Equality Act & Religious Freedom

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

"The Equality Act attacks religious freedom by making itself a special exception to the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has never been done before."

Source: Stopping the Equality Act | USCCB


``SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

``The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.''.

Source: Equality Act (H.R. 5)

What begins this article is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, praising the intent behind the Equality Act, but denouncing the way it goes about its goal. The second quote & link is to the content of the Equality Act itself (in the Text header of that page), quoting the paragraph I came across that states the impotency of religious freedom claims to work against this bill that has already passed the House, and will soon be considered by the Senate (same source as quote).

Do a little research on the Equality Act & its implications, if you like. I just want this to be a discussion on the view of religious freedom legislation being potentially overridden by sexual freedom legislation (social sexual freedom of gender identity is the heart of the Equality Act). What do you think about this? I share this from an American perspective; how does religious freedom relate to social freedoms in your country, if you're from another area?

 

[SilverBear]

Can you explain how a law that prohibits discrimination against a minority infringes on your Constitutionally protected right to practice your religion?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Can you explain how a law that prohibits discrimination against a minority infringes on your Constitutionally protected right to practice your religion?

Well, it prevents good Christians from getting in the faces of Jews and yelling at them to convert.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, it prevents good Christians from getting in the faces of Jews and yelling at them to convert.

What if good Christians stand beside good Jews because they are on the same path, it is the progress along that path that they disagree on.

 

[Anthony2019]

Here in the UK we have the Equality Act, which has been around since 2006 and updated in 2010. It prevents people from being unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of protected characteristics such as race, religious belief, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, or pregnancy.

In my view, the Equality Act is the finest and fairest piece of legislation that has been introduced in my entire lifetime and my only wish is that is was introduced much sooner.

We are all people created in the image of God. Whatever our personal circumstances, our nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, whatever our ability, whether we old or young, are gay or straight, however we perceive ourselves and the world we live in, we all have the right to live our lives free of fear from the persecution, mistreatment, and the political, religious and idealogical burdens placed upon us by others.

In the Bible, there are passages addressing aspects of behaviour and conduct, yet by contrast there are literally hundreds of verses, maybe thousands, addressing God's concern for the poor, the marginalised, the mistreated and misunderstood. As a Bible believing Christian, who has read and studied the scriptures from beginning to end, I cannot help but feel that our God is grieved when we fail to show empathy, charity, goodwill and a helping hand towards others, whatever their situation and circumstances, and failing to show them dignity and humanity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would need to understand in which ways religious freedom (as it relates to religious freedom, in a true individual sense, and not in the context of "I don't like seeing someone else do XYZ, even if it doesn't restrict me, personally, because it goes against my faith") is being restricted.

This is one of those cases where helpful lens to look through is that of understanding the difference between positive and negative rights.

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia

Negative rights oblige inaction, positive rights oblige action

Negative rights pertain to what you're allowed to do and/or ones that oblige inaction (meaning they can't stop you from doing something, and doesn't require anyone else to give up any of their own negative rights in order for you to have it).

Positive rights pertain to "what you're owed", and when there's a receiver, that means there's also a giver...which would oblige action from others; or restriction on others.

Our constitutional liberties (whether it be speech, religion, expression, etc...) are centered around the concepts of negative rights.


Within the equality act, there are provisions that could reasonably be interpreted as falling on either side of that depending on the provision.


An example of the difference would be
A negative right: A person identifying as a female wanting to use female facilities. It requires no action from anyone else (I don't have to pay or give up anything for someone else to use the existing facilities of their choice), and it doesn't infringe on anyone else's negative rights.

A positive right: Mandating taxpayer funded elective abortion. That provision would oblige action from others as they're having to give up their own money to pay for it.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Here in the UK we have the Equality Act, which has been around since 2006 and updated in 2010. It prevents people from being unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of protected characteristics such as race, religious belief, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, or pregnancy.

In my view, the Equality Act is the finest and fairest piece of legislation that has been introduced in my entire lifetime and my only wish is that is was introduced much sooner.

We are all people created in the image of God. Whatever our personal circumstances, our nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, whatever our ability, whether we old or young, are gay or straight, however we perceive ourselves and the world we live in, we all have the right to live our lives free of fear from the persecution, mistreatment, and the political, religious and idealogical burdens placed upon us by others.

