The Trump administration has done its best to a make “religious freedom” and “sincerely held religious beliefs” as a legally protected justifications for anti-LGBTQ discrimination. So we breathed a momentary sigh of relief yesterday when we heard that House Democrats introduced an amendment to limit religious-based discrimination nationwide.
The amendment is called the “Do No Harm Act” (DNHA), and Democrats are trying to attach it to a 1993 law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The RFRA was originally passed as a way to protect the rights of religious minorities after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that two Native American men could legally be charged with a felony and denied unemployment benefits for taking hallucinogenic peyote as part of a Native American religious practice.
The law “prohibits the federal government from ‘substantially burden[ing]’ a person’s religious exercise unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest,” according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
However, conservative Christians have increasingly used the RFRA as a blank check to deny adoptions to same-sex couples, medical care to trans people and, of course, cakes and other wedding services to same-sex couples.
Related: Wedding videographer turns away lesbian couple because Jesus disapproves… or something
So, yesterday House Democrats introduced the DNHA as a way to prevent that. The DNHA clearly states that the RFRA is “intended to protect religious freedom without allowing the infliction of harm on other people… [ensuring] that religious freedom is used as a shield to protect the Constitutional right to free exercise of religion and not a sword to discriminate,” writes the HRC.
Democratic House Representatives Joseph Kennedy and Bobby Scott and Senator Kamala Harris introduced the DNHA yesterday. But while it’s likely to pass in the House, it will likely die in the Senate where Republicans enjoy a 53-to-45 seat majority over the Democrats (and two independents).
Even so, the introduction of the DNHA could prove useful when a case of religious-based discrimination eventually makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court as its failure will provide proof that federal law doesn’t currently protect marginalized people against religion.
The conservative-leaning court may not care and may gut civil rights, same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws anyway. But as more stories of religious-based discrimination occur, public and legal sentiment against RFRA will increase, eventually leading to a remedy against its blank check for bigotry.
DCguy
How interesting, none of the accounts that tried to say Republicans were better for LGBT rights than the Democrats have commented? Hmmm, how interesting.
Well maybe at least the accounts that regularly come on here claiming that if LGBTs don’t allow people to harm us or discriminate against us we’re bullies will have something to say.
CobraPowers
If Democrats care so much about LGBT people how come they don’t say anything about how we are treated in Islamic countries? It seems they only care when it comes to Christians not wanting to take part on LGBT things, not when it comes to us being hanged and tortured in the Middle East. And may I remind you it was Trump’s administration, through an openly gay ambassador, that is pushing to decriminalize being LGBT throughout the world? Obama sure had the chance to do it, instead his administration allowed things like the Pulse shooting to happen, and Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, and his father was a HRC supporter, in fact, sitting right behind her at her rally, so…
DCguy
@CobraPowers
LOL!!!!! THIS is the ONLY deflection the trolls have. (Pay no attention to how the right wing religious nuts and the Republicans treat you in your own country, it doesn’t matter, because in OTHER countries they also treat you bad).
Sweetie, facts are facts, Republicans support anti- LGBT legislation and the Democrats Oppose it. Go troll someplace else.
MuslimSlutBox
Wow, the sexy guy with the cross in his hand can exorcise me every day of the week. I’ve been a bad, bad boy. Now that’s he is here I plan to go from bad to worse.
@HarryB
It seems to me me that religion is a very important part for some of us. So it is not good to ridicule it
MuslimSlutBox
@@HarryB. Point taken. But seriously, if you believe that anyone on Queerty values religion, then your dreaming. You may be the only one.
randeman
Actually, @HarryB, it works like this: you have every right to believe whatever you choose to believe. I have every right to ridicule you for it. And when it comes to religion, I would ridicule anyone.
