Politics
Religious exemption inspires heated debate at ENDA panel
Wolfson challenges current language in LGBT anti-discrimation bill

Freedom to Marry’s Evan Wolfson (left) and Freedom to Work’s Tico Almeida had heated exchange on ENDA’s religious exemption (Blade file photos by Michael Key).
NEW YORK — The appropriate scope of the religious exemption in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues to stir debate as a prominent marriage equality advocate on Thursday made a surprise endorsement of narrowing the broad provision in the bill.
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said he shares the “grave concerns” expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the religious exemption — which he said would “carve coverage by certain kinds of entities for LGBT people” — during a panel as part of Freedom to Work’s premier “Situation Room” in New York City.
“I do have grave concerns about the specific language in the specific bill,” Wolfson said. “That’s one of the points of difference I have with Freedom to Work on this current bill.”
Currently, ENDA has a religious exemption that provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees. That same leeway isn’t found under Title VII, which prohibits religious organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, gender or national origin.
Wolfson and Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work and proponent of the religious exemption, were the lone speakers on the second panel of the day. Wolfson’s main purpose on the panel was to talk about the lessons the campaign to pass ENDA can learn from the marriage equality fight.
Almeida initially responded by saying the religious exemption has value in allaying concerns from Republican lawmakers who are undecided on ENDA.
“I would say that in a bunch of Republican meetings we spend a majority of the time talking about the religious exemption and exactly how it will apply, what the case law is,” Almeida said.
Almeida co-wrote the current version of the religious exemption when working as a staffer for Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). It was passed as an amendment on the U.S. House floor in 2007 to a gay-only version of ENDA by a vote of 402-25.
But Almeida qualified his support for the religious exemption by saying he believes religious organizations shouldn’t be able to receive federal funds if they discriminate against LGBT people. But, Almeida continued, the mechanism to prohibit this discrimination isn’t ENDA; rather, it should be a workplace non-discrimination executive order signed by President Obama.
“I think there’s complete uniformity that we are all pushing for a federal policy that if you take and profit from federal dollars, you must follow American values, you must pledge not to discriminate against LGBT folks — and if you get caught, there should be consequences,” Almeida said.
But Wolfson quickly retorted as the panel developed into a heated debate between him and Almeida that seemed to become almost hostile as the session closed.
“We have a body of laws across the country that include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited discriminatory classifications alongside race, sex and others — and they have all followed generally a certain kind of exemption — as had Title VII and the Civil Rights Act, and so on,” Wolfson said. “The problem with this current draft of ENDA is that exemption goes far beyond what that body of experience has taught us is the right balance.”
Wolfson added the argument in favor of ENDA to undecided lawmakers should be to look at existing law throughout the states as opposed to enshrining “new and unnecessary and dangerous exemptions from non-discrimination law.”
“By the way, calling them religious exemptions implies that there’s some religious problem to be solved,” Wolfson said. “There is no religious problem to be solved: what these are are licenses to discriminate.”
Almeida, a Catholic, responded by saying he thinks attitudes should change within the church by action from members of that particular faith.
“I don’t believe civil rights statute in the form of Title VII and ENDA should be used to force the Catholic Church to make a change to its policies,” Almeida said. “I think we will push them, and it may take decades, and it may take more than my lifetime, but we will push them in other ways.”
Almeida added he doesn’t understand the argument the religious exemption in ENDA is a new approach because he said he “literally copied and pasted it from Title VII.”
Besides, Almeida also said groups that oppose ENDA’s religious exemption missed an opportunity to propose an amendment when the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee voted on the bill in July. Also, he challenged them to make public the language they would prefer instead.
“I would love for those organizations to publicly communicate to the LGBT community and to Congress what is their proposal,” Almeida said. “They made a big fuss …, and they didn’t seek an amendment at markup. They didn’t ask any of our progressive champions, and there are very progressive champions on that committee, or if they asked, then they got rejected.”
