Last summer, Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) told ThinkProgress that he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because he feared it would lead to a lot of litigation, intimidating employers. Since then, Portman has endorsed marriage equality, motivated by what he learned from his son’s coming out. Unfortunately, it seems he still has reservations about granting legal protections to the LGBT community because he believes it will create problems for religious organizations, as he told BuzzFeed Monday night:

PORTMAN: I totally support the concept. This is about discrimination in the workplace. And there should be no discrimination and there ought to be a law in place, in my view. The current version of ENDA that I’ve looked at, I have some concerns about. One, about the litigation that would result because it could be heavily litigated the way it is written.

Second is religious freedom, which is the point I’ve made all through this discussion on gay marriage as I’ve talked about it. I’m also a strong believer in religious freedom and I think an entity that has certain religious tenets should not be required to change those tenets because of this law or others. ENDA has traditionally addressed this issue and I’m sure they will.

Portman’s litigation argument is a red herring. The point of the law is to ensure that LGBT people have legal recourse when employers treat them unfairly because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. If litigation couldn’t result from the law, it would have no point.

Furthermore, the current version of ENDA, introduced just two weeks ago, actually has incredibly sweeping exemptions for religious entities. In fact, any organization that is allowed to discriminate based on religion under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity under ENDA as well. These are exemptions to continue discriminating that are not extended to other protected categories, like race, for example.

It remains unclear how else the bill could be tweaked to placate Portman’s concerns — or just how committed he might be to ensuring his son is never fired from a job just because he’s gay.

WISCONSIN — Former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a Wisconsin town hall audience on Monday that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, even though he still opposes marriage equality.

Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:

RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.

Watch it:

Ryan’s opposition to marriage equality actually makes less sense given his support for same-sex adoption. One of the primary arguments against same-sex marriage is the false claim that children are better off with opposite-sex parents. Now it seems he supports allowing same-sex families to raise children, but he still opposes providing those families with the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex parents.

During the town hall, Ryan also highlighted his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure has been introduced in Congress almost every session since 1994, through Ryan initially lobbied to weaken ENDA so it did not include gender identity, and ultimately voted for the weakened version in 2007. Ryan did not say if he would support the more inclusive bill in this Congress.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney argued that adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis.”

LGBT Americans are regularly fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And, despite what most people believe, there is no federal law to stop it.

That could change if a bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) on Thursday becomes law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would protect LGBT Americans from discrimination in the workplace, just like women and racial minorities. This is particularly vital for transgender Americans, 90 percent of whom have experienced workplace discrimination.

While most Americans support the measure — which has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 — opponents have come up with creative excuses to distract from their homophobia. Here are the top five reasons Republicans offered ThinkProgress to explain why they think it should be legal to fire people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity:

1. Being LGBT is a choice. Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), the fifth-ranking House Republican, explained that he opposes workplace discrimination protections for LGBT people because being gay is “a choice issue.”

2. LGBT people aren’t fired for their orientation in the US. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL) dismissed the idea of a law making it illegal to fire someone for being gay because, as he explained, it’s not “a big issue” and “that don’t happen out here in the United States of America.”

3. LGBT people “already” have legal protections. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) argued that, contrary to reality, a law making it illegal to discriminate against gay employees is “already on the books.” Marchant, incidentally, voted against that very bill when ENDA came up for a vote in 2007.

4. It could allow LGBT people to sue for discrimination. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) refused to support legislation that would make it illegal to fire someone for being gay because it would give LGBT workers “legal rights” that could “spawn a lot of litigation” and “would make it more difficult for employers to feel comfortable.”

5. Anti-LGBT discrimination is not a federal issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that racial minorities deserved federal discrimination protections, but not LGBT workers. “Should [it] be a federal crime, specific to federal law? No,” said Lee.

In the United States today, it’s perfectly legal under federal law and in a majority of states to fire someone for being LGBT. Today, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate once again introduced legislation that would change that.

If passed, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA) would prohibit most public and private employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), this commonsense bill levels the playing field for LGBT workers by finally affording them the same workplace rights and safeguards afforded to other protected classes on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability, among others.

