I find myself in rare theoretical agreement with the GOP whacko birds.
Only in theory, though.
Speaker John Boehner says he will not bring ENDA, which just cleared a filibuster to move forward to floor debate in the Senate, to the floor in the House. So that should be the enda that, as it were.
His stated reason is that discrimination based on sexual orientation is covered by current law.
In theory, I think he's right, because the root of such discrimination is a demand for stereotypical conduct based on sex.
Let's face it, nobody, regardless of orientation, can have sex on the job without getting fired. So you are talking about firing a guy for having a boyfriend or a woman for having a girlfriend or for rumors of such. Or for traveling to another state to tie the knot with a same sex roomie. It's not about any conduct you witnessed, but rather what you suppose and what you demand based on the sex or perceived gender identity of your employee.
So, yes, I say it's plain vanilla sex discrimination and ought to be covered by current law.
To my knowledge, the only other judge who ever bit on that theory was Sandra Day O'Connor, who is no longer on the SCOTUS. So the fact of the matter---not the theory---is that people can be fired for being gay in about half the states.
So it's not the ENDA that.
As it were.
