The Employment Non-Discrimination Act 2013 for LGBTQ Essay Example

et al., 2014). Consequently, the LGBT community applied pressure through various methods, including street protests supported by select policymakers and unions who advocated for an end to discriminatory practices (Badget et al., 2013).

The Employment Non-Discriminative Act 2013 (ENDA)

This act was initially introduced by Rep. Gerry Studds on June 23, 1994 during the 1990s.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which initially failed in 1994 and the following year, was reintroduced by Senator Jeff Merkley in 2013 with support from the Senate. Key sectors such as Health, Education, Labor, Home, and Pensions were included as committee members (congress.gov, 2016). This time around, the act passed after a total of four roll call votes. The first vote occurred on April 11th, 2013, followed by three more votes on July 11th. On July 11th, 2013, the Senate approved the act with a vote count of 64-32. The act consists of fifteen sections and prohibits employment discrimination based on an individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity for employers,
labor organizations,
employment agencies,
joint labor-management committees,
and any sector within the labor and employment industry.

Employers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, including actions such as refusing to hire, firing, or treating them unfairly in terms of compensation or privileges. It is also illegal to segregate or classify employees in a way that negatively affects their employment status.

The ENDA Act's Impact on the LGBTQ Community and Their Families

The enactment of the first bill has resulted in increased confidence among the LGBTQ community, leading more individuals to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation or gender identity. Research indicates that people are more likely to come out when they

know there are legal protections (Badget et al, 2013). Additionally, there has been a noticeable rise in companies adopting policies that support and include the LGBT community.

A study conducted by the William Institute (Badget et al, 2013) discovered that around 72% of Fortune 500 companies have integrated measures to combat LGBT discrimination in their company policies. The main reason for this adoption is believed to be the positive impact it has on business. Research indicates that these policies, designed to support LGBT communities, bring various advantages such as increased job satisfaction, improved health status, enhanced teamwork and relationships among employees, and a stronger commitment to their jobs (Badget et al, 2013). Furthermore, these policies also help reduce instances of discrimination faced by LGBT individuals. However, due to the absence of federal laws regarding this matter, certain organizations remain cautious and uncertain.

Despite advancements in safeguarding the LGBTQ+ community, Whitefield and other scholars contend that federal laws like ENDA remain crucial in averting sexual orientation and gender bias, as well as guaranteeing equitable treatment of workers (Pizer et al., 2012). Nevertheless, doubts have arisen regarding the efficacy of such legislation due to the impact of religious and cultural convictions. Research has uncovered a more intricate nature of this matter than previously assumed, with certain studies demonstrating favorable outcomes while others indicating no noteworthy influence on business results or employee relations.

According to Badget et al (2013), there are businesses that prioritize policies over an individual's identity, potentially resulting in discrimination. It is crucial to recognize that even within the LGBTQ community, racial discrimination can occur. Specifically, white and black LGBTQ individuals may have contrasting experiences, with white individuals

often facing more favorable treatment. In corporate environments, white LGBTQ individuals generally enjoy higher salaries and greater opportunities for career advancement compared to their black LGBTQ counterparts.

The presence of transphobia within the LGBT community is to blame for discrimination against transgender individuals, especially those who identify as female. These individuals face difficulties in adhering to societal expectations for heterosexual females, resulting in continuous gender-based discrimination (Whitefield et al., 2014).

Main Idea

In order to effectively combat discrimination, it is crucial to adopt a proactive stance towards all types of prejudice.

Ryan Anderson argues that the ENDA act puts at risk the rights protected by the first amendment. While this legislation aims to offer protection to a specific group, it mandates employers to modify their policies, operations, and beliefs accordingly. Furthermore, governmental intervention in the labor market through this bill could have negative economic consequences. Additionally, it has the potential to undermine the sanctity of marriage as defined in religious texts between a man and a woman (Anderson, 2013). Moreover, it limits private employers' freedom to run their businesses based on their own preferences, thus violating their human rights.

In agreement with Anderson, I believe that the freedom and rights of society as a whole should not be compromised by an evolving minority group. While individuals have the right to express themselves, they should not impose their will and beliefs on others. Each person deserves the freedom to pursue their own activities without interference.

Conclusion

The topic of LGBT is extensive and sensitive. It is crucial to find a balance so that one group does not infringe upon another's way of life. The ENDA act represents a positive step forward in advocating

for the rights of the LGBT community.

The text highlights the importance of extensive reviews and revisions to protect employers from legal consequences when making decisions. It emphasizes the need to respect individuals' diverse religious and ethical beliefs instead of enforcing modern support standards. The challenge arises from an increasing number of people identifying as gay or transgender, which necessitates a compassionate approach to uphold their human rights.

References

1. Anderson, R. (2013). ENDA Threatens Fundamental Civil Liberties. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/enda-threatens- fundamental-civil-liberties
2. Badget et al.., M. (2013). The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Business- Impact-LGBT-Policies-Full-Report-May-2013.pdf congress.gov,.

(2016).

The Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services (2nd ed.), published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, can be found at the following URL: http://www.portofolio.edu/discrimination.pdf.