Friday, November 13, 2015

Family Research Council seeks legislation which could bar states from protecting lgbt families, community

The SPLC-designated hate group The Family Research Council (so named because of its tendency to vilify the lgbt community via distortions and falsehoods) has announced that it wants to push statewide legislation which would supposedly "protect" those who "support natural marriage."

The group calls it the Government Nondiscrimination Act and claims:

The Government Nondiscrimination Act prohibits the state government from penalizing individuals and entities for their moral or religious beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It also protects individuals and entities who believe that sexual relationships are properly reserved for such marriages—such as a religious school requiring students to refrain from engaging in any sexual activity outside of marriage. GNDA also protects individuals and entities from being penalized for believing that “man” and “woman” are biologically based. States should not be in the business of forcing individuals and entities to affirm same-sex marriage or other sexual conduct against their beliefs.
 . . .  The Government Nondiscrimination Act is focused on preventing government discrimination. Our government should never discriminate against, punish, or penalize people based on their sincerely held belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Like the First Amendment Defense Act at the federal level, states need to pass legislation now to protect individuals and entities from state discrimination on the basis of their beliefs in natural marriage.

This act appears to be so deliberately broad  that it could potentially prevent government entities from protecting married gay couples and lgbts (including families) in general from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. It also sounds like this act would prevent government entities from fairly keeping tax dollars away from entities which would discriminate against lgbts, such as Catholic adoption agencies.

And in light of the recent controversy involving a Utah judge who removed an infant from the home of its foster parents simply because the couple was lesbian, what potential effect would FRC's Government Nondiscrimination Act have in possible future situations involving officials who may cite their religious beliefs to keep gays from adopting children?

In a nutshell, the Government Nondiscrimination Act seems to be carrying "freedom of religion" a bit too far. You certainly should have freedom to worship. But no one should have the freedom to discriminate while exploiting their religion or "conscience" as an excuse to do so.

No comments: