Congress

Federal LGBT Equality Act Gets First GOP Sponsor

But he says he wants to make sure religious freedom is preserved.

|

Google autocomplete must be a constant disappointment for him.
Rep. Bob Dold

Introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court mandating legal recognition of same-sex couples, the federal Equality Act is intended to expand pretty much all national anti-discrimination laws to add sexual orientation and gender identity. This would include employment, public accommodations, housing, jury service, lending and federal contracting.

The act was introduced by Democratic legislators and has been endorsed by President Barack Obama and the three remaining Democratic candidates. But it did not have any formal Republican support, and therefore no possibility of being anything more than a campaign issue, until today.

Republican Illinois Rep. Bob Dold has announced that he will be supporting the Equality Act. He gave a brief statement to The Hill, but did not have a formal announcement up yet on his own site. The Hill also notes that he is facing a tough re-election bid. He and Democrat Bruce Schneider keep trading control over the seat:

"Illinois has a long and proud history of fighting for equal rights, and I am proud to continue this tradition by supporting the Equality Act. Engraved on the front of the Supreme Court is the phrase 'equal justice under the law,' but as long as any Americans can be legally discriminated against, there is not equal justice in this country," Dold said.

"Congress must act to ensure that all Americans, including the LGBT community, are protected equally from discrimination under federal law, just as they already are in my home state of Illinois."

Dold added that while the bill is "not perfect in its current form, it marks an important first step in the process of crafting a bipartisan bill that ensures equal rights for all Americans while also fully protecting the religious freedoms our Constitution guarantees."

Dold's caveats that it's "not perfect" are interesting, but it's not clear yet what he's referring to by protecting religious freedoms. The Washington Blade was trying to get more information from his office. Most of the legislation (pdf) is about adding sexual orientation and gender identity to existing federal code, so existing religious-based exemptions to discrimination law would still be valid.

But wait: There is one potentially important change. In one short paragraph, the law declares that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense against complying with these laws. And there's also the matter that it greatly expands the definition of what counts as a "public accommodation" under federal law. Current federal law is much more restrictive than many state's public accommodation laws. Even if sexual orientation were added to current federal public accommodation rules, they don't cover services like florists and photographers, some of whom have been subject to state sanctions for declining to provide services for gay weddings.

I have previously (repeatedly) expressed my concerns with the law lumping together private choices and government discrimination together and treating it like it's all the same thing, and requiring of a federal solution. Read more here.

NEXT: Billions and Baskets Excel at Wildly Divergent Story Concepts

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Bill Clintob could not be reached for comment, however.

      1. You won’t have Nick Dixon to kick around anymore!

        1. Heir to the Dixon Cider fortune?

    2. Would you have preferred George Busk?

    3. “Bob Dold supports the equality act. BOB DOLD!” – Bob Dold

      1. Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

      2. KODOS!

        1. Want to be a member of the Apathy party?

          1. Oh boy! I do!

            1. MicroAgg is out.

          2. Eh, who cares, really?

            1. YOU’RE IN!

          3. Meh.

          4. Meh.

        2. Go ahead! Vote third party, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!

        3. Go ahead! Vote third party, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!

          1. If you don’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in!

  1. “Public accommodations” must be a vote-getter in Illinois.

    1. Sticking it to private industry? Come on, it’s like a national pastime.

  2. That guy definitely looks like he has an interest in LGBT issues.

  3. And there’s also the matter that it greatly expands the definition of what counts as a “public accommodation” under federal law.

    Sigh. Can we get someone to float a law that public accommodation laws ONLY apply to government agencies?

    1. No, Next question.

      1. I appreciate your concision.

    2. something something CORPERASHUNZ!! Jim Crow!!!! something something /progderp

      1. Pretty much.

        You’d think progressives would be a little reluctant to make that comparison given how ugly the era was and how inconsequential the modern complaints are, and how absurd and insulting drawing a parallel between them is, but you would be mistaken.

