LGBT

An LGBT Discrimination Compromise Bill Is Proposed in an Uncompromising Culture

The “Fairness for All Act” would add federal protections against discrimination for gay and trans people. But its exemptions go too far or not far enough, depending on who you ask.

|

Several Republican lawmakers have introduced a compromise bill that would provide gay and transgender people federal discrimination protections while still preserving some ability for religious organizations and nonprofits to seek exemptions.

Of course, it doesn't appear that either side of the LGBT/religious conservative divide is willing to accept such a compromise. But the effort itself is worth noting as a sign of the significant cultural shift on LGBT issues.

Rep. Chris Stewart (R–Utah) has introduced the "Fairness for All Act" which attempts to thread the needle between protection and religious freedom. Stewart's bill would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to federal discrimination laws. This would make it against the law nationwide to fire an employee or refuse to rent an apartment to somebody because they are gay or transgender.

While this sounds almost exactly like the Equality Act proposed by Democrats and LGBT leaders and passed by the House this May, Stewart's bill provides more specific exemptions for religious institutions and religious nonprofits, as well as small businesses. A large chain bakery or grocery store would be expected to make those gay wedding cakes (and they all do already because they like making money), while small businesses like Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado or Arlene's Flowers in Washington state would still be able to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings because of their religious objections to recognizing gay marriage.

The Fairness for All Act prepares the possibility of an expansion of the federal definition of a "public accommodation" by defining some exceptions. Currently, federal civil rights act laws define "public accommodation" more narrowly than most state laws—places like gas stations, movie theaters, restaurants, and hotels are covered, while many other professional services are not. Stewart's act would make it clear that facilities operated by a church or religious organization are exempted from any expansions in the definition of what counts as a public accommodation.

The bill tries to thread a difficult needle in how trans people should be treated for the use of facilities like restrooms and changing rooms. Public schools will be expected to accommodate trans students using the facility that matches their chosen gender, but schools will also need to find a way to "reasonably accommodate" anybody seeking greater privacy. The most relevant concern here is that of a cisgender woman who is uncomfortable sharing bathroom or changing space with a trans woman who still has male sexual organs. But not all women would care. So those who do care would be accommodated with something like a private stall, rather than requiring the trans woman to do so.

All in all, the purpose of the Fairness for All Act is to add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal discrimination laws in such a way that won't result in the Department of Justice targeting churches and religious institutions for punishment. It's a much milder change than the Equality Act, which would significantly expand public accommodation classifications and more tightly prohibit any religious-based exemptions.

Stewart's efforts have gotten him support from the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Utah's Governor Gary Herbert, a Republican. The proposal is based on a compromise bill passed in Utah in 2015 that similarly added sexual orientation and gender identity to discrimination protections but also exempted religious organizations.

Clearly, we're not in a political environment where compromise is on the table, and coverage of the act shows it. Over at Vox, Katelyn Burns does a fair job of explaining what the bill does, but a significant amount of her piece is full of quotes from religious conservatives, LGBT activists, and for some reason, an atheist organization, all blasting the bill.

Googling "Fairness for All Act" leads—in its very first match—with a paid link from the religious conservative Alliance Defending Freedom written in 2017 (after the Utah compromise passed and Republican lawmakers began considering a federal version) warning that these types of "proposals surrender essential, constitutionally guaranteed individual and institutional freedoms and empower the government to discriminate against its citizens in exchange for narrow carve-outs for religious freedom and perhaps other protections of uncertain scope."

And then the next two links are to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), both blasting the Fairness for All Act from the other direction. The ACLU says, "The new legislation signals that LGBTQ people are less worthy of protection. It does this by providing religious organizations and service providers with the ability to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity where they are explicitly prohibited under current federal law from discriminating based on other protected characteristics."

The whole point of a compromise bill is that neither side gets everything that they want, but we're not in a cultural spot where the people with the loudest voices are interested in compromise. Each of the Democratic candidates for president have thrown their support behind the Equality Act, and in their various appeals for the LGBT vote, have made it clear they'd rather punish religious objectors than try to figure out a way to work with them.

The Fairness for All Act stands as conscientious objector to the culture wars. But right now, few people are looking for a truce.

Read a draft version of the bill here.

NEXT: "Anti-Semitic Propensities" by Race, According to the Anti-Defamation League

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. If you cannot force a straight guy to fuck a gay guy at the point of a gun, then the law is not going far enough. Equality is for chumps and we are far past the point of equality.

    1. When we got rid of separate bathrooms and water fountains for ‘colored’ people, and barred discriminating against them in housing and employment, was that also far past the point of equality? Or is it just that you think that ‘equality’ for trans people is still having all those things?

      1. “Trannies are the same as blacks”
        -fafalone

        1. Not what he said.
          Oh, it’s Nardz again. 🙁

      2. The nuance missing here is that facilities were separate and unequal.

  2. provide gay and transgender people federal discrimination protections while still preserving some ability for religious organizations and nonprofits to seek exemptions.

    Muslims breathe a sigh of relief.

  3. How about get rid of all unconstitutional legislation for forces association between people?

    1. How about literally bringing back slavery? Because that is literally exactly what you are saying right now.

      1. slavery was forced association between people so no he is not saying that

        1. I am rolling the dice and saying there was some sarcasm there.

          1. It’s really astounding that insanity in contemporary political discourse is so commonplace that people can no longer differentiate sarcastic statements from true expressions of political views.

