June 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm EDT | by Chris Johnson
Sen. Hatch wants ENDA exec order to include religious exemption
Orrin Hatch, Republican Party, Utah, United States Senate, U.S. Congress, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) (Photo by Gage Skidmore; courtesy Creative Commons)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is calling for the executive order that President Obama is poised to sign barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors to include a religious exemption along the lines of the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Hatch made the comments via a statement to the Washington Blade in response to a request to comment on the directive, which the White House on Monday announced President Obama intends to sign.

“While the specifics of this executive order are not yet clear, I believe it must include the same religious protections that are included in the bipartisan Employment Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate,” Hatch said. “ENDA strikes a good balance to ensure that discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be tolerated, but also that one of our nation’s fundamental freedoms — religious freedom — is still upheld. The same must be said for any Obama Administration initiative on this issue.”

Hatch offered the most pronounced reaction to the executive order among other Republicans federal lawmakers, who were largely silent when the White House made the news.

In September, Hatch was among 10 Senate Republicans who voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would bar LGBT discrimination among public and private employers, not just federal contractors. At the time, Hatch said he was able to support the legislation because of the bill’s religious exemption.

A White House official responded to Hatch’s request for similar language in the executive order by saying he doesn’t any have details to share about the specifics of the directive.

Under the current version of ENDA before Congress, religious institutions, like churches or religious hospitals and schools, could continue to discriminate against LGBT workers in non-ministerial positions even if the bill were to become law. The religious exemption is broader than similar exemptions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for categories of race, gender, religion and national origin.

The issue of the religious exemption has become contentious among LGBT advocates amid a renewed focus on the language. Although most national groups still support the bill, two LGBT legal groups — the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center — have dropped support for the bill altogether as a result of the religious exemption.

Also among Republican supporters of ENDA in the Senate is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who’s an original co-sponsor of the legislation. In a statement to the Blade, she said the executive order won’t go far enough in protecting LGBT workers.

“I have long supported legislation that prevents discrimination in the workplace,” Collins said. “That is why I was pleased that the Senate passed ENDA. Under the executive powers of the President, this executive order cannot be nearly as comprehensive as a law would be. That is why I urge the House to consider the Senate passed bill promptly so it can be signed into law by the President. All Americans deserve a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream and to be free of unfair discrimination in the workplace.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who also voted for ENDA, was unfazed about the executive order. Asked by the Blade on Capitol Hill about his reaction to the White House announcement, McCain replied, “It’s fine.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, professed to be unaware of the news when asked by the Blade about the issue on Monday. He voted “no” when ENDA came to the Senate floor.

The remaining Republicans supporters of ENDA in the Senate didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to comment. None of the eight Republican co-sponsors of ENDA in the House also responded to a request to comment.

Additionally, the offices of Republican leaders House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) haven’t responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the planned executive order.

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

  • Only exemption if they are LGBT and religious; not religious alone.

  • I don't really care if my doctor is gay, as long as he doesn't leave anything in me that is made of metal.

  • Why should it surprise anyone that the transgender community is against the religious exemptions? Anything to derail passage of ENDA again. Before it was because they were not included now it’s because of this.

    Life is about compromise to get most of what you want. GLBT people don’t need to rely on religious institutions including religious hospitals and schools for employment. We have many secular options. We need to end this all or nothing mentality which is the same mentality religious conservatives have about marriage equality. I personally do not care if these exemptions are part if ENDA. It should not be held up because they are included. You will not win with the perception that you are forcing religious institutions to hire gays or others they do not want to hire. Wake up to the damn reality and let the bill and the executive order have these exemptions.

    It’s not about equality it’s really about stupidly thinking we can have it all when no one can. You are only giving religious conservatives fire and justification to derail ENDA on the pretext that it infringes upon religious liberty. Liberty University, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research council for example will NEVER hire you. Get over it and have the dignity and self-respect to realize you don’t need them to do so and be grateful for a law that levels the playing field in a secular workplace!

  • No special privileges for religion, no religious exemptions. In my city most hospitals are “owned” by religious non-profits that receive government funding to provide medical services to the community. This government funding is taxpayer money. Why should I pay taxes to fund an organization that can legally discriminate against me? To put this exemption in perspective substitute jewish, women, african-american, hispanic, etc. for LGBT and see if you still feel the same way, such as the religious hospital can refuse to hire jewish doctors, the religious hospital can refuse to hire women doctors, the religious hospital can refuse to hire african-american doctors, the religious hospital can refuse to hire hispanic doctors. This doesn’t sound right to me.

  • There is a slippery slope possibility here. The obvious BS is the "deeply held religious beliefs"

    Sorry if you conservartives dontt like it but in the public square you serve everyone equally Dont like it, turn your biz into a church and have a big "we discriminate" on the front window etc

    Even in the deep south I bet lots of those businesses would go bust

  • Down below el dorado talks about Liberty University, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research council – See more at:

    FRC is a hate group run by a kluxer named tony perkins. Concerned women of america (all these "concerned" groups) are also white supremacist based


  • I hope the Executive Order deals with the religious exemption the same way as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for categories of race, gender, religion and national origin. – This is something that doesn’t have to be negotiated with Congress it is up to the President.

  • If they want government money they have to play by the rules otherwise stick to private business

  • Religion is not a licence to discriminate. Deal with it.

  • The Federal Government does not need to employ “religious organizations, schools, and churches” as contractors. What services does the government require that could be provided by those organizations?

  • please shut up Lady Hatch.

  • So, Senator Hatch, the only organization that can legally discriminate is a Church? Hmmm, something is just plan wrong with your thought process!

  • So, Senator Hatch, the only organization that can legally discriminate is a Church? Hmmm, something is just plan wrong with your thought process!

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2020. All rights reserved.