  4. To me, it mirrors the gay marriage issue itself, in that it’s kind of stupid that the government is involved at all, but that’s not going away anytime soon. So may as well at least trample freedom of association equally rather than selectively.

    From a more theoretical point of view, though, Scott’s right, it’s a shame that private behavior got sucked into these discussions.

    1. “””””So may as well at least trample freedom of association equally rather than selectively.”””

      So equality beats freedom?

      If one of us is going to be put up against a wall and shot then we all should be.

      1. So equality beats freedom?

        What, first time here?

  5. Discrimination is a civil right protected by Freedom of Association and Freedom of Belief. The later protects one for discriminatory motives (apart from crimes like murder) while the former protects one for actual associations made.

    1. As it’s been described to me by my somewhat thoughtful lefty friends, you have every right to hold any beliefs you want, you just don’t have a right to run a business under the onus of those beliefs. And when I tried explaining that, in effect, you have no right to those beliefs if you have no right to act on those beliefs (precluding, as you say, murder or assault), I’m told that maybe these regressive throwbacks shouldn’t be running businesses.

      1. Yeah, that’s basically the reasoning behind it. They will often throw in bits about “giving up rights for the right to do business” or take corporate form or something similar that has no basis in law or the Constitution

        1. “the right to do business”

          WTF? I know right where I’d do my business!

          1. Private bushinesses have the same rights as private individuals as far as I am concerned. The I dea that they don’t because the state lets them run their business is absurd. Or that they “open for business” constitutes a promise to do actual transactions is also incorrect.

    2. ZOMG HPEARCE I LOVE YOU!!11!!!!1 ELEVENTYONE! YOU ONLY SHOW UP ON THREADS TO MAKE DECLARATIONS ABOUT FREEDUMZ UV ASOSIASHUN BUT THATS OKAY BECUZ YOU AR ALWAS TEH RIGHEST ON THAT!!!1!!!111!!!

  6. Nothing about this bill is good from a libertarian perspective. One can only hope that the bill (and the general notion of expanding non-discrimination ordinances) is given short shrift.

    1. Not gonna happen. Every Dem in Congress will vote for this, and I’m sure there are enough Repubs who scared of being called bigots if they don’t mandate association with gays to get it over the finish line.

      I’ll be very surprised if this doesn’t pass. Ah, well.

      1. And many of the Republican supporters will be people who yearn to be featured in fawning media profiles about the courageous Republican maverick who bucked his party leadership to stand up for human dignity etc.

        1. You know, for about 5 minutes before the media turns on them again.

          See, e.g., Chief Justice Roberts.

  7. Congress must act to ensure that all Americans…are protected equally from discrimination under federal law

    Except white people, who are not a protected class.

    If your criteria include a specific list of types of people who deserve protection, and others who don’t, then it’s quite dishonest to cite “equality under the law” as justification.

    But I know. Nobody gives a fuck so it gets a pass.

    1. Moreover, all this does is make the target group more expensive to hire due to litigation risk; increasing the “disparate impact” progs like to whine about so much. But intentions are what matter. Even when they’re counterproductive to their stated goal.

    2. “Race”, “national origin”, “sexual orientation” et al. are not types of people.

      1. “Racy”, OTOH ….

      2. How do you figure, Rhywun?

    3. Except white people, who are not a protected class.

      If your criteria include a specific list of types of people who deserve protection, and others who don’t, then it’s quite dishonest to cite “equality under the law” as justification.

      That’s not how anti-discrimination laws work.

      1. That’s not how they’re written, but whether it’s how they work is a different matter entirely.

  8. “Introduced in the wake of the Supreme Court mandating legal recognition of same-sex couples, the federal Equality Act…”

    Stop right there!

    There is *no connection* between state-mandated SSM and the current attempts to dictate to private companies.

    No connection at all.

    Why is Reason buying into this SoCon myth?

    /sarc

    1. Look. No libertarian who supported the redefining of marriage wanted this to happen. It was never intended. Thus there could not possibly be a connection. Anyone who says otherwise is an intolerant bigot who hates homosexuals.

