The First Amendment Defense Act Will Be Back
Monday, 28 November 2016 00:00 By s.e. smith, Care2 | Op-Ed
Remember the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), the "right to discriminate
against LGBQT people" bill? Introduced last summer, it's been festering away
in the back corners of Congress, but in 2017, it's likely to roar back onto
the agenda -- and, moreover, it's likely to pass. If it does,
president-elect Donald Trump has already pledged to sign it into law, and it
will change the American landscape forever.
To understand why this bill is worrying so many LGBQT Americans, and some
religious officiants too, we have to take a little walk deep into the bowels
of Congress, conservative Christianity and the culture wars dominating the
American landscape.
On the surface, a First Amendment Defense Act sounds nice, right? We're all
big fans of the First Amendment. The unique protections it offers, and
freedom of speech, religion and the press should lie at the core of American
values. But the intent of this bill, and the problem, are bound up right in
the summary line: "To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the
basis of views held with respect to marriage."
FADA was written very specifically with one group of people in mind:
Conservative Christians opposed to same-gender marriage, and furious at the
rise of same-gender marriage in the U.S. The Supreme Court case affirming
the right to marry, Obergefell v. Hodges, was decided just days after this
legislation was introduced, and that's not a coincidence.
OK, but if someone is opposed to same-gender marriage, surely we shouldn't
discriminate against them, right? Freedom of thought is an American value
too and we shouldn't impose our values on others. That's a noble sentiment,
but that's not what FADA is about. Instead, the law targets "government
intrusion" and what people like Mr. Trump call "bullying" in the form of
regulations, laws and court decisions protecting equal access to LGBQT
people. FADA isn't about protecting people of faith, but about legitimizing
discrimination. The question isn't "can I deny service to someone who
doesn't like same-gender marriage" but "can an employer fire someone for
being in a same-gender marriage" or "can I refuse to rent a hotel room to an
unmarried heterosexual couple." The answer, under FADA, could be "yes."
FADA stipulates that the government cannot engage in "discriminatory action"
(enforcing anti-discrimination laws) against someone who "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." That means the
government couldn't revoke tax exempt status from organizations -- like
churches -- that discriminate against LGBQT people. Nor could it set
anti-discrimination policies for federal contractors.
Health care providers, businesses, people at government agencies, and anyone
else could refuse service to LGBQT people without facing penalties, and all
just for having a "moral conviction" that might not even include religious
beliefs. Same-gender parents might not be able to adopt, LGBQT professors
could be fired from both public and private universities, and single women
could be unable to access sexual health care. It could all, potentially, be
legal -- especially in states with similar "religious freedom" bills that
protect the "right" to discriminate.
This would effectively codify discrimination against LGBQT Americans, and
unmarried straight couples, though they're not likely to face the brunt of
FADA. That means losing a range of anti-discrimination protections that
guarantee full access to society but also fight poverty and increase
opportunities. LGBQT Americans would have to watch as the government awarded
benefits, contracts, tax-exempt status and other special treatment to people
and organizations that discriminate against them.
Gallingly, FADA claims that the law "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."
People being subjected to intolerance and discrimination, evidently, are to
be excited about the opportunities to "demonstrate tolerance" for people who
want to cut them out of public life.
In other words, FADA argues that freedom of religion isn't just about the
freedom to believe, and talk about your beliefs. It also requires the
imposition of your values on other people -- even if that infringes upon
their own rights.
A similar bill in Mississippi was struck down on the grounds that it was
highly discriminatory in nature. Should FADA pass and be signed into law, it
would most certainly be subject to legal challenge, and it could wind up in
front of the Supreme Court. The makeup of the judges on the court, and their
beliefs about both jurisprudence and faith, could determine whether the
United States continues to enforce anti-discrimination laws, or whether it's
about to become a two-tiered society for Conservative Christians versus
everyone else -- along with, as it happens, many Christians who value
diversity, including the LGBQT community.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
S.E. SMITH
s.e. smith is a writer, agitator and commentator based in Northern
California, with a journalistic focus on social issues, particularly gender,
prison reform, disability rights, environmental justice, queerness, class
and the intersections thereof, with a special interest in rural subjects.
smith delights in amplifying the voices of those who are often silenced and
challenging dominant ideas about justice, equality and liberation.
International publication credits include work for the Sydney Morning
Herald, the Guardian and AlterNet, among many other news outlets and
magazines.
Keep up with s.e. smith on Facebook. Follow s.e. smith on Twitter:
@realsesmith.
