Federal anti-LGBTQ religious exemptions bill is back

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has reintroduced legislation in the U.S. Senate seen to enable anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the name of “religious freedom” — and President Trump made signing the legislation a campaign promise during the 2016 election.

The purported intent of the First Amendment Defense Act, as introduced by Lee on March 8, is to protect individuals from adverse action by the U.S. government if they oppose same-sex marriage or sexual relations outside of marriage.

Lee said in a statement the legislation is necessary to ensure the federal government doesn’t impinge on individuals’ beliefs about marriage.

“What an individual or organization believes about the traditional definition of marriage is not — and should never be — a part of the government’s decision-making process when distributing licenses, accreditations or grants,” Lee said. “And the First Amendment Defense Act simply ensures that this will always be true in America — that federal bureaucrats will never have the authority to require those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to choose between their living in accordance with those beliefs and maintaining their occupation or their tax status.”

A section of the bill explicitly forbids the U.S. government from “alter[ing] in any way the federal tax treatment” of institutions that oppose same-sex marriage. That has been a concern expressed by public universities against gay nuptials, such as Brigham Young University, who fear their tax-exempt status will be stripped away much like the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 stripped Bob Jones University of its tax-exempt status for not recognizing interracial marriage. (Bob Jones dropped its interracial ban in 2000 and its

March 16, 2018

tax-exempt status has been restored.)

According to Lee’s office, the legislation has 21 co-sponsors who are all Republicans. Among them are Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Critics: FADA would carve into LGBTQ protections

Critics say the legislation, also known as FADA, would impair LGBTQ rights in various ways because it would carve into federal non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

For example, FADA would undermine President Obama’s executive order against anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination among federal contractors. Although legislation says it wouldn’t apply to federal for-profit contractors, that means nonprofit contractors — such as religiously affiliated hospitals or universities — would be able to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination and still obtain U.S. government contracts.

Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, said the bill is evidence “one of the main goals is to freeze-frame the lack of civil rights protections for LGBT people.”

“Many religiously affiliated nonprofits want to keep getting lots of public money and want to be able to discriminate,” Pizer said. “We have been steadily building the body of the law and the public recognition that that discrimination is wrong and that’s true if it’s LGBT people or same-sex couples as well, so it’s an effort to get public money.”

David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the legislation “would legalize state-sanctioned discrimination and undermine key civil rights protections for LGBTQ people.”

“Supporters of this legislation are using religious liberty as a sword to hurt LGBTQ families rather than staying true to our long tradition of it serving as a shield to protect religious expression from government overreach,” Stacy said.

According to Human Rights Campaign, FADA would compromise Obama’s 2014 executive order, LGBTQ non-discrimination protections in the Violence Against Women Act for emergency shelters; LGBTQ non-discrimination rules for homeless shelters within the Department of Housing & Urban Development; and same-sex couples’ access to benefits under the Family & Medical Leave Act.

Conn Carroll, a Lee spokesperson, downplayed via an email the possibility the legislation would affect each of these pro-LGBTQ measures.

Keeping his pledge?

President Trump made a pledge to sign the FADA a campaign promise during the 2016 election — one he spelled out in a statement to social conservative Catholics who support his candidacy.

“If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths,” Trump said.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to requests to comment on whether Trump still supports the First Amendment Defense Act and would sign the legislation as introduced into law.

By CHRIS JOHNSON, WASHINGTON BLADE