TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

House Bill Boosts Gays' Protection In The Workplace

ADVERTISEMENT

Los Angeles Times

Published: November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals.

Although supporters praised the measure as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, opponents said it would result in unnecessary lawsuits.

In the debate, which lasted more than five hours, some members of Congress referred to the historic civil-rights fight against racial prejudice while others appealed to the Democratic majority not to infringe on the rights of Christians who consider homosexuality an affront to God.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who survived beatings during marches for civil rights, said that he had "fought too long and too hard to end discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

Noting that protesters in the 1960s "broke down those signs that said 'white' and 'colored,'" Lewis said that the vote was an opportunity "to bring down more signs."

But Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., argued that, because of the bill, "religious rights will now be trumped by sexual rights." Calling the bill a disaster for religious bookstores, which could be required to hire gay workers, he said the measure invited litigation and set "precedents that we will regret."

Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, businesses with 15 or more employees would be prohibited from discriminating in hiring, firing or promoting individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. The armed forces, private clubs and religious organizations would be exempted.

"See, in America no person should have to worry about the security of their job because of their sexual orientation," Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, said. "Our country bases employment evaluation on hard work and on a job well-done. Making employment decisions on anything else is unacceptable."

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, criticized the bill's language as too vague.

"This ill-conceived vague language is nothing more than a golden ticket for America's trial lawyers," she said. "This loose wording is also an invitation for accusations by disgruntled employees who want to take advantage of a poorly constructed law."

The 235-184 vote came after Democratic leaders, following weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations, opted not to include transgender individuals in the bill for fear that the inclusion of gender identity would cripple the coalition supporting the measure. That decision led to a bitter split among the bill's backers, leaving advocates for transsexuals and transvestites angry.

The bill's future is uncertain. The Senate came within one vote of passing similar legislation in 1996, and sponsors say they have at least 51 votes in the Senate now. But a Republican filibuster threat would require 60 votes.

The administration, in a statement of policy that recommended a veto, warned that the bill could weaken the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman.

Still, backers hailed House passage as a historic first step, a recognition in federal law for the millions of Americans who describe themselves as gay or lesbian.

"This is truly an historic day," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "History teaches us that progress on civil rights is never easy. It is often marked by small and difficult steps. We must take this step today toward the ideal of equality that is both our heritage and our hope."

Opponents argued that the bill would open the door to litigation against Christians who display Bibles or even pull out verses at their work stations, and who might be charged with creating a "hostile environment" for gays.

"The freedom to practice one's religion is one of the most fundamental, inalienable rights bestowed on us," said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "This innocently enough named bill would actually have the effect of rolling back these protections."

Tribune reporter Billy House contributed to this report. Information from The New York Times also was used.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT