Connect with us

Politics

Religious exemption inspires heated debate at ENDA panel

Wolfson challenges current language in LGBT anti-discrimation bill

Published

on

Tico Almeida, Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Work, marriage equality, same-sex marriage, gay marriage, Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, gay news, Washington Blade
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).

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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Michael David Barber Moghul

    September 13, 2013 at 1:57 am

    No religious carve outs in legislation are required as those people are covered under the 1st Amendment.

  2. Rob

    September 13, 2013 at 7:11 am

    Oh it’s a bear fight! Let’s get these chunky boys greased up and make them wrestle it out shirtless.

  3. Cynthia McCorison

    September 13, 2013 at 9:05 am

    Seriously now, this debate has been going on since my high school day’s in the 70’s in one form or another. Personally I believe it is time to stop debating, and to act on this. religious exemptions were carved out long ago, and other than clarification, and a few tweaks should be entirely adequate. Long ago, when I was in school we were taught that religions did not have the right to incite hate, and violence, yet this is rampant, and unprosecuted. Why not put some focus on this as well? I see Mr. Almeida’s position as being untenable, and just placing more delay’s on this. As well from a past comment section from the Bilerico Project, and an article by Mr. Almeida years ago I myself believe that Mr. Almeida would sell lout the Trans community in a heartbeat.

  4. Washington DC Evangelists

    September 13, 2013 at 11:06 am

    There is no race homosexuals, no gender of homosexuals (gay chromosomes), nor is there a nation of homosexuals. You cannot make discrimination laws for behavior.

    • Steve

      September 13, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      Nobody is born religious. Being religious is a learned behavior that people need to be indoctrinated into.

    • Cocheese

      September 13, 2013 at 9:43 pm

      Indeed, if you didn’t blatantly discriminate against the LGBT community there wouldn’t be a need to protect this community. But you do and so this “behavior” as you wrongly categorize it, is a deeply engrained part of millions of Americans lives.

      So instead of allowing you to continue to openly and wrongly exclude gays, lesbians and transgender persons from participating equally in employment, housing, public accommodations and other public venues with dirty underhanded tactics ENDA will stop your discriminatory practices.

      Sometimes peoples lives don’t fall into neat little categories like you seem to need. But I know I have the same right to work, housing, faith and entertainment as anyone else.

  5. David Lampo

    September 13, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    As an atheist, I find most religions silly, but I don't see why we have to insist that even organizations or businesses who are deeply opposed to hiring gays for religious reasons must be forced to do so. It smacks of the same intolerance the right so often exhibits against us, and it certainly feeds the paranoia many religious conservatives have about their religious freedom being degraded. In many cases, they're dead wrong, but on this issue, they have a point. The religious exemption should stay in the bill, and it certainly enhances its chances of passage.

  6. Peter rosenstein

    September 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    If we can get this bill passed with the exceptions in it we should especially if we take most of them out and we lose the vote

  7. Chris

    September 13, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Exemption or Federal funding… let the religious people decide which. If the exemption stays then tax payers, gay or straight, who do not agree should get a tax exemption to reflect their refusal to support such discrimination which may very well be against themselves.

  8. Bobby Oliver

    September 14, 2013 at 12:20 am

    If you take public funds, you can't discriminate. If you serve the general public in a place of business, you can't discriminate. If you are a religious institution and take state, federal or local funds, you can't discriminate. Religious institutions can refuse to marry, baptize, bury people who aren't members of their congregation or faith. Let's keep the wall of separation of church and state in place.

  9. Krystal Śmierć

    September 14, 2013 at 12:23 am

    And let's be clear, "taking" also involves the special tax exemption.

  10. Kathryn Leigh

    September 15, 2013 at 12:47 am

    There should be NO religious exemption for benign innate immutable natural HUMAN Characteristics such as sex gender sexuality handedness race and ethnicity – Never ever.

    Human beings should not be rated to have second class rights for how they were born, who they are!
    They should be equal in law and liberty.
    Religious freedom is not a liscense to discriminate, harm or impinge on others human freedoms.
    Please lets all take a reality check; you do not get to abuse or harm other people because you have a religious belief, however sincerely held!

  11. Wayne Green

    September 15, 2013 at 2:15 am

    Substitute race for sexual orientation and you will realize how insane your argument is. Under your theory, any business can have a religious objection that would basically make the law useless. What if a company had a religious objection to women working outside the home? Or interracial marriage? As a fellow atheist, I find your resignation to such blatant discrimination troubling. You of all people should be against giving the religious the ultimate trump card.

