Posts
Over the past week a very vocal, but small minority have attacked the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal, and hundreds of other organizations (and their donors) for pointing out the dangers of embracing an ENDA that doesn't include protection for gender expression (e.g. how feminine or masculine a demeanor an employer deems appropriate for you). I'm not going to discuss the personalities involved. Others are doing that better than I can. I will say that a) a person's past usually is held as relevant to the discussion at hand, and b) it's as ok to point out bigotry during an argument as it it to call out racism or homophobia.
But, more important than personalities are facts. Pam points to two great pieces that debunk the talking points of those wanting to push an ENDA that only covers sexual orientation. The first is a great statement from the ACLU. It puts a human face on why a full ENDA is important.
The second piece is a stunning post that debunks, point by point, a critique that some are citing as proof that Lambda Legal is wrong on their ENDA position. It's written by someone who follows workplace discrimination law for a living. It's a breath of fresh air and worth a read.
I've said before that I'm not interested in gaining a civil right if the cost is keeping that right from someone else. I'll add that I'm not opposed to incremental advancement, but a stripped down ENDA isn't just incremental advancement. It's incremental advancement at the cost of denying many LGBT's protection in the workplace.
(Also while I'm on this, I'm still waiting to read anything cogently explaining why pushing a discriminatory ENDA to veto accomplishes more than rallying LGBT's to work toward passing a full ENDA when a more friendly executive branch comes to pass.)
But, more important than personalities are facts. Pam points to two great pieces that debunk the talking points of those wanting to push an ENDA that only covers sexual orientation. The first is a great statement from the ACLU. It puts a human face on why a full ENDA is important.
The second piece is a stunning post that debunks, point by point, a critique that some are citing as proof that Lambda Legal is wrong on their ENDA position. It's written by someone who follows workplace discrimination law for a living. It's a breath of fresh air and worth a read.
I've said before that I'm not interested in gaining a civil right if the cost is keeping that right from someone else. I'll add that I'm not opposed to incremental advancement, but a stripped down ENDA isn't just incremental advancement. It's incremental advancement at the cost of denying many LGBT's protection in the workplace.
(Also while I'm on this, I'm still waiting to read anything cogently explaining why pushing a discriminatory ENDA to veto accomplishes more than rallying LGBT's to work toward passing a full ENDA when a more friendly executive branch comes to pass.)
Add to StumbleUpon
|