Bush To Veto Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Bush To Veto Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Tomorrow, the House is expected to vote on the Employment Non- Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or fail to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation.
To obtain White House support for ENDA, lawmakers compromised by exempting “small businesses, religious organizations and the uniformed members of the armed forces” from the bill. Yesterday, an article on the right-wing site WorldNetDaily revealed that White House staffers had helped craft these exemptions:
“Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill,” according to Peter LaBarbera’s Americans For Truth organization.
After the meeting, officials refused to say whether or not the President would veto the bill. But today the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy making clear that despite the exemption compromise, “senior advisors” will still recommend that President Bush veto the bill:
H.R. 3685 would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions of Federal law, including those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to establish “a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
While the vast majority — nearly 90 percent — of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are surprisingly no federal prohibitions against such discriminatory behavior. ENDA would ensure that for the first time ever, gay and lesbian employees are afforded this critical federal protection.
Urge your senators to support ENDA here.
UPDATE: Pam’s House Blend has more.
UPDATE II: The Center for American Progress’s Winnie Stachelberg explains why this bill is a necessary first step, even though it “is not as inclusive as policies in many major companies and a growing number of states.”
UPDATE III: Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, put out a statement in response to the White House’s statement:
Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The bill raises concerns on constitutional and policy grounds, and if H.R. 3685 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Hate to be picky, but nowhere does this say Bush will veto the bill, only that his advisors will recommend he do so. Bush probably will veto it given the chance, but Congress might not even givee him the opportunity. Until then, this is nothing.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pmBush is becoming less and less relevent but more and more obtuse - if this is possible.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmIf it does some good–veto it!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 pmI’m sure my Senator — Larry Craig — will be voting to overturn the veto.
:-D
I crack myself up.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pmIt depends on if these are the “senior advisors” Bush listens to, or the ones he ignores.
I can’t imagine that Cheney would be among the “senior advisors” this time, since (believe it or not) Cheney is generally silent when the subject turns to gay-bashing. I guess having a gay daughter will do that.
I’ll be interested to know how much support this has in Congress — will all the locksteppers be voting against it? Will there be enough votes to override a veto?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 pmGeorge W. Bush: Doing his damnest to take this country back 200 years!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pmChristianity, it seems, is reflected in punishing gay people for no other reason than their sexual orientation.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pmAt this point the only two irrelevant things are the US Congress and the American people.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:44 pmUh oh, Daryll better watchout, if GW666 vetos this then Daryll could get fired for being a closeted gay.
By the way Daryll how many types of flogging whips to you keep in your “special place with god” closet?
Buck Fush
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmSadly, it is these and other similar regulations that put large US corporations at a disadvantage against domestic and foreign startups, who aren’t held to the same standards. In a very real way, it causes many companies to outsource heavily, instead of staffing up to levels in which these regulations suddenly impact them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmwhats good for the goose is good for the gander…. VETO AWAY!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:50 pmChristianity, it seems, is reflected in punishing gay people for no other reason than their sexual orientation. Comment by Badmoodman
That is not really so. If you look at who in congress is punishing the gays, its gays.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pmMaybe more gays should vote.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmGosh! I *love* the smell of bigotry in the morning!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 pmAnother bill for chimpy to veto so he can remain relevant.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:57 pmThis is a bad bill. Many in this country are against the gay lifestyle (I have no probelm with it myself). Forcing a company to hire someone that is gay could cost them business. We are a land of choice afterall and private business should be able to choose what they feel is best for themselves. There is no law saying they can’t discriminate against straight people. The Gay community is just as free to not hire straight people. I see no problem here.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:58 pmGeorge W. Bush: Doing his damnest to take this country back 200 years!
Comment by Veritas — October 23, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Don’t you mean 237 years?
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pmGiant steps backward by GWB.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 pmDo these people ever think that they may have children or grandchildren that will be adversely affected by sexual orientation discrimination?
