There has been a lot of ink pressed to paper and pixels picked about the so called Equality Act, more formally known as House Resolution 5 of the 116’th Congress. This act was passed by the House of Representatives May 17’th 2019. That’s right, almost two years ago. Why the fuss now? Because there is a President in the White house who would sign it and a slim possibility that the Senate might approve a version of it.
Before I go any further, I would suggest that you read it. Text – H.R.5 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Equality Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
What usually happens with controversial legislation or court decisions is that almost no one reads them. The media talking heads on both sides start shouting. One side says something like, ” Our proposed legislation will give you a world full of sunshine and posies, resulting in unlimited happiness for all mankind and the other sides says, ” Those minions of Satan across the aisle have proposed legislation of such consummate evil that, should it pass, your life and the lives all all future generations will be nothing but sadness and travail. Almost everyone believes what their chosen tribal mouthpieces say about it and don’t bother to take the time to read it themselves.
What is in this proposed law? Since I have seen some pretty outrageous lies passed around on social media, I will start with what it doesn’t say. It does not require parents to pay for their child’s sexual reassignment surgery or medication. It does not say a child can avail themselves of these therapies without parental approval, It does not say that the government can take your children away for not being supportive enough of their supposed gender fluidity.
What does it say? It starts out with a section of “findings” which is a long list of opinions stating the reason they think we need this law. None of those opinions are law, they are just to show how virtuous they are for recognizing all this discrimination. The next section is where the actual proposed changes to the law are. It starts with this:
Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”; and
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking “stadium” and all that follows and inserting “stadium or other place of or establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display;”;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services;
“(5) any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service; and”.
(b) Prohibition On Discrimination Or Segregation Under Law.—Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000a–1) is amended by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”.
This is the gist of about 90% of the law. They are inserting sexual orientation and gender identity into every place in civil rights law where discrimination against people on the basis of sex, creed, color, or national origin is prohibited. They also are explicitly expanding “public accommodation” to include pretty much any kind of business that provides services to the public.
None of this part should scare any reasonable person. In fact the protections aren’t really new. In the 2019 Supreme Court case “Bostock vs Clayton County”, the Court decided that discrimination against someone on the basis of sexual orientation was the same as discrimination on the basis of sex and was not allowed. Conservatives had a fit. Without actually condoning discriminating against gays, they said the law did not prohibit it and, given the attitude towards gays at the time the Civil Rights Act was written, the writers could not have intended it to cover them. They were legally correct so the Congress has decided to amend the law to bring it in line with the now established Supreme Court precedent. If the House had stopped with these changes, the bill would probably already be law. Note to my fellow Christians: Our savior commanded us to love our neighbors. This is not limited to our heterosexual neighbors who can look in their pants and know what sex they are. If you think that not being able to deny employment or services to gay people is a violation of your religious freedom, you might be misunderstanding the teachings of Jesus.
But there’s more. First this:
“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.”
This is the bathroom law that causes a lot of disagreement. This is a problem and to pretend it isn’t is willful blindness. I don’t see this as a religious freedom problem. It’s just a problem. I don’t know what the solution is. Transgender people exist. Whether I think it’s a natural condition or a pathology is irrelevant. They have to pee somewhere. If someone dressed as a woman walks into the men’s room, confusion will occur. People with other pathologies exist. There will be (already have been) people pretending to be transgender so they can hang out in bathrooms they don’t belong in. Forcing every public business in America to build a third class of bathroom seems impractical. Christians, help me out here. If we love a transgender person, where will we tell them to go when nature calls? It seems to me that if people were a little more willing to be kind to each other on both sides of this issue, the Congress wouldn’t be involved.
And then there is the final controversial bit:
(c) Other Unlawful Employment Practices.—Section 704(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–3(b)) is amended—
(1) by striking “sex,” the first place it appears and inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),”; and
(2) by striking “employment.” and inserting “employment, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.”.
The second part of this amends the part of the law that allows certain forms of discrimination. You can legally discriminate in employment on the basis of sex if there is a legitimate reason There are a few. For a clear example, a men’s or women’s professional sports team. I guess an all male college or battered woman’s shelter might also qualify. Under the proposed new law, you can still discriminate in these instances but you have to consider any applicant based on their gender identify if it differs from their biology. This is another area that has problems that the people in favor of the law want to deny. I still don’t see this as a big religious freedom problem, but more of a plain practical problem. I also think if this law were to pass as written, problems will come up that the people with blinders on can’t avoid seeing and they will be dealt with. In particular, women’s tennis has the same astronomical prize money as men’s tennis. A guy that is out of the top 200 in the men’s game and barely eking out a living can easily beat the leading woman players and take home millions. Are you going to tell me no man would wear a skirt for a few years to retire in luxury?
Things to remember: No law other than a Constitutional amendment changes what the Constitution says. The first amendment is still in full force.
The Supreme Court has already signaled that they will have limited tolerance to allow compelled speech by people against their legitimate religious convictions.
Churches have never been considered by the courts to be “public accommodations” and nothing in the proposed new law changes this. Therefore almost none of this applies to churches. Perhaps if you fired the guy mowing your grass because you found out he was gay there might be an issue, but I am not sure of that. If your church is running a public business, that business was subject to civil rights laws and still is. The law recognizes a Southern Baptist Church. It does not recognize a Southern Baptist restaurant.
There is nothing in the new law about hate speech or curtailing any freedom of speech. No one is authorized to arrest you or your Pastor for saying homosexuality is a sin.
What do I think? I can’t make a case that if discrimination in housing, employment, and public services against anyone is OK. The libertarian in me thinks that a private business ought to be able to discriminate against anyone they don’t want to do business with. I think it’s wrong, but sometimes the law allows people to be wrong. However, if we agree that we will ban discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, and national origin, I don’t see a case for excluding sexual preference or gender identity. I think the bathroom law and the “you are what sex you say you are” parts of the law are problematic and require much more thought and respectful debate, both of which are in short supply in Washington. In its current form the law probably won’t get past the Senate. A modified version may pass. My life will be largely unaffected.
Many of the objections to the law of of the “slippery slope” variety. These arguments are nearly always irrational. Saying yes to one thing does not prevent you from saying no to the next thing. Pundits on both sides will have you believe that all of our current condition consists of standing on razor blade narrow ground where one step to either side leads off a cliff into totalitarianism or complete moral decay. It’s not true. The world is much flatter than you are being led to believe.
Closing thoughts. Jesus said the world will know his followers by the way they love. The world should look at a person who is amazing in the way they love and serve others and say, “That person must be a Christian”. Unfortunately that is not our reputation. Part of this is because of the way we act in the world, and part is because of the leaders we choose or allow to represent us. Should we endeavor to be known by the way our love encompasses all of mankind or by the way we discriminate against the classes of sinners we have deemed not worthy of our love?
The book of Revelation predicts the inevitable moral decay of the world. It does not task us with preventing it. We are to be the light and the conscience of the world, not its policemen or overseers. Show them the way, not beat them into compliance.
