One month after the attack on the LGBTQ+ community and just over a year after same-sex marriage became legalized in all 50 states, congressional Republicans opted not to take a stand against gun rights or for gay rights, but to double down on legislation on legal discrimination. This past week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing for the bill titled the "First Amendment Defense Act" (FADA), which doesn't actually defend the first amendment so much as it gives individuals wide leeway for bigotry. Basically, this act aims to make it "legal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of his or her own religious beliefs" which includes, but is not limited to, government employees. It would also give special protections to those who believe 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" by ensuring that those who discriminate cannot be punished by the government for their behavior. How disgusting is that?
The legislation would give an employer the right to fire you for seemingly arbitrary reasons such as when you have sex, how you become a parent, and your spouse's gender. It is moving on in Congress and the Republican presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, has already agreed to sign it if he gets elected into office.
However, it is not just the LGBTQ+ community that could be suffering from this. People of all genders and all sexualities opting to get it on in the privacy of their own homes can suffer if this bill passes.
The key FADA is the idea of "religious freedom" or "religious liberty" which Republicans have been pushing for since their opposition to contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Dozens of employers brought lawsuits against this because they believed they shouldn't be forced to provide contraception to their employees if it goes against their religious beliefs. Now they want to expand this strategy further, but they can't do it under the First Amendment because while it does protect freedom of religion, it "does not say that your religion offers carte blanche to discriminate." Since the First Amendment does not support the kind of overt discrimination some conservatives would like it to, they needed a new law. That is where FADA comes in.
Under this law, any employer with a government contract would be allowed to refuse to let someone take time off to care for a sick same-sex spouse, or to terminate an unmarried woman if she became pregnant, as long as they say they are acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Social security administrators could refuse to process paperwork for LGBTQ+ people and claim they were exercising their religious liberty.
This is happening in the midst of a platform debate in the Republican Party which has seen repeated nods to the notion of "natural marriage," which they say is more likely to prevent children from becoming drug addicts, and is also supporting state laws regulating which bathrooms people can use as well as "conversion therapy," which seeks to convert gay people to heterosexuality. (This has already been debunked by the American Psychological Association, but is often so dangerous that it has been banned in several states.)
So let's get some things straight. While the First Amendment totally has your back, you can't just do anything that you want in the name of religion. By imposing these kinds of religious beliefs on others, it would be violating their right to not practice that religion. Kelvin Cochran, a former Atlanta fire chief who was terminated for writing a book blatantly discriminating against same-sex marriage, said the legislation would ensure that no one "faces discrimination by the government and faces punishment that I have endured." By allowing this legislation to go through, it would be doing the exact opposite of what Cochran is saying. This would put women and the LGBTQ+ communities at the hands of mass discrimination. And, Mr. Cochran, while I don't agree that you were terminated based on personal views, just because people who share the same views as yourself wouldn't be discriminated doesn't mean that others wouldn't be. Take a good hard look at the implications of what you are saying because ensuring that no one faces discrimination should include the exact people that you want to discriminate against.
When I decide to have sex, when I decide to become a parent, and whom I decide to have sex and become a parent with is no one's business but my own and should not even be a point of interest to my employer. This type of legislation would only mean discrimination and suffering for those of us who do not fit the straight, Christian label. And if you didn't realize, that happens to be quite a few Americans. It is not religious freedom if it infringes on the rights of others.
