth to bite those that operate outside the law, only those that operate within the law." My comment is..." one must be reasonably sure that the door to malicious prosecution is closed before it is opened, and to accomplish that one must know how to successfully defend one's good name before any perceived potential for suit may be brought by pragmatic and unethical parties by anticipating the chess game of maneuvering motions and discovery to incriminate the spurious petitioners with their own wordds and actions."

The topic is open to debate and I offered the cited concerns within the Christian community for the purposes of clarity about those concerns.

But the ensuing debate holds no interest for me. Thanks for asking

There are provisions in the bill that would limit some of the more "mandadory" rights issues. A company of 15 or less employees is not mandated to exercise the code.

Also, a religious organization is still allowed to write their own laws pertaining to their religion. So if they don't hire female ministers or even if they want to include the words homosexuals or transgender or whatever, they are still allowed to.

So where else would the freedoms to exercise one's religion be in danger? Corporations are declared an entity and under the law are treated at such. For that reason they are subject to all federal and state laws and MUST follow them, no matter who the religion, ethnicity of the Board of directors, Management or employees.

So where's this fear stemming from?

ooo Redy, here's a phrase for ya. A friend of mine says this doesn't infringe on religious freedom, but infringes on religious right to prejudice.................

Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 - Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims.

Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to: (1) religious organizations; and (2) the relationship between the United States and members of the armed forces. States that this Act does not repeal or modify any federal, state, territorial, or local law creating a special right or preference concerning employment for a veteran.

Provides for the construction of this Act with regard to: (1) enforcement by employers of rules and policies; (2) sexual harassment; (3) certain shared facilities such as showers or dressing facilities; (4) dress and grooming standards; and (5) certain matters relating to marriage.

Prohibits the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from collecting statistics from covered entities on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or compelling the collection by covered entities of such statistics.

Provides for enforcement, including giving the EEOC, the Librarian of Congress, the Attorney General, and U.S. courts the same enforcement powers as they have under specified provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, and other specified laws.

Allows actions and proceedings against state governments and, subject to limitation, the federal government.

Anoasis, thanks I've found the sites you offered but they can't be used in my paper. I wasn't aware of all the 'exact' issues of the Christian community (those that oppose legislature for equality)until I started my research paper.

There are numerous rediculous arguments agains full equality, but the two that have me stumped deal with their idea that amending the federal code, to include GLBT under it, would somehow infringe on THEIR freedom of religion. BUT in the countless hours of research I can't find out how they think this would happen.

The other issue, with is also never fully explained, is that they feel by legalizing GLBT as equalt citizens under the law, that there would suddenly be a huge influx of lawsuits AGAINST Christians. NOW WHY WOULD THAT BE?

Ferel, you get an A in cut and paste - have you an opinion or do you simply require an explanation? Just trying to make you think. So what do you think? Go ahead, I'm interested.

Its all pretty clear there...and yes I feel that this law should and would not pertain to religious organizations....because it would go against what they believe and what God had intended for the people and for the church.......

If God had intended for man to sleep with man.....then it would of been that way.....if God intended the same for women..then it would be that way.......Do I begrudge anyone tolive as they choose...No because I am not their judge.......

But even if this bills passes.......the church would never allow gay people to runany part of a church...It goes against God and hence goes against the church......

well feralcatlady i beg to differ.there are many gay and lesbian ministers and a gay bishop in the Episcipallian church.
If you and your ilk aren't judging then why can't a gay person run a church?They worship like you,they tithe like you and some are "saved" like you ,so guess what you will see them in heaven.
Some people murder,rape and pillage and can go to heaven also.
I say if your good enough to go to heaven you sure as hell can run a church....

Sometimes it's easy to feel attacked by a post because theres no facial expression or intonation to show that the person is just curious vs. sarcastic, etc.

So in hopes of avoiding that phenonmenon please let me state that I have heard something similar to this and have never understood it:

"If God had intended for man to sleep with man.....then it would of been that way.....if God intended the same for women..then it would be that way......"

So here's what I don't understand- men DO sleep with men and women DO sleep with women- so DOESNT god intend for it to be that way? But you could say the same about anything.... if it happened god must have intended for it to happen... if one believes in divine and total predetermination as some do- and I obviously do not.

On the other hand, I totally agree with:

"Do I begrudge anyone tolive as they choose...No because I am not their judge......"

And I will never understand why so many people want to interfere in the consensual intimate lives of other adults... or why they even care to know what others do.... I'm so not interested unless I'm directly involved.

Ferel, is it true that your faith believes that divorce is a sinful act? Is it true that adultery is a sinful act. Yet how many Christians do you know who are divorced, as for forgiveness? How many Christians fantasize while having sex with their partner, thereby committing adultery? Yet somehow you believe that asking for forgiveness makes it all better.

But have the divorced, after repenting, returned to their unhappy marital state? NO - do those who asked for forgiveness for their lustful thought, stop their fatasies? NO Yet you somehow expect that homosexuals should have so much more control over their nature than anyone else.

Please explain what bias, what ignorance, can be so blinding to some Christians, that they can not see the pain and suffering they cause in the name of their God?

Ferel writes:
""But even if this bills passes.......the church would never allow gay people to runany part of a church...It goes against God and hence goes against the church...... ""

Is this why GLBT are not accepted in the congregation of Christian churches? Is this the way your faith teaches you to act? If so, why is there so much lieniency with those heterosexuals, whose sin is neither stopped or reconciled? How does such jugement figure into the faith you attemt to extend to others?

Why is it so much easier for you to live nextdoor to and allow a couple who are both divorced, living together without marriage,into your church. While the loving, caring same sex couple on the other side of you are viewed with contempt and not welcome in your little world?

Those kinds of values are what give Christianity a bad name.

That is unfortunate for Christians who live their lives with acceptance of others.

Those who enjoy the communion of all society without the limitations of church dogma or bias that segregates those whose view of the 'afterlive' blinds them to the wonders and joys of the existence at hand.

if someone is running a region based business

i could maybe see a bit of a conflict

BUT rather than looking at it as a negative

maybe they should see it as a positive

and use the business to convert all non believing employees

and teach them of their sin

hehehe

How optimistic of you adj!

Personally, I would hope that someday every Christian community would embrace all Christian believers, regardless of race, gender, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, perceived gender identity or sin, hidden, admitted or perceived.

and you call me optimistic

We have those laws here in the UK ...

Would it be worth checking other country's stances on that?

doesn't hurt to share the knowledge does it

The basis of sexual orintation is from they Gay Rights movement and that they are trying to incorprate they gay marriages in the main stream of life as we know it now and the is going to hurt a lot of churches. If a church does not marry a gay couple then that church can be sued for discrination of their right. In Lev. 18:22 is where God is very disspleased with this type of behavior. To sue a church for that reason is like going in and breaking into a church to steal its money and from God Himself. Their are a lot mre implacation that can be applied here but those are the main two that should stand out the most. May GBU for posting this and GBU and your family.

Your new friend,
Sam