            1. To be fair, I was only pretty sure you were kidding. So yes, it’s really that bad.

            2. If that was sarcasm, then you’re not very good at it. And I say that regardless of the current insanity in contemporary political discourse.

              1. Just because you fell for it, doesn’t mean the sarcasm wasn’t evident.

                1. I didn’t say it wasn’t evident. I said you’re not very good at it.

                  1. I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.

            3. You only discover that now? Grow up, man.

              Occasional sarcasm between friends who know each other is fine. Using it over and over again in a public discussion forum just makes you a jerk.

              1. Don’t be so salty. You made a mistake. That doesn’t make me a jerk, it makes you gullible.

            4. Poe’s law. Without the advantage of inflection you can’t gauge the tone of a written statement.

      2. I hope you are joking because free association is literally (actually literally) the opposite of slavery

    2. Indeed. Unmentioned here, (And in a supposedly libertarian site, too!) is that one side gives up explicit constitutional liberties, the other side gets statutory privileges. That’s not compromise, that’s one side not getting everything it wants all at once.

      1. +1,000,000!!!!

      2. Unmentioned here is … you shot yourself in the puss (again) … IF you defend the totally unconstitutional notion of special statutory privileges based on religion. That’s a modern form of the (un)Holy Inquisition … which so many came to the New World to escape, and which continued committing moral atrocities until roughly our Civil War … which is WHY the Founders erected the Wall of Separation … lied about by the same religious zealots who DEMAND special status. Thugs.

        1. So, the 1st amendment is unconstitutional?

          Actually my position is that, in a genuinely free country, religion would need no special safeguards, because anything you’d remotely consider letting somebody do for religious motives would be something you’d let them do for any reason whatsoever.

          But, of course, we’re not a genuinely free country anymore, if we ever were, and religion IS singled out for special protection in the Constitution.

          1. Despite your statist tyranny — ON A LIBERTARIAN WEB SITE — NOBODY can demand a special privilege, at the loss of somebody else’s liberty … EVER

            IF you defend the totally unconstitutional notion of special statutory privileges based on religion

            Can you hear me NOW?

            So, the 1st amendment is unconstitutional?

            So, the First creates special statutory rights, based on religion? (He DOES believe that!!!)

            Actually my position is that, in a genuinely free country, religion would need no special safeguards, because anything you’d remotely consider letting somebody do for religious motives would be something you’d let them do for any reason whatsoever.

            THAT REQUIRES ONE OF TWO THINGS
            1) Perfect people.
            2) Others having NO RIGHTS … if YOU want a special statutory privilege, that violates equal rights. (SHUDDER)

            But, of course, we’re not a genuinely free country anymore, if we ever were, and religion IS singled out for special protection in the Constitution

            That’s why your TOTALLY authoritarian diktat, that YOU are allowed a statutory privilege … even if it violates someone else’s Constitutional rights!!!
            1) In a nation where EQUAL rights are guaranteed,
            2) In your gulag, how is it determined WHO gets the special privilege … and who loses their rights. (SHUDDER)

            This may help you grasp the issue accurately,
            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

            Freedom of and freedom from. It’s called equal treatment under the law, BECAUSE we all have equal rights .. not your class or caste system.

            So, you’re wrong on what freedom means, and have no clue what 1A says ….. ummm, “wall of separation.”
            ===
            (This is where the uneducated SCREAM, “Those words are not in the Constitution.”

            OF COURSE NOT! WHY WOULD THEY HAVE TO BE? That’s Jefferson’s reply on what the words MEAN, in a written response to the Danbury (CT) Baptists who asked “what does the amendment MEAN?”, because they feared persecution.

            Jefferson’s explanation was common at the time, and shared with our first two Presidents … plus the UNANIMOUS Senate, in the 9th year of the Republic. For very obvious reasons,

            And you, too, don’t know what it means. I have the first three Presidents and that pesky unanimous Senate. You have … nothing. … nobody … for your notion of forcing anyone to sacrifice their rights, so YOU can enjoy special privileges. (SHUDDER).

            And you call that a genuinely free country!!!! Back to slavery!!!
            How large is your Klavern?

            We libertarians understand individual liberty better than you authoritarian. Under MY totally free government, nobody could be denied service …. IF the store/vendor/baker/whatever has a clearly visible sign, seen before entering, stating who they refuse to do business with, See, the issue arises because if you’re open for business, people assume you are … open for business!

            Was there EVER a big stink over “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
            YOUR ideal requires perfect PEOPLE. Mine does not. THAT is what liberty means.

    3. How about respecting the Founders firm support for Separation?
      Or is your love of Constitution only on certain matters, but not others? No different than a prog on that. The Authoritarian Mentality.

      Jefferson was correct. Every generation should create and adopt a new Constitution, to retain .. consent of the governed, not consent of the dead. For a government by right, not by might.

      That’s why libertarians are morally superior to conservatives … especially the Authoritarian Right,

      Likewise, the Authoritarian Left is equally debased to claim a “Living Constitution,” based on their own opinions and preferences.

      Libertarians are thus the only ones still defending America’s founding principles.

