Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-26-2002, 03:20 PM

<a href="http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6493" target="_blank">Act to Ban Discrimination Against Homosexuals Gains Momentum in the Senate</a>

Quote:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, passed by a voice vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The act would protect gay and lesbian workers from discrimination in hiring, firing, and salaries or wages. The act would pertain to most business, but the military and religious organizations would be exempt from the law. Already, 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws banning employment discrimination against gays and lesbians.

While the act, sponsored by committee chair Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was approved by the committee, it was not without controversy. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking republican on the committee, opposed the bill, saying that it infringed on states’ rights. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) broke ranks by supporting the bill. According to Collins, "The right to work free from discrimination is fundamentally American. It is an essential element of our nation’s belief that hard work holds the key to success, not for just a privileged few but for every citizen."

I'm sure that exempting the military and religious organizations is one of those necessary compromises to get the bill to even be considered.

Daydreamer · 04-26-2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<a href="http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6493" target="_blank">Act to Ban Discrimination Against Homosexuals Gains Momentum in the Senate</a>
I'm sure that exempting the military and religious organizations is one of those necessary compromises to get the bill to even be considered.

Sad, but true.

Actually, I can understand it on First Ammendment grounds for churches, but I don't really agree with the exemption for the military. All of the arguments I've heard about 'Bunker Brotherhood' etc. have always stuck me as senseless bunk.

Gar · 04-30-2002, 07:42 PM

I actually agree witht he fact that the church doesn't have to let in homosexuals. I mean, they aren't going to stop being bigots just because we tell them too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, I just don't think its practical to push it that much.

Peregrine · 05-01-2002, 07:09 AM

But it also exempts non-profits, small businesses (article didn't say size), and other organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

So if I have a 10 person company, I can discriminate against gays. Or the Catholic Charities which are set up as non-religious in order to get gov't funding can discriminate.

-RRH- · 05-01-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peregrine:
But it also exempts ... small businesses ...

What's the justification behind that exemption?

Toto · 05-01-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RRH:


What's the justification behind that exemption?

All the anti-discrimination laws exempt small businesses - the federal laws were passed under the guise of Congress's power over interstate commerce, and businesses of a minimum size are presumed to impact interstate commerce.

Besides, it is much cleaner when you are dealing with a business that is large enough to have written personnel policies, records, etc.

Veil of Fire · 05-01-2002, 12:13 PM

"small businesses (article didn't say size)"

>14 employees is the point at which many of those federal government regulations actually start applying. All non-discrimination laws (sex, health, age, whatever) and a slew of other things. I think it's set up that way to protect family businesses from having to hire people who aren't family, or something. I don't remember the exact justification.

Gar · 05-01-2002, 12:14 PM

I think you mean intrastate commerce, Toto. I didn't really understand what you said, but I think you mean that the Federal government is only allowed to regulate interstate (between states) and not intrastate (within one state) commerce. Small businesses fall under intrastate commerce and are therefore outside of Federal authority in this case. I think that's what you said, but I thought I should clarify for the Constitutionally challenged =).

Veil of Fire · 05-01-2002, 12:37 PM

Gar: Unfortunately, "interstate commerce" is very loosely defined, to such an extent that the federal government can basically get away with any business regulation at ALL (OSHA, for example).

If "interstate commerce" were really the only kind of business the government had jurisdiction over, there'd be no such thing as a federal "War on Drugs", since nothing in the Consititution or the amendments thereto give the feds the authority to regulate substances.

Toto · 05-01-2002, 01:59 PM

I meant "businesses of a greater than a certain minimum size are presumed to impact interstate commerce." Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and has used that power to legislate on a lot of topics you might not think of as commercial.

From <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/employment_discrimination.html" target="_blank">this legal web page:</a>

Quote:

Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state statutes.

. . .

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies.

When these laws were passed in 1964, there was a lot of controversy over the federal government's power to pass legislation relating to civil rights. There was a lot of talk from southern Senators about "states' rights" (just as there still is.)

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2002, 07:42 PM	#3
Gar Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 347	I actually agree witht he fact that the church doesn't have to let in homosexuals. I mean, they aren't going to stop being bigots just because we tell them too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, I just don't think its practical to push it that much.

05-01-2002, 07:09 AM	#4
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	But it also exempts non-profits, small businesses (article didn't say size), and other organizations such as the Boy Scouts. So if I have a 10 person company, I can discriminate against gays. Or the Catholic Charities which are set up as non-religious in order to get gov't funding can discriminate.

05-01-2002, 12:13 PM	#7
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	"small businesses (article didn't say size)" >14 employees is the point at which many of those federal government regulations actually start applying. All non-discrimination laws (sex, health, age, whatever) and a slew of other things. I think it's set up that way to protect family businesses from having to hire people who aren't family, or something. I don't remember the exact justification.

05-01-2002, 12:14 PM	#8
Gar Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Boston, Mass Posts: 347	I think you mean intrastate commerce, Toto. I didn't really understand what you said, but I think you mean that the Federal government is only allowed to regulate interstate (between states) and not intrastate (within one state) commerce. Small businesses fall under intrastate commerce and are therefore outside of Federal authority in this case. I think that's what you said, but I thought I should clarify for the Constitutionally challenged =).

05-01-2002, 12:37 PM	#9
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Gar: Unfortunately, "interstate commerce" is very loosely defined, to such an extent that the federal government can basically get away with any business regulation at ALL (OSHA, for example). If "interstate commerce" were really the only kind of business the government had jurisdiction over, there'd be no such thing as a federal "War on Drugs", since nothing in the Consititution or the amendments thereto give the feds the authority to regulate substances.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.