Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). CREDIT: AP Photo/Evan Vucci.
Republicans from all over the place have been jubilant over the possibilities of legislating their hatred, in particular, their hatred of LGBTIA people. Much old legislation is having the dust blown off, polished up, and gleefully presented once again, their hopes high on being able to oppress people, and have that oppression stick.
FADA is a bill (HR 2802) that would create a special status of protection exclusively for individuals who oppose same-sex marriage or premarital sex. The federal government would be prohibited from taking any “discriminatory action” against them, including denying tax exemptions, withholding grants or contracts, or denying any federal benefit. In other words, it would require the federal government to prop up anti-gay (and anti-sex) discrimination.
“Hopefully November’s results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year,” Conn Carroll, Lee’s spokesman, told BuzzFeed. “We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump’s positive words about the bill.”
FADA co-sponsor Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) similarly boasted, “The prospects for protecting religious freedom are brighter now than they have been in a long time.”
This is not about protecting religious freedom, or religious anything, and it never has been. This is the bare assertion that Christians have a legal right to hate, and to oppress people based on a specific religious belief. Christians do not need protecting, in any way, shape, or form. In spite of their constant desire to present themselves as persecuted, nothing could be further from the truth here in uStates. People are free to pray wherever the hell they want to, and unless you’re into the anti-biblical kind of showy praying, how would anyone even know you’re praying? You can carry a bible anywhere you like. The fact that others are free to walk away, argue, or criticise you if you whip it out? That’s not persecution. If you think you require legal protection from all the evil sluts who want something horrific, like contraception, then I’d suggest the field you find yourself in is not a good fit. Really, it’s not difficult to get along without crying a persecution game, and convincing yourself you need protection from the menacing tide of perfectly normal, nice people is simply evil.
Christians just love a narrative of persecution, implying they are the brave soldiers, standing strong for their god, a god who must be quite the weakling, considering it can’t ever stand up for itself, but the insistence on legislating bigotry and hate points to only one thing: cowardice. Craven, cringing, cowardly Christians, who just cannot face a day where they might encounter a queer person doing something hideous, like offering money for a service, oh my!
The only refuge LGBT people might find if both Congress and the White House turn against them is in the courts. For example, in July, Federal Judge Carlton Reeves, an Obama appointee, ruled against Mississippi’s HB 1523, which largely mirrors FADA’s protections for those who oppose marriage equality. “A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” he wrote.
But if FADA or similar legislation passes, LGBT people will have to fight it with the Justice Department working against them.
If we can be sure of one thing, it’s that republicans will be presenting a near overwhelming amount of anti-LGBTIA legislation, and at least some of it is sure to pass.
Lee’s hairstyle and suit wouldn’t have looked out of place sitting next to Joe McCarthy or George McGovern.
(Normally, commenting on another person’s looks is out of line, but here it seems á propos.)
I would assume it’s the standard #MAGA look.
That’s not just about contraception. It’S also about discriminating against single mothers. Of course, nobody would ever discriminate against dudes who had sex…
It’s so telling that they single out these specific, narrow, targeted topics for ‘protection’.
If they really wanted to protect religious ‘thought’ or whatever they want to call it, they would make the language broad and include any religious beliefs. Of course, it makes it that much more obvious that they are legislating (badly) in a way that is pretty blatantly unconstitutional, but trying to get it through under the auspices of religion, which is also blatantly unconstitutional, but they don’t understand that part well anyway.
I know the Satanic temple really likes to take advantage of these kinds of laws, which often causes them to fail when legislators get wind that it might happen.
CC:
Yes, here’s hoping they can do some good work!