LGBTQ activists who say we need the Equality Act to end discrimination refuse to agree to a bill that would protect the conscience rights of religious traditionalists not to be forced to engage in messaging and creative activities that violate their faith. It’s not a big compromise; it’s a win-win. But somehow the activists and their progressive representatives don’t seem to be actually interested in winning (other than winning re-election for themselves and their party by keeping the issue unresolved, election after election).
Dems could have done an Equality Act that merely adds orientation & identity to the usual list of race, sex, etc., and it would have had a decent shot at peeling off Trump & enough Rs.— Andy Craig (@AndrewRCraig) May 18, 2019
The gratituitous nuking of RFRA was to ensure unified GOP opposition. Messaging over policy.
5 Comments for “A Better Way”
posted by JohnInCA on
And Andy Craig remains either a useful idiot or an intentional deceiver.
And again, the RFRA has never been held to exempt folks from non-discrimination laws. The Equality Act is not changing the status quo there.
posted by jimbo on
RFRA has never been held to exempt folks from non-discrimination laws. The Equality Act is not changing the status quo there.
Then why does the Equality Act state, in plain language, that RFRA will not be allowed to be used in defense of actions brought under the Equality Act?
And if RFRA has not been used as a defense in civil rights cases to date (for race, ethnicity, and sex discrimination charges), that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t otherwise be used as a defense by bakers and wedding planners if the Equality Act were passed without a RFRA rollback, since for the first time the Equality Act would federalize and expand public accommodations law to include small service providers.
Either JohninCA is the one who is being disingenuous, or he fails to see that the activist party line makes no sense when you actually hold it up to scrutiny.
posted by JohnInCA on
Codifying precedent. I’ve said this before.
Again, that’s already the status quo. It’s just codifying precedent. As I’ve said before.
… or I’ve already commented on these issues you think you’re raising.
For that matter, I’ve also said that the entire thing is pandering to the base on both sides.
posted by jimbo on
No, JohninCa, you are absolutely wrong on the facts of this matter. Unlike prior federal civil rights law, for the FIRST TIME the Equality Act expands the scope of federal anti-discrimination law to cover small service providers as “public accommodations.” And at the same time it removes RFRA as a defense. These are the facts.
Walter Olson of the Cato Institute (gay, married to a man):
>>[The Equality Act] would 1) massively expand federal liability in areas unrelated to sex, gender, or orientation; 2) turn 1000s of routine customer gripes into federal public-accommodations cases; 3) squeeze conscience exemptions hard. All are good reasons to oppose.<<
UVA law professor Douglas Laycock, who has long supported gay marriage and enacting a federal gay-rights law, says it would “crush” conscientious objectors, and that:
>>“It goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions,” Laycock tells National Review in an email. “It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.”<<
posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on
Jorge; Didn’t you back Rick Santorum. How much credibility should I give to a gay man that wants gay sex to remain illegal?
The problems with the Equality Act, if they are in fact problems, can easily be addressed through a conference committee. Nothing is stopping the Republican majority in the Senate or the White House from pushing for an Equality Act that does not have the problems associated with this particular bill.