November 7, 2007 – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) today gave the following statement after voting against H.R. 3685, the Employment Non Discrimination Act of 2007.

“Religious liberty is the cornerstone of human freedom, and the legislation put forth today would inevitably undermine that right.” Franks stated.  “This bill was deliberately written to create an inherent conflict between current Civil Rights Statutes and this newly invented protected class created by ENDA, which would unavoidably create a hostile work environment for religious employees, while failing to protect the hiring prerogatives of faith-based organizations including some religious schools.  

“The end result of such a regulation would be a tidal wave of new, costly, and unnecessary litigation.  Not only is it unconstitutional, but the provisions in ENDA would also subtly erode the ability of states to protect the most fundamental building block of Western Civilization, the institution of marriage and family.

“As Ranking Member on the Constitution Subcommittee, I will continue to oppose ENDA as well as any other unconstitutional legislation that undermines religious liberty that, other than life itself, is the most sacred of all human rights.”

The Employment Non Discrimination Act, or ENDA, prohibits discrimination on the basis of vague and highly subjective, or “perceived,” characteristics for which employers often would have no objective basis to refute.  It would open the door to massive and costly litigation by lawyers who will exploit this new protected class designation to the fullest extent possible.

Furthermore, several provisions would create a legal contradiction between current statutes in the Civil Rights Act, which would inevitably create a hostile work environment for religious employees.  It would also undermine the right of states to define and protect marriage and serve as a building block for judges to argue that the government has no “rational basis” to continue “discriminating” in the area of marriage.  Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey have already experienced cases where this “rational basis” test was used.