You can dress a pig in drag, but in the end it’s still a pig. And now you have a pig dressed in drag that’s really tough to get rid of because nobody is brave enough to touch it. I call it ENDA.

Yes, this is ENDA, the pig in drag that’s roaming through congress that sensible people are too afraid to touch despite the fact that deep down it’s still nothing more than a pig. Yet like so many other “nondiscrimination” laws, this pig is protected by political correctness and cultural opinion – even though it’s a bad piece of legislation.

I touched on ENDA before, but this time I’m going to assail it from a different perspective. The misuse and abuse of such legislation.

Much as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to limit employee speech or conduct that  creates a “hostile environment,” ENDA stands to do the same thing in the name of sexual orientation. While this may not sound like a bad thing on the surface, one has to ask if this is really necessary or if it will simply heap more fuel onto the trial lawyers’ evil fire. While I don’t agree with harassment at work, I agree even less with vague and loosely interpreted laws regarding just what a “hostile environment” is, and in today’s litigious society it’s just going to open the floor up to more lawsuits.

But just what is a “hostile environment,” and just who is it that should be protected from hostile behavior? According to Title VII, women, blacks and religious minorities are protected and if you add ENDA in there, you can include homosexuals. So does that mean that others aren’t protected? But before we go there, let’s try to at least define a “hostile environment.”

According to this CEI article on ENDA vs. Free Speech, “a detractor of the New York Post, who dislikes its coverage of gay celebrities and public figures, hopes that the Post’s gay employees will sue the newspaper if ENDA passes, under the theory that its content creates a hostile work environment for gay employees.” Is that a legitimate “hostile environment?” By ENDA it would be. Or what about this one, where “a city human rights commission official suggested that complainant John Dill might have had a valid sexual-orientation harassment claim based on allegations that a co-worker listened to conservative talk radio shows and posted a letter from a Congresswoman skeptical of repealing the military’s ban on gays.” Is this a hostile work environment?

Personally, I worked in a “hostile environment” for a while, where I worked with an individual who hated the military and veterans and every day called me “baby killer” and much worse, often times asking me how I liked being told what to do when it came to killing innocent people. And while I did file a complaint, I was not protected. But why? Oh, because I’m just a plain old white guy. And if ENDA passes, I can add “straight” to that. Thank you “nondiscrimination” laws.

But that’s not even the real point. The point is that “nondiscrimination” laws that vaguely define “hostile environments” also violate the First Amendment in every way – yet due to the fact that we are dealing with “protected” groups it is somehow deemed acceptable. This means that “nondiscrimination” laws tell us where and when free speech can or can’t be used and to whom it applies. A woman calling me a baby killer is considered acceptable by the law, yet if I were to crack a sexual joke that was deemed “offensive” by a woman, I have just created a hostile work environment and opened the door to lawsuits. Or as ENDA is concerned, I could get nailed for referring to somebody as a “homosexual” because (as I was told by a gay individual) it is no longer appropriate to refer to them as “homosexuals” because now the appropriate nomenclature is “GLBTQ” (if anybody knows what Q is, please let me know).

The CEI article brings up a good question too, and one that creates something of a paradox. Would a “fire and brimstone” Christian bookstore be considered a “hostile environment” to a homosexual? By constitutional standards, no, but by ENDA it would be. So where is the line drawn? Do you allow the lawsuit against the book store or do you protect the constitution  and tell the complainant that he’s S.O.L.?

The problems with ENDA are numerous, but the fact that it creates yet another class of “protected” people is its worst offense. Do we really need to continue with this dividing and protecting of the people? Other than lining the wallets of the trial lawyers, what is truly accomplished by passing ENDA? We get to add to the already vague and confusing concept of a “hostile environment” and instill even more fear of discrimination lawsuits in employers. We get to further separate people from one another while breeding anger and contempt in the people who aren’t considered to be “protected.” And for what?

This pig is already on a roll through congress, and if people don’t wisen up and look past the dress and see what this really is, we’re going to be stuck with yet another set of laws that discriminate in the name of “nondiscrimination.” If the constitution and First Amendment rights mean anything any longer, this pig needs to go away once and for all.