Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake Break Their Promise to Arizona Voters

Are we surprised that our ruling class/establishment "Republicans" care little for the values of their constituents? No. Are we surprised that they have broken their campaign promises to their constituents? No.

Back when they were campaigning in 2010 (McCain) and 2012 (Flake), John McCain and Jeff Flake made these promises.

John McCain stated on a Center for Arizona Policy survey that he "Opposed adding sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to the protected classes of race, religion, age, sex, and ancestry in discrimination law."

Jeff Flake stated on the same survey that he "Opposed adding gender identity or gender expression to antidiscrimination law."

See Breaking News: Senators McCain and Flake Break their Promise to Arizona Voters.

Consider that our Republic was designed to promote Equal Justice, not special or social justice. The Republican platform states that we believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Both Senators Flake and McCain recently voted in favor of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act). It sounds so fair, so generous, and so compassionate. Right? Like so many other "feel good" pieces of legislation, this law carries with it unintended consequences. Please see excerpts from Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Threatens Civil Liberties.

All citizens should oppose unjust discrimination, but the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 is not the way to achieve that goal. ENDA threatens fundamental First Amendment rights. It creates new, subjective protected classes that will expose employers to unimaginable liability. Furthermore, ENDA would increase government interference in labor markets in ways that could harm the economy. Yet ENDA’s damage is not only economic: It would further weaken the marriage culture and the freedom of citizens and their associations to affirm their religious or moral convictions, such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary constructs but objective ways of being human. ENDA would treat expressing these beliefs in an employment context as actionable discrimination.

ENDA creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Specifically, it would make it illegal for organizations with 15 or more employees to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

ENDA defines “sexual orientation” as “homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality” but offers no definition of those terms or what principle limits “orientation” to those three. Likewise, ENDA defines “gender identity” as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”In other words, unlike previous versions of the bill, ENDA’s current incarnation now creates special rights for transgendered individuals—males who dress and act as females and females who dress and act as males—and forbids employers from considering the consequences of such behavior at the workplace.

ENDA does not contain a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) exemption. BFOQs, which some other employment laws contain, allow employers to make employment decisions that could otherwise constitute discrimination so long as those decisions are honestly related to job qualifications. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains a BFOQ that allows employers to take sex into account: hiring a female camp counselor at an all-girls sleep-away summer camp, for example, or hiring men or women at jobs that would be particularly dangerous or difficult for members of one or another sex. ENDA has no provision that would protect those jobs where one’s sexual orientation or gender identity is a bona fide occupational qualification that is reasonably connected to the mission of the business and the responsibilities of the job.

One of Senator Jeff Flake’s constituents sent him an email after his vote. Her grasp of America’s First Amendment Rights and Republican principles far exceeds that of Senator Jeff Flake’s. Please read what Ms. Lina Hatch had to say to Senator Flake, her cousin:

"Giving individuals who have chosen alternative gender lifestyles a protected class is unfair discrimination against all other citizens. The Constitution provides provisions to protect ALL people equally. ENDA represents a major threat to liberty because it means that certain lifestyles would be given a special status by the federal government. Is that how you propose to "protect the rights of individuals"?
ENDA would lead to a form of reverse discrimination. Anyone who expresses a view of family or morality that can be interpreted to be a disapproval of homosexual conduct will be subject to retaliation and discrimination (Craig James, Crystal Dixon, Angela McCaskill, etc.). This policy would make a person’s sexuality the first consideration – over experience or performance – in every hiring, firing, and promotion decision.

"ENDA supports homosexual and transgender activists who are trying to force government to create a "tolerance" society where no one anywhere can express any reservations about homosexual conduct. ENDA is a key step toward fulfilling this extreme vision.

"Please tell me, Jeff, how does ENDA protect our first freedom? It absolutely does not! ENDA will force employers to compromise their Faith beliefs because it provides special privileges to workers based on their "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." This places major restrictions on religious freedom in the workplace. This so-called "nondiscrimination" bill actually provides NO protections for people of faith.

"In summary, ENDA threatens the free market, undermines employers’ rights, and violates the free exercise of religion.

"How sad that a few "Republican" senators crossed the aisle to join the Democrat platform. How embarrassing two were from my state of Arizona! I will do all I can to change that!

"Why did you state your opposition to ENDA legislation when asked by Center for Arizona Policy?"

Senator Flake’s feeble answer?

"I voted for ENDA yesterday because I thought it was the right thing to do. I voted for ENDA five years ago in the House for the same reason – one of the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the rights of individuals. I think ENDA is consistent with that responsibility."

Equal Rights, not Special Rights, Senator Flake.

Let”s encourage our Representatives in the House to vote NO to this unnecessary bill, and avoid the frivolous lawsuits.