      1. Only a moron would claim causality.

        1. Only an idiot would deny a connection.

          1. They are connected. Both concern gays.

            Are you going to claim that SSM cannot exist without adding homosexuals to the list of protected classes?

            Are you going to claim that it’s not possible to permit gays to marry and do away with public accommodation altogether?

            Are you going to claim that it’s somehow hypocritical to call for both government recognized SSM AND an elimination of public accommodation?

            Are you saying that one cannot be against government involvement in marriage based upon libertarian principle AND believe that SSM should be allowed based upon constitutionality?

            Keep your apples with your apples RC.

            1. I am merely observing that, in the messy and illogical world of politics and grievance-mongering, that a court decision concluding that gays have been on the short end of “equal protection” under the Constitution lays the foundation for the expansion of other equal protection laws to encompass gays. In American thinking these days, Equal Protection = anti-discrimination, and discrimination only occurs against recognized protected/privileged classes.

              To believe otherwise, you have to ignore the statements of gay activists, the remarkable coincidence of state/local lawsuits being brought at an accelerating rate after Obergefell, and this law being brought shortly to the floor, also shortly after Obergefell.

              1. I am merely observing that, in the messy and illogical world of politics and grievance-mongering, that a court decision concluding that gays have been on the short end of “equal protection” under the Constitution lays the foundation for the expansion of other equal protection laws to encompass gays.

                So we should continue to violate 14A because if we comply with it they’ll use the correct decision to attempt to do bad stuff? By all means, let’s keep slavery because eliminating it will lead to public accommodation laws… Same lame argument, albeit a bit more dramatic.

                In American thinking these days, Equal Protection = anti-discrimination, and discrimination only occurs against recognized protected/privileged classes.

                And they lazy man’s solution is to play along with that notion because it’s too difficult to actually argue the distinction.

                1. So we should continue to violate 14A

                  Well, I disagree that traditional marriage was a violation of the 1A (essentially, you first have to sub rosa redefine marriage to mean “any two people” to get to the conclusion that “man and woman” violates EP), so there’s that.

                  Keep in mind, I think gay people should get married. I just think the route taken (EP, paving the way for “anti-discrimination” lawsuits) was a bad one for liberty in general.

                  By all means, let’s keep slavery because eliminating it will lead to public accommodation laws.

                  Eliminating slavery did no such thing. Public accommodation didn’t show up for another 100 years.

                  And they lazy man’s solution is to play along with that notion

                  I wasn’t playing along with the notion. I was recognizing that it is very widely held, and predicting the results based on this notion being widely held.

                  1. you first have to sub rosa redefine marriage to mean “any two people”

                    No…you don’t. That is simply the lawyer in you attempting to bend the intent to your will.

                    If I define marriage as two between two white people would 14A apply? Or would I first need to change the definition of marriage to mean between any man and any woman?

                    No, 14A prohibits you from defining marriage as between a man and a woman to begin with.

                    Eliminating slavery did no such thing. Public accommodation didn’t show up for another 100 years.

                    So are you claiming the timeframe between events is what determines causality? (Keep in mind, my position is that neither is causal). So you’d be okay with SSM if gay PA didn’t happen for another hundred years?
                    _____________________

                    Bottom line…

                    The possibility that politicians will use a legitimate ruling as an excuse to implement nefarious policy in the future is not an excuse to continue to violate the constitution.

            2. More specifically:

              Are you going to claim that SSM cannot exist without adding homosexuals to the list of protected classes?

              Not at all. It could have been adopted via legislation without tying into the EP = discrimination against protected classes mindset.

              Are you going to claim that it’s not possible to permit gays to marry and do away with public accommodation altogether?

              Theoretically, many things are possible. However, in the real world, public accommodation isn’t going away, and adding to the list of protected/privileged classes only entrenches it.

              Are you going to claim that it’s somehow hypocritical to call for both government recognized SSM AND an elimination of public accommodation?

              Nope. That’s exactly my position, in fact.

