About 172 million Americans are subject to discrimination, said Greg Miller, Education and Labor Committee Chairman, in a speech to Congress on Sept. 23. This is the total population gathered from the 29 states where employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and 38 states where employment discrimination based on gender identity is a legal procedure.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, has been a long-lasting issue in the United States. It was first introduced in 1994, sponsored by the late Ted Kennedy, and has since been picked up by the openly gay Barney Frank, and this month it moves through Congress to possibly be signed into law.

While more than one-fifth of states have opted to protect gender identity — including Iowa — and nearly half of the nation protects sexual orientation — Iowa again — ENDA operates on a federal level, making the law nationwide.

We on the Daily Editorial Board support ENDA not only for its support of the proposition that all men are created equal, but also because, quite frankly, it’s about time.

Let’s take a quick look at some of the categories that have been protected thus far, thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Race

Color

National origin

Sex

Seems pretty simple, right? No one in his or her right mind would oppose any of these provisions today. They exist to create fairness of opportunity, which is exactly what ENDA does.

So why is this proposed law taking so long?

Most criticism of ENDA comes from religious conservatives, as many religions have tenants that directly oppose homosexuality and “alternative expressions” of gender identity. One of the largest organizations actively calling for its members to fight against ENDA is Focus on the Family, a Christian parachurch organization founded in 1977 by James Dobson.

In criticizing ENDA, Focus on the Family repeatedly refers to ENDA as “promoting sexual deviance,” “treating Christians as second-class citizens,” and “creating special rights for a choice.”

This isn’t an attack aimed at Focus on the Family or Christianity. The organization simply happens to be particularly influential and represents many of the arguments against ENDA.

Firstly, while many do not see active homosexuality as a morally acceptable way to live, this isn’t grounds for swaying civil law. Civil law aims to benefit the population as best it can, guided by articles like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And, as the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

In effect, this means Congress can’t favor religion when deciding civil law. So, how moral one finds an action cannot determine its civil legality.

The second half of that quote is as equally important. Congress cannot impose a law that constricts or limits the free exercise of religion, which is what many suggest ENDA will do.

But ENDA provides exemptions for religious organizations, meaning that Focus on the Family and the like will not be required to hire an applicant that, as they put it, “actively goes against the very goals of the organization.”

As for public business owners of the religious persuasion, the same principle of the First Amendment applies. You don’t have to necessarily like women, African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, etc… but that doesn’t mean you have a right to refuse them employment. And so it would go with ENDA. No one’s going to force bosses and their employees to get along and like one another; it’s just a matter of ensuring personal objections don’t become company policy. Because personal objections are just that: personal.

Another often overlooked point is that this goes both ways. A gay boss can’t choose to fire someone purely because of one’s heterosexuality, even if that boss is vehemently opposed to heterosexuals.

The last of the popular criticisms on our list is the “special rights” argument. The argument that ENDA creates unnecessary government regulation in an area where none is needed. That it supports a subjective lifestyle that is chosen.

But let’s go back to our list of protections provided by the Civil Rights Act. There’s one missing. Know what it is? Religion.

While pundits trade arguments back and forth about sexuality as an innate vs. chosen characteristic, few would argue about the nature of religion as being chosen. “Special rights?” Sounds to us like ENDA would be providing the same rights.

And so, we support ENDA. There will, of course, always be the outliers: statistical oddballs who seek to circumvent the law and manipulate it, and these can come from both sides of the argument surrounding ENDA. But in the end, this is about America strengthening its resolve to bring the promise of opportunity to all.