If this bill sounds familiar, that’s because it’s been around for quite a while. ENDA was first introduced in 1994 and has been introduced in every single session of Congress with only one exception. What’s more, this commonsense bill has only been seriously considered before Congress twice. In 2007, the House voted on and actually passed ENDA (though the bill lacked protections on the basis of gender identity), but the bill went nowhere and died in the Senate. In 1996, the full Senate voted on ENDA (also without protections for transgender workers) the same day it approved the anti-gay and discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While most expected it to pass, the bill lost by a single vote that year.

The fact that this bill has languished in the halls of Congress for nearly two decades is absurd, especially considering that Americans have supported equal opportunities and fairness for LGBT workers since the early 1980s. Today, 73 percent of likely voters support ENDA, and that includes a majority of Republicans and self-identified conservatives. Even 50 percent of people who have generally unfavorable views about LGBT people support equal treatment for LGBT workers. On top of public support, businesses large and small — from Wall Street to Main Street — support this bill.

Even with all of this support, ENDA still has yet pass.

Perhaps what’s most remarkable about the bill is that nine out of ten voters already think its protections are law. Treating workers equally — regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity — is a no-brainer for the vast majority of the American public.

ENDA’s premise is simple: everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to make a living to support themselves and their families. Sadly, mountains of research confirms that many LGBT people don’t have that opportunity due to high rates of employment discrimination, which leaves them without a job and without a steady income to make ends meet. In fact, it’s largely because of employment discrimination and the absence of ENDA that LGBT families are more likely to live in poverty and report lower annual incomes than non-LGBT families.

One of the reasons that ENDA is still not law of the land is that opponents of LGBT equality continue to use misleading and false rhetoric to distract and derail the bill from being enacted. For example, anti-gay conservatives continue to claim that ENDA poses a threat to religious liberty, despite the fact that the bill contains a robust exemption for religiously-affiliated organizations (notably, some groups think that provision goes too far in exempting religious organizations from claims). Others use scare tactics about transgender workers and ridiculous arguments about bathrooms, changing rooms, and invasion of privacy issues, even though few if any problems of that nature have arisen in states with employment protections on the basis of gender identity.

The good news is that there is now more momentum than ever to finally pass ENDA into law. Lawmakers are literally rushing to come out in favor of LGBT equality. Now that this bill has been re-introduced, it’s time for lawmakers to walk the walk and vote in favor of equality.

Crosby Burns is a policy analyst for LGBT Progress.

As Americans scramble to complete their taxes this week, a report released today finds that the federal government funnels nearly $300 billion in taxpayer dollars to businesses in states where it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against LGBT workers.

Although nine in ten Americans mistakenly believe that it is already illegal to fire someone simply for being LGBT, there is still surprisingly no federal law to protect LGBT workers from employment discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. To date, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws that explicitly prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sixteen states of those states have employment nondiscrimination laws that also explicitly cover gender identity. This means that in the vast majority of states, LGBT people have no legal protection from bias, harassment, or discrimination on the job.

According to the report, in 2012 alone the federal government awarded $293 billion to contractors in states that have no state-level protections for gender identity/expression in the workplace, with $249 billion of that total going to states that also have no protections for sexual orientation. This is a significant problem considering the high rates of discrimination that LGBT people continue to face in the workplace. Anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have experienced discrimination and harassment on the job. Even worse, a staggering ninety percent of transgender and gender non-conforming employees report have experienced harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job, or had to hide who they are to avoid it.

It’s worth noting that LGBT employees of the federal government itself are afforded significant protections from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, these protections do not extend to LGBT employees of companies that do business with the federal government, even though federal contractors often work alongside and perform the same work as federal employees.

President Obama can change that by issuing an executive order to level the playing field for LGBT employees of federal contractors so that they are evaluated based on their abilities, qualifications, skills, and job performance, and not work-irrelevant characteristics like their sexual orientation or gender identity. If signed, this executive order would cover more than 20 percent of the American civilian workforce — including extending protections to an additional 16 million workers. In doing so, this order would help fill significant gaps in nondiscrimination coverage for LGBT workers, who await the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal in all 50 states to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Protecting workers from employer discrimination through an executive order is not unprecedented. For the past 70 years presidents from both political parties have used executive orders to advance workplace protections. In 1941, for example, President Roosevelt issued an executive order that banned federal contractors from discriminating against workers because of race, creed, color or national origin, serving as an important precursor to the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. President’s Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and others have issued similar executive orders to advance workplace fairness.

