What do You Know about the new “Equality Act”?

What do You Know about  the new “Equality Act”?
Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

By Sarah Kramer Posted on: | May 01, 2019

In March, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate introduced the “Equality Act.”

And while it may sound nice to some ears, this bill actually poses a devastating and unprecedented threat to religious freedom and the progress that women have made toward true equal treatment in law and culture.

Let’s take a more in-depth look at this legislation.

What is the “Equality Act”?

The “Equality Act” – in its simplest form – adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes to already existing nondiscrimination laws. This would prohibit employers, individuals who rent out apartments in their homes, preschools, and even religious schools and organizations from making choices based on basic biology, bodily privacy, and their beliefs about the nature of marriage. It would apply to every single recipient of federal financial assistance (including every public school and almost all colleges and universities.) And though “nondiscrimination” sounds good in the abstract, in practice this law poses a serious threat to women’s rights and religious freedom.

How would the “Equality Act” threaten women’s rights?
  • The “Equality Act” would force women to share private spaces with men.

In Alaska, the city of Anchorage is using a similar law to force a women’s shelter to allow biological men who identify as women to sleep just three feet away from women who have experienced rape, sex trafficking, and domestic violence. The “Equality Act” would also open up shower facilities, restrooms, and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex in schools – as has already happened in Pennsylvania in the Boyertown Area School District.

In Decatur, Georgia, a young girl was sexually molested in her school restroom by a boy who was allowed in as a result of the type of policy that the “Equality Act” would force on the whole nation.

  • The “Equality Act” would also undermine the purpose of Title IX.

Title IX was created to ensure equal opportunities for women in education. The “Equality Act” would destroy many of those opportunities. Among other consequences, the “Equality Act” would allow male athletes who identify as female to compete in women’s and girls’ athletic competitions. We’ve already seen the effects of this across the country.

At a Connecticut state track meet, two biological males identifying as girls beat out the female competitors in several events, taking first and second place. In fact, these males have taken medals from girls in meet after meet. As one girl said, “Why even try?” In Alaska, the same happened – a biological male competed as a girl at the state championship and won.

How would the “Equality Act” threaten religious freedom?

The “Equality Act” would threaten individuals, business owners, and non-profit organizations that simply want to live and work according to their faith by forcing them to express messages or promote events that violate their deeply held religious convictions.

It also would forbid churches and religious nonprofits from requiring their employees to live out their religious beliefs about marriage, sexual morality, and the distinction between the sexes. They would be required to open their sex-specific facilities to members of the opposite sex. For one Massachusetts church, that would mean it would have to open its women’s shelter for victims of domestic violence to biological males.

The “Equality Act” would threaten religious foster care and adoption agencies with closure if they operate according to their beliefs that the best place for a child is a home with a married mother and father. In New York, the state is using a sexual orientation, gender identity regulation – similar to the “Equality Act” – to shutter the adoption services of New Hope Family Services, which has been placing children in loving homes for over 50 years.

It would threaten creative professionals and other business owners who simply what to live and work according to their beliefs. Promotional printer Blaine Adamson respectfully declined to create shirts with a message promoting an LGBT pride festival, while offering to connect the customer to another printer who would create the requested shirts. The customer then filed a discrimination complaint against Blaine, and a local human rights commission ordered him to undergo diversity training.

The “Equality Act” would also force individuals to speak messages that violate their beliefs under the threat of punishment. Dr. Nicholas Meriwether was punished by Shawnee State University for declining to refer to a male student by female pronouns. He offered to refer to the student by first or last name only, in order to respect both the student and his own beliefs, but this did not satisfy the University, which still punished him.

What about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – doesn’t that provide some protection for these groups?

If you’re not already concerned about the scope and reach of the “Equality Act,” here’s another issue.

In the past, similar proposals have claimed to respect the concerns of the religious community and the LGBT community, offering a few narrow exemptions for religious freedom. But the “Equality Act” offers no exemptions for religious freedom. In addition, the bill would forbid religious individuals and organizations even to invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The faithful would be virtually powerless in the face of a bill designed to punish them for living out their beliefs.

Does that sound like equal treatment to you?

Essentially, the “Equality Act” gives people of faith an ultimatum: Change your faith-based practices or face government punishment.

The Bottom Line: Laws must respect freedom and promote justice for every citizen, no matter who they are. A society that protects everyone’s freedom to peacefully live according to their beliefs promotes an environment of mutual respect among Americans from all walks of life. But that is not what the “Equality Act” does. Instead, it threatens Americans’ fundamental liberties. And that is something no American should stand for.


  • Reply May 12, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Ed Brewer Mike Albright the bathroom + marriage in church issue taking a completely different form today

  • Reply May 12, 2019

    Link Hudson

    One of the dangers with this is the legal framework being laid for pedophiles to be able to work in preschools. Conceptually, pedophilia can be understood as much of an ‘orientation’ as homosexuality. For whatever reasons, that is the sexual desire of certain individuals in society.

    If ‘sexual orientation’ is a protected legal preference, and employment, housing, etc. cannot be denied based on orientation, then what legal grounds would a preschool or elementary school have to refuse someone who claims to have pedophile orientation from working there? What legal basis would a company that raises livestock or poultry have to keep a self-professed zoophile from working there? Just good common sense tells us not to hire such a person for such a role. But if ‘sexual orientation’ is an innate desire, a certain ingrained sexual preference, pedophilia is just as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality.

    We should also realize that the pendulum of anti-discrimination legislation, which was originally designed to protect individual’s rights, has swung so far that it has begun to crush the rights of many in society. Freedom of religion is actually protected in the bill of rights.

    I think our society has matured a lot on the issue of race. If all racial discrimination laws were removed, and a restaurant insisted black customers pick up food in the kitchen, white (Hispanic, Asian, etc) customers would probably stop shopping there. A few KKK themed stores in the US might keep blacks out if they had the freedom. Large companies would be free to just hire based on referrals, but they can still advertise if they do have racial diversity, which is not seen, culturally, as a positive value.

    When there are anti-discrimination laws, we have to realize they impose on the freedoms of business owners. Would it be so harmful to have men-only barber shops? Would it be so bad to have women only salons? There used to be gyms and other clubs that were only for men. In a lot of societies, there are situations where men spend time with other men and women spend time with other women. This is not an unhealthy thing. Not all ‘discrimination’ is necessarily evil. It is foolish for Americans to impose the idea that all gender discrimination is evil onto other cultures.

    What is extremely foolish is turning sexual preference– not all of them– just a few– as a protected category. If a man applies for a job and tells the red-headed or Asian interviewer how he has a sexual preference for red-heads or Asians, she may decide not to hire him just based on that. But if a man applies for a job and tells the interviewer that he is homosexual, then he is legally protected. He has legal protection against not being hired because he brought up an inappropriate topic related to his sexual preference during the interview. Aside from the Biblical and moral issues, just from a secular point of view mixed with a microscopic droplet of common sense, it just makes sense that sexual preference not be a protected legal category when it comes to discrimination.

  • Reply May 13, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Link Hudson do you know more? It looks like an old bill revived – I was looking for the original source. Has it fully passed yet?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.