THE EMPLOYMENT

NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (ENDA)

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA;” introduced
in the 111th Congress in 2009 as H.R. 3017 and S. 1584) is
misleadingly referred to as a logical extension of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act. While the Civil Rights Act was enacted primarily to
protect the rights of racial minorities, ENDA is aimed at providing
heightened protections for a particular sexual behavior
(homosexuality) and a particular mental illness (“gender identity
disorder,” as manifested in crossing dressing and sex changes).
ENDA is a radical transformation of workplace discrimination law.
It would grant special consideration on the basis of “sexual
orientation” or “gender identity” that would not be extended to
other employees in the workplace.
ENDA is a “one size fits all” solution to alleged discrimination that
erases all distinctions based on natural gender, procreation, or
marriage. It grants special rights to homosexuals, transsexuals, and
transvestites, while ignoring those of employers. The federal
government should not force private businesses to abandon their
moral principles.
• Such legislation affords special protection to a group that is
not disadvantaged. There is no evidence for the oft-repeated
assertion by proponents of ENDA that homosexuals, who enjoy
higher disposable income levels than married persons, suffer
systematic job discrimination and have been excluded from full
participation in the political process.
• The bill’s religious exemption leaves unprotected Americans
who are people of faith. ENDA does contain an exemption for
certain “religious organizations.” However, it still fails to protect
individual Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who are owners
of private businesses, and for whom certain moral values are
integral to the operation of the business. For example,
businesses which provide products, services, or catering for
weddings, or match-making groups and businesses, would be
forced under penalty of law to hire homosexuals, even though
according to their religious convictions homosexual marriage is
expressly forbidden. In fact, it is questionable whether any
profit-making corporations would qualify for the exemption,
meaning that Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses,
and religious television and radio stations could all be forced to

INFOCUS • SEPTEMBER 2009 IF09J01

 compromise their principles. Organizations that are not tied to one religion but
have strong moral convictions, such as the Boy Scouts, could also be targeted.
• ENDA would mandate the employment of homosexuals in inappropriate
occupations. ENDA disregards the fact that sexual conduct may in fact be
relevant to employment. Under such legislation employers in the area of
education and childcare would be denied the right to refuse to hire
homosexuals, even if they consider such persons to be inappropriate role
models for children and young people.
• ENDA would destroy employers’ rights to set dress and grooming standards
for their employees. The bill contains a provision purporting to protect such
rights. But requiring an employee to be dressed and groomed in a way that is
culturally appropriate for the employee’s biological sex is the most
fundamental “dress or grooming” standard there can be—yet holding to that
standard would be forbidden under the “gender identity” provisions of this
bill.
• ENDA violates employers’ and employees’ Constitutional freedoms of
religion, speech and association. The proposed legislation would prohibit
employers from taking their most deeply held beliefs into account when
making hiring, management, and promotion decisions. This would pose an
unprecedented intrusion by the federal government into people’s lives.

• ENDA would approvingly bring private behavior considered immoral by

many into the public square. The argument “What goes on in the bedroom is
nobody else’s concern” is specious. From time immemorial human societies
have used legal and cultural means to encourage the traditional family. This is
because of the realization that non-marital sexual activity in all its forms has
detrimental effects upon individuals and society as a whole. By declaring that
all sexual preferences are equally valid, ENDA would change national policy
supporting marriage and family.
• ENDA would pave the way for legalization of counterfeit same-
sex“marriage.” State courts which have ordered the legalization of same-sex
“marriage” in Massachusetts, California (since overturned by the people),
Iowa, and Connecticut have cited the existence of “non-discrimination” laws
like ENDA at the state level as establishing a principle regarding the legal
irrelevance of “sexual orientation,” which they have then applied to the
institution of marriage. Passage of ENDA at the national level could give fuel
for a similar decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, forcing same-sex “marriage”
on every state in the union, at some time in the future.