Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apartments
Classifieds
Shopping
WASHINGTON – An employer who ties a job to an applicant’s marital status shouldn’t be in danger of violating an anti-discrimination law, Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, argued Wednesday.
Souder won his point as the House debated and ultimately passed, 235-184, a bill that would protect gay men and lesbians from workplace discrimination.
Souder said even though the anti-discrimination bill was changed to permit employers to condition employment on an applicant’s marital status or legal ability to wed, he opposes it.
He said a law banning job discrimination against gay men and lesbians would run headlong into the right of people to practice their religious beliefs.
Souder said he tries to treat everyone with dignity in his personal and professional relationships, “but many of us just simply don’t approve of the lifestyle” and “this is a start of what’s likely to be increasing effort to have sexual liberties trump religious liberties.”
Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th, agreed, saying that he doesn’t condone discrimination “for any reason,” but the anti-discrimination law would allow gay people to claim that a hostile environment was created if a colleague had a Bible in view.
“By extending the reach of federal law to cover sexual orientation,” Pence said, “employment discrimination protections, in effect, can wage war on the free exercise of religion in the workplace.”
Without his amendment, Souder said, group homes that may have been founded by a church but are no longer overtly religious “wouldn’t be allowed to have a husband and wife as house parents,” adding that Christian bookstores and some church camps wouldn’t be able to hire only heterosexuals.
The bill would make it unlawful to refuse to hire or fire a person based on “actual or perceived sexual orientation” and defines sexual orientation as “homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.”
It would apply to employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, training programs or associations. It would not apply to religious organizations, including schools or universities that are controlled or owned by a religious organization, or the military.
A person who claims discrimination under the provisions would have to prove that the discrimination was intentional.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, but there is no federal law. Indiana’s anti-discrimination law does not cover gay men and lesbians.
While the bill was being written, Souder tried to strip the word “perceived” from the definition. He said that in order to comply with the anti-discrimination law, businesses would have to create “a code of things that are perceived to be homosexual.”
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., called the argument “made-up…. What they are saying is ‘we don’t want to protect working men and women.’ ”
The committee that wrote the bill disagreed with Souder, however. The committee also rejected Souder’s attempt to allow employees to opt out of diversity training or an anti-discrimination program if they said the material would violate their religious beliefs.
sylviasmith@jg.net
