Gay-rights advocates woo Flake, McCain

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain could be key in determining the fate of a bill that would ban employment discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender workers.

The Arizona Republicans are among six GOP senators being lobbied heavily by supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill's supporters appear to be close to securing the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. A vote to proceed to debate on the bill is scheduled for tonight, potentially setting up a vote to approve it later in the week.

On Thursday, Arizona volunteers delivered more than 3,200 postcards and letters to McCain's and Flake's Phoenix offices urging the senators to vote for the proposed law. Supporters said they also have made more than 1,100 phone calls to the senators. Their efforts will continue until the vote.

"Our goal is to really show that the support is there for this issue among Senator McCain's and Senator Flake's constituents," said Dan Rafter of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay-rights group.

The bill would bar employers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender identity as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion or salary decisions.

Flake supported a narrower version of the bill in 2007 when he was serving in the House. That bill did not include transgender workers. It passed the House 235-184 in 2007 but died in the Senate.

This time, Flake said he will oppose the legislation.

"Unlike a 2007 version of this bill, which I supported, the Senate bill includes new provisions that will increase the potential for litigation and compliance costs, especially for small businesses," Flake said in a written statement. "For that reason, I oppose the Senate bill."

McCain has not yet decided how to vote, although an aide says he's leaning toward opposing the bill unless it is amended. The aide said McCain worries that the bill could lead to "lawsuit abuse by trial lawyers" and whether it adequately exempts religious schools and charities from having to hire gay employees if doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs.

A September poll by Republican pollster Alan Lundry indicated about 63 percent of Arizonans support the proposed law.

"One thing we've found in conversations is that Arizonans see this as sort of a matter of the golden rule -- treating others as you would want to be treated," Rafter said. "No one would want to lose a job because of who they are."

To tap into that sentiment, the bipartisan Americans for Workplace Opportunity coalition sent three full-time field organizers to Arizona to lead the postcard-writing effort and organize phone banks to lobby Flake and McCain. The field workers have been in the state since August, shortly after the measure was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Arizona is one of seven states where the coalition has focused its efforts.

The challenge for the bill's supporters is that the Republican senators they are hoping to attract may worry about a challenge from the right in a GOP primary if they vote for the bill, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California.

"There are social conservatives in the Republican Party who would oppose just about any gay-rights legislation, so there is a political cost," Pitney said. "On the other hand, non-discrimination laws do not generate as much opposition as same-sex marriage bills. There are conservative Republicans, both in the electorate and among politicians, who don't support gay marriage but do support non-discrimination. They are very different issues."

Pitney said Republicans who oppose the law risk losing the support of younger voters.

"Younger people -- even those who are conservative -- are much more likely to embrace gay rights than older people, particularly on the issue of non-discrimination," he said. "And as societal attitudes continue to change on the issue, Republicans could risk alienating voters in the general election if they oppose this law."

The Senate's 53 Democrats and two independents -- led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- have all come out in favor of the bill.

Two Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- also support the legislation. But two Republicans who voted for it in committee -- Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- have indicated that their support is now uncertain.

That leaves advocates for the law about three votes shy of the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

If it passes the Democrat-led Senate, though, the legislation would face steep odds in the Republican-controlled House.

In addition to Flake and McCain, the Republican senators the Human Rights Campaign and its allies have focused on are: Dean Heller of Nevada, Rob Portman of Ohio, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Opponents of the bill say they also have been in touch with Flake,McCain and other key senators to try to convince them that the proposed law would hurt businesses and infringe on religious liberty.

"Business will be hit with more litigation costs if this bill passes," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for public-policy research at the conservative Family Research Council, which opposes gay rights and abortion rights. "When you add a new protected category to the law, you are giving a license to sue to a whole group of people who didn't have it previously."

But advocates of the bill say there has been no significant increase in litigation in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has adopted a "neutral" position on the legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign cites a 2013 report by the Government Accountability Office that showed "relatively few" employment-discrimination cases in the 21 states that have laws barring employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On average, claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity were about 3 to 4 percent of the total number of employment-discrimination claims, the report said.

The Family Research Council doesn't believe that gays need to be protected from discrimination the way that racial minorities or women do, Sprigg said. "Most employers don't discriminate against employees based on sexual orientation because they have no way of knowing their orientation unless they declare it," he said. "It's an invisible characteristic; it's not like race or gender. For the vast majority of employers, they are not going to consider sexual orientation a relevant factor."

