|
|
John Carney on Civil Rights |
The Feminist Majority endorses candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In addition to the stronger `endorsement,` the organization also determines `preferred` candidates in races where they do not endorse. Their mission statement:
`Our mission is to empower feminists, who are the majority, and to win equality for women at the decision-making tables of the state, nation, and the world. The Feminist Majority promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, nation of origin, size or disability. The purpose of Feminist Majority is to promote equality for women and men, non-violence, reproductive health, peace, social justice and economic development and to enhance feminist participation in public policy. Feminist Majority supports workers’ collective bargaining, pay equity, and end of sweatshops. We encourage programs directed at the preservation of the environment.`
Congressional Summary:
Opponent`s argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to `homosexual indoctrination` in the nation`s classrooms, critics say.
`The real danger is how this will be interpreted,` said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. `The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That`s a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they`re `haters` but because you`re now trying to balance different rights.`
Proponent`s argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): `Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom.`
Congressional Summary:Eliminates the time limit for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA, which prohibits discrimination on account of sex) proposed to the states in 1972. Declares that such amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states.
OnTheIssues explanation:The ERA was originally passed with a deadline of 1979, then extended to 1982. TK states ratified the ERA before that deadline, TK short of the TK required. Hence the ERA failed. The amendment states: `Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.`
Opponent`s argument against bill:(Editorial in L.A. Times by Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum, April 8, 2007)
The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1923. For nearly 50 years, all subsequent Congresses had the good judgment to leave it buried in committee. In 1971, the women`s liberation movement demanded a gender-neutral society in which men and women would be treated exactly the same, no matter how reasonable it might be to respect differences between them. Our Stop ERA campaign, over the next 10 years,
Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama`s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as `discrimination` on the basis of `sexual orientation and gender identity` in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women`s lockers, showers, and bathrooms.
Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president`s orders are not exempt from them.
ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It`s no different today.
Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.
Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016