RELATED STORIES
What You Need to Know About Tennessee's New Anti-LGBT Bill
By Rachel Percelay, Media Matters | Report
The Legislative Backlash Against LGBT Equality Across the South
By Sue Sturgis, Facing South | News Analysis
"Make America Straight Again"? Anti-LGBT Sentiment in the GOP Platform
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
________________________________________
Show Comments
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The First Amendment Defense Act Will Be Back
Monday, 28 November 2016 00:00 By s.e. smith, Care2 | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Remember the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), the "right to
discriminate against LGBQT people" bill? Introduced last summer, it's been
festering away in the back corners of Congress, but in 2017, it's likely to
roar back onto the agenda -- and, moreover, it's likely to pass. If it does,
president-elect Donald Trump has already pledged to sign it into law, and it
will change the American landscape forever.
. To understand why this bill is worrying so many LGBQT Americans, and
some religious officiants too, we have to take a little walk deep into the
bowels of Congress, conservative Christianity and the culture wars
dominating the American landscape.
On the surface, a First Amendment Defense Act sounds nice, right? We're all
big fans of the First Amendment. The unique protections it offers, and
freedom of speech, religion and the press should lie at the core of American
values. But the intent of this bill, and the problem, are bound up right in
the summary line: "To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the
basis of views held with respect to marriage."
FADA was written very specifically with one group of people in mind:
Conservative Christians opposed to same-gender marriage, and furious at the
rise of same-gender marriage in the U.S. The Supreme Court case affirming
the right to marry, Obergefell v. Hodges, was decided just days after this
legislation was introduced, and that's not a coincidence.
OK, but if someone is opposed to same-gender marriage, surely we shouldn't
discriminate against them, right? Freedom of thought is an American value
too and we shouldn't impose our values on others. That's a noble sentiment,
but that's not what FADA is about. Instead, the law targets "government
intrusion" and what people like Mr. Trump call "bullying" in the form of
regulations, laws and court decisions protecting equal access to LGBQT
people. FADA isn't about protecting people of faith, but about legitimizing
discrimination. The question isn't "can I deny service to someone who
doesn't like same-gender marriage" but "can an employer fire someone for
being in a same-gender marriage" or "can I refuse to rent a hotel room to an
unmarried heterosexual couple." The answer, under FADA, could be "yes."
FADA stipulates that the government cannot engage in "discriminatory action"
(enforcing anti-discrimination laws) against someone who "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." That means the
government couldn't revoke tax exempt status from organizations -- like
churches -- that discriminate against LGBQT people. Nor could it set
anti-discrimination policies for federal contractors.
Health care providers, businesses, people at government agencies, and anyone
else could refuse service to LGBQT people without facing penalties, and all
just for having a "moral conviction" that might not even include religious
beliefs. Same-gender parents might not be able to adopt, LGBQT professors
could be fired from both public and private universities, and single women
could be unable to access sexual health care. It could all, potentially, be
legal -- especially in states with similar "religious freedom" bills that
protect the "right" to discriminate.
This would effectively codify discrimination against LGBQT Americans, and
unmarried straight couples, though they're not likely to face the brunt of
FADA. That means losing a range of anti-discrimination protections that
guarantee full access to society but also fight poverty and increase
opportunities. LGBQT Americans would have to watch as the government awarded
benefits, contracts, tax-exempt status and other special treatment to people
and organizations that discriminate against them.
Gallingly, FADA claims that the law "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."
People being subjected to intolerance and discrimination, evidently, are to
be excited about the opportunities to "demonstrate tolerance" for people who
want to cut them out of public life.
In other words, FADA argues that freedom of religion isn't just about the
freedom to believe, and talk about your beliefs. It also requires the
imposition of your values on other people -- even if that infringes upon
their own rights.
A similar bill in Mississippi was struck down on the grounds that it was
highly discriminatory in nature. Should FADA pass and be signed into law, it
would most certainly be subject to legal challenge, and it could wind up in
front of the Supreme Court. The makeup of the judges on the court, and their
beliefs about both jurisprudence and faith, could determine whether the
United States continues to enforce anti-discrimination laws, or whether it's
about to become a two-tiered society for Conservative Christians versus
everyone else -- along with, as it happens, many Christians who value
diversity, including the LGBQT community.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
s.e. smith
s.e. smith is a writer, agitator and commentator based in Northern
California, with a journalistic focus on social issues, particularly gender,
prison reform, disability rights, environmental justice, queerness, class
and the intersections thereof, with a special interest in rural subjects.
smith delights in amplifying the voices of those who are often silenced and
challenging dominant ideas about justice, equality and liberation.
International publication credits include work for the Sydney Morning
Herald, the Guardian and AlterNet, among many other news outlets and
magazines.
Keep up with s.e. smith on Facebook. Follow s.e. smith on Twitter:
@realsesmith.
Related Stories
What You Need to Know About Tennessee's New Anti-LGBT Bill
By Rachel Percelay, Media Matters | ReportThe Legislative Backlash Against
LGBT Equality Across the South
By Sue Sturgis, Facing South | News Analysis"Make America Straight Again"?
Anti-LGBT Sentiment in the GOP Platform
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
Show Comments
