By Andrew T. Walker, The Witherspoon Institute, Public Discourse.
If passed, the Equality Act would empower the government to discriminate against those who do not accept a sexually permissive understanding of human nature that denies sexual complementarity.
Building on the momentum from the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that redefined marriage throughout America, LGBT activists working with Democratic lawmakers have unveiled a new bill titled “The Equality Act.” The brevity of the bill’s title matches neither its scope nor its impact on federal law and fundamental liberties found in the Constitution. If enacted into law, the Equality Act would further erode religious liberty, transform public opinion on sexuality, and harm the public perception of those who believe in traditional or biblical sexual morality.
The bill would create federal anti-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations, education, employment, and housing. To do so, it would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes (SOGI). In short, the Equality Act would offer the same types of protections extended to other groups (on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin) protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The move comes after legislators and activists have been unable to pass the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). But the Equality Act goes much further than ENDA ever dreamed, offering a comprehensive umbrella of protections based on the disputed categories of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Marginalizing Dissent
The Equality Act represents the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed. Were it to pass, its sweeping effects on religious liberty, free speech, and freedom of conscience would be historic.
Aside from the enumerated protections that give rise to conflict between sexual identity and religious liberty, by elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the level of race, the law’s effect would functionally equate those who don’t agree with it with racists and label them perpetrators of irrational bigotry. Indeed, to favor the Equality Act is to oppose and actively stigmatize the moral convictions that millions of Americans adhere to with abiding sincerity and deep religious precedent.
26 Comments. Leave new
So in other words if someone is gay or lesbian it is then okay to fire them from a job, or not rent an apartment to them. That is just wrong.
During congressional hearings this week, it was disclosed the White House’s IRS continues to harass and persecute Christians and conservative individuals, non-profits and businesses and others on its extensive ‘enemies list.’
Jim-Should an employer with religious objections be required to hire a bisexual who, by definition, has sex outside of marriage with multiple partners? You’re comfortable with them complying or losing their livelihood? Should someone who believes the transgendered have psychological issues be required to pretend otherwise? To entrust them with their business? What if their business is a pre-school? You’re comfortable that you know better how they should run their business?
Ted, you are confusing orientation with behavior. A bisexual is NOT by definition one who has sex outside of marriage with multiuple partners. You are describing the behavior or promiscuity which occurs among people of all orientations, including straight clergy! A bisexual by definition is simply one whose attractions include both genders, but who is no more likely to be engaged in extramarital sex than anyone else. I don’t understand why when discussing sexual orientations people’s minds immediately jump to sexual behaviors. Regarding the hiring of people with psychological issues, (transgender is NOT a psychological issue) employment law is clear: An employer may refuse to employ or provide accommodations to an individual who poses a “direct threat” to the health or safety of him/herself or other employees in the workplace. The determination that an individual poses a direct threat to self or others cannot be made simply based on stereotypical generalizations about mental illness, but may be based only on objective evidence from a treatment provider or another credible source that the individual’s present condition makes him or her a direct threat to self or others.
an employer is not required to provide an accommodation if it will impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of its business such as accommodations that are excessively costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business.
Jason-Fair points on bisexuals and behavior, but would you have a problem with an employer not hiring anyone who has sex outside of marriage? Such a position would absolutely have a disparate impact on bisexuals since polygamy has not yet been declared a right by Justice Kennedy. We know the courts will extend any new anti-discrimination laws to cover disparate impact, effectively invalidating even this neutral policy. Also, how do you know transgenderism is not a psychological condition that should be treated? Have you read the studies that show a high percentage who undergo reassignment surgeries end up with regret and depression? Why do you get to decide?
I understand that if nothing in an employees actions creates a problem for your business, you have no right to end their employment for sexual orientation. If they are witnessed in public marching in a Gay Pride parade or at a Klan rally or they disseminate information you consider harmful to your business, do you have to maintain employment? What if your business is boycotted because of the actions of an employee?
What the SC ruling does put to rest is the idea that the secular state has any self-interest or desire to promote or codify the traditional 2 person-man-women understanding, as opposed to with other forms of associations. Hence the traditional man-women marriage, both as a civil or religious act, has no state sanctioned preference, either in the tax code or other means.
In essence, other groupings of people, same sex, ploy-amourous, open arraignments are all on equal footing at least as far the concept Justice Kennedy introduced with his concept of “dignity” as a constitutional requirement that applies to all contract law, which what marriage is in a legal sense.
So yes, next stop is polygamy, poly-groupings, and other forms of human associations that seek redress of grievances and codification in civil law, and by extension, organized religion.
The PCUSA as more or less the state-sactioned or state favored church of course will be in the vanguard of enforcing and enabling the secular states work and actions.
“Sexual orientation”? What’s that? Is it visually discernible, like racial facial features, skin tone and color, or whether a person is a man or a woman? And how does it justify bisexual, homosexual, and transgender behavior?
If you do not think Bruce Jenner, for instance has a “psychological issue”, you have rationalized reality so far as to never return….not only is he severely messed up in believing that he is a woman, he is also severely messed up in believing he is 30 or 40 years younger than he is….the guy needs help beyond belief. NOBODY on earth has a psychological issue if he doesn’t.
If I am understanding you….I think your point is well taken, Loren….everybody on this earth makes MANY choices every single day….will hate, greed, lust, envy, laziness, sexual immorality of any kind, etc. etc. control me this minute… or this day….or will I strive for the fruits of the Spirit in my life. We are not puppets controlled by every thought or whim entering our head. We are not doing anyone favors by suggesting we are. I think there is much rationalizing going on by people claiming to BE cetain things….things they ultimately certainly do choose to be.