Do they ever think beyond the end of their noses?
Is this America? Are we watching it die a slow death?
Are narrow-minded, religious bigots and their army of lemming-soldiers with an ignoramus commander in the White House killing America?
Southern Man: “It’s already against the law.”
I don’t think you’re correct about that. I believe that in a number of states, it’s perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:31 pmSouthern Man,
From the TP summary:
While the vast majority — nearly 90 percent — of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there are surprisingly no federal prohibitions against such discriminatory behavior. ENDA would ensure that for the first time ever, gay and lesbian employees are afforded this critical federal protection.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:33 pmtranscript:
“Thats why I’m vetoing this bill. To protect Americas children from the gay”
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pmI’m absolutely sure that if these people had been in government back when we passed laws to prohibit discrimination due to race, they would have opposed those laws too. To these people, there is “us” and “them”. If you look like them and think like them, then you are an “us”, otherwise you are a “them”. I am proudly a “them”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pmDo they ever think beyond the end of their noses?
Comment by Marie
No, they don’t. It’s “us” and “them”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:45 pmBush will veto the bill, and next week hold a press conference and use it as “proof,” once again, that the Dems haven’t accomplished anything in Congress this year.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pmComment by Southern Man — October 23, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Oh look! Another troll who failed reading comprehension last year in the 3rd grade.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:53 pmAnd so the LGBT community argued and fought for inclusion of transgendered or exclusion of transgendered ad nauseum and Bush will veto it anyway. So what was the big deal. WIthout the votes to override its a hollow gesture at best. We have wasted time and tears getting this bill together and now the “decider” is going to toss it in the trash. Isn’t it time impeachment was back on the friggin table?
Speaker Pelosi, wake up and smell the indictmets! Damn it’s tough being a Democrat sometimes.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm“Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, put out a statement in response to the White House’s statement:
“Basing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.”
Thanks, Rep. Miller, that’ll scare him into letting it go into law. Sheesh, that puts him on the right side of his racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist base, better known as the 24%
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 pmThe Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.
Dog bites man.
Cheers,
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:49 pmBasing employment decisions on prejudice and not on merit is un-American and should have no place in our society. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is an historic civil rights bill and if the President opposes it he will be on the wrong side of history.
I’d like to see a single example of when he was on the right side.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 pm#26 TCdon:
This will be a great act for lawyers if it passes, further opening the floodgates to federal court.
Well, yes, if you troglodytes violate the law. So don’t do it. It’s not just a legal matter, it’s a moral one as well.
One could have made the very same ‘objection’ to the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Did you?
Cheers,
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 pmLook at Dubya…he found his new veto toy…too bad he is still the same stupid SOB he has always been and he enablers are just as stupid as he is.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 pmThis will be a great act for lawyers if it passes, further opening the floodgates to federal court. We’ll see thousands of “they fired me because I am gay†or “they fired me because I am straight†lawsuits within weeks of it passing. Thank you in advance for helping keep us lawyers at full employment.
Comment by TCDon — October 23, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
That didn’t happen in states that passed these laws. Then again, those are ‘blue’ states, where people are less likely to discriminate against gay people. So if you red state wingnuts get hauled up for discrimination - well it’s most certainly deserved!
Thanks for proving why this legislation is so important! Bigot!
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmIf Bush vetoes it, Rush Limbaugh will be able to say again, “We are no making progress, but we are winning by not allowing the Dems to do anything.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 pmThis is smart, eh??
Here is yet another example of how the paradigm has changed. We propose a law. We enter into negotiations with the Republicans and craft a compromise which is weaker than our proposals. We pass this compromise. Bush vetos it. This is not bargaining in good faith.
We give the President and Vice President a pass on their illegality so we can “work in a bi-partisan way” and they break their word every time.
So, tell me again why impeachment is off the table?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:09 amYa know, Bush is burying the GOP. If they don’t rebel against him soon, the GOP might as well pack up and go home.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am