(Spl)ENDA Passes U.S. House Committee 27-21

Bloggernista is reporting that the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee reported out H.R. 3685 to the House floor by a vote of 27-21. Some wags are calling this controversial bill "Split-ENDA" or SPLENDA, because it is a purported LGBT employment non-discrimination bill which was stripped of transgender protections in a much debated and controversial strategic move by openly gay U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) a few weeks ago. This lead to a coalition of 300-plus groups called United ENDA to call for opposition to H.R. 3685 in favor of the original ENDA, H.R. 2015, which included protecions for transgender individuals and prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of gender idenity or expression.

HRC Backstory has the details of the four obnoxious Republican amendments that were defeated.

Souder Amendment #1:

This Amendment would have stripped H.R. 3685’s protections against discrimination based on “perceived sexual orientation.” Adoption of this amendment would have left unprotected people who are discriminated against because their employers thought them to be gay, whether or not this was in fact the case. The protection of an individual based on his or her perceived membership in a particular category is common in state civil rights laws protecting gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, as well federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (protecting individuals “regarded as” disabled).

Souder Amendment #2:

This Amendment would have removed a provision of H.R. 3685 that prevents employers from using being married, or being able to get married, as a proxy for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Conditioning a job on marriage would per se discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation in the 49 states where same-sex couples do not have equal access to marriage. As Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ) noted in today’s committee markup, this amendment would give employers a “road map” to continue to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Souder Amendment #3:

This Amendment would have added a provision to H.R. 3685 that would explicitly protect employees from adverse treatment by their employers if, because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, they refused to consent to a company’s anti-discrimination policy or refused to participate in a diversity training program. Essentially, this amendment would ensure that any employee who expressed a religious objection to homosexuality could “opt out” of agreeing to an anti-discrimination policy or attending diversity training. However, federal law, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, already prevents an employer from discriminating against someone based on their religious beliefs.

Hoekstra Amendment:

This Amendment would have altered the already broad religious exemption in H.R. 3685 to provide protections for any religious school which “maintains a faith-based mission”. The religious exemption in H.R. 3685, following the model of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, already exempts all religious educational institutions “controlled, managed, owned or supported” by a religion or religious entity or if the institution’s curriculum is “directed toward propagation of a particular religion.” This language has provided broad protections for religious organizations, including religious schools, for nearly forty years. This amendment would have broadened the exemption even further, with ambiguous, untested language regarding a “faith-based mission.”

Interestingly, openly lesbian U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) announced Wednesday that she would offer an amendment to H.R. 3685 to restore transgender protections to the bill on the House floor. I presume this was a collegial move by Baldwin to not offer her amendment in committee. Frank and House Speaker Pelosi have claimed that a trans-inclusive ENDA does not have enough support in the Democratic caucus to pass the U.S. House and that she will only bring H.R. 2015 to a vote when she is assured it will pass. Regardless, it is unlikely that either version of the bill will become law since the Republican minority could filibuster the bill in the United States Senate, or if by some miracle it does pass the Congress, President Bush will most likely veto it.