It is a sad day when people think that it is okay to fire someone from a job because they are gay or lesbian and then hide behind religious belief.
I am old enough to remember when segregationists didn’t want to sit next to someone from another race in the office, at a lunch counter or on a bus.
You know that is not what this is about Jim….I can not fire someone because I don’t like the way they rub their left ear, but we do not have to have an “act” to protect against that. No, this is about ‘forcing’ many other things in society with an act such as this….as many have known all along. It is always the unmentioned consequences of such act and actions that have the real effect on our society. FOR EXAMPLE….NOBODY pushed for legalized abortion saying the result would be what we have now…tens of millions of unborns killed soley for convenience…..no, it was said over and over… if made legal, abortion was going to be safe and ‘rare’. We would get similar contradictory and unwanted results in society from a move like this.
Your understanding of bisexuality is really flawed. A bisexual can be in a monogamous relationship with one person the same as anyone else. For example, I know two women who identify as bi (they’re unrelated, by the way, and don’t even know each other). Both of them dated both men and women when they were single. Both are now married—one to a man (with three children) and one to another woman (with one child). Unless you’d known them for a long time you’d have no way of telling they were bi.
that word salad was the most pathetic excuse for anti gay animus I have ever read.
are you truly so stupid (that’s not being rude, its a FAIR question) that you think that “by definition” bisexuals are all adulterous? I know several bi sexual Presbyterians. One is happily married to his wife of 14 years, has two kids with her, and will be with her till death do they part. IF she dies first, he may, when/if he dates again, and falls in love again, fall in love with, and maybe marry a woman OR a man.
Pat Robertson said of bisexuality “THATS ORGIES”… Pal, if your lack in knowledge of information/knowledge/understanding of a topic (such as, I gather from your writing, of GLBT issues) is on a par with someone of HIS character, it would be best that you educate yourself, move PAST your open and seething animus towards GLBT people (your writing reeks of it) and just stop embarrassing yourself.
you can believe that trandendered people are mentally ill…but, all that tells me is that you are not an MD or psychologist. and I know many gay and lesbian people who work with pre schools kids and as teachers, and are wonderful at it. In almost all of those cases, they are also great parents also.
If you are going to write about GLBT people, LEARN the truth about GLBT people. At the least, learn the definitions of that words MEAN. (sheeeesh)
P.S. It should not have NEEDED to be written, but I realize looking back that the animus of some posters here is so strong that they will by default think the worst of GLBT people, so I will add that my friends marriage is a faithful and monogamous one. I have no doubt he admires other beautiful women and other handsome men, but he is faithful…just as you admire other beautiful women, but are faithful to your wife. I would not assume the worst of you the way you assume the worst of any bisexual. It is pretty obvious you do not know any, at least not well enough to know who they are or that bisexuality does not = promiscuity, or you would not have written what you wrote.
@Common tater
You do not understand. Under current law you can fire someone for being gay or lesbian. That is just wrong.
This weekend, Boy Scouts of America Director Robert Gates swung the Scouts’ door wide open to ‘those of all sexual orientations’ to lead scouts with the following statement: “we must deal with ‘the world’ as it is, not as we might wish it could be.” Think about that statement for a moment. Gates told the audience he deals with the scouts exactly as he dealt with the President on CIA issues (at about the 10:14 mark in his speech.) Isn’t that special? Sarc. Another Gates, Bill of Microsoft, who paid billions in fines and restitution for monopolizing and rigging operating systems, and probably a big donor to scouts, recently said opening Boy Scouts to all sexual orientations must be done because scouting is like a business which must optimize profits. The real justification for total acceptance of ‘all sexual orientations’ appears two fold: 1. keep corporate and foundation donations pouring in; 2. avoid costly litigation.
Well, then you really have a problem with comprehension, Gene. There is not one thing I said that was inaccurate.
Well, gee whiz Gene….your friend needs to find better representatives for his “group” he is part of in the popular press….because I have to tell you, MANY of the LGBT…l,m,n,o,p or whatever people we all see over and over are over the top, in your face, and “I am going to force you to approve of me and my lifestyle”. If you deny that, you have very selective vision. I did not say that all were like that, but that is what many see. You simply can not deny that.
Jim…I do see your point in that…but I am still one of those crazies that believe that in a free country, where ANYONE can decide to start a business, if you start a business and are paying the bills, that you ought to be free to hire or not hire whomever you want to work for you for whatever reasons you want. Radical, huh?
I’d say that you, Jill, are probably not the world’s supreme expert on bisexuality either. Many people would say your friends are NOT bisexual…at least not anymore. Just courious….do you consider a person who has never had a drink in his life to possibly be an ‘alcoholic’? My point is being bisexual is indeed a state of being connected with a behavior. Or another thought, do you could consider me a fighter pilot… because I have fantasized about that since a little boy?
Gene, you might want to keep your own vicious animus on a tight leash while chiding others for theirs.
Yes that is radical and wrong. Just plain wrong.
So Jim….it is much better that a government…with all its warts and biases that we see displayed every single day (think IRS abuse of Christian and conservative groups) decides why you should hire and fire people?! You have a very naive view of government and a very pitiful view of the importance of freedom.
Gene, it would be a mark of wisdom to avoid calling others “stupid” at least until you can write without basic grammatical errors for all the world to see. “Till death do they part” causes my sense of English propriety to cringe. People in glass houses….