First Amendment Defense Act is radical, anti-LGBT legislation

by Rob Howard
Associate Editor

In yet another effort to roll back the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, Congress is considering the “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA). This discriminatory bill, according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), “would allow individuals, many businesses, and nonprofit organizations – even nonprofit organizations and businesses contracting with the federal government – to circumvent critical federal protections and allow blatant discrimination against LGBTQ people and their families.”

FADA 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 text of the bill is decidedly focused on opposition to same-sex marriage. At its very beginning, it says, “Congress finds the following: Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.”

It outrageously also “finds” that “Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.”

The specifics of that bill are, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

In other words, regardless of what laws and rules based on Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 say, people, organizations and companies could discriminate against same-sex married couples and unwed mothers in the provision of services and face no penalty.

Anti-LGBT organizations like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association immediately hoped on the bandwagon of support for FADA. Liberty Counsel called for “quick and decisive action.” All three organizations have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But more groups that might be considered mainstream are also beating the drum for FADA. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a statement supporting FADA, saying, among other things, that, “The Act provides broad protections against adverse federal actions directed toward individuals and organizations that act on such beliefs.”

Futher, USCCB says, “The Act would prohibit the federal government from denying or revoking a nonprofit entity’s tax-exempt status. It would also prohibit the federal government from denying or excluding an individual or organization from a federal grant, contract, or employment.”

In other words, Catholic Charities could refuse to consider same-sex couples or unwed mothers as foster parents or adoptive parents, and continue to receive federal tax dollars without fear of losing their federal contracts that support such work.

The HRC, among other organizations, has condemned FADA as “radical legislation that would sanction unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBTQ people.”

“‘The misleadingly named First Amendment Defense Act has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with sanctioning taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBTQ people. Enough is enough. It’s far past time to stop the legislative attacks on LGBTQ people and their families,” said HRC Government Affairs Director David Stacy.

HRC continues in its statement, saying, “Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex married couples are entitled to all federal spousal benefits regardless of where they live. Under FADA, however, individual businesses could run roughshod over the civil rights of these couples and deny them the spousal benefits they are entitled to under the law.”

According to HRC, “A similar anti-LGBTQ measure that was signed into law in Mississippi was blocked by a federal judge on June 30 as a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Gaylywill continue to follow the progress of the First Amendment Defense Act, and report to its readers online and in print. Stay tuned.

The Gayly – August 4, 2016 @ 7:15 a.m.