  12. Wayne Green

    September 15, 2013 at 2:18 am

    Absolutely! I am very skeptical of this Almeida guy – for some reason he still belongs to a church that says he is "intrinsically disordered" and I guess he has internalized this inferiority. He can bow and scrape to the Church all he wants but the rest of us shouldn't have to defer that superstitious non-sense.

  13. Wayne Green

    September 15, 2013 at 2:23 am

    Oh, I just saw you worked for Cato. That explains everything. Dude, you may call your self an atheist but you just have just as much of an irrational faith in libertarian ideology as christians do in the Trinity. You r cult doesn't believe in ANY anti-discrimination laws so of course you could care less about anti-gay discrimination.

    PS – Have fun sucking on that Koch tit…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Biden recognizes 10th anniversary of end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Pete Buttigieg, Gina Ortiz Jones named in White House statement

Published

on

President Biden recognized in a statement on Monday the tenth anniversary of the end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a law that once discharged service members from the military for being openly gay or bisexual.

“Ten years ago today, a great injustice was remedied and a tremendous weight was finally lifted off the shoulders of tens of thousands of dedicated American service members,” Biden said. “The repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ which formally barred gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from openly serving, helped move our nation closer to its foundational promise of equality, dignity, and opportunity for all.”

Biden recognized high-profile openly gay appointees in his administrations who are also veterans, naming Air Force Under Secretary Gina Ortiz Jones and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Biden also names Shawn Skelly, assistant secretary of defense for readiness, who would have been discharged from the military under President Trump’s transgender military ban.

“On this day and every day, I am thankful for all of the LGBTQ+ service members and veterans who strengthen our military and our nation,” Biden said. “We must honor their sacrifice by continuing the fight for full equality for LGBTQ+ people, including by finally passing the Equality Act and living up to our highest values of justice and equality for all.”

Technically speaking, the anniversary of Obama signing repeal legislation was in December. Today is the anniversary of defense officials certifying the military is ready, which put an end to the policy.

Read Biden’s full statement below:

Statement by President Joe Biden on the Tenth Anniversary of the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Ten years ago today, a great injustice was remedied and a tremendous weight was finally lifted off the shoulders of tens of thousands of dedicated American service members. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which formally barred gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from openly serving, helped move our nation closer to its foundational promise of equality, dignity, and opportunity for all. It was the right thing to do. And, it showed once again that America is at its best when we lead not by the example of our power, but by the power of our example.

Despite serving with extraordinary honor and courage throughout our history, more than 100,000 American service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation or gender identity—including some 14,000 under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Many of these veterans received what are known as “other than honorable” discharges, excluding them and their families from the vitally important services and benefits they had sacrificed so much to earn.

As a U.S. Senator, I supported allowing service members to serve openly, and as Vice President, I was proud to champion the repeal of this policy and to stand beside President Obama as he signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act into law. As President, I am honored to be Commander-in-Chief of the strongest and most inclusive military in our nation’s history. Today, our military doesn’t just welcome LGBTQ+ service members—it is led at the highest levels by brave LGBTQ+ veterans, including Under Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones and Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness Shawn Skelly, who served under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I was gratified to appoint the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Cabinet member, Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserve and Afghanistan veteran who joined the military under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. And during my first week in office, I proudly delivered on my pledge to repeal the discriminatory ban on open service by patriotic transgender service members.

On this day and every day, I am thankful for all of the LGBTQ+ service members and veterans who strengthen our military and our nation. We must honor their sacrifice by continuing the fight for full equality for LGBTQ+ people, including by finally passing the Equality Act and living up to our highest values of justice and equality for all.

Continue Reading

News

HHS awards more than $48 million to HRSA centers in effort to beat HIV/AIDS

Biden campaigned on beating epidemic by 2025

Published

on

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra hailed the contribution of more than $48 million to beat HIV/AIDS. (photo public domain)

The Biden administration has awarded more than $48 million to medical centers under Health Resources & Services Administration in localities with high incidents of HIV infection as part of the initiative to beat the disease, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Xavier Becerra, secretary of health and human services, said in a statement the contributions are key component of the initiative, which is called “Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S.” and seeks to reduce new infections by 90 percent by 2030.

