Mark Souder (R-IN), gave several speeches defending religious freedom and urged his colleagues not to pass a law that would create a legal nightmare pitting homosexuals against business owners and people of faith. (He also has a four-part audio series on his web site about homosexuality and civil rights.)

Rep. Souder noted:

The question is, can you as a Christian express your views and not be persecuted? That, yes, in a sense it is at least a plurality of Americans profess Christianity, a smaller percent conservative Christianity, but we are moving so far as to restrict the rights in the workplace of Christians’ even ability to hold or say anything about their views. People can’t even have Bible studies in some places it has been ruled because that would be offensive to homosexuals in the workplace based on this law in some cities and have been upheld in the court.

Now, moving past the two amendments that were unanimously defeated in committee and then we weren’t allowed to debate as a whole House, we have an amendment that was added in response to another amendment from Pete Hoekstra in committee that would have exempted Christian colleges. It was unanimously defeated by the Democrats in committee. Then suddenly in the Rules Committee we have it added with a religious exemption. The problem with the religious exemption, and here I would like to put into the Record a number of cases that show the problem with this. Loyola University was deprived of a religious exemption because even though it was founded by Jesuits, its charter requires its president to be a Jesuit and more than one-third of their trustees, they were denied because they didn’t meet one of those criteria. A Friends School, a Quaker school, was denied a religious exemption because it had to have multiple proof that everybody there was Quaker and was following every rule. A private religious school was denied for similar type things. A business that wanted to run as a religious world view was clearly denied the religious exemption. An orphanage by the United Methodist Church was denied the ability because it had gone secular. They wanted to come back and be a Methodist church again and they were denied, and these were all court decisions, because they were no longer purely Methodists and they didn’t have a right to go back and be Methodist. This is in addition to the 2,500 Christian bookstores in America. Only 14 percent are run by a church. Eighty-six percent are either for-profit or not primarily religious organizations.

Under this bill, they will be forced to hire homosexuals regardless of the personal views of Christian bookstores. This is going to happen in various independent organizations that are quasi-part of the church. Sometimes the church will operate a for-profit entity, that runs as a for-profit entity, that would not be predominantly for a religious purpose, but the proceeds go to the church, therefore, they will implement their church beliefs in it, even though it is a for-profit entity. None of that is exempted under this.

Rep. Souder’s entire comments – which should be carefully read -- are posted in the Congressional Record, House, Page: H13216, Nov. 7, 2007.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) made the following floor speech against ENDA:

I come before the House today in strong opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 

However well-intended, the bill extends existing employment discrimination provisions of federal law, like those contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

Let me be clear that I am not condoning discrimination against people for any reason whatsoever.  I believe in civility and decency in society.  The problem here is that by extending the reach of federal law to cover sexual orientation, employment discrimination protections, in effect, can wage war on the free exercise of religion in the workplace.  In effect, as it has been said already, this sets up something of a Constitutional conflict between the right to religious freedom in the workplace and another person’s newly created right to sue you for practicing your faith or acknowledging your faith in the workplace.

This is a deeply enshrined tradition in the American experiment, emanating as it does out of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Some examples, under ENDA, would mean employees around the country who possess religious beliefs that are opposed to homosexual behavior would be forced, in effect, to lay down their rights and convictions at the door.  For example, if an employee keeps a Bible in his or her cubicle, if an employee displays a Bible verse on their desk, that employee could be claimed by a homosexual colleague to be creating a hostile work environment because the homosexual employee objects to passages in the Bible relating to homosexuality. 

The employer is in a no-win situation as well.  Either the employer has to ban employees from having a Bible at the workplace for their break time or displaying Bible verses, and thereby face a lawsuit under Title VII for religious discrimination.  Or, the employer has to continue to allow it and face a lawsuit under ENDA by the homosexual employee. 

This sets up a Constitutional conflict headed for the courts about which Congress should not involve itself.  I strongly oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. 

We must stand for the right of every American to practice their faith according to the dictates of their conscience whether it be in the public square or in the workplace.  I oppose the Employment Non Discrimination Act and urge my colleagues to do likewise.”

After the vote, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) issued this statement:

The structure of the bill before us today is eerily similar to legislation we’ve seen from this majority all year: a favorable, purposefully misleading title applied to a bill that’s poorly assembled and oblivious to its own consequences.  

In this case, the so-called ‘Employment Non-Discrimination Act’ creates a legal quagmire for employees who practice, or even acknowledge, their religious beliefs – depending on where they happen to work, and subject to judicial interpretation. In the process, it erodes a basic, fundamental right bestowed upon us by our Creator – and a right guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution.

As a former president of a Baptist college in Missouri, supporters of this bill have been quick to assure me that its most onerous provisions would not apply to that school. But no such exemption is available for Christian bookstore owners, as an example, or any other small business in which people of faith and deep religious conviction are relied upon as an integral part of the workforce.

Thankfully, Republicans secured the votes necessary this afternoon to uphold a presidential veto. It’s my hope now that this Congress can move forward on the real priorities affecting American families. Though a clear boon to trial lawyers, this bill does not meet that standard.

Tell-A-Friend! Support the Work of TVC