  4. “The “Fairness for All Act” ”

    The word fairness is probably key enough to recognize the violation of rights in the bill which @Reason does not even recognize or realize

    The civil right to freedom of association means discrimination itself is a civil right

    1. Being an LGBT ally or a defender of Liberty, which is valued more?

      1. DEFENDING LIBERTY IS … BEING THAT ALLY (in the sense of equal rights)

        Some of us … never you … have worked decades to expand individual liberty … which, ummm, expands individual rights.

    2. Kind of like “democratic people’s republic”: If you have to call yourself one, you aren’t one.

      1. (snort)

  5. Public schools will be expected to accommodate trans students using the facility that matches their chosen gender, but schools will also need to find a way to “reasonably accommodate” anybody seeking greater privacy.

    Do normal students also get to decide which sex segregated facility they wish to use?

    If not, that would be discrimination.

    1. “Normal” students? What kind of cisgendered, privileged shit is that? There is nothing wrong or abnormal with harboring a desire to remove your genitalia and have it replaced with that of the opposite sex. Or, for that matter, growing tits when nature did not gift you with tits. Not only is it not abnormal, it is desirable. Not only is desirable, it is preferable. Not only is it preferable, but it should be mandatory.

      Fucking bigots.

      1. Now, that is major league SARCASM!!!!

        1. The fuck? I was being serious as shit.

          ????

          1. Bullshit, you’re a crazed extreme right-winger — and typically ignorant of what transgender even means. It’s hormonal, Sunshine.

            1. LOL!!!! It’s NOT hormonal at all….it is a Psychological & Emotional disease, Chump!!!

              1. YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT — AND PROBABLY A LOYAL SUPPORTER OF THE CHRISTIAN TALIBAN.

                Educate yourself, for once.
                https://www.webmd.com/sex/gender-dysphoria#1

          2. LOL!!! Then please get some help!!!

  6. Freedom of association is the appropriate compromise.

    1. Do single-sex restrooms and locker rooms violate freedom of association?

      1. It depends if it’s public or private.

  7. A large chain bakery or grocery store would be expected to make those gay wedding cakes (and they all do already because they like making money), while small businesses like Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado or Arlene’s Flowers in Washington state would still be able to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings because of their religious objections to recognizing gay marriage.

    So fascist policies enacted into law by irrational mobs would only apply to *big* businesses?. Whew! Glad we dodged that bullet.

    1. Umm, the business would have to place a sign, visible before or during entrance, on who they refuse … same principle as “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. If you’re open for business, most folks assume you’re … open for business!

      For libertarians, it’s always the case of how to respect everyone’s rights … equally.

      It’s only authoritarians who want “special rights” — for only their tribe. Listen carefully. Can you hear Thomas Jefferson vomiting? Jesus Christ sobbing in silent shame?

      1. Umm, the business would have to place a sign, visible before or during entrance, on who they refuse …

        Holy Christ are you stupid if you think anyone is reading this and going “Okay! That makes any sense.”

        1. Holy Christ are you stupid if you think anyone is reading this and going “Okay! That makes any sense.”

          My stalker fucked up the purpose,
          And likely DROOLS when it sees, “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service”
          🙂

      2. Umm, the business would have to place a sign, visible before or during entrance, on who they refuse … same principle as “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. If you’re open for business, most folks assume you’re … open for business!

        I mean Fuck. The sign would have to be in braille too and announce it’s presence to blind people, right? Would it outline who they refuse individually by name or declare people unwelcome by assumption? Is the list in any way limited to reasonable assumptions or does the merchant have to generate them as fast and copiously as possible? What about customers who develop predilections or assumptions after entering, is the business owner just fucked because the customer owns the property?

        Oh, wait, that’s right… fuck off slaver.

        1. Behind all that babble … and the stupid comment on braille … this is a well-known Christo-FASCIST ,,, seeking special (UNEQUAL) rights, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AF. … Thus, HE IS THE SLAVER (smirk)

          Would it outline who they refuse individually by name or declare people unwelcome by assumption?

          They COULD do it by name … if they’re as crazy as you.
          Are you seriously THAT ignorant of THIS issue also?

          or declare people unwelcome by assumption

          Do your Christo-Fascist bakers ASSUME homosexual? (lol)
          Are you seriously THAT ignorant of THIS issue also

          Is the list in any way limited to reasonable assumptions or does the merchant have to generate them as fast and copiously as possible?

          How quickly could YOU add new classes of people to hate? Would you go on adding more forever? (Probably)
          If you had a brain whatever sign is displayed is the relevant rule.
          WHY DO YOU KEEP ASSUMING SO LENGTHY A LIST? JUST BECAUSE YOUR OWN HATRED AND BIGOTRY IS SO IMMENSE?

          What about customers who develop predilections or assumptions after entering, is the business owner just fucked because the customer owns the property?

          Who gives a shit? It would be the law.
          Now, our leading Christo-Fascist thinks people BECOME HOMOSEXUAL by … entering a business, See? They really ARE that crazy!!!

          “Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.”
          -Theodore Roosevelt

          “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.”
          –Benjamin Franklin

          When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
          -Socrates

          (flush)

      3. Yeah, it usually says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

  8. It would be cool if someone put forth the Life’s Not Fair Act which repealed the CRA and all of its appendages.

    1. Or at least the, Management Reserves The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone Act that exempts private businesses.

