Employers
know best what qualities or characteristics are relevant to performing a
particular job, not the federal government. So why does Congress want to inject
itself into business owners employment decisions?
This
is the question that needs to be asked as the Senate moves to vote on the
so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit
businesses from taking into account any conduct related to "actual or
perceived sexual identity or gender identity" when making employment
decisions even if it violates their religious beliefs or if it is inappropriate
for their workplace.
ENDA
would force religious business owners and workplaces such as Christian
bookstores, religious publishing houses, pre-schools and religious television
and radio stations to accept as normal any employee who has had a sex-change
surgery, any employee who has changed or is "transitioning" their
public "gender identity" (regardless of whether they have had surgery
or hormone treatments), transvestites (people who dress as the opposite sex on
an occasional basis for emotional or sexual gratification), and drag queens or
drag kings (people who dress as the opposite sex for the purpose of
entertaining others).
Making
matters worse, "perceived gender identity" status does not require
sex-change surgery, so ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be
female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker
rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several
states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.
ENDA
offers no guidance on how employers should deal with these situations and opens
them up to costly lawsuits by inviting disgruntled employees to sue for
"discrimination" over a characteristic (in the case of sexual
orientation) which is not even visible and of which the employer may have been
unaware. This has already been seen in the case of public employers (which are
explicitly covered by ENDA) where such laws at the local and state level have
led to large settlements being paid at taxpayers' expense.
·
No comments:
Post a Comment