Well, it’s happened. Republicans have become so
desperate in their attempts to allow bigots to discriminate freely
against the LGBT community that they have crafted a bill with language
so loose that would allow “christians” to fire single women for getting
pregnant…just like jesus would.
H.R. 2802,
or the First Amendment Defense Act, “prohibits the federal government
from taking discriminatory action against a person — which is defined to
include for-profit corporations — acting in accordance with a religious
delusion that favors so-called 'traditional' marriage,” the
Huffington Post
reports. “This means the feds can’t revoke a nonprofit’s tax-exempt
status or end a company’s federal contract over this issue.”The
bill includes protections for people who believe marriage is
between “one man and one woman” and “sexual relations are properly
reserved to such a marriage.” If that’s not awful enough, American Civil
Liberties Union legislative representative Ian Thompson points out that
the legalized discrimination within the bill extends to other groups
wingnuts regularly attempt to deprive of equal treatment — single
mothers.
Thompson says that in addition to declaring open season on the LGBT
community, the bill “clearly encompasses discrimination against single
mothers” and would make it difficult for the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission — which protects women from sex-based
discrimination — to protect women who are terminated for having a child.
HuffPo notes:
This scenario isn’t merely hypothetical. There are a
number of recent cases where religious schools have fired unwed teachers
for becoming pregnant. A Montana catholic school teacher who was fired
for having a baby out of wedlock, for example, filed a discrimination
charge last year with the EEOC. While the U.S. Supreme Court has
recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws,
that exception is somewhat limited, not necessarily covering educators
employed by catholic schools who teach about exclusively secular
subjects.
Raul Labrador (R-Idaho, reptile), who introduced this latest example of
why people in other countries hate us to the House, told HuffPo that “It’s just allowing people to continue to believe the way they do.”
And, of course, some people believe it is entirely O.K. to discriminate against single mothers:
Other Republicans support this legislation, as well. “We’re not going
to try to dance on the head of a pin here,” said Bill Flores
(R-Texas, reptile). “This legislation protects an institution based on its
sincerely held religious delusions from persecution.”
When asked about a hypothetical scenario in which an unmarried woman
was fired from a university for having sex out of wedlock Mike Lee
(R-Utah, reptile), who introduced the companion legislation in the Senate, didn’t
bother to hide that he was both aware of this possibility, and was fine
with it.
“Colleges and universities that have a religious delusion that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage,”
Lee told NPR, “ought to be protected in their 'religiou freedom.”
There are colleges and universities that have a religious
belief that sexual relations are to be reserved for marriage and that,
for religious delusions, recognize a marriage as an institution between a
man and between a woman. Those colleges and universities have the right
to make that decision on their own. Now, most colleges and universities
don’t have that. It is, again, a slim a minority of those that do. But
those that do have this ought to be protected in their 'religious'
freedom.
Frighteningly, this new “religious freedom” bill is gaining momentum in the republican misled house.
The Hill
reports that more than 55 Republicans pledged their support last week
alone, bringing the total number of cosponsors to 115. Many Republicans
are hopeful that they will be able to pass the bill before they have to
go home and face the bigots at town halls in August. However,
they could have some problems:
But there’s one possible hang-up: The bill’s author is Raul Labrador (R-Idaho, reptile), a co-founder of the wingnut Freedom
Caucus, which has caused fits for Republican cabal leadership since its launch in
January. Labrador, a teabagger favorite, also is a one-time rival to
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif., reptile), who controls the floor
schedule.
In recent months, some wingnut rebels have complained that
leadership has retaliated against them by blocking votes on legislation
they’ve written. Walter Jones (R-N.C, reptile.) said his bill to name a
courthouse in his district has been sidelined because of his frequent
criticism of leadership.
But co-sponsors of Labrador’s bill said
they hoped the bill would
receive a vote based on its merits, not based on who introduced it.
Wingnut Mike Lee (R-Utah, reptile) introduced a companion bill in the
Senate.
“I think the bill should stand on its merits, and I believe the bill
has its merits,” Roger Williams (R-Texas, reptile), who also co-sponsored
the bill, said in an interview. However, McCarthy has not displayed any
signs that a vote will be scheduled during the final three weeks before
the August recess. The bill has been passed to the Oversight and
Government Reform and the Ways and Means committees, but neither group
has placed it on its schedule.
But, there are more problems. The
Hill notes that only blue dog, Dan Lipinsi of Illinois, has co-sponsored
the bill. Labrador will have
to rely heavily on other Republicans to get the 218 votes needed for
passage, and many of them consider him toxic. However, Labrador says
that there should not be any problems. “They are not threatening me
personally about my bill. They assured me legislation that is important
will go to the floor, so I take them at their word,” Labrador told The
Hill. “McCarthy assured me he’s not trying to get in the way of the
bill.”
One way or another, Tom Cole (R-OK, reptile) says he hopes that a vote
happens, otherwise it could get uncomfortable for “members going home
for August town halls” who would “like to have had an opportunity to
stake out their position on this. … There’s clearly quite a head of
steam.”
“[T]his bill goes far beyond simply places of worship,
extending to
businesses and nonprofits, for example,” said openly-gay Rep. Jared
Polis. “The bill even contains a clause stating that it must be
construed as broadly as possible by the courts and could be read to
permit all businesses to use their views on marriage as justification to
discriminate against LGBT Americans.” However, he agrees that “There’s
certainly room for clarification that no faith would ever be forced to
perform or sanctify marriages that they don’t agree with, just as the
catholic delusion isn’t required to marry people who have been
divorced.”
Thompson says that the bill would not stop at legalizing
discrimination against single mothers (as well as the obvious groups of
people). It “would eviscerate anti-discrimination protections for LGBT
federal contractors signed into law by President Barack Obama last year
and allow federal grantees to turn away LGBT people from homeless
shelter services or drug treatment programs.” Thompson compared the bill
to
Indiana legislation that allowed open discrimination against LGBT individuals, calling it “Indiana on steroids.”
The White House has not yet weighed in on the legislation, but it is
likely that if it makes it to Obama’s desk, the “Veto Pen™ will be
getting some exercise.
