Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 4 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

After Senate win, gay groups shift focus to Obama


Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 02:18 a.m. HST, Nov 08, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Moments after the Senate passed a historic measure to outlaw workplace discrimination against gays, activists turned their attention toward President Barack Obama and a long-sought executive order that would have the same effect, though on a much smaller scale.

"We call on President Obama to send a clear message in support of workplace fairness by signing this executive order," said Chad Griffin, president of the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign.

The quick shift underscores the reality that the bill is unlikely to ever reach Obama's desk. While the anti-discrimination measure passed comfortably Thursday in the Democratic-controlled Senate, it may never get a vote in the GOP-led House because of Speaker John Boehner's opposition.

But gay rights groups and the White House appear to have differing views of the opportunities presented by that political landscape.

While activists take Boehner's opposition as a clear sign the president should act on his own to extend workplace protections to gays and transgender people, White House officials see an opportunity to cast Republicans as outside the mainstream on gay rights, an issue where public opinion has rapidly shifted.

"We will use this as an opportunity to ramp up pressure on Republicans to act on the bipartisan legislation that was passed in the Senate," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. "We welcome the opportunity to have a public debate with Republicans on this issue."

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act — known as ENDA — would bar employers with 15 or more workers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for making employment decisions, including hiring, firing, compensation or promotion. Religious institutions and the military would be exempted.

Sixty-four senators, including 10 Republicans, voted Thursday for ENDA, the first major gay rights bill since Congress repealed the ban on gays in the military three years ago. Outside conservative groups have cast the bill as anti-family, while Boehner argues it is certain to create costly, frivolous lawsuits for businesses.

If the president signs an executive order, it would contain the same protections as the Senate bill, but they would apply only to people working for federal contractors. That constitutes about 20 percent of the nation's workforce.

Obama backed an executive order along those lines when he was running for president in 2008 but has deferred to Congress since taking office, disappointing many of his supporters.

"It is imperative for President Obama to lead by example," the gay rights group GetEQUAL said in a statement after the Senate vote.

In recent days, White House officials have not directly ruled out Obama's signing an executive order, but they have tamped down expectations that he would take such action quickly, before knowing for sure how Boehner and House Republicans plan to respond to Senate passage of ENDA. Obama aides also say they remain hopeful that sustained pressure might push Boehner to allow a vote on the measure, even if the majority of Republicans might vote against it.

Boehner did just that earlier this year when he allowed a vote on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which some of his members opposed because it included new protections for gays and lesbians.

Obama's advisers say they're also relying on their experience in 2010, when Congress repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military. The president came under pressure at the time to end the ban through executive actions, but he insisted that an act of Congress would be more sweeping and have an enduring impact.

Current federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race and national origin. But it doesn't stop an employer from firing or refusing to hire workers because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Past presidents have used executive orders applying to federal contractors to extend discrimination protections. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson signed an executive order that barred discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin by federal contractors. Two years later, Johnson added to the order a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex.


Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC

 Print   Email   Comment | View 4 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
serious wrote:
I see opportunities galore for attorneys in discrimination suits--a real money maker. It is bad enough running a company with sexual discrimination but now with gays and transponders??? You can't always control the actions of your employees but "the buck stops here" with the boss. I wonder if the insurance companies will cover this?
on November 8,2013 | 05:29AM
ejkorvette wrote:
Same Sex marriage is an Abomination. It is an Affront to God. Those who support this Sin, are mocking God, and the outcome of this mockery will be eternal and severe Punishment.
on November 8,2013 | 05:50AM
Dimbulb wrote:
The problem with this Bill is that it is much to narrow in definition. Why should there be a law to only protect Homosexuals in their quest for employment? It is true the there is a law or laws against discrimination base on race, religion, sex, etc. but to have a new law directed only to Homosexuals just doesn't make sense. Consider this, what next group of people will want protections? Maybe we should have a law to protect felons or maybe there should be a law to protect people with no education. How about a law to protect the mentally ill? At some point laws need to be uniform rather than directed to an individual group of people.
on November 8,2013 | 06:30AM
Anonymous wrote:
Wow, I thougt EEO laws and the Civil Rights laws already gave everyone equal treatment under those laws. Now gays must have their own law to say we cannot discriminate against them? Wow, they sure need to get noticed. Guess when they were kids they did not get enough attention from their parents or parent, in most cases.
on November 8,2013 | 08:02AM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money

Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout