Unviable alternative
The federal Fairness for All Act aims to bring about a cease-fire in the seemingly intractable battle between LGBT rights and religious freedom. But given the response to the bill, introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, on Friday, it is likely dead on arrival.
The legislation reads much like the LGBT-supported Equality Act, which was introduced in the House earlier this year. That bill would have enshrined sexual orientation and gender identity protections in virtually every major piece of federal civil rights legislation. The biggest difference is that the Fairness for All Act, unlike the Equality Act, contains religious exemptions. Some religious groups and leaders such as the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, Mormon officials, and pastor and author Tim Keller support the measure, but many don’t. Focus on the Family President Jim Daly and Southern Baptist Convention leaders Russell Moore and Albert Mohler rejected it, as did most major LGBT advocacy groups.
“It’s an enormous miscalculation of what is politically possible,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Greg Baylor said, adding it suggests a “hint of desperation as to the trajectory on these issues.”
He ticked off a parade of negative consequences flowing from the legislation: the right of men identifying as women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, an expanded definition of public accommodation covering most businesses of 15 employees or more, and a religious exemption narrower than what comes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Small businesses like Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, which was at the center of a landmark religious liberty Supreme Court case, might be exempt for now. But Baylor said that if the Fairness for All Act passes, “It means that if your business succeeds and grows, you are going to sacrifice your constitutional rights.” —S.W.
Comments
RC
Posted: Wed, 12/11/2019 09:56 amAfter reading Brian Leiter’s Law School report. It appears the “lawyer” Provost should know better than to make slanderous remarks, attacking someone her job says she is to protect. Since she is coming at this as an administrator, from a higher education institution, the real world does not apply. So she can say whatever she wants and not have to suffer the consequences. In the real world her slanderous remarks would be actionable on a legal basis and Mr. Rasmussen would clean up.
JerryM
Posted: Wed, 12/11/2019 03:51 pmI am not comfortable with how litigious society has become but, in this case, I think Yaghtin should sue the police and/or county. If there are no consequences these events will likely continue to occur.
JerryM
Posted: Wed, 12/11/2019 04:07 pmLauren Robel correctly states "The First Amendment is strong medicine, and works both ways. All of us are free to condemn views that we find reprehensible, and to do so as vehemently and publicly as Professor Rasmusen expresses his views."
What the provost, and particularly someone in her position, should not be allowed to do is incorrectly state the facts. If she has done this, she should be held to account.
Xion
Posted: Tue, 12/17/2019 01:50 amLGBTQ is a political movement that rejects science and nature. Saying so is essentially illegal. Science and nature are becoming illegal.