Thursday, November 07, 2013

Coats Argues That Protecting Gays From Employment Discrimination Infringes On Employers' Religious Freedom

The U.S. Senate today passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA") by a vote of 64-32. It would expand federal civil rights laws to protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Indianapolis and a number of other Indiana cities have had similar laws on the books for a number of years despite the dire warnings of harm to employers opponents of the law predicted would occur at the time of their passage. All but 10 Republican senators voted against ENDA, including Indiana's Sen. Dan Coats (R), who led the opposition. Sen. Joe Donnelly (D), who has a gay son, voted with all of his Democratic colleagues in supporting it. House Speaker John Boehner (R) announced that he won't allow a vote to be taken on ENDA in the House.

According to Coats, protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation infringes on the right of employers to discriminate against them based on their religious beliefs. It's the kind of logic that leaves you scratching your head and cognizant of why so many younger Americans, who were once attracted to the Republican Party under President Ronald Reagan, are now turning away from it in large numbers. I would like to ask Coats why he thinks it's okay to spend trillions of our tax dollars and sacrifice the lives of thousands of American soldiers to fight useless wars in Muslim countries that outlaw the right of the people of other faiths to exercise their religious beliefs. Our soldiers can't even practice their faith during tours of duty in these countries; their religious freedom must be sacrificed to avoid offending the "host" nations we are told welcome our military assistance. I think Coats cares more about getting campaign contributions from the military/industrial complex than preserving religious freedom. He should care more about how Republicans are going to win future elections without the support of a growing number of Americans who could care less about a person's sexual orientation or their choice of whom to marry.


Anonymous said...

"leaves you scratching your head and cognizant of why so many younger Americans, who were once attracted to the Republican Party under President Ronald Reagan, are now turning away from it in large numbers."

Huh? When I was a kid, I never had anyone gay in the same school. Gay was used as an insult. Anyone gay would have been beaten up.

Since when did young kids, forget party, know any gays or want to do a thing to protect them?

How did kids go, in a rather short period of time, from thinking gay was inferior and an insult to thinking they're cool, equal and the basis of choosing a political party?

No parent is ever happy to find out the kid is gay.

If the parents are doing their job, and if the kids are kept out of public schools, being gay will remain something that unfortunately happens on rare occasion, instead of a desirable and suicidal destination.

I wonder whether the elite is pushing homosexuality as a form of population control?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunate, but hardly surprising. My grandfather was a successful Indiana businessman who was staunchly conservative and a dedicated and serious Presbyterian. Though he wasn't advocating their way of life, as early as the 1960's he gladly employed gays and lesbians at his office. Why? A) he was very well educated (despite coming from extremely humble beginnings) and B), one could argue that he was smart enough to understand and value their hard work -which is the basis of how any wise business person, and more importantly a Christian, should evaluate any employee -on the nature of their work. When will Indiana republicans/Christians catch up to modern times, acquire civility, and learn that private lives are PRIVATE? Coats action here is almost unspeakably ignorant -and it shows you why career politicians fundamentally don't understand pragmatic business practices and should never be given control over business matters. Hoosier republicans are an embarrassment in their dealings with LGBT matters, and they shoot themselves in the foot in terms of attracting genuine start-ups instead of Angie the Hick and her beehive hairdo bullshit "tech company". When petty matters like this arise, it sometimes seems thst there is too much Appalachia in Indiana for the state to be redeemable. Coats is the type of Indiana Republican politician that wants to keep voters here hateful and dumb. They fear compassion towards gays because they know that that kind of compassion requires questioning and even doubting authority to the extent that you might *GASP* become an independent thinker. Independent critical thinking is absolutely poison to the Indiana RINO establishment that thrives on blind, (self-interested)loyalty, and they will punish/discourage it at all costs. Coats knows this is a losing battle but his intention is to lay the groundwork for a "well I tried" statement to appease the ignorant. Shame on you Coats.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:24

You may have proven Gary's point by your response. I'm willing to guess that you are over 55. The truth is that the would-be inheritors of the republican party have fewer and fewer reasons to want in, and the establishment doesn't care about those long term prospects so long as they are enriched by business as usual in the short term and get to enrich themselves out of sight of nosy newcomers. You can't force ignorant Hoosiers to be forward thinking -nothing about the old Hoosier culture encourage it, as forward thinking is considered demonic/democratic.

The bottom line Anon 11:24 is that you probably had several gay and lesbian classmates, and you probably have benefited from the services of countless gay and lesbian professionals in one capacity or another.


I've posted this before, and I'll post it again: the real bedfellows republican voters should be concerned with are the political ones! Pick on a constituency that has the same level of sway, you cowards.

Ellen said...

Exactly, Anon 1:42.

Aside from the fact that corporations can't have religious beliefs, the GOP has just too much curiosity about peoples' private lives.

Unknown said...

I always thought only ignorant people hid behind the name "Annonymous". Guess these comments prove it. The ignorant have been very busy the past three generations denigrating decency and culture. What a sad path this country is on if these are the people who never learn the difference between right and wrong.