Eye Recommend --- Why Boehner Sees ENDA As Unnecessary

WHY BOEHNER SEES ENDA AS UNNECESSARY, by Steve Benen --
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-boehner-sees-enda-unnecessary

Last week, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-discrimination Act, aimed at protecting members of the LGBT community at their place of employment or while seeking employment, by a bi-partisan vote of 64-32.  This week, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he would not put it up to a House vote because it is "unnecessary."  The man is an idiot and once again makes me wish he were from any other state except my own.

"House Speaker John Boehner's...opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) isn't nearly as surprising as his explanation for his position.

'I am opposed to discrimination of any kind in the workplace or anyplace else, but I think this legislation...is unnecessary and would provide a basis for frivolous lawsuits.  People are already protected in the workplace.'

No, actually they're not...

...Boehner is opposed to 'any kind' of discrimination?  That's certainly a nice sentiment, but in most states, it's legal to discriminate against LGBT Americans in the workplace.  In these states, an employer can hang a sign in the window saying, 'Help Wanted: No Gays Need Apply,' and that's legal.  A boss can learn that an employee is gay and then fire that worker on the spot--for no other reason--and the employee would have no legal recourse.

That's not a matter of opinion, it's just current law.  Boehner can look it up if he's not sure. There are currently federal protections in place to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, national origin, disability, or genetic information, but ENDA intends to extend protections to include sexual orientation and sexual identity.

Boehner can argue for or against those protections, but when the Speaker says 'people are already protected in the workplace,' he either formed an opinion on ENDA without understanding the basics (of the bill) or he doesn't consider LGBT Americans 'people.'...

...If the speaker opposes gay rights, he can make his case.  If he doesn't want to expand civil rights protections in the (work) place, it's up to him to explain why.  If he believes it's more important to prevent the possibility of 'frivolous lawsuits' than to prevent discrimination, I'd welcome his substantive arguments.

But pretending the law isn't the law is simply ridiculous, and raises questions anew about the Speaker's baseline competence."

Boehner makes me embarrassed to live in Ohio.  The only state I can think of that would be worse to call home is Texas.  Or maybe Minnesota--though that state will improve after Ms. Bachmann leaves the House next year.  Which makes it better than Alaska, the state that gave us Sarah Palin.  Really, that Palin woman is like malaria--just when you think you've got her licked...