SECONDNEXUS
percolately
georgetakei
comicsandsMost Read
Second Nexus © 2019
[DIGEST: Salon, NBC, Advocate, Time]
If trends continue, refusing to employ someone, seat someone, serve someone, or even treat someone may soon be acceptable—so long as it’s in the name of religion.
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Proposed legislation by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, called the </span><a href="http://www.dailydot.com/irl/trumps-administration-lgbtq-discrimination/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">First Amendment Defense Act</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (FADA), would prohibit “the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”</span></p><p><div id="action_button_container"></div>
<script async="" type="application/javascript" src="https://embed.actionbutton.co/widget/widget.min.js">
</script></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The breadth of the language, while targeting members of the LGBTQ community, could also extend to single mothers or unwed heterosexual couples—anyone having sexual relations outside the scope of a heterosexual marriage. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together,” said </span><a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/12/22/gops-next-battle-against-gay-rights-proposed-first-amendment-defense-act-will-use-religious-freedom-to-legalize-discrimination/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Jennifer Pizer</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal. “It’s an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period.”</span></p><p><div data-conversation-spotlight=""></div></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image"><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjAzNzE3NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5Nzk4ODc2NX0.j-IXe98N4GCNFw9y8CXJILfd1gZ6S82NBQxERsh_VrQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="41318" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4aa36695454e8c6b4ad279ecf0736e5e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image"><small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Credit: <a href="http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20150329_pence-stop-deceiving-nation-on-sb101" target="_blank">Source</a>.</small></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The bill was </span><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb"><span style="font-weight: 400;">introduced in 2015</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, but resulted in just one House hearing due to concerns that President Obama would veto the bill. With a Republican president, and a Republican-controlled Congress, that seems likely to change. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Hopefully November’s results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year,” said </span><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Conn Carroll</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, Senator Lee’s spokesperson. “We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump’s positive words about the bill.” The bill currently has </span><a href="http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/12/13/gop-reintroduce-religious-liberty-bill-targeting-lgbt-people"><span style="font-weight: 400;">172 cosponsors</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> in the House and 37 in the Senate. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Trump has been positive about FADA, stating that religious freedom is our “most important protection.” “If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths,” the </span><a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics"><span style="font-weight: 400;">president-elect’s website</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> says. It states further that any religious order “will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.”</span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Vice President-elect Mike Pence (who, while governor of Indiana, passed a similar bill) also supports FADA, as do several of Trump’s cabinet picks. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Others within Trump’s inner circle also support the bill. In response to recent questioning by Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, </span><a href="http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/trumps-ag-nominee-sen-jeff-sessions-stands-support-discriminatory-bill/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> indicated his support for the bill. “I supported [FADA] because I believe that we can, and should, protect the rights of all citizens--including LGBT individuals and those with traditional views of marriage. I do not see freedom as a zero-sum game.” </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Press Secretary </span><a href="http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/trumps-ag-nominee-sen-jeff-sessions-stands-support-discriminatory-bill/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Sean Spicer</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> said earlier this week that he did not know whether a 2014 executive order signed in 2014 by President Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors would remain in place. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">FADA would </span><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb"><span style="font-weight: 400;">eliminate federal remedies</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> from those being discriminated against. At the same time, it would allow those doing the discrimination to sue the federal government for interfering in their “right” to discriminate against LGBTQ people. It would also require that the US Attorney General defend the businesses from any discrimination suits.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The bill could not prohibit states or private companies from penalizing discriminatory practices. That means in the 22 states and the District of Columbia that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, individuals being discriminated against would still have recourse in state court. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">However, without affirmative action on the part of states or companies, those in the LGBTQ community who are discriminated against would have little recourse. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: 400;">As Senator Cruz said, “the prospects for protecting religious freedom are brighter now than they have been in a long time.” But as those prospects brighten, the hard-fought rights of the gay community dim. </span></p>
Keep reading...
Show less