The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[lpetrich]

Trump-Pence Propose Unconscionable Changes to Faith-Based Rules | Human Rights Campaign

Ever since Donald Trump and Mike Pence took their oaths of office, they have tried new, innovative ways to regulate compassion out of existence in our government. They’ve targeted individual groups – including the LGBTQ community, women, people of color and religious minorities – through legislation, regulation and rulemaking. Now, they’re attempting to rewrite the rules for faith-based organizations that do work with the federal government – targeting Americans’ access to lifesaving programs and care.

The Administration’s Religious Liberty Assault on LGBTQ Rights | House Committee on Oversight and Reform

The Trump Administration has undermined LGBTQ rights by rolling back protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as by allowing for more religious exemptions to a broader expanse of organizations to allow discriminatory practices against LGBTQ individuals. This hearing will examine the Administration’s actions to erode LGBTQ rights in multiple areas, including healthcare, employment, adoption, and foster care.

That hearing was captured on video: The Administration’s Religious Liberty Assault on LGBT Rights - YouTube

Most recently, the Trump Administration has done this: Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Defending Photographer on Free Speech Claim | OPA | Department of Justice - "The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest in federal court in Kentucky, explaining that a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government law, which requires a photographer to photograph same-sex weddings in violation of her religious objections, violates the U.S. Constitution."

 

[Metaphor]

Why the FUCK would you want to force a person who doesn't believe in your union to be the photographer for that union?

I seriously cannot understand this mindset. It's like the fucking wedding cakes. Why would you want to pay money to somebody who hates you? Is it just plain spite?

 

[lpetrich]

Sarah Posner on Twitter: "As the @HouseOversight Committee is holding a hearing on misuses of religious liberty to undermine civil rights, the DOJ files a statement of interest defending a photographer who says taking pictures at a same-sex wedding: https://t.co/ioioDp6zsC" / Twitter

Rashida Tlaib spoke in that video between 2:46:52 and 2:52:37

I am sitting about five feet away from @RashidaTlaib, who is giving a tearful, impassioned statement to her Congressional colleagues to just talk to someone in the LGBTQ community, and the discrimination they face.

"I don't think anyone in our country should live in fear because of who they are."

AOC spoke in that video between 2:58:25 and 3:03:50

AOC: "It's very difficult to sit here and listen to arguments... weaponizing Scripture to justify discrimination...Sometimes I feel as though if Christ himself walked through these doors and said what he said thousands of years ago...

... he would be maligned as a radical and rejected through these doors. And I know, and it is part of my faith, that all people are holy, and all people are sacred, unconditionally."

More AOC: "What this administration is advancing is the idea that religion and faith are about exclusion."

More AOC: "There is nothing holy about writing discrimination into the law, and I'm tired of it."

 

[Half-Life]

You can't force people to go against their religion. One of my friends used to work at a Hilton Hotel and he worked with a Muslim guy who was the cook there and refused to touch the pork. Someone else had to cook the pork instead. He wasn't fired.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Why the FUCK would you want to force a person who doesn't believe in your union to be the photographer for that union?

I seriously cannot understand this mindset. It's like the fucking wedding cakes. Why would you want to pay money to somebody who hates you? Is it just plain spite?

Discrimination in goods and services is unlawful. In a society which relies on capitalism, it's important that all members of the public have equal opportunity to access goods and services offered to the general public absent any bona fide reason for being denied.

Typically, people don't know they will be discriminated against prior to seeking out services. Filing a complaint or suit isn't necessarily about forcing the service provider to provide the service. That wouldn't make sense in some cases given timelines. If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding, it may very well take more time to settle the case than remains prior to the wedding. The complaint or suit often seeks redress for an act of discrimination which has already occurred.

(something gets triggered when I try to post the url for the legislation and the site won't let me post. It's easy to find online, though: California AB-2826).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Most recently, the Trump Administration has done this: Department of Justice Files Statement of Interest Defending Photographer on Free Speech Claim | OPA | Department of Justice - "The Department of Justice today filed a Statement of Interest in federal court in Kentucky, explaining that a Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government law, which requires a photographer to photograph same-sex weddings in violation of her religious objections, violates the U.S. Constitution."

I find the 'free speech' angle dubious. I worked as a commercial photographer for fourteen years. While photography can be used for personal expression, not all photography is personal expression. Not every photograph taken professionally was speech on my part. Most of it wasn't. This claim seems to mistake the medium for expression itself.

Moreover, the brief explains, photography is an expressive art form, and wedding photography in particular seeks to celebrate and honor the union being photographed.

