Joe.My.God. LGBT News
The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution which calls on Congress to pass the anti-LGBT First Amendment Defense Act. The resolution names several martyred anti-gay business owners who have recently been found guilty of violating public accommodation laws. The Heritage Foundation celebrates at their Daily Signal blog:
The legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, and in the Senate by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. In a joint statement in June, Lee and Labrador said the legislation would “strengthen religious liberty protections in federal law.” Ellen Barrosse, the RNC Chair of the Conservative Steering Committee, told The Daily Signal in an interview that the resolution is “an attempt, for those of us who are people of faith, to protect religious organizations.” She said that the legislation introduced by Lee and Labrador would offer protection for Americans who are trying to practice their faith. “Does Catholic Charities have to place children with gay couples, or will they have to shut down?” she asked. “This is a free market, there are other agencies that will place children with them.” Barrosse dismissed the argument that religious liberty protections allow for discrimination. “Americans abhor discrimination.”
Here is the text of the resolution:
Resolution in Support of The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Whereas, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written to prohibit 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; including 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;
Whereas, The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should therefore protect Americans from the action of a narrow 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court who have upheld gay marriage without regard to the democratic rights of the people or the states, and without any religious liberty protections;
Whereas, The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, has pointed to the serious religious liberty consequences that may stem from the decision: “Today’s decision … creates serious doubts about religious liberty . . . Indeed the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious organizations would be in question if they opposed gay marriage;”
Whereas, Many Americans, including Melissa Klein, Kelvin Cochran, Baronelle Stutzman, Angela McCaskill, Brendan Eich, Frank Turek, Scott McAdams, Tom Emmer, Jack Phillips, Elaine Huguenin, Betty and Richard Odgaard, Cynthia and Robert Gifford are losing their livelihoods or are being disciplined for courageously dissenting from gay marriage orthodoxy;
Whereas, Many on the Left exhibit an intensifying hatred and intolerance for gay marriage dissenters; and
Whereas, Religious schools, colleges and universities, and other charities, could lose their First Amendment rights and their right to equal access to government benefits, including 501(c)3 status, student aid, and government contracts; therefore be it
Resolved, The Republican National Committee urges Congress to pass and the President to sign The First Amendment Defense Act to protect the rights of believers to equal treatment by the government of The United States of America.
The First Amendment Defense Act presently has 145 House cosponsors and 36 Senate cosponsors. GovTrack rates the bill as having a 2% chance of passage in the current Congress.
The Human Rights Campaign explains the bill:
FADA would prohibit any adverse action by the federal government against an individual or organization for discriminatory actions against legally married same-sex couples as long as they claim they are acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. “Adverse action” is broadly defined to include the denial or revocation of a federal tax status or deduction; denial of a federal grant, contract, loan, benefit or employment; or any other act of discrimination. The bill provides individuals and organizations the right to sue the federal government for monetary damages in federal court. If passed, this legislation would create a breakdown of government services and runaway litigation. It would permit a federal employee, for example, to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications or Social Security checks whenever a same-sex couple’s paperwork appears on his or her desk. This legislation would also permit recipients of federal grants and contracts, including those for social services programs like homeless shelters and substance abuse treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people. It allows any of these individuals or groups, or anyone else who believes they have been somehow required by the federal government to approve of married same-sex couples, to file a lawsuit and potentially receive damages from taxpayer money.