Washington D.C., Mar 14, 2019 / 05:08 pm (CNA).- Federal legislation purporting to guarantee equality explicitly rejects religious freedom protections and would open the gates to anti-discrimination lawsuits against religious believers and institutions who disagree with the bill’s broad view of LGBT discrimination, critics said.
Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of Alliance Defending Freedom’s U.S. legal division, said the proposed Equality Act, reintroduced into the House of Representatives on March 13, would undermine “the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, and conscience that the First Amendment guarantees for every citizen.”
She said “disagreement on important matters such as marriage and human sexuality is not discrimination.”
The Equality Act would add anti-discrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to existing protections for race, color, national origin, sex, disability and religion.
Waggoner compared it to similar state and local laws that would “force Americans to participate in events and speak messages that violate their core beliefs.”
About 20 states have such legislation. Besides combating mistreatment of self-identified LGBT persons, they have been invoked to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that only place children with a mother and a father or to compel people working in the wedding industry, like florists, photographers and bakers, to provide their services for same-sex ceremonies.
Critics have argued that the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity are too broad and will lead to rejecting appropriate recognition of difference between the sexes or differences between married heterosexual couples and other couples.
The legislation could endanger religious protections, particularly for those who believe marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. While U.S. law has historically allowed for broad religious freedom protections, those who disagree with same-sex marriage could be viewed as “discriminating” against a same-sex couple.
Though the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed with overwhelming support, such protections have recently drawn strong opposition from some lawmakers, pro-abortion access groups and LGBT advocates who contend they interfere with basic rights.
As drafted, the Equality Act explicitly removes the ability under RFRA to cite religious freedom as a defense against discrimination claims.
Tim Schulz, president of 1st Amendment Partnership, told the Deseret News that if the Equality Act becomes law, religiously affiliated schools and other faith-based organizations could face lawsuits over policies on self-identified LGBT students, customers or employees.
“There would be an effort to punitively sue them into oblivion,” he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a backer of the bill, said the legislation “clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used in civil rights contexts, prohibiting religious liberty — which is a core American value — from being used as a license to discriminate.”
The ACLU has long opposed Catholic hospitals that act according to Catholic ethics and refuse to provide “reproductive health” services including abortion and sterilization. In California, the legal group filed a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital for refusing an elective hysterectomy to a woman who identifies as a man and who sought the procedure as part of her putative sex reassignment.
It has also sided with efforts targeting institutions and small businesses that do not recognize same-sex unions as marriages. ACLU lawyers have backed a lawsuit against a Washington State florist who declined to serve a same-sex ceremony, while the group has tried to block Michigan state agencies’ cooperation with Catholic adoption and foster agencies.
Waggoner was critical of the Equality Act and predicted negative consequences if it becomes law.
“Americans simply deserve better than the profound inequality proposed by this intolerant, deceptively titled legislation,” she said.
“Our laws should respect the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every citizen, but the so-called ‘Equality Act’ fails to meet this basic standard,” Waggoner added. “It would undermine women’s equality and force women and girls to share private, intimate spaces with men who identify as female, in addition to denying women fair competition in sports.”
The proposed law would apply not just to employment, but other areas like housing, jury duty, credit, and education. It bars discrimination in retail stores, emergency shelters, banks, transit and pharmacies, among others. It would also specify facility access for self-identified transgender persons, such as access to male and female bathrooms.
David Cicilline, D-R.I., is the bill’s main sponsor in the House, NBC News reports. As of March 13, the bill had 239 co-sponsors in the House.
“In most states in this country, a gay couple can be married on Saturday, post their wedding photos to Instagram on Sunday, and lose their jobs or get kicked out of their apartments on Monday just because of who they are,” he charged. “We are reintroducing the Equality Act in order to fix this.”
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins is the only Republican to back the bill, though she was one of four currently serving Republican Senators to back similar anti-discrimination categories in a 2013 employment bill.
The legislation’s 161 corporate sponsors include PayPal, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. Overall they have a combined revenue of $3.7 trillion, CNBC reported March 8.
Leaders with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have not yet commented on the Equality Act. However, in the past they have criticized the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar actions deemed to be employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
In May 2010, the bishops said the act “could be used to punish as discrimination what the Catholic Church teaches.” While they called for a “comprehensive religious exemption” to such a bill, there could be “government retaliation” for institutions that rely on such exemptions. Without strong protections, it would be applied “to jeopardize our religious freedom to live our faith and moral tenets in today’s society,” they said.
The bishops rejected “every sign of unjust discrimination,” while also stating that Catholic teaching cannot be equated with unjust discrimination.
Leading bishops criticized the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in an Oct. 31, 2013 letter to the U.S. Senate, saying it does not advance “authentic non-discrimination.” They warned that the bill’s vague definition of sexual orientation does not distinguish between homosexual “status” and “conduct.” Its concept of “gender identity” rejects the “biological basis of gender” and would give force of law to a view of gender as “nothing more than a social construct or social psychosocial reality.”