In the Bible, there are passages addressing aspects of behaviour and conduct, yet by contrast there are literally hundreds of verses, maybe thousands, addressing God's concern for the poor, the marginalised, the mistreated and misunderstood. As a Bible believing Christian, who has read and studied the scriptures from beginning to end, I cannot help but feel that our God is grieved when we fail to show empathy, charity, goodwill and a helping hand towards others, whatever their situation and circumstances, and failing to show them dignity and humanity.

Thanks for sharing, it's interesting to hear of this happening across the Atlantic (or "across the pond"?)

It sounds like the Equality Act you're discussing is similar to the one being considered in the US, but maybe different in a few respects. One of the key issues is the mandate for doctors to perform abortions & sex changes, even if it's against their moral or professional judgement (see the source from the OP). Discrimination is terribly un-Christian, as you point out, yet this mandate is beyond the level of discrimination, and prevents religious beliefs against these operations (as Catholics, Muslims, and other significant groups hold) from validating a doctor's refusal to perform an operation against their moral & professional judgement. This seems contrary to dignity & humanity.

 

[SilverBear]

Thanks for sharing, it's interesting to hear of this happening across the Atlantic (or "across the pond"?)

It sounds like the Equality Act you're discussing is similar to the one being considered in the US, but maybe different in a few respects. One of the key issues is the mandate for doctors to perform abortions & sex changes, even if it's against their moral or professional judgement (see the source from the OP).

Discrimination is terribly un-Christian, as you point out, yet this mandate is beyond the level of discrimination, and prevents religious beliefs against these operations (as Catholics, Muslims, and other significant groups hold) from validating a doctor's refusal to perform an operation against their moral & professional judgement. This seems contrary to dignity & humanity.

Here is the Equality Act legislation

No where is there language that supports of these claims.

In fact the idea that a physician could be "forced" to perform a sex change operation is ridiculous in the extreme. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex surgery that requires years of specialization and training.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Here is the Equality Act legislation

No where is there language that supports of these claims.

In fact the idea that a physician could be "forced" to perform a sex change operation is ridiculous in the extreme. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex surgery that requires years of specialization and training.

First of all, I appreciate your willingness to continue a dialogue. I always wonder how many people pass me off as stupid or ignorant, without bothering to ask for clarification that could shift their understanding (at least, I know this is something I'm guilty of). This article pulls quotes from the Equality Act & references to similar legislation & court appeals to explain what I said better than I can:

5 Things To Know About The Extremist ‘Equality Act’ The House Passed

I'm not too familiar with The Federalist, but from my limited experience, it seems to have a slant in their opinions, but very well-done articles. While I wish they would cite more sources, the level of research is impressive, and anyone who's still skeptical is welcome to cross-check it's claims & let us know what you find.

In fact the idea that a physician could be "forced" to perform a sex change operation is ridiculous in the extreme. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex surgery that requires years of specialization and training.

I imagine this would only apply to physicians who already have the training. Cross check me if you want, but I don't know of any health care legislation that calls on doctors to act outside of their training.

 

[Aldebaran]

Here is the Equality Act legislation

No where is there language that supports of these claims.

In fact the idea that a physician could be "forced" to perform a sex change operation is ridiculous in the extreme. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex surgery that requires years of specialization and training.

Would it mandate that a pastor of a church would have to perform a wedding for a same sex couple.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Would it mandate that a pastor of a church would have to perform a wedding for a same sex couple.

If discrimination against same-sex couples is banned, and religious freedom can't be used as a defense against this mandate, I suppose that would become required. Can't say for sure, but that's what it looks like

 

[Tinker Grey]

If discrimination against same-sex couples is banned, and religious freedom can't be used as a defense against this mandate, I suppose that would become required. Can't say for sure, but that's what it looks like

I don't know why people keep getting this wrong. Are churches required to marry people of races they don't like? No. Are churches required to marry interracial couples? No. Will churches be required to marry homosexuals? No.

Caveat: If a church is in the habit of renting their facilities to the public for such ceremonies, then they will not be able to refuse any member of the public based on race, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Such a church will either need to stop renting to the public (a commercial venture) or allow gay people to use the facilities. However, no pastor will be required to be the officiant.

