A Liberal Law Professor Explains Why the Equality Act Would ‘Crush’ Religious Dissenters

The act “says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act....This is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.” - National Review

1449 reads

There are 5 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Jay's picture

There was an article about this on PJMedia yesterday:

These feminist, conservative, and pro-life groups are unlikely to convince Democrats, and the Equality Act is likely to pass the House of Representatives, although it is unlikely to pass the U.S. Senate, much less get President Trump's signature. But Democrats are likely to campaign on these issues in 2020, and Americans need to understand why the Equality Act is a bad bill.

To be honest, I think that some iteration of this bill is going to become law within the next five to ten years.  The GOP won't hold the Senate forever, and I can't expect that the Democrat party will return to any semblance of sanity within my lifetime.  So churches had better start preparing for this now, while we can.  

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Larry's picture

Moderator

This seems the natural outcome for those who think that people such as bakers, florists, photographers, doctors, etc. should be forced to violate their conscience. This is the legal basis for the rulings they wanted (and in some cases got) in the judicial system.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Agree. Interesting angle on this article is that you have a gay-marraige/LGBTQ rights advocate who is making a case for religious accommodation/exceptions. It would be nice if more people on "his side of the aisle," so to speak would listen to him.

Either way, the lines are certainly going to shift in the business world eventually--making sexual conduct of various sorts a protected class at the federal level--but it should be possible to carve out "religious space" at least in ministries, charities, and educational institutions. That direction should get some help from the Supreme Court, though it's not as much of a given as some seem to think. I'm not all that confident that Kavanaugh is as conservative as some think, for example (surprises ahead possibly on abortion law). Roberts can 't be counted on. ...It seems likely to be very difficult to get an originalist/conservative replacement for Ginsburg confirmed when the time comes. But even if she is replaced with an "anybody's guess" moderate, that would improve the overall odds.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

What is striking to me is that Comrade Pelosi put it up for a vote without any real semblance of a discussion or debate on the issues.  While Jay may be correct that Democrats will seize power sometime in the not too distant future, if I were running GOP campaigns, I'd be emphasizing this point.  "Shoving it down their throats" is good football if you're Woody Hayes at Ohio State, but people who care about politics tend to take that very, very badly.  

And to be fair, I'm guessing liberals in Georgia and Alabama see things in a similar way regarding the heartbeat abortion bans in those states.  There is a point where you've got to persuade.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.