    2. So, you oppose Consent of the Governed, and Will of the People?
      You can always …. leave.

  9. >>gay and transgender people federal discrimination protections

    how dafuq does that happen? also those chicks in the Jamestown ad on the side of this are hawt and way too clean for 1621

  10. So, when someone identifies as a fucking wolf, we’re supposed to play along instead of getting them some help? And that’s not sarcasm, there’s people who legitimately think this shit

    1. You’ve got the tangibility and pointedness backwards. What if someone though they were just the greatest, the most fantastic person, and constantly winning bigly? Do we just abjectly accommodate them in their rejection of social constructs? What if it wasn’t someone, but 0.1% of the population? Should we accommodate all of them?

    2. What does “getting them some help” mean in a public policy context?

      1. I guess that would mean that practitioners paid by Medicaid and other public health programs would be allowed to try to bring the afflicted persons back to reality and convince them they are not really wolves, rather than forcing them under threat of professional ostracism and other punishments to provide surgical and medical treatment to help them resemble wolves.

        1. Couldn’t we compromise by forgetting the surgical treatment, and just tranking them and relocating them to remote wilderness areas where they won’t worry livestock?

          1. Never underestimate the sheer totality of Brett;s mindless bigotry,
            Here, including his ignorance of biology.

            1. I’m just suggesting that, if someone claims to be a wolf, we take them at their word. Are you going to disrespect them by treating them like a human being, instead?

              1. What Brett said, BEFORE the totality of his mindless bigotry was called out

                Couldn’t we compromise by forgetting the surgical treatment, and just tranking them and relocating them to remote wilderness areas where they won’t worry livestock?

                After he’s called out

                I’m just suggesting that, if someone claims to be a wolf, we take them at their word. Are you going to disrespect them by treating them like a human being, instead?

                MOAR mind games — like your equally authoritarian bullshit on the First Amendment .

                1) Those are NOT the only alternatives.
                2) BRETT SAYS THAT TAKING THEM AT THEIR WORD MEANS … TRANQUILIZING THEM … AGAINST THEIR WILL … TAKING THEM TO A REMOTE WILDERNESS … ALSO AGAINST THEIR WILL

                LESSON: This is standard by the AuthoritaTHIS IS STANDARD FROM THE AUTHORIA
                lol) That’s not what you said, conservate

                1. Cont’d

                  LESSON: This is standard by the Authoritarian Right.
                  1) Make a totally psycho statement.
                  2) If called out, switch to a DIFFERENT psycho statement.

                  He pulled the SAME crap on the First Amendment, elsewhere on this page
                  Make a crazy statement ,… when called out, CAVE to a DIFFERENT crazy statement (Heavily toned down)

                  https://reason.com/2019/12/11/an-lgbt-discrimination-compromise-bill-is-proposed-in-an-uncompromising-culture/#comment-8046323

                  Why is does his type ALWAYS refuse to stand by their own words. That was a rhetorical question. 🙂

                2. Man, you certainly can’t take a joke, now, can you?

                  If we found a wolf trotting down the street in a populated area, a REAL wolf, mind you, what would we do with it? Yes, we’d trank it and, after making sure it hadn’t escaped from the local zoo, relocate it to a wilderness area. And this would be unproblematic because it’s a dumb animal without any rights to speak of.

                  Of course we wouldn’t do that to a human claiming to be a wolf. The reason we wouldn’t, is because we wouldn’t pretend they were really a wolf. We’d treat them as a human being who was either joking or mentally deranged.

                  The question arises why, when a man claims to be a woman, we don’t respond in the same way, recognizing that they are not, in fact, a woman, but instead pretending or mentally deranged. Because the situation is the same, their claim is incompatible with objective fact.

                  O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
                  “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
                  “Four.”
                  “And if the Party says that it is not four but five – then how many?”
                  “Four.”
                  The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O’Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever.

                  It’s the same thing. The exact same thing. Only on this front, the Party is winning.

                  1. Cowardly retraction … PROVES ME CORRECT!!!

                    LESSON: This is standard by the Authoritarian Right.
                    1) Make a totally psycho statement.
                    2) If called out, switch to a DIFFERENT psycho statement

                    I should have added — then keep switching as often as you get exposed as a wacko, As Brett did here..

                    And will likely do again. (sigh)

        2. To the extent that mental health treatments are covered under Medicaid, how is this not permitted now?

          “rather than forcing them under threat of professional ostracism and other punishments”

          What are these “other punishments”? And how exactly do you expect the government to forbid “professional ostracism” of any type?

          1. I’m not familiar enough with the treatment of people who think they’re wolves to answer your questions. Why don’t you do some research on it and get back to us?

        3. Anyone crazy enough to swallow the wolf bullshit is … probably beyond help.

    3. It’s not sarcasm, darkflame, just massive ignorance of elementary biology ….hormones. … typically associated with the bigotry that permeates the Authoritarian Right.

      The ones who so totally manipulated your mind that you wallow crazy shit like this:

      there’s people who legitimately think this shit

      You may even be wacky enough to swallow the crazed belief that “identifies” does NOT mean hormonal, since wolfdom is NOT mere hormones.

      It’s NOT true. The world does not face destruction. Chicken Little is as fake as the Easter Bunny.