Wolfson countered by saying Almeida’s proposal to change the Catholic Church from within is “completely irrelevant” to the conversation of putting a “license to discriminate” in a statute.
“Nobody is saying that the Catholic Church should be sued or told what to do as a matter of law when it comes to doctrine or the church, or ministers,” Wolfson said. “That’s misleading language that might confuse people in a way that you didn’t intend.”
Additionally, Wolfson said Almeida was mischaracterizing the religious exemption in ENDA by saying it’s lifted from Title VII. Almeida conceded that point on the panel.
“To say that something has some degree of religion in it, but now that it’s in the marketplace, it can now fire not just the priest, but the janitor, that’s an exemption that doesn’t exist in Title VII or any other parts of law,” Wolfson said.
Concluding his argument, Wolfson said the religious exemption issue must be resolved because it’s giving fuel to the anti-LGBT forces seeking to thwart ENDA passage.
“The religious exemption language thing is mostly a distraction, it’s a non-and-wrong solution to a non-problem, but becomes important if it get put into law,” Wolfson said.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the ACLU, told the Blade after the panel he commends Wolfson for endorsing a narrower religious exemption for ENDA, calling the news “a great development.”
“As a leader of the freedom to marry movement, he knows as well as anyone the importance of rejecting overly broad religious exemptions,” Thompson said.
Further, Thompson responded to Almeida’s claims that narrower language on religious institutions hasn’t been proposed by pointing to existing law.
“The alternative to ENDA’s unprecedented religious exemption has been and remains crystal clear,” Thompson said. “Just as our civil rights laws have never permitted blank checks to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, and disability, they must not now do so based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Discussion of the religious exemption also came up during the first panel of the day, which consisted of six speakers from a bipartisan group of LGBT organizations. Paul Schindler, editor-in-chief of Gay City News, asked the panel if they were comfortable with the language.
Gregory Angelo, executive director of the National Log Cabin Republicans, started off the discussion by saying he was “comfortable” with the current wording because it’s hard enough selling the bill as it is.
“Without naming names, there are meetings that I have had with Republicans — both in the House and the Senate — where there’s some Republicans who don’t feel those religious protections go far enough,” Angelo said. “We’re pushing back against that. I think the protections as they exist now are strong, they’re solid.”
Melissa Sklarz, a transgender Democratic activist from Stonewall Democrats of New York City, seemed to support the exemption on a temporary basis as a way to win support for the bill, saying it won’t hold up in court and is just “a barrier to try to win allies” on the Republican side.
“It’s a good idea,” Sklarz said. “We watched them fight LGBT equality in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and we’ve watched it in marriage. As they keep throwing things at ideas that prevent equality, they will not stand up. If this is going to win allies among the moderate and right-wing so we can get it to the floor, then great.”
Asked by Schindler whether under the current religious exemption he could be fired at a Catholic hospital or a Mormon book store, Almeida replied, “It depends.”
“It depends on the facts,” Almeida said. “Law has very few bright line tests, and neither the Title VII religious exemption, nor the ENDA religious exemption, list types of organizations. So, courts have created factors that are considered.”
Almeida said courts have established that for-profit businesses are eligible for the religious exemption under existing law. But he acknowledged that organizations like the Catholic Church and Catholic Charities will be able to continue to discriminate against LGBT people in hiring and firing decisions.
“By tying the ENDA religious exemption explicitly to the Title VII religious exemption, that gives us the most clarity, and as a byproduct, and for me it’s just a byproduct, it’s going to be the one to help us win,” Almeida said.
2026 Midterm Elections
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
LGBTQ rights opponent will face Democrat James Talarico in November
Attorney General Ken Paxton won the Republican Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday, ousting incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Paxton won the primary against the four-term incumbent in large part due to President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Despite Cornyn voting with Trump more than 90 percent of the time, political insiders say being supportive isn’t enough to win Trump’s endorsement anymore — Republican candidates need to embrace the full MAGA image, something Paxton has done.