MuslimSlutBox
@randeman. Only as long as your ridicule isn’t one way. A lot of mouthy gay’s run their mouths about politics and religion and think it’s a one way street. They think they’re beyond ridicule for their beliefs but have free reign to smash others beliefs to bits. As long as you’re not one of those guys, sure, you can say what you want. If you can take it when it’s dished out to you.
DCguy
@MuslimSlutBox
The difference being, the religious people that LGBTs mock are trying to run OUR lives. LGBTs aren’t trying to force religious people to do the same….and no, sorry, getting to be a bigot doesn’t count.
Sass-zilla
Wow. This is us doing exactly what we said we would NOT do. We (gays) were pretty clear that we just wanted equality, and tolerance, not to force our beliefs onto others who don’t agree with our world view. Part of the “funny” rebuttals to allowing gays the same freedoms to marry as hetero couples was that: “Hey, if you don’t want to have a gay marriage, don’t get one.” HaHaHa… but this Bill will directly affect religions that don’t want to participate in a ceremony they don’t believe in. So, now we would get to force a Muslim Mosque, a Jewish Temple, or a Catholic Cathedral to participate in gay weddings. Basically, this Bill will allow the Federal Government to force a place of worship to go against their core beliefs. What else could they then force? Let’s force a Jewish artist to make portraits for Nazis, because the Jewish belief against Nazis isn’t “heartfelt” enough? Oh. And THIS little Chestnut: “provide for access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.”
It’s not enough to make a religious organization pay for birth control and abortions against their beliefs, now they will have to offer sex reassignment surgeries on their insurance. Yeah this Bill is not ALL bad, but there’s a lot of bad in it, and by bad I mean against the Constitutional freedom of religion, freedom of dissenting opinion, and separation of church and state.
emcdonald75
Just a couple of questions, should churches remain tax-free if the very people that are paying taxes cannot get married in churches based on the churches’ religion? Also, should businesses be allowed to not sale to people based on their religious right if their business is a member of the public square (use of public infrastructure paid by tax payers)? Religions are always forcing their will on people and religion is defined by whatever that church allows; it appears. I’m tired of paying for everyone’s right to do whatever legal, while not having the same or similar rights. I understand Democrats should not force people to do whatever, but who in the Republicans camp believes the same thing?
organman46
This bill will not require churches or other religious entities to perform same-sex marriages. That’s a right-wing scare tactic. The bill may, however, require a higher standard than “firmly held religious beliefs” for discrimination by businesses or government employees.
DCguy
You troll accounts are really cute when you try saying things like “we gays”.
And it’s EXTRA adorable that you try to claim that not wanting to be discriminated against is “Forcing people to live by our rules”.
People are born #LGBT, people choose a religion.
GayEGO
Remember our rights are inalienable and discrimination is an alienable action. Marriage Equality is about civil rights, not religious doctrines. A marriage license is obtained at a civil institution, not a church. A civil marriage can be performed at a civil institution, a lawyer’s office, a city hall, a county court house. Some churches also perform same-gender marriages, so there are a lot of choices. If a church does not want to perform a same-gender marriage, they do not have to because that is what their doctrines state within their religion.
randeman
Ultimately, marriage is a civil contract. It’s a government issue and not a religious one. As I understand it you need a license from the state in order to get married. If that is the case (and I could easily be mistaken) without a license you could be married in ten churches but none of them will be recognized if you don’t have the license. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
CobraPowers
President Trump introduced the agenda to decriminalize LGBT people throughout the world, especially in Muslim majority countries where we are still persecuted and killed, and Queerty treated it like it didn’t happen at all or like it was “racist” against Muslims. Now, they are praising the Democrats, who treat LGBT people as token single issue voters, for pushing anti discrimination laws that were already in place in USA. But no, this is not Fake News or partisan. Sure.
DCguy
Troll alert. Notice how they DESPERATELY try to deflect the topic from the fact that the Republicans in America are pushing anti-LGBT legislation.
Oh, and Precious……that rule existed under Obama, if you’re going to lie, try not doing it on a blog full of people who can read.