Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the proposed bill specifically endorses one particular set of religious beliefs without concern for any others.
—
This post originally appeared ThinkProgress
By Zack Ford
A group of House Republicans, led by Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), has proposed a new bill that would provide a nationwide “license to discriminate” against married same-sex couples. Though Labrador claims the bill protects “religious liberty,” it is nothing less than a blanket invitation to deny benefits to same-sex couples that they are entitled to under law.
According to the draft of the bill (HR 3133), there would be no consequences for any organization or individual that chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage:
The Federal Government shall not take an adverse action against a person, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief 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, the bill would create special religious protections only for people who oppose same-sex marriage or premarital sex. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” this bill specifically endorses one particular set of religious beliefs without concern for any others, a pretty clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The consequences of this legislation would be immense, such that a few individuals could short-circuit the rights of gay and lesbian couples across the country. Given its prudish inclusion of opposition to premarital sex, these consequences could likely apply to many straight couples as well. Here are a few possible examples of the potential for abuse:
- Businesses could refuse to provide leave for an employee to take care of a sick same-sex spouse.
- Federal workers processing tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security filings could refuse to do their job if it meant providing benefits to a same-sex couple.
- Federally funded programs like homeless shelters and substance abuse programs could turn away LGBT people.
- A church-run hospital could refuse to provide visitation privileges to a married same-sex couple without fear of endangering their tax-exempt status.
Unsurprisingly, the National Organization for Marriage has enthusiastically endorsed the legislation and the Heritage Foundation claimed it will “encourage tolerance.”
Photo: AP File/Matt Cilley
God, I’m so glad to be Canadian.
This legislation is horribly flawed, but we should keep our minds open to what it represents. You can either allow people to act on their consciences, or you can make it illegal. Even if you think their opinions are bigoted and wrong, there are extremes that need to be addressed. It should go without saying that the federal government (or any level of government for that matter) ought not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, creed, sex, orientation, etc. However, to force individuals running private affairs to play by the exact same rules can be dangerous. If a prostitute… Read more »
“However, to force individuals running private affairs to play by the exact same rules can be dangerous.” Unfortunately this is precisely the argument that bigots have historically used to justify segregation. A classic example would be restaurant owner turned politician Lester Maddox who vowed to never integrate his fried chicken joint. Indeed Lester promised that if any black people tried to eat in his restaurant he and his personal goon squad of customers and employees would club them over the head with axe handles. He latter closed the restaurant rather than submit to the tyranny of letting black people eat… Read more »