  11. Aww, Scott doesn’t get all the special rights they want
    Poor baby

    1. Awww, the poor Christian Taliban does not get the special rights and privileges they demand. The whiny pussies.

  12. “But not all women would care. So those who do care would be accommodated with something like a private stall, rather than requiring the trans woman to do so.”

    This seems backwards. Why is the genetically female woman supposed to use a stall instead of the surgically/non-surgically male woman? Also, what happens if most of the women are uncomfortable? Are they just supposed to take turns using the private stall?

    1. Because the few transgenders are too emotionally fragile to not make a compromise to make the many more biological women at ease. The assumptions being made that this is acceptable as a “compromise” are staggeringly irrational.

      1. hahaha

        It’s the fever-crazed rightwing, STUPID enough to believe anyone can spot a trannie female, Like the crazy asshole, Ted Cruz, who wants his kids shielded from the horror … that HE could have seen for decades, without ever knowing it. (lol)

    2. I think at some point we’re just going to have to go to multiple single person unisex bathrooms, regardless of the inefficiency. And then somebody will sue for the “right” to accompany unwilling people into the single person bathrooms.

      1. And the wolf people will sue for the right to poop on the floor.

    3. Exactly what happened in NYC at a pool facility. Some man was using the locker room at the same time as a girls’ swim team (ages 6 to 16+/-). The girls lined up to use the single bathroom to shower and change. He had the whole locker room to himself. The woke moms tried to make it about age – no over 18s or something.

      1. Source.

  13. Where do freedom of speech, religion, association, contract, etc. leave any room for compromise? Once you have compromised those principles, what do you have?

    1. Logical consistency is NEVER the basis for any law. So why are you bothering with the question?

    2. Once you have compromised those principles, what do you have?

      Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    3. A society?

      1. You get one of those with all those things, too. It just might be a large collection of smaller, different societies, many of which you wouldn’t like much.

    4. Once you have compromised those principles, what do you have?

      The extreme religious right.

  14. But not all women would care.

    And fuck minorities, amiright?

    1. Yeah! Fuck those coloreds making fine upstanding white people uncomfortable, they should use their own bathrooms.

  15. It would seem that this would break the logic of Title IX that enforcement will be completely arbitrary as there would no longer be an objective legal definition of “man” or “woman”.

    1. As I’ve pointed out before, TItle IX specifically but it’s not just limited to it. Larger parts of the CRA and the acts held in check by the CRA, predicated on the objective definitions of ‘man’ or ‘woman’ and the biological implications of those definitions.

      Can I force my employer(‘s insurance) to cover my husband’s Ortho Tri-Cyclen? If they refuse, are we protected as homosexuals or are we not protected because I’m not transgender (at the moment)?

      1. Can I force my employer(‘s insurance) to cover my husband’s Ortho Tri-Cyclen?

        If your doctor will give a prescription for it? Probably.

        But the sex/gender of you and your spouse is actually pretty irrelevant there, what matters is the doctor’s approval.

        1. But the sex/gender of you and your spouse is actually pretty irrelevant there, what matters is the doctor’s approval.

          Yeah, insurers never prosecute, investigate, or even bother people unnecessarily about insurance fraud. I’m sure if you submitted a prescription for an off-label use of a drug under a different name for reimbursement, neither you nor the doctor would be opening themselves up to massive liabilities.

          Moreover, it’s plainly obvious that businesses like Hobby Lobby pay precisely zero attention to what medications they make available to their employees and what medications they don’t.

    2. Naw. It called that out to protect existing Title IX stuff.

  16. “The whole point of a compromise bill is that neither side gets everything that they want”

    No, the point of this particular compromise is to move the Overton Window, sell out the principle of freedom of association, and leave objectors to scramble for special exemptions which will be at the mercy of future legislative majorities.

    If the Mormons and 7th Day Adventists want to join the sellouts, they at least have the excuse of not being libertarians and not prioritizing freedom of association.

    Would Reason allow the Adventists to put their creationist beliefs into public policy? Heavens no, that would be “theocracy”! But limiting freedom on the demand of the Adventists is OK if the LGBLT activists approve.

    At least we have the consolation that these sellouts will receive the contempt they deserve from the people they’re trying to appease.

  17. The whole point of a compromise bill is […]

    to get both sides to the table.

    Democrats are already on-board with expanding non-discrimination protections to include LGBT people.

    Republicans are not.

    This “compromise” is not something Republican leadership actually wants. Even if it passed the House (and it’s got enough poison pills that it won’t), McConnell would never give it a vote.

    That said? The bill itself is bad. Yes, it expands non-discrimination protects to LGBT people. And then turns around and adds exceptions to basically all non-discrimination provisions, but only when the discrimination in question is based on sexual orientation/gender identity.

    So the scenario I’ve been bringing up for years? Where I get kicked out of the store by any given butcher/baker/candle-stick maker because of what their god thinks of gays, and am prohibited to treat them as they’ve treated me? Still exists.

    It’s a DoA bill that doesn’t have Republican leadership support and codifies that anti-gay beliefs are more sacred and worthy of protection then other anti-whatever beliefs.

    1. Like I said, “these sellouts will receive the contempt they deserve from the people they’re trying to appease.”

      1. You’re more optimistic then I am in regards to Stewart’s motivations.

        I don’t think he expected, or wanted, LGBT support on this bill. The exceptions that only apply to LGBT folks make this pretty obvious.
        I don’t think he expected, or wanted, hardcore social conservative support on this bill. The opposition to recognizing that gender identity is a thing at all, nevertheless being protected in some cases, was super easy to predict.

