But of course, the constitution does not actually directly address rights related to crossdressing. Or transsexuality. Or gay rights. Which is precisely the point of ENDA: to clarify rights which are protected by the constitution but which are not clearly stated within the document itself.
Exactly. they are not mentioned so they are not rights. The concept of "rights" has been expanded to the point where some people believe they have a "right" to not be offended. Your rights are specified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (thus it's name). If you are referring to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I suppose this could be included in the "pursuit of Happiness" category, unfortunately we are afforded only the pursuit of happiness, not the attainment of it.
What ENDA and similar provisions do is create "protections" or protected classes of people , not rights.

On the one hand, you state that the constitution already allows us to dress as we please, and on the other hand, you say we should just move to another state if we aren’t allowed to dress as we please. So which is it?
I was referring to the original intent of the country's framers. The federal government's power is supposed to be limited resulting in the states being able to be different. Since the Constitution is being ignored the federal government has grown to the point where it no longer makes a difference in which state you live.

You don't tell them which baseball team you support, for example. Supposing you were based in Boston but you were a secret Yankees fan, would that be grounds for dismissal? I doubt it. You don't tell them your favourite colour, or how you like your coffee - why should you? So how is crossdressing different here?
A die hard Boston fan firing a hard core Yankees fan? I bet it's been done. Not stated that way I'm sure but I have no doubt that an employer's personal prejudice has been the only real motivation to terminate someone's employment. You are correct, it doesn't matter how you drink your coffee. if you support one team over another, or if you like to dress en-fem but how does that affect the synergy at work? How does it affect the company and the other employees?

I know this is a long forgotten principal but your rights end when it infringes on someone else's. Yes, you can dress how you want, you have the freedom (or right if you prefer) to make that decision yet you want to take away that very freedom from your employer to decide who they want to work for them?

Again, Nikki's original point was the federal government has no Constitutional power to do this. Has it stopped them before? No. Odds are it won't stop them in the future.

To me, this is the bottom line. If you owned a business, would you want the government to dictate who you could or could not hire or fire? What other parts of your life do you want the government to control?

Would I personally like to know I'm protected so if my employer lets me go for any reason whatsoever all I have to do is cry discrimination and sue? Sounds good to me.
But is it right? I guess that's a personal decision.

-Paula-