Paxton has served as Texas attorney general since 2015 and, before that, worked as a Texas state representative. He has approached both roles with what LGBTQ activists call a “consistently Anti-LGBTQ+ Record.” Following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — the case that made same-sex marriage the law of the land — Paxton advised Texas county clerks they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds.
His anti-LGBTQ crusade doesn’t stop at fighting against marriage equality.
Paxton has repeatedly demanded medical records for transgender youth in multiple states — including Texas, Georgia, and Washington — in hopes of making the practice illegal. His anti-trans actions go far past medical records. Paxton issued an opinion barring trans Texans from changing the sex on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates, claiming any changes made were “unlawfully altered,” and helped the DOJ reach an agreement with a Texas’s children’s hospital for providing minors gender-affirming care, eventually leading to a 10 million dollar settlement. He also authored a non-legally binding opinion equating gender-affirming healthcare for youth to child abuse.
In addition to his long history of anti-LGBTQ policy in the Lone Star State, Paxton is no stranger to controversy.
Multiple impeachment efforts brought against him in the state House of Representatives for “abuse of office” — with the state Senate later acquitting him — allegations that he used his office to assist large campaign donors, namely Nate Paul, and a widely publicized separation from his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, all impacted his run for the U.S. Senate seat — but not enough to keep him from the office.
Lynne Bowman, vice president of campaigns at the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement following the announcement of Paxton’s primary win.
“Texans have a clear choice this fall, and an opportunity to reject failed policies that hurt all families,” Bowman sent to the Blade via email. “Ken Paxton is so out of step that he has fought to undercut marriage equality and spent time demanding personal medical records for young people who do not even live in Texas, all while becoming the most corrupt politician in America. The more than 2 million Equality Voters in Texas will send him packing.”
Paxton will face off against Democratic hopeful and vocal Trump critic James Talarico in the fall.
Talarico, who won the Democratic primary in April against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights, citing his ministry work as the source of his support for the community.
The race for Texas’s Senate seat will be decided on Nov. 3.
2026 Midterm Elections
Bree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues
Former highest-ranking trans military member steps back from Va. congressional race
After being forced to retire, Bree Fram couldn’t stop. Restless even after giving everything she had to make the United States Air Force — and later the Space Force — better in every way she could, Fram quickly turned toward a new mission: public office.
The same tenacity that fueled her rise from Air Force researcher to the highest-ranking openly transgender officer in the United States Armed Forces would eventually carry her onto the campaign trail in Virginia.
Now, after months of campaigning, countless conversations with voters, and abrupt shifts in Virginia’s political landscape, Fram has stepped back from her congressional run.
Fram sat down with the Blade to discuss her decision to step away, what she learned on the campaign trail, and what comes next.
Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan that likely would have created multiple additional Democratic-leaning seats in the U.S. House. The ruling dramatically altered the district Fram had built her campaign around and left little time for candidates to adjust before voting began.
“That decision really was the end of my campaign, that there was not the chance after that ruling, particularly so late in the game, for me to meaningfully pivot back to a different district and have a conversation with voters with just five weeks to go until early voting started,” Fram said. “I do feel that the will of the people has been ignored over a technicality regarding the date of Election Day.”
For Fram, the ruling was not only politically devastating, but personally frustrating after months spent building relationships with voters and shaping a campaign around the district’s needs.
“What was incredibly disappointing about it was that none of the facts about the case had changed from the beginning of the year until when they made the ruling,” she said.
Still, Fram entered the race with a platform centered on affordability, government accountability, and protecting fundamental rights, pledging “to protect our rights, make opportunity affordable, and build a government that works for the people.”
