Jump to content

Talk:Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlin.stewart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

[edit]

~~The bias in this article is extreme. One example is in the "Arguments Against" section where every group in opposition is introduced by pointing out that the SPLC's opinion is that they are a "hate group". That is really unnecessary, and adds NOTHING to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.30.104 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added references to the current version, references to prior versions, and discussed the relationship to Title VII. I also removed the reference to intersex inclusion, as intersex conditions are usually considered distinct from gender identity, though an intersex person may be transgender. See [1] I also included a note regarding the debate in the LGBT community regarding transgender inclusion. --Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the controversy about whether or not to move forward with an inclusive ENDA. I tried to be fair to both sides, regardless of my pro-transgender position. However, the web references should probably be footnotes, but I don't have time to figure out how to configure the text properly. If someone else could do that, and perhaps add other references, as there are hundreds of websites and blogs on this controversy, that would be great. --Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

[edit]

I particularly like this part "Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Christian book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with basic teachings of their faith"

I am so sorry that a Christian bookseller would be offended by a need to protect homosexuals in the workplace from undue discrimination. What a travesty that such a minority of people have such control in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.84.221 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Arguments against ENDA, it cites the APA and that sexual orientation was a choise, when the link to the APA clearly states that all research says that sexual orientation is not a choise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png may be deleted

[edit]

I have tagged File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. --Chris 00:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update as of June 2009

[edit]

The 2007/2008 bill died at the end of the 110th United States Congress. No ENDA bill has been introduced yet in the 111th United States Congress. The only updating to do is to put the entire article in the past tense. --Dr.enh (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under 2 weeks ago it was introduced in the House by Barney Frank. 98.168.204.179 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Um, New York protects sexual orientation AND gender identity according to all available sources. This should be reflected in the article. Both have been protected since 2001. It was done by executive order. ~Lindsey Lewis

  • Not according to any of the dozens of sources I have used in research for my maps. Would you mind pointing to a specific source, please? I would be happy to be wrong about this.
    --Slyguy (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Slyguy, according to the Human Rights Campaign's most recent map, updated July 1, 2009, NY 'law' only covers sexual orientation. There may be an executive order, however, there is a world of a difference between legislation and executive orders. From my understanding the executive order, like other states, applies only to state employees, since that is the area where a Governor has jurisdiction.Irish Wolfhound (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I'm wondering why the State Law Map has Kentucky colored pink for Transgender and Sexual Orientation protection (by executive order) when the text doesn't reference Kentucky and HRC's most recent map doesn't reference any protection in Kentucky. Has Gov. Steve Beshear issued an order we haven't noticed, or is the map inaccurate? Irish Wolfhound (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) On the same note Alaska's status also seems inaccurate in the map, otherwise everything looks accurate and current. Irish Wolfhound (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee should be colored, as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly ruled in Smith that gender identity is protected under Title VII of 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.101.122 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada and Connecticut have now passed "gender identity" protections making the 14th and 15th states. In Massachusetts, Boston and Cambridge have had such protections for a few years. 24.63.27.215 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Nancy June 4, 2011[reply]

Arguments against ENDA

[edit]

This section is hardly NPOV, it gives the opposition using the wording of those supporting it.

Judith Moldover explained that "The conflict between sexual orientation discrimination and the duty to accommodate religious bias against homosexuals typically arises in three types of situations: refusal to service homosexual clients, refusal to participate in diversity programs and training, and supervisory conduct."

This is hardly NPOV. DavidBailey (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. What are the words of those supporting "it"? You say it as if it is self-evident. I see three examples of repeated objections from conservative groups who want religious bodies to be able to discriminate. Actually, this may not be neutral for the reason of using the snarl word "homosexual" instead of the more neutral "gay and lesbian". —the Homosexualist (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The only argument against ENDA is that some people think sexual orientation is a choice? Ugh. Seriously? This needs revision. Cueball (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no viable argument against ENDA. The only other "choice" is suicide - been there, almost done that. Legislators need to understand that some tomes they must do the right thing rather than the popular thing. Otherwise we'd still have signs reading "Colored restrooms out back." Bigotry is never right. If you want to thump your Bible, read Leviticus 19:33-34 first. 24.63.27.215 (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Nancy, June 4, 2011[reply]

Arguments against ENDA, take two

[edit]

Completely deleted this section for two reasons. (1) "'Sexual preference'" was not mentioned in the cited study once; (2) the author of this section asserted that the finding of the study was that sexual orientation is a choice: this is false. Not once did the study state that sexual oriention is a choice, but it did mention that it is not three times. I deleted this section without discussion because the statement was blatantly false. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really fair that there is only an arguments FOR section and no AGAINST section? While I personally support the bill it comes off a little biased that there is absolutely nothing stated as opposition. There must be some quotable, citable statement by a legislator who voted against explaining why. Even if that person says things that aren't true some argument should still be presented stating their case. Maybe it could be presented in a way that shows it is only their opinion or religious belief, rather than a statement of fact? Svenna (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some arguments can be found at http://www.endahurtskids.com/why-it-matters/. However, all of them are based on the belief that a person who undergoes a sex change is a "seriously mentally disturbed individual". Nevertheless, this is the oppositions argument and I'll add it properly later if no one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan DeGroote (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

[edit]