CNA investigations have found close to $10 million in spending that targets religious freedom protection, including funding for ACLU projects. Major backers of the campaign include the Ford Foundation, which gives out some $500 million in grants annually, as well as the Arcus Foundation, an LGBT advocacy group that also funds groups that reject historic Christian ethics on LGBT issues. The network of funded groups tends to argue that religious freedoms are too broad if they exempt objectors to “reproductive rights” and LGBT political and legal concerns.
[…]
These are just allegations and while I have compassion for any victim of abuse, its disgraceful to find someone guilty before they have even been tried which is what these actions amount to.
Very true.
On the other hand, they should have banned his music years ago on the grounds of being utter tripe.
That made me laugh Leslie.
To those who have been given much, much will be expected.
Anyone in a position of leadership or influence, especially when the influence is over the young or vulnerable, should be held to the highest standard. I am a retired Catholic school teacher. I guarantee I would have been immediately dismissed for some of the comments, innuendos, and actions made toward me and 2 of my daughters 20+ years ago by another “famous” Catholic Church musician. My diocese did absolutely nothing. We were told “It’s not the whole of (person’s name.)” But this person played a pivotal role in damaging and undermining my children’s trust in the Church. Eventually, he was put “underground” for a few years until something “move visible” happened. Afterward, he resurfaced in another diocese. Sound familiar?
It is time to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who abuse their position and listen to the “targets” of their bad, and at worst sick, behavior. This is not an argument about church music nor is it an attack on a person. It doesn’t matter how famous, popular, or powerful someone is. It doesn’t matter if the person is a better musician than Bach. While we stand in a stupor, drinking in the “charisma” of these predators, their “targets” are being dehumanized and losing their trust in the Church. How many testimonies does it take before we listen?
Unlike some others who have commented here, I have enjoyed singing some of David Hass’ music. I am not against contemporary music in the Church. But a “rock concert” is not going to keep young people or anyone Catholic, especially when they or their family or friends are being abused by the ones appointed to shepherd them.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I also believe that fame, power, or popularity should not give a person special allowances. Too many Catholics are unwilling to look beyond their own comfort zone in the Church, let alone listen to the “cries of the poor.” People who step forward in cases like this are mistrusted, called crazy, diminished, blamed, etc.
Most decent people don’t want to see someone else lose their job. But a choice has to be made. Why do we as a Church keep choosing the famous, powerful, and popular over our ordinary brothers and sisters? That’s what predators count on. That’s how they succeed.
PS. Yes, I am still Catholic. I am Catholic because of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Well said, Bertasi!
These are only allegations so far.
The censure seems a bit hasty.
Can we not separate the man from the music?
My low opinion of his music has never wavered over the years. And it wouldn’t change even if he was made a “Venerable” or praised by a pope.
I quite liked his Mass our choir sang. (I don’t know if he had more than one).
I also believe I remember our choir director (different choir, different director) saying that Schubert’s Ave Maria was once a no-no because he wrote it for his mistress. More than a few musicians/artists were scoundrels. (Not suggesting Haas’s music is on the same level as Schubert’s).
His music is unsuitable for the Liturgy. Good riddance. This is a small victory for those who want actual sacred music at Mass.
Haas admitted guilt when he apologized last year on his website, after initially denying any wrongdoing. I don’t think any diocese can or should support the use of his music.
Surely Haas deserves his day in court in order to prove or disprove his innocence, however, in my court his contribution to church music has been an abysmal failure.
The OCP has 733 hymns in their publication. Now tell me, just which congregation needs more than 50 to 100 hymns(or 25 to 50) in the first place. Not only that, looking through the publication, more than just the David Haas hymns should be scrapped. For far too long Catholics have been subjected to the singing of a new church into being and having things raining down upon her people, for crying out loud. We could have a grand bon fire with all the misbegotten hymns in print forced upon us in the past 50 years.
Let’s get back to worshipping God with our voices, not each other.
My understanding is that OCP has a stranglehold on church music.
OCP preys on musically ignorant music directors/cantors and distracted/uninvolved pastors. They have an integrated system that “makes it easy” for any one off the street to choose music to plan a Mass. Unfortunately, the choices are usually all of their second-rate composers with their accompanying mediocre music. OCP profits off selling the copyrights of this music. Parishes purchase the same music year after year in a missalette-type subscription format (“Breaking Bread”) rather than a hardbound pew hymnal. It’s expensive besides.
As for Haas, he’s not just a nameless, faceless composer, who has been accused of some sinful things; rather, he used his parish-sponsored workshops and his “Music Ministry Alive” group (which he founded) to groom underage victims whom he later would go on to abuse. He is well-known in certain circles, and used his stature within the Church to gain access to these women. Talk about a “safe environment.” Hearing his music at Mass now, whether one is a victim or simply has heard about these accusations, makes worship a distraction. We can do so much better.
There is a wealth of Catholic music out there which can often be downloaded and reprinted for free, if you look around online or have a savvy music director at your parish. Until parishes have the scales removed from their eyes, OCP will remain the driving force behind mediocre music during the Liturgy.
St. Cecilia, pray for us!