        The question then is who was he trying to appeal to? All I can think of is “moderate folks who aren’t going to think it through”.

        So if you think the people scorning him are the people he was trying to appease, you’ve a more optimistic view of his motivations then I do.

        1. Well, he won’t get the support of the radical self-styled “LGBT” activists and spokespersons.

          Many gays and lesbians couldn’t care less. Anti-discrimination laws simply don’t matter much to us anymore in the real world, and to the degree that they do, many of us don’t like them. And when did we ever ask to get lumped together in a letter salad in the first place?

          1. For real. There is no such thing as “LGBTQ people”. Each of those letters represents a distinct and different class or affinity group of people, with widely varying interests. The whole concept of Ts contradicts the idea of sexual freedom long advocated by Gs, for example.

    2. Don’t worry, with bills like this in place, your butcher/baker will just give you bad meat and piss in your cake if they don’t like you, instead of simply telling you to shop elsewhere. That’s progress, progressivism style!

      1. (A) you haven’t read the bill, I see.
        (B) I’ll be more willing to believe that people actually think that non-discrimination laws guarantee bad service when they start advocating for repealing the non-discrimination laws that protect themselves. As-is, the stated-values are not matching the revealed-values.

        1. Does the bill legally prohibit some people from discriminating against me as a gay man? Those people, whoever they are, will switch from overt discrimination against me to covert discrimination. That’s not theory, that’s a fact.

          I’ll be more willing to believe that people actually think that non-discrimination laws guarantee bad service when they start advocating for repealing the non-discrimination laws that protect themselves. As-is, the stated-values are not matching the revealed-values

          I’m a gay man. I reject these laws; they are morally wrong, illiberal, and most of all, harmful. The idea that you can achieve equality and tolerance at the point of a government gun is an absurdity.

    3. “So the scenario I’ve been bringing up for years? Where I get kicked out of the store by any given butcher/baker/candle-stick maker because of what their god thinks of gays”

      Man up.

      “, and am prohibited to treat them as they’ve treated me? Still exists.”

      What the fuck are you even talking about?
      You’re prohibited from going to another butcher?
      You’re prohibited from acting like a bitch and trying to put the guy out of business?
      You’re prohibited from believing that you’re super special?
      Because you’re not prohibited from doing any of those things.

      1. I haven’t been shy that I’d find it acceptable to do away with most non-discrimination laws, so your “man up” advice is acceptable… so long as it applies to everyone else, too.

        What the fuck are you even talking about?

        The status quo is that any given butcher, baker or candle-stick maker can refuse me service because of their religion.

        They can then follow me into my (hypothetical) comic-book shop, and I am prohibited form refusing them service because of their religion.

        I am expected to “man up”. They are given the legal authority to sue. That is not an acceptable double standard.

        1. The status quo is that any given butcher, baker or candle-stick maker can refuse me service because of their religion.

          As a gay man, I don’t have any problem with that. Why would I want to give my hard earned money to a homophobic business?

          They can then follow me into my (hypothetical) comic-book shop, and I am prohibited form refusing them service because of their religion.

          Oh, but you can still treat them like shit. Maybe offer them some Gay Comix.

          I am expected to “man up”. They are given the legal authority to sue. That is not an acceptable double standard.

          What you don’t grasp is that that “double standard” hurts the religious people, not you. But they suffer from the same delusion as you, namely that laws that give them “authority to sue” actually benefit them.

          1. “As a gay man, I don’t have any problem with that. Why would I want to give my hard earned money to a homophobic business?”

            No, I think you’ve got this backwards: This sort of law isn’t for people shopping for cakes. It’s for people shopping for lawsuits. The purpose of the law is defeated if you can’t find somebody unwilling to bake the cake, because it’s meant to create a situation where either you get to enjoy financially ruining somebody, or you get to enjoy them grinding their teeth to stubs as their forced to repudiate their principles to avoid poverty.

        2. “so long as it applies to everyone else, too.”

          Yup.
          Discrimination is a fundamental human right.
          You might even go so far as to say that the power of discrimination is what sets humans apart from other animals.

          “I am expected to “man up”. They are given the legal authority to sue. That is not an acceptable double standard.”

          Ah, ok. I can see your issue there. Doesn’t mean you should get e trade privileges though, just means your right to discriminate should be respected.

          In this “all or nothing” discussion, “all” is not an acceptable position- but “nothing” is

          1. Lol
            *”e trade” should read “extra”

        3. I think that around here, the common idea would that a) both of you would be stupid for rejecting the customer based on their sex or religion or color or handicap or national origin or even sexual preferences, but that b) you should both have the complete right to politely refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason that suits you, without explanation.

          1. Best solution is a sign before entering, saying for WHOM you are NOT open for business. It’s called honest marketing.

            Think, “No shirt, no shoes, no service”
            (yawn)

  18. A libertarian magazine arguing for anti discrimination laws. B.s.

    Such laws are unequivocally harmful. As a gay man, I don’t want to be covered by them.

    1. Then you’re whatever the gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom is.

      1. /sarc I should add

        1. Uncle Tom was no Uncle Tom.

          1. True, but some of the stage versions were. I think that’s where the term came from, not the novel, according to my understanding.