              Are you saying that one cannot be against government involvement in marriage based upon libertarian principle AND believe that SSM should be allowed based upon constitutionality?

              I am against government involvement in marriage on principle, and I have real problems with the logic and arguments re traditional marriage as a violation of EP, even though I support gay (and plural) marriage licensing by the state, if states are going to license marriage at all.

              1. So you agree with me then that the two are not connected and the argument that SSM causes PA AND the argument that because there was no SSM we are entitled to PA are equally fallacious.

                The only place we disagree is that prohibiting one group from the entitlements you provide another under color of law is an EP violation. Which it pretty clearly is…by definition.

                1. So you agree with me then that the two are not connected

                  No. I have explained that they are connected, and that this connection has been confirmed by both people’s own statements and events.

                  the argument that SSM causes PA

                  Something I never argued, at least not for strong values of “causes”. For weaker values, arising from the likelihood that the EP decision would increase the use of PA, I think I’m in good shape, based on, again, people’s own statements and events.

                  prohibiting one group from the entitlements you provide another under color of law is an EP violation

                  If that were true, the government’s refusal to give me Social Security benefits at age 50 is an EP violation.

                  1. If that were true, the government’s refusal to give me Social Security benefits at age 50 is an EP violation.

                    And it is. To the extent that it’s a law that provides unequal privileges to one group over another. Of course that interpretation, would significantly limit government power and therefore couldn’t possibly have been the intent of the amendment. (sarc in case you missed it)

                    I believe that’s EXACTLY what 14A says. If states cannot make and/or enforce a law that applies to everyone equally, they have no authority to make the law. (Of course, one could reasonably argue that 14A applies only to the States, and not the feds). And yes, I’m well aware of the ramifications of such an interpretation and the liberty that would ensue if enforced.

                    They can make laws that say:
                    One may not murder.
                    One may not steal.

                    They can’t make laws that say:
                    If you make more than $100K the government may take more of your money.

        2. These two “separate” movements – state sponsored SSM and “public accomodations” laws – are, like I suggested, “connected” – in the sense that the Siamese Twins were connected.

          The two “separate” movements feed off each other and reinforce each other.

          A victory for one cause promotes and advances the other cause.

          The only place these two things are unconnected is in the theoretical constructs of libertarians, in their speculations about a Libertopia where the government is so small it need not take any notice of who’s married and who’s not.

          1. They’re not separate movements, any more than “raise the minimum wage” and “free healthcare for all” are separate movements. They are separate legal matters.

          2. The only place they are connected is in your mind, because it fits your narrative.

            1. They are also connected in the minds of gay activists (unless you think they are lying), and in the minds of the sponsors of this bill (who are politicians, and thus may well be lying).

              Judging from the first sentence in this article, they are also connected in Scott’s mind.

        3. You know, I find it sad how libertarian-minded people descend into the progtard “I didn’t intend this so it can not possibly the the result of my good intentions! Your objection to my good intentions means you have bad intentions! You’re evil!” mentality whenever this subject comes up.

          1. I know. The thing is, some of us predicted exactly this. We described the mindset that connected the two, and how it would play out. And people are still in denial that they are connected pretty much the way we described.

            1. They never intended for this to happen, and mocked and belittled those of us who saw it coming. They’ve got too much of an emotional investment to admit that we were right.

          2. “I didn’t intend this so it can not possibly the the result of my good intentions!

            Has nothing to do with intentions. It has to do with right and wrong.

            Equality under the law is right.

            Forcing association is wrong.

            Two completely different issues and attempting to conflate them is simply a lazy argument.

            We can’t do this cuz peeplz iz too stupit to know the differnz tween EP and PA…

            derp

            1. Two completely different issues and attempting to conflate them is simply a lazy argument.

              In practice the two are so intertwined that saying one won’t affect the other is lazy or dishonest.

            2. And yet, as shown by the proposed bill, in the minds of democratic politicians they are irrevocably connected.

              1. To both sarc and Designate:

                So you are going to prohibit what’s right to ensure someone doesn’t later do wrong?

