Because the original thread on the Fairness for All Act was getting too long, I’m continuing it here.
Plus an observation: Ever since the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was introduced, whenever it looked like a version of ENDA had a chance at passing, the LGB (later LGBTQ) political lobbies would move the goalposts so that it would not have enough support—for example, adding gender identity in 2007 (which was too much even for a Congress with supermajority Democratic control during the first two years of the Obama administration, when no action was taken on ENDA), and now by replacing ENDA with the over-reaching Equality Act, which would, among other things, roll back religious conscience protections under the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Bill Clinton signed.
A cynic might say that the Human Rights Campaign’s worst nightmare would be an anti-discrimination bill that could actual pass, because once it did a major impetus for HRC’s fundraising could be undermined.
6 Comments for “Fairness for All 2”
posted by Kosh iii on
Does this carve out exceptions so that I can refuse service to Evangelicals? Straight folks?
Anyone?
If not, then it’s a bad bill with the main goal of disguising gay-bashing.
posted by JohnInCA on
Evangelicals, no.
Straight folks, yes.
The carve-outs only apply to SOGI.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The compromise bill would provide gay and transgender people federal discrimination protections while still preserving some ability for religious organizations to seek exemptions.
What is so interesting to me about the conservative homosexual analysis of the FFA is that the analysis entirely ignores the fact that the RFRA exists and is applicable to all federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the other laws amended by the FFA.
The FFA does not stand alone, but layers an additional level of level of protection for religious objection on to the top of RFRA**, creating additional protections (de facto elimination of the “substantial burden” threshold, for example) for conservative religionists (primarily conservative Christians) who claim religious objection to application of federal anti-discrimination laws to gays, lesbians and transgenders.
Religious objectors to equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders are granted the right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and transgenders that are not available under the RFRA, creating a schema of government-sanctioned, targeted protection against gays, lesbians and transgenders. The heightened protections granted to religious objectors to equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders create a special, limited class of protected objectors, and effectively elevates religious objection to equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders above all other religious objection to laws/regulations.
Supporters of the FFA have two questions to answer:
(1) Why, among all the protected classes enumerated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should the rights LGBT Americans to equal treatment under the law be treated differently (and more negatively) than the rights of members of any other protected class? Is there a reason why gays, lesbians and transgenders should be treated differently than members of other protected classes, and if so, what is that reason?
(2) Why, among all the forms of religious conviction/objection, should religious objection to equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders be granted heightened legal protection? Is there a reason why religious objection to equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgenders should be treated differently than any other form of religious objection, and if so, what is that reason?
Those aren’t abstract questions. If “compromise” demands that gays, lesbians and transgenders should be singled out for special, negative treatment under the law, then the reason why that is necessary in a society that prides itself on “equal treatment under the law” should be clearly articulated.
===================
** Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that (1) the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (2) the burden is the least restricted means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
posted by Edward Brown on
Again. The GOP Senate majority isnt gonna pass a gay/trans rights bill. Doing so would offend the alt-right/Christian right. President Trump is unpredictable on this point.
The Democratic controlled House might pass such a bill, but their are enough moderates who worried about the alt-right/Christian right in their districts.
The big league lgbt activists actually have little pull in either the Senate or the House.
posted by Edward Brown on
mind you, if the GOP Senate and President passed/actively supported the compromise bill, it could make the House Democrats look bad.
In ND the GOP passed a gay rights bill, that excluded trans rights, and the ND Democrats opposed it. It didnt help the already weaken ND Democrats.
posted by JohnInCA on
Yup.
If the GOP actually wanted to pass this, and score points against the Democrats at the same time, all they’d have to do is introduce and pass it in the senate, leaving House Democrats as the hold-up.
There’s a reason they didn’t. Hint: it’s because the GOP doesn’t actually support non-discrimination protections, of any kind, for LGBT folk.