In its most current form, Executive Order 11246 prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors, with contracts in excess of $10,000 from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. President Obama can and should swiftly add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list.

For the overwhelming majority of Americans, there is nothing controversial or unpopular about President Obama issuing an executive order for these basic workplace rights. Seventy-three percent of voters support workplace nondiscrimination protections for LGBT workers. Even a majority of Republicans support this commonsense policy. Yet despite the momentous public we’ve seen over the past month in support for LGBT equality, the battle for equal protections in the workplace wages on.

Our guest blogger is Hillary Anderson, intern with the Center for American Progress.

Today, the Family Research Council sent out a fundraising email blast full of scary rhetoric about the supposed consequences of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Though the only purpose of ENDA is to protect LGBT people from being fired solely for their identities, Tony Perkins described the bill as “dangerous” and “totalitarian” because it limits anti-gay Christians’ ability to discriminate:

ENDA–the Employment Non-Discrimination Act–is dangerous. It feeds on freedom, primarily the freedom of religion and speech: not in theory, but on a practical, everyday level. It leaves few freedoms behind.

Yes, the bill has a fair-sounding name, but in fact, ENDA would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior. It will force Christian schools and colleges, Christian-owned businesses, day care centers, and other organizations to employ people who make their sexual behavior an issue as they parade their proclivities into the workplace. [...]

Certainly to you and me, the very idea of ENDA–giving special rights and protections to people based solely on their sexual behavior–is outrageous. But to this pro-homosexual President and the totalitarian homosexual lobby, it’s a reasonable way to advance their cause–and crush the biblical view that stands in their way of fundamentally transforming America. ENDA is massive leap forward in redefining America.

Apparently, in Perkins’s America, simply having a job is a “special right,” and not one that LGBT people deserve. People can be legally fired for their sexual orientation in 29 states and their gender identity in 34, and Perkins wants to keep it that way. Such cruelty and willful discrimination continues to add to the already extensive trove of evidence substantiating FRC’s designation as a hate group.

As always, the tactic of conservatives is to attempt to erase the complete identity of LGBT people, reducing them to people who engage in sinful behavior. Regardless of how FRC distorts reality, LGBT people are raising families and participating in their communities all across this country, and they deserve the most basic protections to their well-being.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), lead signature on the letter.

A coalition of 37 U.S. Senators who support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) have signed a letter calling on President Obama to take action now to protect LGBT people from being fired for their identities. Though ENDA faces Republican obstruction in Congress, Obama could still sign an executive order requiring that federal contractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Hopes were high that he would address either ENDA or an executive order in his State of the Union, but he did not specifically mention either.

In the Senators’ letter, they describe the executive order as “a matter of basic fairness”:

Issuing an Executive Order that includes sexual orientation and gender identity is a critical step that you can take today toward ending discrimination in the workplace. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity would extend equal workplace rights to more than 16 million workers, and would help ensure that they are not forced into the ranks of the unemployed based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity. But doing so would also serve another important purpose, one that is always on our minds as appropriators of American’s taxpayer dollars, namely, making the most efficient use of federal government resources. [...]

Of course, making this important change is also a matter of basic fairness. Unfortunately, there are many examples of why issuing an Executive Order is so critically needed. Despite advances in many American workplaces, rates of discrimination against LGBT people remain high. Research shows that up to 43 percent of LGB people and 90 percent of transgender people report having experienced some form of workplace discrimination.

The Obama administration has claimed that it would prefer a legislation option, but has not explained why it refuses to act on the executive order.

This morning at an event at the Center for American Progress, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) promised that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) “will move this year” in the Senate. ENDA would create national protections that prevent employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but has languished in Congress for decades.

Harkin did not further specify his plans, but as Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, he has the power to ensure it receives at least a committee mark-up and vote. Last year, the HELP committee held a hearing on the bill, which featured the first-ever transgender individual to testify before the Senate. Kylar Broadus spoke of the pain he suffered when colleagues he’d worked beside for years learned that he was trans and suddenly couldn’t remember which pronouns to refer to him by. In 34 states, it’s still legal for employers to fire or refuse to hire someone just for being transgender, and ENDA would help fix that. With bi-partisan support, the bill seems poised to advance — at least out of committee.