                How about just presenting the correct arguments? EP is correct on both constitutional AND libertarian grounds. EP is NOT PA. PA is wrong as it violates people’s rights.

                I’ll go you one better. Make the argument that no marriage should require government approval on libertarian grounds. I’ll support it as well, but I won’t support an EP violation in the meantime, under the lazy guize that government marriage is un-libertarian so adding gays…mixed races…catholics and protestants (pick your group) shouldn’t count as an EP violation.

                1. How about just presenting some honest arguments? EP and PA are intertwined to the point of being the same thing as a practical matter. Yes in principle they are not the same thing, but in practice they are. So extending EP will result in more PA. Whether you intend it or not, that will be the result.

                  1. Yes in principle they are not the same thing

                    Jesus, sarc, a libertarian certainly wouldn’t want to argue from principle.

                    1. Jesus, sarc, a libertarian certainly wouldn’t want to argue from principle.

                      In principle SSM without PA would be great. Yeah. And my wife would love to ride a flying unicorn to work.

                2. So you are going to prohibit what’s right to ensure someone doesn’t later do wrong?

                  Who said that? My argument has always been that SSM was a backdoor to more PA lawsuits. That was never a value judgement, just an accurate prediction. But I was always met with hostility, as if I was accusing everyone who supported SSM of wanting more PA. While there are/were many activists who did indeed intend that to happen, many were swept up in the movement who never intended that to happen. Thing is, it was inevitable. Regardless of anyone’s intentions, it was going to happen. And now it is happening, and I’m still being met with hostility for pointing out what was, to me anyway, obvious.

                  1. sarc, you and I are on exactly the same page.

                3. I didn’t say that Francisco. I was just pointing out that there are, in fact, people that treat them as being linked together.

                  And I’ve been pretty solidly in the “everyone should be able to marry whomever they want as long as they are all consenting adults” camp since I first started thinking about these kinds of things.

            3. Francisco, you need to understand that things that are not logically or rationally connected, can still nonetheless be connected in people’s minds. That’s all I am saying.

            4. You’re exactly like a progressive who wants to solve problem A with well-intended policy X, and when warned that policy X will have unintended consequence Y, accuses the ones making the warning of having bad intentions. And then when unintended consequence Y does indeed come as a result of well-intended policy X, you double-down with more accusations of bad intentions combined with other personal insults.

              If I didn’t like you I’d laugh. As it is I’m kinda sad.

              1. And here’s the thing. This wasn’t some unforeseeable consequence. This was predicted. It was a foreseeable consequence.

                Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

                Meaning, going on with your support of the EP lawsuits after having been warned that they would result in more PA lawsuits, means that you regard the PA lawsuits as an acceptable price to pay for SSM. If you know policy X will result in consequences Y (good) and Z (bad), and you go ahead anyway, you have to accept some responsibility for both Y (good) and Z (bad).

                If you shoot your gun in the air in celebration, and somebody gets killed by the bullet falling back, you are responsible for their death, even though you didn’t “intend” it.

                1. If you shoot your gun in the air in celebration, and somebody gets killed by the bullet falling back, you are responsible for their death, even though you didn’t “intend” it.

                  That was a heck of a wedding.

                2. going on with your support of the EP lawsuits after having been warned that they would result in more PA lawsuits, means that you regard the PA lawsuits as an acceptable price to pay for SSM.

                  Non Sequitur

                  It’s not causal. There is absolutely no reason under the sun that I can’t have SSM AND abolish PA at the same time. In fact, there would be PA lawsuits without SSM.

                  1. There is absolutely no reason under the sun that I can’t have SSM AND abolish PA at the same time.

                    There is absolutely no reason under the sun that you can’t have open borders and no welfare. No reason other than the fact that reality is a bitch. Welfare ain’t going away. So open borders will result in welfare abuse, because welfare is not going to be abolished.

                    PA is not going to be abolished. Yeah it would be nice, but it isn’t going away. That is reality. It sucks, but that’s how it works. Now SSM has resulted in PA abuse.

