In Washington last week, the Senate voted on the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” and felt quite self-righteous about it.

After all, who can be in favor of discriminating against people for just about anything these days? But one of the biggest “no-nos” today is discriminating against anyone because of sexual orientation.

The bill, ENDA, aims to correct anything like that. It provides protection and special workplace guarantees for the whole spectrum of “gayness” – gays, lesbians, transgenders and every other category there is. Believe me, there’s a whole list of alternative sexual lifestyles you’ve probably never heard about.

Let me give you an example, if you think the issue is just straight, gay and lesbian.

It isn’t.

In Oakland, Calif., last week, a person was sleeping on a public bus on the way home.

A high-school student got on the bus, saw the person sleeping and, for whatever reason, set fire to the person’s skirt.

There were attempts to get the fire out, but by that time, the victim suffered second- and third-degree burns and faces skin grafts and a long recovery. Thousands of dollars have been donated for a medical fund.

The perpetrator, a high-school student, is under arrest and faces a variety of charges including felony assault and aggravated mayhem.

But why does this fit this narrative? Because the person wearing the skirt is high-school senior Luke Fleischman, the son of Debbie Fleischman.

According to her, Luke, who also goes by the name “Sasha,” considers himself as a nonbinary gender, which essentially means he’s neither male nor female.

She told the Contra Costa Times that her “son considers himself agender. He likes to wear a skirt. It’s his statement. That’s how he feels comfortable dressing.”

Eve Irwin, a friend of “Luke-Sasha,” said “wearing a skirt when you look masculine can get negative attention.”

She also said that when friends aren’t referring to Fleischman by name, they refer to him as “they,” “them” or “it.”

Aside from the horror of the fiery attack on Luke, the description of referring to him as an “it” struck me as terribly sad.

If these are the methods of the so-called “gay community” and their “therapists,” I can understand why there are so many identity and mental health problems. If it starts in high school, what will it be like in later decades?

But how does this fit with the new federal law?

If a masculine male wearing a skirt applies for a job, and the employer does not want that image for his business, can he turn down the applicant?

Under the new law, no – or he’d face lengthy, expensive legal challenges. The same would apply to religious organizations, academic facilities, medical facilities and sports teams – to mention just a few obvious possibilities.

The law, as passed by the Senate, makes it illegal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders in the workplace.

On the face of it, that sounds fair – but …

What happens if the applicant looks and dresses like a male but wears the makeup of a woman?

What if the person’s sexual “orientation” conflicts with the business owners’ religious beliefs? What if the business caters to a specific religious clientele, which conflicts with the sexuality of the applicant?

What if a person shows up at work one day dressed as a woman and another day, dressed as a man? What does that do to other staff or to customers?

Does this mean that restrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms must be gender neutral? It’s already happening in schools in several states.

On Wednesday, an amendment was passed intended to protect ministries, but as the Family Research Council was quoted in WND, it does not expand the “religious exemption” and does nothing to protect faith-based nonprofits and businesses.

Does this law mean that constitutional protections of religious practice are suspended?

The man who is president says he’s in favor of the law.

No surprise there.

There’ll be more of a battle in the House. Speaker John Boehner says it will cost jobs and create frivolous lawsuits.

The Thursday Senate vote, 64-32, included 10 Republicans: Kelly Ayotte, N.H.; Susan Collins, Maine; Jeff Flake, Ariz.; Orrin Hatch, Utah; Dean Heller, Nev.; Mark Kirk, Ill.; John McCain, Ariz.; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Rob Portman, Ohio; and Patrick Toomey, Penn.

Remember those names.        

Those votes reflect that these people think they can change history, culture and religious attitudes while they also trample constitutional freedoms and rights – freedom of religion, freedom of speech and private property rights.

But there’s one, overriding element to this legislation and that’s the re-election of those people.

They may say they’re doing what’s fair for gays; they’re also aiming for the gay vote.

In other words, pander to every group to get their vote.

That works with the black vote, the female vote, the youth vote, the poverty vote, the immigrant vote, even the illegal alien vote and any other niche that wants government largesse and will sell their vote to get it.

The whole situation reflects our corrupted system and the hold that moneyed special interest groups have on politicians who value power above all.

Bring it all down? Yeah, they’re doing a good job.

And what does an employer do with a husky male job applicant who wears a skirt and goes by the name “It”?

Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.