There is speculation that President Obama might mention ENDA or a similar executive order that would create protections for employees of federal contractors in tonight’s State of the Union address.

Last year, LGBT groups heavily pressured President Obama to issue an executive order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors from discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Obama had made a campaign pledge to do so in 2008, but the White House announced in April 2012 that it would not be issuing such an order, arguing unconvincingly that lasting comprehensive legislation — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — should be the priority. Everybody from the Washington Post to faith leaders to Jon Stewart criticized the decision, but discussion of the issue largely went quiet after Obama endorsed marriage equality and the Presidential campaign kicked into high gear.

The activist group GetEQUAL has continued to apply pressure, and Sunday evening was again protesting in front of the White House to raise awareness for what they dubbed the “ENDA EO.” According to Sunday’s Washington Post, the White House hasn’t forgotten about the issue and may now be reconsidering issuing the order:

On social policy, Obama is reconsidering whether to issue an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. When he decided not to issue such an order last year, the White House said it would prefer to pass a law applying to gays and lesbians in the workplace.

But if Congress seems unlikely to act on the broader legislation — called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — officials have signaled to people working on the issue outside the administration that the president would likely consider issuing an executive order, which can only affect government contractors.

Because of Republican opposition, Congress was no more likely to pass ENDA in 2012 than it is in 2013, so it’s odd that this argument is any more convincing now than it was then. In fact, when Obama used his executive order power to stop deporting undocumented young people after Congress defeated the DREAM Act, the argument for prioritizing legislation was not present at all. Obama could use his State of the Union address this week to call for the passage of ENDA, which House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “hasn’t thought much” about bringing to a vote, but that endorsement alone wouldn’t protect the gay people in 29 states and transgender people in 34 states who can be fired just for their identities. Though an executive order would only protect the employees of federal contractors, that would still protect a quarter of the American workforce in the meantime.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins was not pleased that President Obama used his inaugural speech Monday to compare the Stonewall riots to Selma and Seneca Falls. On his radio show yesterday, Perkins poorly described Stonewall as “homosexuals… pushing back for special rights,” and went on to claim that gays never have their civil rights violated:

PERKINS: Seneca Falls was a woman’s suffrage movement, giving women the right to vote. Selma, obviously, a push to ensure that African Americans — black American in this country had full voting rights and civil rights. Stonewall, many people may not be aware of, was a move of New York of homosexuals that were pushing back for special rights. To tie all those together, there is not a single person in this country today that is gay or lesbian that are denied the rights to vote, the right to work, or doing anything else.

What they’re seeking, and it’s a little disingenuous ’cause he doesn’t say it, but it’s code what he’s saying here. He’s going to push to give them the right to redefine marriage. They have every right that you and I have today. This President has a very loaded agenda.

Listen to it:

Perkins was right that Stonewall wasn’t about voting, but it was about another fundamental right: the freedom of assembly. Back in the 1960s, the LGBT community was regularly denied service in bars, and when they did find safe places to gather (like the Stonewall Inn), the police would regularly raid those bars and load the gay patrons into paddy wagons. The riots that ensued in June of 1969 were a response to police brutality from a community who simply wanted to enjoy a drink in a space where they didn’t have to hide their identities. There is nothing “special” about such an expectation in a free society.

Just like in the response from the National Organization for Marriage, Perkins claims that gays and lesbians have equality under the law, specifically mentioning “the right to work.” Of course, as noted in the earlier post, gays and lesbians can be fired from their jobs just for being gay and lesbian in 29 states — 34 states for people who are transgender. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill to create national protections for LGBT employees, has floundered in Congress for decades and notably, the Family Research Council opposes it!

It seems that conservatives are attempting to arbitrarily declare equality won on behalf of LGBT people, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. This “already treated equally” argument is designed to reserve marriage as a privilege just for heterosexual people, as well as protect the so-called “religious freedom” to flagrantly discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Perkins, Brian Brown, and the other pundits who have used this line in reaction to the President’s speech demonstrate that they have absolutely no comprehension of the discrimination, harassment, and inequality experienced by LGBT people every day, let alone compassion on their behalf.