Thursday, May 06, 2010

ENDA the line for decency?

The (so-called) Employment Non-Discrimination Act H.R. 3017 (also S. 1584)

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to establish an unlawful employment practice based on actual or perceived gender identity due to the denial of access to shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable, provided that the employer provides reasonable access to adequate facilities that are not inconsistent with the employee’s gender identity as established with the employer at the time of employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition, whichever is later."



Anonymous said...

We have certainly drifted quite a distance from a time of 100 years ago approximately, when it was deemed inappropriate for a lady to even have her ankles exposed in public.

If the Lord tarries, i can easily see a time coming when it will be legal for a person to have any part of their physical being allowed to be shown in public. God help us all.

R. L. Vaughn said...

Amen. May God help us.

I glanced over the ENDA bill, and, as usual, it is full of garbled language that makes it hard to understand. One wonders how many voting on it will understand it, if they actually take the time to read it.

The upshot of the quote I give is this (I think). For example, an employer has separate public showers for men and women. He has a "transgender/transexual" (whatever the right term is) employee working for him. If this male employee thinks of himself as a woman, he must be allowed to shower with the women unless the employer provides an alternative that meets ENDA. That's what I'm thinking is the meaning of this. Anyone see (or know) something different.