Those that do consider it relevant -- such as churches, Christian bookstores and other groups and businesses with religious affiliations -- should not be forced to hire gays, Sprigg said.

"While there is a religious exemption of sorts in this bill, we are not convinced that any exemption could be written in such a way that protects the rights of those who disapprove of homosexual conduct," he said.

But the bill's authors say they provide a broad exemption for religious organizations.

Any religious entity that is currently exempt from the employment-discrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also be exempt under the proposed law, the bill's supporters say.

"Americans understand that it's time to make sure our LGBT friends and family are treated fairly and have the same opportunities," said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,who is the bill's lead sponsor. "Now it's time for our laws to catch up. People should be judged at work on their ability to do the job, period."

Rafter said supporters of the bill believe a victory in the Senate could lead to action in the House. "The House is a little tougher, but we do see momentum there," he said.

In just the last few days, Rafter said, Republican Reps. Jon Runyan of New Jersey and Chris Gibson of New York joined three other Republican co-sponsors of the House bill.

Sprigg said he has heard that House Democrats may try to force a vote on the bill using a procedural tool called a discharge petition. If they can get 218 signatures -- which would require support from 18 Republicans -- they can bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote.

"If it does come out of the Senate, that will put more pressure on the House," Sprigg said. "We can't be 100 percent sure what's going to happen there."

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Flake crossed line with gun-check 'no' vote

(PNI) Since 1954, eight years before Sen. Jeff Flake was born, I have been a registered and loyal Arizona Republican. His "no" vote Wednesday on the background-check bill pushed me over the edge. I quit.

Is he so in bed with the NRA that he can ignore what 90 percent of this country's citizens, including many gun owners, really want?

Patricia Maisch yelled from the Senate gallery Wednesday, "Shame on you!" Her actions got her removed from the gallery. Flake's no vote got me removed from the Republican Party voting rolls.

Shame on you, Jeff Flake, on both accounts!

--Bill Adler, Scottsdale

Flake got it right in vote

Your editorial about the gun bill was interesting ("Senators take cowardly exit," Opinions, Thursday).

You got it backward. Jeff Flake is the Arizona senator you should be praising, not Sen. John McCain.

--Al Moore, Peoria

Voters' wishes ignored

NRA money bought the "no" vote for any attempt at reasonable change in American gun laws, just as they have bought Congress. Is this the will of the people these politicians supposedly represent? I sure didn't feel represented Wednesday.

--Mary Ann Bashaw,

Phoenix

Our rights are absolute

Regarding "Gun rights not absolute" (Opinions, Tuesday):

It seems to me that the right to free speech, the right to vote and the rights to assemble and freely associate are absolute!

The only rights that the socialist-leaning left have problems with are the freedom of religion (it's not freedom from religion), and the right to bear arms. They continually chip away at the right to express religious beliefs in school and the right of Americans to possess any gun he can afford!

Let me answer the letter writer's haughty and self-righteous questions about the "need" for assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

I need to fulfill my desire to shoot them! They are fun to handle, fun to shoot, and it's rewarding to improve my marksmanship and proficiency in handling such small-caliber rifles.

Also, there are Americans today living in areas where owning an assault rifle with a 15-round magazine still leaves them outgunned by the gangsters who threaten their families and neighborhoods.

Why does anyone "need" a package of 18 eggs, when a dozen should be plenty?

Who decides? You or some wimpy senators -- or Barack Obama? I say the issue was decided over 200 years ago.

--Rod Hartman, Phoenix

Congress lacks courage

Note to Congress: It doesn't take any courage to do nothing.

--D. Richardson, Phoenix

We need a day of prayer

If we have learned anything from the recent bombing in Boston, it is the fact that we are incapable of stopping this worldwide madness by ourselves.

Our armies can't do it; our president can't do it; our legislators can't do it; and we as individuals can't do it. This is a fact that has been proved over and over.

It is time that we humble ourselves and call upon our God, admitting that we are nothing by ourselves. I don't care who you call God. I don't care what church you may go to, or if you even go, but I do care that you call upon your divine one for help. It is our only hope.

I would ask that we petition our president to call for a 24-hour day of prayer during which all churches would be left open for all to enter for prayer.

I am not asking for a national religion to be established, but I am asking for a concerted effort by all God-fearing Americans to come together in an intercessory day of prayer so God will hear our united voices.