    2. To be fair, Shackford is just reporting on the bill and arguments here. If this is “arguing for”, it’s pretty light.

      That said, doing away with all non-discrimination laws is something I could accept. What I don’t accept is mandating that I ignore a person’s religion while they wield that religion as a weapon against me, which is the status quo.

      1. Shackford seems to have a favorable view of the compromise bill.

        As for “wielding against you”, you’re assuming that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of weapon that give you power and other benefits. In reality, religion is corrupted by getting into bed with government, just like other groups are. If they aren’t smart enough to reject the Faustian bargain, that’s their problem. I don’t want it for myself.

        I used to be quite open about my sexual orientation when speaking to prospective employers: “I’m gay. If that’s a problem, please tell me now and don’t hire me.” As anti-discrimination laws have ramped up, I don’t tell my employer anymore because my employer can’t tell me truthfully anymore how they feel about it.

        1. As for “wielding against you”, you’re assuming that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of weapon that give you power and other benefits.

          Nope.

          I’ve been very clear on this: Either we all are permitted to pull out the long knives, or we all are obligated to play nice. But allowing them to pull out the knives while I’m obligated to play nice and pretend I don’t know what they do with those knives? Not acceptable.

          1. Again, you suffer from the delusion that anti-discrimination laws that nominally protect you are a “long knife” you pull on someone else. That’s bullshit.

            The best thing for me as a gay man is if a homophobic employer feels free to tell me outright that he isn’t going to hire me because I’m gay. The worst thing is for them to be silenced by government and engage in covert discrimination, which they invariably will.

    3. Reason did NOT argue for anti-discrimination laws.
      This argues AGAINST special privileges for SOME, based on religion.
      Or based on anything,. See First Amendment.

      We call that “equal treatment under the law.” See 14th amendment.

      Bottom line: If we cannot repeal ALL anti-discrimination laws .. then it is AUTHORITARIAN to demand “special rights” for a favored few … ESPECIALLY if based on religion, race, gender and others.. Deal with it.

      “They” pulled the same bullshit on Gary Johnson, in 2016.

  19. Its the you “You must bake the cake law”
    It will have exemptions for those special groups that are allowed to discriminate like Muslims. But don’t you Christians get any ideas. bake the damn cake!

    1. You could actually read the bill, you know.

      It is religion-neutral. Whether your anti-gay beliefs are from your Muslim or Chrsitian background don’t matter.

      It is not class/issue-neutral. The exceptions apply only to sexual-orientation/gender identity. All other classes remain protected as they currently are.

      So it protect Jack Phillips just fine. Lester Maddox is still screwed though.

      1. So its the “bake the cake” bill just like he said, with a few exceptions to pretend it isnt.

        1. While it adds sexual orientation/gender identity to CRA Title II (the public accomodation part), it also added in an exception for businesses with 15 employees or less.

          So Elane (of Elane Photography) Melissa Klein (of Sweet Cakes by Melissa), Whats-her-name Stutzman (Flowers by Arlene) and Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop) would all be exempted from the non-discrimination provision in all cases, not just custom services. It would also cover that “Take the Cake” case from Toledo, Ohio, in which the baker e-stalked the customer, found out she was a lesbian, and then cancelled the birthday cake.

          At the same time, it limits the small business exception only to discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender identity. So folks that want to discriminate based on race, religion, national origin etc. and so-on would still be prohibited from acting on their sincerely held religious beliefs.

          If you want to characterize that as “bake the cake” bill go for it, but as written it would cover all the “bake the cake” cases that have come up in the last ten years.

      2. How about if they’re from a secular, “Gays are insane” background?

        1. Varies.

          Some of the exceptions (like the Title II public accommodation one) are based on business size.

          Some of the others are specific to “religious” and “religiously-affiliated” organizations.

  20. Look, this is not a “compromise”, because one side gets something they don’t already have, and the other loses something they’ve already got. Worse, the side that’s losing is losing actual, explicit civil liberties; Freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from involuntary servitude.

    This is a “Let’s give them half their victory today, and maybe they’ll leave us alone for a couple of years before coming back for the other half.” bill. The people getting half a loaf reject it because they don’t plan on waiting, and the people losing half a loaf reject it because they know that.

    1. This is a “Let’s give them half their victory today, and maybe they’ll leave us alone for a couple of years before coming back for the other half.” bill.

      Oddly enough, it’d be pretty easy to structure the bill in a way where that “coming back” wasn’t likely.

      Make the added exceptions class/issue-neutral.

      By doing that, they are changing the status quo for everyone, not creating a weird little carve-out for LGBT folk. Since LGBT folk would not be treated uniquely compared to anyone else, that’d kill most steam to change the law again, at least in regards to LGBT folk.

      Of course, that would also mean exposing all people to discrimination in places they currently aren’t, and that might create a new drive to amend the law again, but it wouldn’t be because of LGBT folk, it would be everyone else.

      All of which is to say… yes, it’s a bad law. If those exceptions and carve-outs are good, then they should be applied in a class/issue-neutral manner. If they are too bad to be applied in a class/issue-neutral manner, then they shouldn’t be applied to LGBT folk either.

      It’s that special treatment, protecting anti-LGBT discrimination in ways that other forms of discrimination aren’t protected, that would make sure it’s not settled.

