What, exactly, is going to be considered LGBT discrimination?

CHICAGO, Ill. – A press release submitted by Attorney General Lisa Madigan today outlined her call to U.S. House Speaker John Boehner to bring to a vote the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and extend anti-discrimination protections to the millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans across the country.

The press release stated that Madigan and 13 other attorneys general sent a letter this week to Boehner urging him to act following passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate earlier this month.

If enacted, the law would provide important protections against discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and prohibit employers from discriminating against their employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation,” Madigan said.  “As we make strides on marriage equality in Illinois and across the country, we also must put an end to discrimination in the workplace for these millions of Americans. I urge members of the House of Representative to follow the Senate’s lead.”

Attorney General Madigan was a strong supporter of a change to Illinois’ Human Rights Act in 2005 to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. And Madigan has long advocated that the same protections be provided at the federal level. In 2009, she testified before the U. S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee urging lawmakers to follow Illinois’ lead and pass ENDA to extend these important protections and promote tolerance and equality across the country.

Joining Madigan in sending the letter were the attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

~End press release~

Now, we’re asking: What kind of  ”discrimination” would be perpetrated against people of these persuasions? At first glance it would appear that this is specifically addressing people who are already employed, not people who are seeking employment and might be denied it based on their “sexual orientation and gender identity,” which isn’t one of those questions a potential employer is supposed to be asking anyway, just the same as they’re not supposed to be asking what a person’s religious views are, or whether or not they have a car for that matter. Merely firing a person because they’re gay is an issue already addressed numerous times in the courts…and frankly, none of us here have ever known anyone who was fired just because they were gay. Crying ‘discrimination’ is sometimes something that’s hit upon because there’s some justifiable reason for the termination, but the person pulls out whatever card they can to get their job back.

However, a more detailed explanation of the ENDA shows that this legislation is targeted more toward hiring discrimination than it is workplace/already-employed discrimination. And that, unfortunately, descends into the slippery slope of a person PERCEIVING that they were “discriminated against” when it may very well just be that they weren’t right for the job, not because of their orientation, but because of their presentation…because some people of a different orientation make it a point to just LOOK weird, on purpose (and don’t get me wrong…some straight people do, too, but they don’t have a platform from which to cry ‘discrimination’), and that appearance may not be good for some professions where they may be applying for jobs…and then if they make discrimination claims against the prospective employer, and the employer has to go through litigation over it…that raises the costs of goods and services to the rest of us, because somebody, after all, has to mind the shop. Seems like a big catch-22 in there somewhere.

So…what is your opinion of what could be perceived as discrimination under this proposed legislation? We’d truly like to see answers to this…your input will help. Is this really going to help protect LGTB people from employers who target them unfairly? or is this going to put more pressure on employers when they genuinely have problems with employees?