Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. questions Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2017, during the committee's confirmation hearing for Sessions. Alex Brandon \/ AP <\/p>\n
Now, Sessions' support of FADA is being called into question. In his list of <\/p>\n
Sessions balked at the idea that FADA is \"deceptively named,\" telling Franken: \"The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction.\" Other supporters of the bill have similarly stressed the concept of federal government \"discrimination,\" rather than addressing the bill's protection of those who engage in discrimination. <\/p>\n
Franken wasn't happy with Sessions' answers to his questions about the bill. <\/p>\n
\"Contrary to Senator Sessions' response, federal law does not allow the government to discriminate against someone on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief,\" Franken told NBC News. \"The First Amendment Defense Act would legalize discrimination, pure and simple.\" <\/p>\n
Sen. Mike Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told NBC News that FADA \"explicitly does not preempt state law, so it does not enable discrimination anywhere.\" That was a direct response to questioning about how FADA would apply in the 20-plus U.S. states that currently have laws protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination. Would FADA only apply in half of the country? <\/p>\n
The ACLU's Ian Thompson, a Legislation Representative specializing in LGBTQ policy, told NBC News the bill's text actually states the oppositeand would evenly apply nationwide. <\/p>\n
\"The notion that national law can only apply to some states boggles the mind. If FADA passed it would apply in every state,\" Thompson said. \"At the very beginning of FADA, you will see that it clearly states 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' That's essentially saying that it overrides any other law.\" <\/p>\n
Besides, Thompson said, FADA it so sweeping in its reach that it would impact LGBTQ people everywhere, even if state laws did offer protection. <\/p>\n
\"If you went down to the Social Security office with your partner,\" Thompson said, \"an employee would be empowered to say 'I can't help you because of my religion or morals regarding same-sex couples.' It would allow a federal contractor in NYC to discriminate despite the Obama executive order. It would allow commercial landlords to reject a same-sex couple or an unmarried couple.\" <\/p>\n
Regardless of state-level or even local anti-discrimination ordinances, experts say FADA would apply to any entity that receives federal funding. Franken told NBC News that it would \"sanction sweeping discrimination.\" <\/p>\n
\"A homeless shelter could turn away a married same-sex couple seeking a safe place to sleep,\" Franken explained. \"A commercial landlord could refuse to rent to a single mom or a pregnant single woman, because the business doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage.This is a dangerous bill.\" <\/p>\n
Ambiguous, confusing language \"notwithstanding any other provision of law\" and the use of the term \"discrimination\" is part of what makes the true intent of the First Amendment Defense Act so difficult to untangle. Interpretation of FADA's scope varies wildly, too, between its supporters and its opposition. That could be due to the changing drafts of the bill, which first appeared to allow religious and moral-based discrimination universally, and was later changed to exclude federal contractors, publicly traded companies and hospitals. <\/p>\n
But even the version of the bill that excludes hospitals from the right to turn away LGBTQ patients or patients having sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage would allow an individual employee to opt out, according to Sen. Lee's spokesperson. <\/p>\n
\"Pro-life doctors work at hospitals that provide abortion services all the time, but those hospitals don't force doctors to perform abortions,\" said Carroll, who told NBC News the newest draft would likely resemble the <\/p>\n
The version of FADA that will be reintroduced to Congress this term has yet to be seen, and despite Carroll's assertion that FADA will probably exclude hospitals, the only version that was ever actually introduced to Congress did not mention exclusions at all leaving all businesses and institutions free to claim a moral objection to serving LGBTQ people or unmarried couples. <\/p>\n
All versions of FADA so far entrust the Attorney General to press charges against any \"independent establishment\" that violates the law. That means that if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights protections in the workplace were to try and do its job, for example, Sessions could take the agency to court. <\/p>\n
\"It says to federal agencies like the EEOC that they can't step in and protect these people,\" Thompson said. <\/p>\n
The legal scope of FADA isn't the only criticism it has faced. Clergy of all stripes, including Baptists, have spoken out against the law. In 2016, a group of clergy in Georgia held a press conference where they said FADA would allow adoption agencies to put bias ahead of children's best interests. <\/p>\n
\"I find it unacceptable at every level as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father,\" said Trey Lyon, a pastor at Atlanta's Park Avenue Baptist Church, according to <\/p>\n
Progressive Christians have been fighting similar laws, with one <\/p>\n
Follow NBC Out on <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original: Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. Continue reading
\nFirst Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions' Confirmation ...<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"