                    *shrug*

                3. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.gg

                  This should be repeated much more often, as it’s now too often used to remove blame. In the, “We didn’t realize…” mode, which is nothing more than the false and often used argument that intentions matter.

                  Like ObamaCare and the numerous studies and what not which started higher costs, lower access, etc, etc, etc.

                  Now that it’s happening, to allow any proponent to claim it was unintended is akin to allowing a known rapist to walk by merely arguing “she asked for it” as a defense.

                  Going further, it any group passes a law to do X, are told by many others (trusted/research sources) that X wouldn’t happen, but Y would, and Y turns out to be correct, all future laws proposed by this group should be circumspect by default as they have proven b themselves incapable of analyzing the situation.

                  But it’s principals, not principles these days….

              2. Who said that? My argument has always been that SSM was a backdoor to more PA lawsuits.

                So tell me, sarc, what, in your opinion, should be done wrt SSM?

                1. So tell me, sarc, what, in your opinion, should be done wrt SSM?

                  Irrelevant.

                  1. Irrelevant.

                    So when I say:

                    So you are going to prohibit what’s right to ensure someone doesn’t later do wrong?

                    Don’t give me:

                    Who said that?

                    You did!

                    Your position is to do nothing.

                    Welfare ain’t going away. So open borders will result in welfare abuse, because welfare is not going to be abolished.

                    My position is, let them in (i.e. do the right thing) and when welfare cannot keep up with the drain, if it happens, use it as an excuse to get rid of welfare (i.e. do the right thing AGAIN).

                    Don’t talk to me about principles, sarc. It’s you that isn’t employing them.

                2. So tell me, sarc, what, in your opinion, should be done wrt SSM?

                  I’m the court jester. My job is to poke holes in arguments. Not to make them.

  9. Here, by the way, is what they are adding to the definition of public accommodation:

    any establishment that provides a good,
    service, or program, including a store, shopping cen-
    ter, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank,
    gas station, food bank, service or care center, shel-
    ter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establish-
    ment that provides health care, accounting, or legal
    services;

    A vast expansion of the current restrictions on freedom of association. As noted, without this expansion, bakers, florists, etc. would not be under the federal boot. Does anyone think its a coincidence that the expansion of privileged classes to include gays also includes a provision covering those businesses that the gay rights movement has already targetted?

  10. “[sob] The first few times he hit me, I thought it was a minor misunderstanding that could be worked out, but now I’m starting to think the relationship is untenable.”

    -Left-libertarians about their relationship with the gay-rights movement

    1. “And when he broke both my legs and didn’t even send me any flowers by way of apology…it’s like he’s not really working on the relationship at all!”

  11. Somebody should attach a $15/hr minimum wage rider to this. Social Justice ain’t free.

  12. Thus the road to hell is paved.

  13. as long as any Americans can be legally discriminated against, there is not equal justice in this country

    So forced association isn’t discrimination?

    1. You’re thinking with your logic and not with your feelz.

      1. Oh, I believe that the gay-rights movement has its logic well worked out.

        Gay people have traditionally been oppressed by “society.” This is frequently true, depending on one’s definition of “society,” but to the activists, it’s a seamless mass of oppression – the government, the corprashuns, the media, the churches, etc.

        So “society” needs to be changed.

        The government is part of “society.” So is the bakery down the road.

        *All* of society needs to be transformed, whether through persuasion or, if persuasion fails, by force.

        There is no failure of logic here. Their premises may be messed up, but the reasoning is as logical as the logic of most political movements.

        1. but to the activists, it’s a seamless mass of oppression – the government, the corprashuns, the media, the churches, etc.

          So instead of parsing what is a rights violation and what isn’t, you choose the same lazy all or nothing argument that the activist does…

          Ladies and gents, I give you yet another example of both Teams being equal in their stupidity and their capacity to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

          1. You realize Notorious is describing their logic, and not in order to adopt or promote it, yes? In fact, he specifically says their premises are messed up.

            1. And then turns around and implements the same argument.

              SSM will lead to PA so we need to leave things exactly as they are.