That message focused heavily on affordability — one of the defining political issues of 2026 — and lowering costs for Virginians across ideological, geographic, and generational divides. Fram said voters responded warmly to that vision, even if it ultimately did not lead to an office in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
“The experience on the trail was fantastic. As a first-time candidate, you never know what you’re really getting yourself into, but any chance I had to get out there and talk with people was amazing,” Fram said. “I had the opportunity to change folks’ minds about trans people, about people from Northern Virginia.”
One conversation with a rural Virginia voter especially stayed with her.
“I called someone who runs a rural art shop… and he started talking about Democrats messaging on trans issues being such a problem,” Fram recalled. “And I’m like, do you know that you’re talking to one?”
Throughout the campaign, Fram said she often found herself breaking down preconceived notions about both transgender people and military service. The impact of that visibility became especially clear during another interaction on the trail that still stays with her.
“I had a young person, maybe 20 years old, come up to me. I could tell there was something on their mind,” Fram said. “I preempted them by saying ‘If you were about to ask if I’m trans, the answer is yes.’”
The young person, she said, appeared visibly relieved.
“As we made small talk I could tell there was something else he wanted to ask,” Fram continued. “Eventually they got it out– that they think they might be too.”
The moment quickly turned emotional.
“And then I asked, do you need a hug, they leaned in at first and then just hung on for dear life,” she said. “So what it means to our community to have that kind of representation out there, and to hopefully inspire others, was incredibly important.”
For Fram, those moments became some of the most meaningful parts of the campaign.
“My experience, I think, helped just shape what was our strategy,” she said.
The campaign also came at a uniquely difficult moment in Fram’s life. The Human Rights Campaign honored Fram alongside four other transgender military officials during a Jan. 8 event in Washington commemorating the forced retirement of transgender service members following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving openly in the military.
Even while navigating the fallout from the discriminatory policy that forced her retirement, Fram launched a campaign rooted heavily in direct voter engagement and personal storytelling.
Her decades in the military, she said, fundamentally shaped how she approached campaigning and leadership.
“As an officer, particularly the more senior you become, you get more and more training on ‘what does it mean to match your ends’ ways and means,’” Fram said. “My end goal was get into office … and constantly reassess what it looks like.”
Fram also said her military background informed her progressive politics more than many voters expected.
“My military background was interesting, because I was running as the progressive candidate,” she said. “People think you were in the military, how can you possibly be the progressive person?”
Her answer, she said, often surprised people.
“Well, where did you think I learned this stuff?” Fram said. “No matter who we were at the same rank, no matter what our job was, we all got paid the same. We all had government-provided health care where we never needed to worry about a medical bill.”
For Fram, and those who talked with her on the trail, military service reinforced the idea that good governance allows people to thrive.
“You actually learn a lot about progressive policies and good governance that lets people be their best self in the military,” she said. “We understand that military officers’ oaths don’t expire when their time in uniform does, and I think that resonated with a lot of people, that veterans can be part of the solution in getting us out of the situation that we are in today.”
Before launching her campaign, Fram built one of the most extensive careers of any openly transgender military officer in U.S. history, serving in senior leadership roles across the Air Force, Space Force, and intelligence community.
Most recently, she served as chief of the Requirements Integration Division at Headquarters, Space Force, after previously leading acquisition policy for the Air Force’s space programs. Earlier in her career, she oversaw advanced weapons and cyberspace programs at the Air Force Research Laboratory, managed billions in foreign military sales and intelligence-related operations, worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative fellow, and directed major engineering and national security programs at the National Reconnaissance Office.
Fram also co-led the Department of the Air Force’s LGBTQ+ Initiatives Team and deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She holds a master’s degree from the Air Force Institute of Technology and is a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College.
Despite stepping away from the race, Fram said she remains optimistic about the future.
“When I look at the big picture of what we did and how we ran a campaign, that is what I’m most proud of,” she said. “It really is the strategy that my team and I were able to craft, the messaging that we were able to share, that was all about connecting our personal story, the story of America to something that says we need a vision of what can be.”
