House Democrats Pass ‘Equality Act’ with No Compromises

4 Comments for “House Democrats Pass ‘Equality Act’ with No Compromises”

  1. posted by Tom Jefferson on

    My Republican Congressional representative will be voting no, but she has no plans to support any LGBT rights bill. Compromise is great, but I didn’t see any LGBT rights bill getting any attention from the GOP leadership.

    Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Compromise is great, but I didn’t see any LGBT rights bill getting any attention from the GOP leadership.

    The Fairness for All Act is getting some tepid support from Republicans (HR 5331 has 8 sponsors, all Republican, out of a possible 221 Republicans in the House) but in general your observation is correct.

    The need to “protect” conservative Christians, so urgently pushed by IGF and other conservative homosexuals as the rationale for bills like the Fairness for All Act, is likely to become a moot issue over the next few years as more and more Christians accept reality.

    Eventually, the only Christians who will care are Christio-Republicans who are determined to use LGBT rights as a continuing wedge issue.

    Reply
  3. posted by Jorge on

    I thought it was some kind of unconstitutional to take away liberties once you gave them to people in the law without some kind of rational basis.

    Reply
  4. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I thought it was some kind of unconstitutional to take away liberties once you gave them to people in the law without some kind of rational basis.

    Laws expand and contract rights all the time without raising constitutional issues.

    Jim Crow laws are an example. People mistakenly believe that Jim Crow laws were abolished by the courts as unconstitutional. No so. Jim Crow laws were never declared unconstitutional, with the exception of school segregation (Brown v. Board and following) and a smattering of other cases (such as the appointment of all-white juries) involving constitutional issues.

    Jim Crow laws fell legislatively, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and a myriad of other legislative initiatives (state and federal) over the course of thirty-odd years. All were bitterly resisted.

    Southern whites lost legal rights (such as the ability to deny African-Americans service in privately-owned public accommodations and housing, and to discriminate in employment) as Jim Crow laws fell, one by one, over time.

    The legislative changes (and contraction of segregationist rights) were not unconstitutional, however. So long as changes in laws do not run afoul of constitutional standards, what legislatures give, legislatures can take away as times change and the conflicting rights of various constituencies are adjusted.

    Reply

Leave a Comment