 

[hedrick]

I just looked at the law. It extends existing civil rights rules to include orientation and gender identity. Thus it covers specific things,
public accommodation, education, housing, employment, credit, juries. It does not include religious activities, which would include marriage except if a church runs a commercial marriage service.

It would make clear that bakers have to sell products to gays, but does not resolve the primary constitutional issue, which is whether making custom cakes is protected speech, or indeed whether it's a public accommodation at all. If the Supreme Court decides it is or isn't, this law would not apply.

It also does not give any specifics on how it would apply to school sports. The existing law, for example, has been interpreted as requiring equal access to sports for men and women but does not mandate integrated teams. I believe the states and courts would still need to figure out what equal access to sports means for trans students.

This is far from an extremist law.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't know why people keep getting this wrong. Are churches required to marry people of races they don't like? No. Are churches required to marry interracial couples? No. Will churches be required to marry homosexuals? No.

Has the Equality Act become law to make those things actually happen yet? No.
Equality Act (H.R. 5)

Should it actually pass? No.

 

[Aldebaran]

I just looked at the law. It extends existing civil rights rules to include orientation and gender identity. Thus it covers specific things,
public accommodation, education, housing, employment, credit, juries. It does not include religious activities, which would include marriage except if a church runs a commercial marriage service.

They'd just deal with that later, citing the "Private religious organization loophole". That's how they deal with things like this. They get a law passed that they can say, "See, we're not forcing churches to do anything!", and then after they get the bill into law, they call those exemptions "loopholes" that need to be closed.

 

[SilverBear]

Would it mandate that a pastor of a church would have to perform a wedding for a same sex couple.

no.

you know that


Churches are not places of business and pastors aren't public servants. NO one can compel anyone to conduct a marriage. This is why you still hear about pastor's refusing to marrying interracial couples, refusing to do so is not illegal

 

[hedrick]

They'd just deal with that later, citing the "Private religious organization loophole". That's how they deal with things like this. They get a law passed that they can say, "See, we're not forcing churches to do anything!", and then after they get the bill into law, they call those exemptions "loopholes" that need to be closed.

Since the loophole still exists for race, this isn’t realistic. It also doesn’t make sense. Would you have churches required to marry anyone who asks, no matter their religion? There’s no history in the legal treatment of marriage to suggest this. There is, however plenty of history of people trying to rile up emotions by threatening things that won’t happen.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Here in the UK we have the Equality Act, which has been around since 2006 and updated in 2010. It prevents people from being unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of protected characteristics such as race, religious belief, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, or pregnancy.

In my view, the Equality Act is the finest and fairest piece of legislation that has been introduced in my entire lifetime and my only wish is that is was introduced much sooner.

We are all people created in the image of God. Whatever our personal circumstances, our nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, whatever our ability, whether we old or young, are gay or straight, however we perceive ourselves and the world we live in, we all have the right to live our lives free of fear from the persecution, mistreatment, and the political, religious and idealogical burdens placed upon us by others.

In the Bible, there are passages addressing aspects of behaviour and conduct, yet by contrast there are literally hundreds of verses, maybe thousands, addressing God's concern for the poor, the marginalised, the mistreated and misunderstood. As a Bible believing Christian, who has read and studied the scriptures from beginning to end, I cannot help but feel that our God is grieved when we fail to show empathy, charity, goodwill and a helping hand towards others, whatever their situation and circumstances, and failing to show them dignity and humanity.

So...all reasonable, except it sounds very much like you are saying that if any person in a protected class wants to do anything that a particular religious belief prohibits, the religious belief must fall to the legislation.

How does that work in the admittedly quite rare instances where there is a direct conflict? Such as Faith leader (say Muslim or Christian) simply cannot in good conscience perform a religious ceremony for a same sex couple because the scriptures prohibit it?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Here is the Equality Act legislation

No where is there language that supports of these claims.

In fact the idea that a physician could be "forced" to perform a sex change operation is ridiculous in the extreme. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex surgery that requires years of specialization and training.

But abortions do not. That was the question that I saw.

 

[comana]

But abortions do not. That was the question that I saw.

Still doesn’t explain how a physician could be forced to perform an abortion. If an OB/Gyn does not include abortion in their practice, then they cannot be forced to perform one.