      1. What other suspect classifications should be added to the law? Of course, your preferred course would be to remove all suspect classifications, but assuming that isn’t feasible, then for the sake of non-discrimination, which groups should be added to the existing list of forbidden bases for discrimination?

        Handedness? Shouldn’t left-handed people have the benefit of this law?

        Height? Why discriminate on that basis, if racial discrimination is forbidden?

        Just give us a limiting principle here, if there is one.

        1. The limiting principle is that it can’t be extended to any group that tends to vote Republican.

    2. The people getting half a loaf reject it because they don’t plan on waiting, and the people losing half a loaf reject it because they know that.

      Moreover, hopefully not to stretch the analogy too far but the baker, without taking a side and without getting a say so, is out a loaf of bread. The implied and accepted tenet is that the government gets to tell businesses who they can and can’t do business with and for what reason, even if only the government ‘volunteers’ to narrow those reasons.

      The law doesn’t outright respect religious freedom, or freedom of association, or LGBTQ rights as much as define that, at some point, a business becomes large enough that they must compel their employees to wax Jessica Yaniv’s balls or lose their job.

  21. Why is being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, or any other kink a thing that grants special civil rights?

    Why aren’t we also talking about BDSM folks being allowed to wear their gimp masks to work, or polygamous marriages being illegal, or the right of siblings to marry, or the right to an open marriage? All of those things could also result in, say, being denied a job based on how open an individual might be about those things to their employer. Should I be taken to court for civil rights violations if I decline to hire someone based on their life style choice to fuck horses?

    I really don’t see how sexual orientation deserves special rights. There are so many orientations and kinks that enumerating them would be a challenge in and of itself.

    I don’t necessarily think any of the above should be illegal, but I also don’t see how those things should enable special protections in the law when at least some of them are literally entirely illegal today. I’m forced to notice that it’s not illegal to be gay, lesbian, transgender, or bisexual so why do they get the special protections instead of decriminalizing other similar ‘life styles’?

    Oh well.

  22. Did they ever run polls among women “Would you mind undressing in a presence of a identifiable biological male who’s not your intimate partner” to make assumptions that such women are even more rare than transgenders (0.6% or so of the population)? Hell, I don’t think many men would be comfortable peeing in front of women. Does this bill, at least, obligate churches to provide extra bathrooms for the general public?

    The “compromise” here is pretending that biological sex is a religious belief but, otherwise, doesn’t exist. This is just bullshit.

    1. “Would you mind undressing in a presence of a identifiable biological male who’s not your intimate partner”

      Worst pick-up line ever.

  23. How about get rid of all unconstitutional legislation for forces association between people?
    مشکلات دوران نوجوانی

    1. Where the Hell do you think you are, a libertarian website?

  24. There is a simple, entirely equitable, but long ignored solution to this apparently intractable dilemma. This issue only seems complex if you ignore the crucial distinction between the 1st Amendment rights of a person and a business. The 1st Amendment gives every PERSON the right to both free speech and not to speak, but does NOT give these rights to businesses which instead can be forced to obey public accommodation laws.

    Public accommodation law can compel a business to bake-a-cake /design-a-dress /take-a-photograph/ arrange-flowers but this does not mean an individual employed in that business can be forced to surrender his 1st Amendment rights.

    So if someone in that business is willing, then the customer is accommodated and gets his cake/dress/photograph/floral arrangement. But if no one working there is willing, then fundamental 1st Amendment rights trump public accommodation laws and the would-be customer trying to insist his rights trump the 1st Amendment needs to go elsewhere.

    It’s seems to be bigots such as the gay couple objecting to Philips’ refusal to customize a cake to celebrate their union that cause these sorts of difficulties to arise.

    There are lots of nearby businesses willing to bake them a cake, they should stop trying to insist the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to people who disagree with them and simply go elsewhere.

    It’s only when there are bigots such as the gay couple objecting to Philips refusal to celebrate their union that these sorts of difficulties arise.

    1. If you don;t argue for repealing all public accommodation laws, then you’re just another right-winger demanding special rights just for your own tribe, in violation of 14A … based on religion, which violates the same amendment you claim to be defending.

      the crucial distinction between the 1st Amendment rights of a person and a business.

      There is no such distinction. And that’s like proggies saying a corporation is not a person.
      No, but their shareholders are persons.
      My car is not a person, but I am!!
      Your “simple” solution is the exact opposite of “equitable”, and invented solely by you. You admit a business must obey these laws, then you assume NO business has ANY owners and employees!

      Still confused? When a business is required to obey a law, YOU say NO employee is required to. Then WHAT us required to obey the law? The corporate logo? Corporate letterhead?

      The bigot is you, for inventing a TOTALLY lame excuse to ignore equal rights,
      Another violation of 14rh Amendment.

      A business can be EITHER a proprietorship (individual), partnership OR a corporation. Partnerships have NEVER been different than their owners/partners. EVER

      If the bakery is not incorporated, then it’s an individual, and your “argument explodes. If the bakery IS a corporation, and you demand the exemption, then you treat THOSE owners’ rights as different from the owners of proprietorships. On what basis? HOW can you presume to say that fundamental rights depend on which of three types, an individual chose to operate a business as.

      If I form a corporation, how does that forfeit ALL my fundamental rights?

      P.S. An employee of Microsoft is NOT Microsoft

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.