ENDA: The Rotten Fruit of the Sixties

During the sixties, catchy phrases such as “it’s forbidden to forbid,” circulated among the protesters that filled universities worldwide. The ideas that circulated in the spring of 1968 are now producing their rotten fruit. It is painfully evident, for example, that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a radical implementation of the idea that it is forbidden to forbid.

This particular phrase, which circulated at France’s Sorbonne University, essentially declares that I will not be told no. In other words, I will live my life without restraints and practice free license regardless of the evil that ensues. This declaration of anarchy is now seconded by today’s radical liberals and useful innocents alike is merely a consequence of the free love agenda of the sixties. ENDA takes sexual liberation from the public square and transfers it to the workplace punishing employers that show any displeasure towards those who chose to engage in the homosexual lifestyles.

The passing of ENDA would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees. The big problem is that it leaves “discrimination” and the concept of “gender identity” entirely ambiguous, self-defined and open to tyrannical enforcement.

It must be stressed that sexual “orientation” and “gender identity” are personal choices, not innate traits of the individual such as anatomical characteristics that objectively define ones sex. Being a behavior, even the advocates of ENDA admit that the determination of ones “identity” is subject to the whim of the individual without considering objective reality, and thus can change from one moment to the next. If ENDA is forced upon the public, it will leave employers in the lurch as to how to behave or treat the ever-morphing LGBT gang.

ENDA defines “gender identity” as the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms of an individual, regardless of the anatomical sex an individual is born with. This bill grants special rights for those under these classifications and forbids employers from considering the consequences of any manifestations of this sexual behavior in the workplace with the threat of discrimination suits hanging like a Damocles sword over their head. Unlike discrimination due to race, over which a person has no control in determining, sexual orientation and gender identity are completely subjective because they are self-defined.

This ambiguous language goes on to state that workplace actions that “adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee or as an applicant for employment” is unclear. This could mean that the mere presence of anything religious in the workplace, including mannerisms, may be construed as offending those practicing homosexual or transgender behavior and may be interpreted by an employee or prospective employee as an act that “adversely” affects that employee’s status.

A law this ambiguous is a trial lawyer’s dream come true and should frighten anyone who possesses a notion of the freedom of religious expression guaranteed by the Constitution. It leaves no possibility for employers or employees to conduct their business and personal lives in accordance with their faith. It turns the workplace, which should be a place centered on economic production, into a battlefield of the Cultural War.

The attempt to enact an abysmal law such as ENDA will not be the last of the rotten fruits of the sixties, but is merely the latest phase of a process that will attempt to oblige everyone to live co-naturally with unnatural behavior. It is truly a religious harassment and even religious discrimination by those who claim they are the victims of discrimination. If ENDA is passed by the House and enforced, it will be major blow against what remains of Christian Civilization.