Two-hundred-eighteen votes. That’s how close, and yet how far, LGBT individuals are from having the same protections as the rest of the U.S. workforce.
Last week, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which prevents employers from firing or failing to hire a person based on sexual orientation or gender identity. By voting in its favor, 54 Democrats and 10 Republicans recognized the bill was a step forward in the effort to evaluate workers based not on their inner or outer characteristics, but on what matters the most: their merits and skills.
Of course, not everyone sees ENDA as an opportunity for positive transformation. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives fervently opposes the measure, with Speaker John Boehner going as far as to say the bill is an opportunity for “frivolous litigation,” whatever that might mean.
A chorus of social conservatives echo his remarks. Ryan T. Anderson, fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, [argues](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362682/enda-agenda-ryan-t-anderson) the measure will discourage job creation and create “special privileges” for a group of people, who, he says, are not even subject to discrimination.
This, however, could not be further from the truth. First, [according to a study by the UCLA School of Law](http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Sears-Mallory-Discrimination-July-20111.pdf), 38 percent of openly gay workers and an alarming 78 percent of transgender workers faced some type of workplace discrimination. This bill is not a bridge to nowhere. It is an effort to tackle a problem much too real for many employees.
Second, the Senate-sanctioned bill explicitly states none of the provisions should be understood as granting “preferential treatment” or establishing employment quotas. ENDA does not _require_ businesses to hire LGBT individuals; it simply makes it legally clear that the determinant factor for hiring or firing someone _cannot_ be the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Working in a safe environment and being able to obtain a job is not a privilege. It is a right Congress should guarantee to all workers.
Anderson’s arguments seem to have little to do with substantive moral or policy objections, and more with a deep unfamiliarity with the language of the bill or the reality of many Americans for whom discrimination is routine. It is not surprising that he is unsympathetic to LGBT individuals when he thinks granting them equal rights is some sort of zero-sum game that takes away his civil liberties and potential to conduct business.
Anderson also conveniently ignores the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity have no relation to workplace performance. There is no market-based justification for businesses to dismiss otherwise qualified individuals who could contribute to creating innovative goods and services and maximizing profits — aside from, of course, personal objection to others’ sexual orientations and gender identities.
Sadly, Anderson is not the only one speaking against ENDA. Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., the only Republican who spoke against the bill, [argues ENDA infringes on religious freedoms](http://www.coats.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/coats-stands-for-religious-liberty-says-enda-doesnt-protect-all-first-amendment-rights) by forcing employers “to hire individuals with views contrary to their faith.” That, as if it weren’t evident, means LGBT individuals.
As stated before, ENDA does not “force” or “require” employers to hire LGBT individuals. But most importantly, not all activities performed at religious-affiliated institutions are strictly related to a religious purpose, which Coats recognized in his speech on the Senate floor.
A Catholic school, for example, does not _need_ a Catholic, heterosexual math teacher to impart an effective education in that field. If such activities require no specific religious affiliation, they should not be subject to religious standards of what constitutes “acceptable conduct,” since what ultimately matters is the person’s ability and knowledge, not the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Furthermore, religious freedom and the right not to be discriminated based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin are both protected by law; the former under the First Amendment and the latter under the Civil Rights Act. All ENDA does is expand these protections to LGBT individuals in response to increased prominence of workplace discrimination, and as every first-time safeguard, it is likely to cause disagreements from all those who — with or without justification — cherish the status quo.
Granted, the protections mentioned above can often conflict with each other. Nonetheless, it is not up to religious groups to decide that their rights supersede those of LGBT individuals; it is up to the courts. In the meantime, however, Congress should continue to produce policy, such as ENDA, that allows for the advancement of individuals that society has chosen to marginalize and portray as vulnerable.
At a time when a majority Americans hold positive views about gay and transgender individuals — [Gallup reports 53 percent of Americans now believe same-sex marriages should be valid, versus 27 percent in 1996, for example](http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/sex-marriage-support-solidifies-above.aspx) — social conservatives should re-evaluate their views and adapt them to the needs of current American workers.
Maybe then, they will understand being inclusive and affording everyone equal rights is not destroying our social structure; it’s pushing it in the direction of progress.