Fram rejected the idea that ending her congressional campaign means ending her public life altogether.
“I can absolutely guarantee that I will not get off the stage. It is just a question of what stage or stages do I jump to,” she said.
She also encouraged LGBTQ people — especially transgender Americans — to stay politically engaged despite increasingly hostile rhetoric and legislation nationwide.
“Just do it,” Fram said. “It is incredibly important to show at every level that people can engage with the political process and make a meaningful difference.”
Congress
Eight Democrats break with party as House advances ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill
Measure not expected to pass in Senate
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal “Don’t Say Trans” bill on Wednesday, attempting to force teachers to out transgender students nationwide.
The bill, House Resolution 2616, also called the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” would require schools to get parental consent before allowing students to use their preferred, rather than originally assigned, gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, and to use any sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.
The bill amends Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, legislation that allows for federal aid to help elementary and secondary education programs — particularly those under its lowest-income Title I-A program — to stop allocating funds to any education that teaches concepts “related to gender ideology.”
This is directly related to Executive Order 14168, also known as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order, one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term. It requires the federal government to recognize only sex assigned at birth and dismiss gender identity rather than sex.
The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and passed by a 217-198 margin. The vote fell mostly along party lines; however, eight Democrats voted for its passage. They were U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.).
Proponents of the bill argue a child’s gender identity should be directed by parents at home rather than in public schools.
Critics say this is dangerous and will force students to be outed by their teachers to parents — some of whom may not be supportive of their gender identity — which could lead to violence or possibly conversion therapy.
California Congressman Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, spoke on the House floor while the bill was being debated.
“Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they have no problem bringing the full force of the federal government down against children. The GOP thinks they can legislate transgender people out of existence with this inhumane Don’t Say Trans bill, but all they’re doing is making life worse for a small minority of already-vulnerable children,” Takano said. “I spent 24 years as an educator where I worked with hundreds of high school students and their parents. Most children go to their parents when they need help or are struggling — including transgender children — but not all parents are accepting. The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations — even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill.”
The Washington Blade talked to Tyler Hack’s, founder and executive director of the trans advocacy organization and Christopher Street Project PAC, following the bill’s passage.
“Most queer kids go to their families when they are figuring out who they are, and then not all queer kids have that option,” Hack told the Blade. “If this became law, it would harm those already vulnerable kids who rely on school as a safe place and might not have a safe place at home.”
They explained this is not about protecting parents’ rights to know what is going on with their children, but rather the weaponization of trans identity that has become a mainstream Republican ideal pushed by the Trump-Vance administration.
“Young people deserve the space to figure out who they are without the federal government interfering in their lives,” they said. “It is beyond the pale, or rather it should be beyond the pale, and has become a norm for Republicans in Congress to villainize kids, because I mean, this bill targets kids, it’s in the name of the bill, and it’s in the implications.”
Hack continued, saying that amid the rising cost of everyday necessities — from gas to groceries — and while the Trump-Vance administration continues to defund programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans while creating slush funds for political allies, this is not what Congress should be focusing on.
“At a time when people are really struggling, and politicians need to be focused on lowering costs, they’re using queer and trans kids as political pawns,” Hack said. “They want to divide and conquer this country, and we need to stand up against them and unite behind values of inclusion and of trust in our teachers.”
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, provided a statement to the Blade.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. HR 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure it never becomes law.”
The bill will move to the U.S. Senate in the coming days and weeks, but it must first be reviewed by a Senate committee before leadership schedules it for a floor vote, where it will need 60 votes to pass.
-
Opinions5 days agoDual endorsement for Independent Council-at-large: Patterson or Crawford
-
Real Estate5 days agoIntroducing Next-Generation Assisted Living & Memory Support.
-
District of Columbia5 days agoD.C. Pride flag raising ceremony set for June 1
-
Theater5 days agoCedric Neal on his juicy narrator role in ‘Pippin’