Hey. In the History section it says that "HRC sets out the timeline of ENDA introductions." but doesn't really link the letters HRC with the Human Rights Campaign. I'm pretty sure that group is what's being referred to by 'HRC' but it's a little confusing. I'm not sure what the standard use of acronyms is on Wikipedia. Could someone with more experience please clarify this? Svenna (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation - Please remove it

[edit]

In the history section, I am accused of being a vandal. All I did was add a neutrality tag to the article based on this talk page. Does wikipedia no longer care about NPOV? Why am I being slandered for for trying to uphold wikipedia's values? --152.131.9.132 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address has instances of vandalism. Consider making an account to avoid misidentification. Hekerui (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Arguments against ENDA section added, plz check

[edit]

I just added a couple arguments against ENDA, but as a person personally in favor of the law I may have left some weasel-words in there. I tried my best to keep refutations of their claims in the "Arguments for" section, however my commentary from the APA section under Transgender protection may need fixing. A section on opposition to the law's effects on church and religious schools hiring procedures also needs to be added, I may do that later. These are probably the most legitimate, but were the last ones that I found. Ivan DeGroote (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New to this editing, had to move this topic to the end after an initial post. Ivan DeGroote (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compatriots? (110th congress section, 4th paragraph)

[edit]

This article makes the claim that transgender people are "compatriots" of gay people. Source #23 leads to an editorial blog. Source #25 leads to Salon.com, hardly neutral. Source #24 doesn't seem to be working at all, at least for me. The paragraph in itself seems like a case for keeping transgender people in the ENDA, in my opinion. 69.141.201.185 (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did the Greek letter Lambda end up in the upper right of this article?

[edit]

How did the Greek symbol Lambda end up in the upper right of this article? I'm only looking for context. Lee Anderson, AF Cadet & EE Student (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda was selected as a symbol by the Gay Activists Alliance of New York in 1970, and declared the international symbol for gay and lesbian rights by the International Gay Rights Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1974. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A more immediate answer: the letter is part of a navigation template. The use in the navigation template was inspired by the events described above. I don't see its relevance, however. Hekerui (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I don't see its relevance." I don't quite understand. You don't see the relevance of the lambda symbol to this WP entry? You don't see the relevance of this navigation template to this WP entry? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of using the lambda in the navigation template. It does not impart additional information and is not recognizable like the rainbow flag. Hekerui (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best discussed at Template talk:LGBT rights. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-federal details

[edit]

This entry is about a piece of federal legislation. It strikes me that the details about similar statutes at the state and local level belong in a separate entry, if only I could name it in a way that's not hopelessly cumbersome. The general topis would be LGBT employment discrimination in the United States. It would cover both the history of such discrimination and legislation banning it. In addition to what we already have in this entry, there's material at LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Employment. Thoughts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to be bold. Done. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments in opposition to ENDA

[edit]

As social conservatives by no means have a monopoly on opposition to the ENDA, I took the liberty of briefly mentioning the libertarian opposition argument as well, complete with a citation. --Adam9389 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what you have added is about a generic political position. This is as close to ENDA as your ref gets: "State and local antidiscrimination laws cover everything from sexual orientation to political ideology to weight to appearance to membership in a motorcycle gang." Can you find a source that at least mentions ENDA as an example of what libertarians oppose? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Vaughn

[edit]

The very last paragraph of the section "Evidence of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity", includes a paraphrase of a statement made by Patrick Vaughn of the American Family Association from an article on their website. The AFA is known to be biased against the LGBT, a fact that is worth mentioning. I don't believe that the paragraph should be included at all because it has no source other than a quote by an extremist individual who is hostile towards the LGBT (a person that has no reason to be considered notable in this argument). Or, at the very least, it should be moved to another section and given some indication that it is the only the partisan opinion of Mr. Vaughn. Vaughn himself does not cite his source for his claims that individuals in the LGBT earn higher-than-average income or that they are a "privileged class" in society. If these are facts, then where is the source for them? I am very interested to hear what you guys think. Very interested. See WP:BIASED JanetWand (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sources

[edit]

Upon reading further, I found the same information Patrick Vaughn/AFA information located down the page under arguments against ENDA. The source for the information is a bad link (CMI's 3rd Annual Gay and Lesbian Consumer Index Community Marketing, Inc. Accessed May 22, 2010). If the sources are not produced, all of this information should be removed per WP:QUESTIONABLE. JanetWand (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (State Employees)

[edit]

"LGB people make up only one half of one percent of state and local employees in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming combined" is a misstatement of what the source says; I am fixing it: one half of one percent of state and local employees in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are LGB. "This suggests that the need for policies to address discrimination may vary markedly from state to state" is an inference not drawn from the data in the source. (A more likely explanation for why there are more LGB employees in NY and CA is that the populations of NY (19,651,127 in 2013) and CA (38,332,521) are much large than those of MT, (1,015,165) ND (723,393), and WY (582,658)). Instead, the source concludes that the numbers explain why there are more documented examples of discrimination in CA and NY/.Dr.enh (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Act of 2015

[edit]

A bill called the Equality Act is said to be introduced in Congress this week.[1] It will cover discrimination in not only the workplace, but in a myriad of other arenas (housing, education, credit, etc.). A few questions: Should we make note of this in the table down below despite the bill being a different title and pursuing other goals? Should we change the title of this article to something like "U.S. legislative efforts to ban anti-LGBT discrimination"? Or is it time to start a new, separate article for this legislation?Drewmike (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/07/21/sweeping-lgbt-rights-bill-be-introduced-week
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act&oldid=1207109928"