Wouldn't call these love letters

This is Senator Mike Crapo, representing Idaho constituents, I am on of the constituents he represents. I wrote him a letter urging him to vote in favor of ENDA, to add protection for current discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation for jobs, housing, and more. Note that currently, protections are granted based on sex, race and religion. Idaho is still an "at will" state, which means an employer can fire an employee without having to state why or prove employees negligence/incompetence. Because people Like Mike Simpson & Senator Crapo are employers and can exercise their discrimination & bias at any time without any fear of retribution or consequence as they are not breaking any laws. In addition there no protection or resources for an employee that is fired because of discrimination.That means if you live in Idaho and your employer thinks you are gay or finds out your gay and even though your work performance is top notch, your employer feels that it is a sin/wrong and therefore fires you.

I think it is pretty simple, everyone should be protected and not feel at risk to lose their job based upon anything BUT what is connected directly to their job (i.e. their job performance, work ethic). But it seems that the representatives disagree and their reasoning is absurd..as you will see. Here are the highlights of Sen. Crapo and Representative Simpson to me.

(This is a brief description of ENDA) S. 1584 was introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) on August 5, 2009. This bill would expand current prohibitions against workforce discrimination to include an individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. This legislation has been referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, where it awaits further action.

As you know, there is an effort being made to amend current civil rights legislation to expand coverage to include sexual orientation. (I am thinking -yes isn't this a good thing?) Furthermore, an effort is being made to garner support for hate crime legislation that would allow the federal government to become involved in cases that otherwise would be handled at the state level. (OK, so finally Idaho would have to recognize hate crimes for what they are-because they don't have to document them like that now) I have long opposed efforts to expand the federal government's powers to regulate matters currently and rightfully handled by the states. (so basically because their is a possibility that the fed. gov. could be involved with hate crimes...people should be able to be fired "At-will" even if their job performance is okay based on their gender identity or their sexual orientation...wow this reasoning is astounding.)

All Americans should be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. As a basic principle, any person convicted of injuring another individual should be punished as provided by law. This should be applied equally and without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation. This is a guiding principle established in our Constitution. (ok, but here is the thing--being fired based on sexual orientation or gender identity is not protected by law--even though it is causing harm to an individual - it is not seen by the law in Idaho that way...so therefore it doesn't exist)

-OK here is the response from Congressmen Mike Simpson... "...H.R. 3017. This legislation would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation. It provides an exception for religious organizations and the military.

While I believe that it is important for employers to judge employees on the basis of their performance, I am concerned this bill could set a dangerous precedent by defining discrimination distinctions. Our laws ought to protect everyone against discrimination for any reason rather than single out specific groups for protection-thereby risking overlooking other groups that also need protection against discrimination. Because of these concerns, I am unable to vote for ENDA." 

Are you still wondering why should Idaho not be an "at-will" state??



After all this I have warm fuzzies, how about you? And as Senator Crapo says "As a basic principle, any person convicted of injuring another individual should be punished as provided by law." But here is the thing about Idaho, it is an "at-will" state, which an employer can fire an employee "at-will" and does not have to have any justification in doing so. What if a person was encouraged to find another job and encouraged to move when their employer found out they were gay? What if they were afraid of the "heat & reaction" from a community if they employed someone who was openly gay? What if an employer wanted to be supportive but felt there was nothing available to support their employee? But since the above situations are not breaking any laws in Idaho, it is not considered an "injury to a person" ....although I would argue that the person or persons involved would feel injured if not assaulted.