I have said before that whenever a piece of legislation has an absurdly patriotic label like the USA PATRIOT Act, you can be pretty sure that it contains something toxic that is being slipped in. The same is true when the bill has a name saying that is upholds or defends something that obviously does not need support, like the Defense of Marriage Act.
So my alert system went off when I heard that the Republican National Committee has proposed a resolution that has now been introduced in the House of Representatives called the First Amendment Defense Act. The point of the bill is clear.
Prohibits 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.
The resolution’s wording clearly shows that this bill is an attempt to provide cover for religious individuals and groups to discriminate against the LGBT community and same-sex couples in the light of what they perceive as a threat to them as a result of the Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage. The bill is being pushed by the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation that says in a resolution:
Whereas, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should therefore protect Americans from the action of a narrow 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court who have upheld gay marriage without regard to the democratic rights of the people or the states, and without any religious liberty protections;
…Whereas, Many on the Left exhibit an intensifying hatred and intolerance for gay marriage dissenters; and
Whereas, Religious schools, colleges and universities, and other charities, could lose their First Amendment rights and their right to equal access to government benefits, including 501(c)3 status, student aid, and government contracts; therefore be it
Resolved, The Republican National Committee urges Congress to pass and the President to sign The First Amendment Defense Act to protect the rights of believers to equal treatment by the government of The United States of America.
This looks like a pre-emptive strike against extending anti-discrimination statutes to encompass gender identity and sexual orientation.
At this stage, it does not seem to have a lot of support but it would be wise to keep a sharp eye on it to prevent it being slipped in while attention is focused elsewhere.
See also: “free speech zones”. The republicans may not have invented them, but it was they who initiated and rationalized the use of violence against those who spoke outside them.
Most of what they’ve listed doesn’t seem likely to happen. But it sounds like pretty slippery wording. And the bit about being able to sue for damages because you think you were threatened with this sounds really shady. I think it would have the exact opposite effect it’s purported to have, where anyone who had discriminatory views could speak as they please while any government employee with differing opinions would have to keep quiet or risk spawning lawsuits.
They are literally claiming that the Supreme Court does not know how to adjudicate First Amendment cases properly. The mind boggles.
I have no problem “protecting the right of believers to equal treatment”.
Except this is about unequal treatment. Super-rights for Christians (of the antigay variety) and zero rights for gays.
Like another diarist said, if you have to lie …
shows that this bill is an attempt to provide cover for religious individuals and groups to discriminate against the LGBT community and same-sex couples in the light of what they perceive as a threat to them
In fairness, it might also be covering for other religious-based hate such as racism, slavery, honor killings, genital mutilation, etc.
It sounds as if, if I owned, say, an apartment complex or a hotel, not only could I discriminate against gays if I felt like it, but also against unmarried heterosexual couples, mistresses, people having affairs, etc. It would be interesting to see what would happen in red states if this is pointed out, since those places are believed to be pretty high in infidelity and fornication.
Are there really many people hoping to act this way? I had thought the idea was to look the other way (or be obliquely encouraging) when it’s others’ premarital heterosexual sex, and only take a stance when it’s “those people”.
Also, what does it mean to act “in accordance with” a conviction that someone else is doing something wrong or improper? One might disagree with all sorts of things other people do, but I thought the usual course of action was…not much action at all.
In the opinions of some, to act “in accordance with” a conviction that someone else is doing something wrong or improper is to stone them to death. I don’t want anyone to think the U.S. Constitution protects that form of action.