              1. I’m just not seeing how Notorious is implementing the same argument, Francisco. He describes the logic behind SSM leading to PA, and in fact he predicted that this logic would be used by the activists.

                I don’t see how that means he adopts their logic or implements the same argument.

                1. It’s true that I oppose both, and I would be against government-sponsored SSM even in a free-association Libertopia (and I’d be against other Libertopian policies as well). Not only that, but, since I think marriage is a prepolitical, pre-state institution, I don’t think the state has the *option* of being neutral.

                  The thing is, I really don’t have to argue against such a Libertopian policy proposal for the simple reason that Libertopia isn’t the planet I’m living on right now.

                  In order to criticize what’s happening in our own, non-libertopian planet, I get to point out the intimate connection (as it were) between the SSM and PA movements.

                  Thus, even if you assume I’m wrong about whether SSM should be recognized, or marriage deregulated, in Libertopia, you’ll still have to address my arguments on the situation on *this* planet.

                  1. “we need to leave things exactly as they are”

                    No, we don’t.

                  2. Do you live in the The United States of America? You know, where this is the supreme law of the land:

                    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                    On planet libertopia, there would be no government recognition of marriage at all.

                    On planet libertopia, the government would have no power to grant privileges.

                    On planet USA, government can’t write a law that grants privileges to one group and not another.

                    1. Interesting – the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, yet for over a century afterwards, nobody noticed the gay-rights clause.

                      I bet when you read 2 Kings 22 about an old Book of the Law getting discovered by a repair crew in the Jerusalem Temple, you roll your eyes.

                      Yet you’re willing to accept a fable about Justice Kennedy discovering the True Meaning of the 14th Amendment hidden under under the sofa cushions.

                    2. Another lazy argument.

                      Half the things government does are unconstitutional. They simply haven’t been challenged.

                    3. Half the things government does are unconstitutional. They simply haven’t been challenged.

                      Francisco, I have to disagree again.

                      90% of the things government does is unconstitutional. They simply have been upheld by SCOTUS anyway.

                      😉

                    4. Francisco, I don’t think you can get to traditional marriage being an EP violation without FIRST redefining marriage to “any two persons”.

                      The EP argument relies on a huge stolen base.

                    5. Don’t the privileges and immunities afforded to married couples give them a leg up over non-married individuals? If so, then the correct answer was to get the government out of marriage altogether.

                      Since that was never going to happen, it would have been much better if the SC had come to their decision because of Full Faith and Credit, not EP. Plus then no retarded public accomodations revamps.

                      Oh well.

              2. SSM will lead to PA so we need to leave things exactly as they are.

                More like SSM as implemented in the current political climate will lead to more PA, so perhaps this isn’t the best solution at this time. Unless you don’t care about increased PA, or value SSM more than PA lawsuits. In which case SSM is just fine. But you can’t honestly deny that, intended or not, SSM was not going to result in more opportunities to sue for PA. That was obvious from the beginning.

                1. deny argue

  14. Civil Rights Laws

    We went from a bad system of laws stopping some people from associating with each other to a worse system of forcing everyone to associate with each other without any time in a system where people are free

    1. The fact that private discrimination and racial relations have improved over the same time period that the CRA has been in effect will trump moral arguments against the CRA for most people. Those aspects of our culture will have to degrade before that association is broken. Fortunately(?) SJW seem hell bent on making this come true.

  15. One other thing just struck me about the proposed law.

    It includes “health care” as a public accommodation, meaning all those Catholic facilities are now public accommodations that are prohibited from discriminating against women.

    It also strips the RFRA defense.

    You can expect that, as a result, Catholic hospitals and clinics will now be required to perform abortions. To refuse them is to discriminate against women, after all.

    1. Ha ha, you sure are paranoid! Only a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist would believe something so daft!

      [a few months later]

      You’re not against *women,* are you? You’re not a *theocrat,* are you? Well, then, you should have no objection to requiring these Catholic hospitals to perform the “full range of medical care.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.