“HHS-supported community health centers are often a key point of entry to HIV prevention and treatment services, especially for underserved populations,” Becerra said in a statement. “I am proud of the role they play in providing critical services to 1.2 million Americans living with HIV. Today’s awards will ensure equitable access to services free from stigma and discrimination, while advancing the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2025.”

The $48 million contribution went to HRSA centers 271 HRSA-supported health centers across 26 states, Puerto Rico and D.C. — areas identified with the highest rates of HIV infections — to expand HIV prevention and treatment services, including access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as well as outreach and care coordination, according to HHS.

The Ending the HIV Epidemic was set up under the Trump administration, which made PrEP a generic drug after an accelerated effort and set a goal of beating HIV by 2030. Biden has continued the project, after campaigning on beating HIV a full five years earlier in 2025. Observers, however, are skeptical he can meet that goal.

Diana Espinosa, acting HRSA administrator, said in a statement the $48 million will go a long way in reaching goals to beat HIV/AIDS.

“We know our Health Center Program award recipients are well-positioned to advance the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative, with a particular focus on facilitating access to PrEP, because of their integrated service delivery model,” Espinosa said. “By integrating HIV services into primary care, and providing essential enabling services like language access or case management, HRSA-supported health centers increase access to care and improve health outcomes for patients living with HIV.”

Continue Reading

News

Melania Trump announced as guest for Log Cabin Republicans’ annual dinner

Former first lady Melania Trump is set to be a special guest at the annual “Spirit of Lincoln” dinner hosted by Log Cabin Republicans.

Published

on

Former first lady Melania Trump is set to be a special guest at the annual “Spirit of Lincoln” dinner hosted by Log Cabin Republicans, the organization announced on Tuesday.

The event — which will take place Nov. 6 at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., marking a change of tradition in holding the dinner in D.C. — will likely mark an attempt for Melania Trump to develop her image as an LGBTQ ally and tamp down the reputation the Trump administration was hostile to LGBTQ people.

Charles Moran, managing director for Log Cabin Republicans, hailed Melania Trump in a statement for her work as first lady and breaking barriers for the Republican Party.

“Melania Trump’s work as First Lady, from helping children reach their full potential to championing a more inclusive Republican Party, has been historic,” Moran said. “Her vocal support of Log Cabin Republicans has been a signal to Republicans everywhere that it is possible to simultaneously be conservative and support equality under the law for all Americans.”

According to the Log Cabin Republicans, Melania Trump at the dinner will be awarded with the 2021 Spirit of Lincoln Award. Other high-profile Republicans in the past who have appeared at the annual event are Carly Fiorina, Newt Gingrich, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker and Mary Cheney.

Moran, in response to an email inquiry from the Washington Blade, said Melania Trump will not only be an award recipient, but is set to deliver remarks at the event.

It won’t be the first time Melania Trump has collaborated with Log Cabin. During the 2020 election, she appeared in a video for Outspoken, the media arm for Log Cabin Republicans, saying “nothing could be further from the truth” her husband, former President Trump, is against LGBTQ people.

Among the anti-LGBTQ policies under Trump were a transgender military ban, religious freedom carve-out seen to enable anti-LGBTQ discrimination and the U.S. Justice Department arguing against LGBTQ inclusion under civil rights law when the issue was before the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Trump connected with a certain faction of LGBTQ people and his administration included high-profile LGBTQ appointees, such as Richard Grenell as the first openly gay person to serve in a Cabinet role.

As first reported by the Washington Blade, Melania Trump said in 2020 she wanted to light up the White House in rainbow colors similar to the display during the Obama years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for same-sex marriage nationwide. However, the vision never came to pass at a time when White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows had a role in quashing an symbolic support for LGBTQ people in Pride Month.

The Log Cabin announcement comes at a time when Melania Trump is facing new scrutiny over her response to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and whether she erroneously believes, like her husband, he was the winner of the 2020 election.

According to a preview in Politico, former White House press secretary and Melania Trump aide Stephanie Grisham says in her upcoming book she texted the former first lady on Jan. 6 to ask: “Do you want to tweet that peaceful protests are the right of every American, but there is no place for lawlessness and violence?”

A minute later, Melania replied with a one-word answer: “No,” Grisham reportedly writes of her account. At that moment, Grisham writes she was at the White House preparing for a photo shoot of a rug she had selected, according to Politico.

The Blade has placed a request in with the office of former President Donald Trump to confirm her appearance at the dinner and comment on what went into the Melania Trump’s decision to appear at the event.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular