It’s come to our attention that President Obama will “commemorate” the enactment of the hate-crimes bill this Wednesday, October 28th.
Let’s all pause and listen to the sound of a little more of your religious liberty being flushed down the toilet.
Because let’s be honest. This bill was never about addressing the “epidemic” of hate crimes against homosexuals that advocates claimed it was. There was and is no epidemic — as my colleague Bruce made very clear in this post.
The hate-crimes bill is, at its heart, about ensuring that those who believe in God’s design for male-female sexuality are scared into silence and coerced into acceptance. Gay rights activists—emboldened by an ally in the White House and Democrat majority in Congress—are pushing for the complete normalization of homosexuality in every arena of society.
And they’re not done yet.
They want private employers to be banned from making hiring and firing decisions based on their religious convictions about homosexuality (note to for-profit, Christian business owners and employers: beware). They’re also demanding more benefits for homosexual partners of federal employees, even after President Obama extended benefits by executive order. And let’s not forget their holy grail: repealing the longstanding military policy of preventing homosexuals from serving in the military. Or perhaps their holy grail is the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. (You know, that pesky thing that defines marriage as – oh my goodness! – between one man and one woman).
So when Wednesday rolls around and President Obama and his gay activist allies are celebrating their victory over religious liberty in the White House, do a little pondering on this: elections matter.
On Friday’s Focus on the Family Action broadcast, Dr. James Dobson alerted listeners about recent actions taken by Congress and our President that could affect families and children for years to come.
He was joined by three members of our public policy team—myself as the education analyst; Tom Minnery, our Vice President; and Carrie Earll, the director of the Issues-Analysis team. Here’s a quick run down:
We began the broadcast by discussing our alarm over the appointment of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, including his commitment to pushing homosexual advocacy into schools down to the kindergarten level.
Also topping the list of concerns was President Obama’s pledge to work to overturn a federal law protecting traditional, man-woman marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA).
When Tom Minnery pointed out that the President’s pledge actually contradicts traditional-marriage measures passed in at least 45 states, Dr. Dobson expressed his distress: “Can you imagine, now, that the President of the United States stands up there and essentially contradicts and defies the will of the American people in 45 states? What gall!”
Also discussed was the “hate crimes” legislation, recently passed by the U.S. Congress. Carrie Earll expressed her concern about the “aiding and abetting” section that’s attached to the bill, which could eventually be used to attack pastors who dare to preach about homosexuality.
To listen to the whole broadcast, click here.
One issue that caught my attention while watching the House ENDA hearings came during the testimony of Craig Parshall with the National Religious Broadcasters Association. As the lone opposition witness against ENDA allowed by the Democrat-controlled committee, Parshall raised several religious liberty and conscience problems with ENDA. However, one that jumped out at me as needing lots more public discussion was the issue of religious exemptions for for-profit religious corporations like a Christian radio station (I think he said his organization represents over 200 such for-profit stations along with non-profits). I’m sure there are other examples of for-profit religious corporations: bookstores, church supplies, camps, schools, etc.
I’m familiar with the Left’s talking points that “once you enter the stream of commerce, you give up your right to act on your religious beliefs.” But it seems pretty clear that neither the federal employment laws (including either Title VII or the proposed ENDA) nor any Supreme Court case actually says that in so many words. Courts have used for-profit status as one negative factor in a multi-factor test to determine whether a corporation does qualify for the Title VII religious exemption, but to my knowledge there is no “per se” rule that says if a corporation is run for-profit, it automatically cannot qualify for a religious exemption.
So why aren’t we talking more about the religious liberty rights of for-profit religious corporations? I haven’t seen a reasonable defense for denying a religious exemption to them, and I would argue that there isn’t one.
UPDATE: Parshall’s testimony can be found here.
So says Professor Eskridge of Yale Law School at today’s extremely one-sided House hearings on ENDA. Eskridge, a self-identified gay man, seemed to be the celebrity witness of the hour or so of the hearings that I watched. He must have referenced the “moral” necessity of ENDA a half dozen times. And he pointedly referred to Congress in particular as our moral leader or example. Really? I was reminded of the recent Rasmussen poll of what the public currently thinks of Congress. But I digress.
The point I was going to make is this: I’ve said before that almost any legislation you can think of has a moral component, but since the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, liberals have proclaimed the death of morality in legislation. Are we back to admitting that legislation has a moral component? I’m confused.
Seriously, at least Eskridge’s “moral necessity” plea ends one of the Left’s sillier arguments. Now I’m free to argue about the moral necessity for protecting the religious beliefs and freedom of conscience for all of the employers and employees who will be impacted by ENDA. Right?
Some “slippery slope” arguments are quantifiably accurate. Those of us in the fight for traditional marriage have long noted (and warned about) the relationship between states passing non-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, and later court decisions mandating civil unions and/or same-sex “marriage” in those same states. In the 2003 Massachusetts decision in the Goodridge case, the judges imposing the new marriage regime there cited their sexual-orientation-inclusive, non-discrimination laws as partial support for their radical decision. The phenomenon repeated itself in other marriage-redefining cases in other states. Now The Heritage Foundation has published a paper written by Tom Messner entitled “ENDA and the Path to Same-Sex Marriage” that documents the history of this incremental tactic in support of marriage redefinition. This is a valuable tool for litigators and legislators to have at the ready.
Since we’re on the cusp of congressional hearings (Sept. 23) considering a federal ENDA, we should learn from the Heritage paper that adding sexual orientation to our federal laws regarding employment (as well as creating a new hate crimes law for the purpose of adding sexual orientation as a protected category in federal law) puts us on an incremental path (i.e. a slippery slope) toward a national redefinition of marriage.
For people of faith (who own, operate or are employed by businesses) already worried about the impact of the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA (which will grant federal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in private employment), the latest news from the White House will not come as a comfort. The President has nominated Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor, as a commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is charged with enforcing the nation’s federal employment laws such as Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and will also enforce ENDA, should it pass.
Feldblum, a lesbian and leading proponent of ENDA, has already told us how the inevitable conflict between religious liberty and sexual orientation laws will come out:
“Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the ‘zero sum’ nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.”
At least Professor Feldblum understands that religious liberty is infringed by laws like ENDA, and that this is a zero sum game. Most gay activists will not even grant that much. Her sympathy for lost religious liberty, however, will be small consolation for those of us from whom she will be taking it.
Feldblum will be one of 5 commissioners, and her nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.