I will pray to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; you pray to yours.

--William Duff, Mesa

No trust in 'reform'

If you watch long enough, a TV screen can give you a pretty big picture.

In the past decade, I'm sure that more than a thousand newscasts have shown illegal immigrants running across the desert into the U.S. And probably more than a thousand newscasts have shown presidents, governors, senators, congressmen and homeland-security chiefs posing on the desert assuring us that the border has never been more secure.

The number of illegal immigrants making it into the U.S. through the "most secure border ever" is around 12million, earning our leadership the All-Time Least Truthful Award.

Now, led by the well-named "Gang of Eight," the leaders are selling relaxed immigration laws for all the illegal immigrants they allowed in. The first priority named in their sales pitch is securing the border. And this time, they really mean it.

For obvious reasons, there is little trust in them or what they are selling. If immigration reform is defeated, it will be a well-deserved loss.

--Nolan Laughlin,

Flagstaff

Goldwater lawsuit unfair

The Goldwater Institute claims that Gilbert's Freestone Recreation Center is unfairly competing with "private health clubs" in the city ("Goldwater group wants Gilbert to shut its popular rec center," Republic, Wednesday).

The center has been operating successfully in Gilbert since 2002, but now all of a sudden, a "local gym owner" seems to have a problem with its operation.

Goldwater's lead attorney on the case, Taylor Earl, refuses to disclose this "local gym owner," while simultaneously threatening Gilbert with a very public and very bloody lawsuit if they do not cave to their demands.

If you find issue with a beloved community center, have the courage to address the residents of Gilbert directly, rather than scoot nasty letters under the doors of the Town Council.

Reveal the source of this complaint, because otherwise, I find it safe to assume this "local gym owner" is nothing more than a stand-in for national megagyms that can't stand the thought of fair competition.

--Austen Jarboe,

Cave Creek

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

McCain, Flake leading way

(PNI) Arizona's senators are leading. Arizona will benefit.

As part of the bipartisan group of eight who stood up for immigration reform, Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake began solving a problem that has hurt Arizona for years.

They are highly qualified to guide this effort, with a full history and understanding of the complexities.

Crafting specific legislation that embodies the principles outlined Monday will mean wrestling with the devils of detail. But the framework is there.

That's more than just a start. That's real progress.

McCain pointed out that this multipronged effort is not much different from the comprehensive package he helped craft with the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2005.

The re-emergence of comprehensive immigration reform as a bipartisan goal is long overdue.

A lack of a guest-worker program to meet labor needs is the biggest reason illegal immigration increased after 1986 reforms that included President Ronald Reagan's amnesty program.

The nation needs a guest- worker program that is robust and responsive to market demands without disadvantaging or displacing American workers. This framework reflects that.

A reliable system for employers to check the immigration status of job applicants is also critical. The framework reflects that, too.

The most controversial part of the plan creates "a tough but fair path to citizenship" for millions of men, women and children living in this country without proper immigration documents.

"We cannot continue as a nation with 11 million people living in the shadows," McCain said.

Those who have long opposed comprehensive reform instantly screamed: Amnesty! This is the tired, old battle cry that has long been used to stall progress.

Political realities suggest it has lost its power. During the press conference to announce the framework for reform, McCain pointed to the high stakes. "The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens," he said.

Democrats also feel the push of politics. President Barack Obama, who benefitted greatly from the Latino vote, will offer his immigration proposals today. We hope they demonstrate a desire to foster cooperation and compromise.

Beyond politics, this is about the nation's need for immigration policies worthy of our commitment to human rights and dignity. As McCain reminded his party years ago, undocumented immigrants are God's children, too.

What's more, the nation's security is best served by knowing who is here.

The plan devotes a great deal of emphasis to border security, promising more resources for an effort that already has seen years of extensive expenditures on infrastructure, technology and Border Patrol agents.

We are intrigued by the idea of establishing a commission of border political and community leaders to monitor progress toward securing the border. The voices of those most closely affected should be heard. But this committee should not become an exercise in moving the goal posts or retreating to a security-first model.

Been there. Done that.

It's past time to move beyond the status quo. This bipartisan framework does that.

The support of Arizona's two senators gives comprehensive reform added credibility in Congress and puts Arizona at the forefront of fixing an immigration system that has enormous human, economic, environmental and social costs for our state.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here