 

[Metaphor]

Discrimination in goods and services is unlawful. In a society which relies on capitalism, it's important that all members of the public have equal opportunity to access goods and services offered to the general public absent any bona fide reason for being denied.

This doesn't answer my question. Why would you want to have somebody who is opposed to the work they are doing capture what is going to be a very important day in your life?

Typically, people don't know they will be discriminated against prior to seeking out services. Filing a complaint or suit isn't necessarily about forcing the service provider to provide the service. That wouldn't make sense in some cases given timelines. If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding, it may very well take more time to settle the case than remains prior to the wedding. The complaint or suit often seeks redress for an act of discrimination which has already occurred.

What kind of redress do people want, and why?

If you go into a shop that makes wedding cakes, and you say you want it for your same-sex wedding, and the individual responsible for making the cake says "I don't believe in same-sex unions and I think what you are engaging in is a mockery of marriage" (or whatever), why the fuck would you want to force this person to provide that service?

My response would be "oh, fuck you then, and I'm going to take my money to somebody who does want to do it".

Same for a wedding photographer. What the fuck kind of person wants somebody homophobic to take all the official pictures of their same-sex wedding? Do you think a homophobic person is going to do their best work working against their will, documenting a celebration they oppose? Wedding photographers work intimately with brides and grooms, taking photos before, during and after the wedding. They are close to the wedding couple all day.

What a fucked up thing to want and a fucked up memory to have. "Oh yeah, this wedding photographer hated the idea of same sex unions, but we forced him to photograph us. He was visibly disgusted whenever we kissed but that made our celebration all the sweeter. I don't know if he suggested the best poses for us because he clearly could not stand us, but the satisfaction of paying homophobes to provide a service to us is greater than the satisfaction of being surrounded by people who love and support us".

 

[Keith&Co.]

You can't force people to go against their religion. One of my friends used to work at a Hilton Hotel and he worked with a Muslim guy who was the cook there and refused to touch the pork. Someone else had to cook the pork instead. He wasn't fired.

So, what part of scripture says not to photograph a samesex couple?

 

[lpetrich]

Quoting AOC in that hearing:

Jim Wallis on Twitter: "“...if Christ Himself walked through these doors, [teaching] that we should love our neighbor and our enemy, that we should welcome the stranger, that we should fight for the least of us…He would be maligned as a radical and rejected…” Amen. https://t.co/KIEaC1Q73o" / Twitter

Ryan Knight on Twitter: ".@AOC just turned the whole “religious freedom” argument on its head saying the only time it is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination. She then argues that her faith calls on her to see all people as sacred and holy. PREACH!https://t.co/UiouVIFbRl" / Twitter

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons on Twitter: "“It is part of my faith that all people are holy and all people are sacred. Unconditionally.” @AOC just delivered a sermon to Congress about the dignity of LGBTQ people. https://t.co/UAdzYxBeTJ" / Twitter

CAP Faith on Twitter: ""I am tired of communities of faith being weaponized and being mischaracterized because the only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination." @AOC https://t.co/VQ6sCKxNA0" / Twitter

I might try to make a complete transcript some time. Seems to me that she makes Jesus Christ in her moral likeness. A good moral likeness, yes, but still her moral likeness.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Discrimination in goods and services is unlawful. In a society which relies on capitalism, it's important that all members of the public have equal opportunity to access goods and services offered to the general public absent any bona fide reason for being denied.

This doesn't answer my question. Why would you want to have somebody who is opposed to the work they are doing capture what is going to be a very important day in your life?

Typically, they don't. They're just seeking a photographer or baker or whatever without knowing the provider discriminates.

What kind of redress do people want, and why?

Varies. Outcomes are likely to be punitive measures or compensation for violating anti-discrimination statutes. Why people want this or the impact they hope it will ultimately have is going to vary.

My response would be "oh, fuck you then, and I'm going to take my money to somebody who does want to do it".

Which is what happens in the cases I've read about. But it isn't mutually exclusive with filing a complaint.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, if someone providing a service doesn't respect my choice of life partner, it's proper ettiquette for me to respect their disrespect?

Um.... no.

 

[lpetrich]

From Rashida Tlaib's Twitter feed, I found

Sharon_McGowan on Twitter: "Long overdue hearing about the Trump administration's religious liberty assault on LGBT rights. Thank you Chair @RepMaloney and @RepRaskin for convening this important discussion. Watch here: https://t.co/rP9hVbfLQm" / Twitter

Long overdue hearing about the Trump administration's religious liberty assault on LGBT rights. Thank you Chair @RepMaloney and @RepRaskin for convening this important discussion. Watch here: (link to full video)

.@RepSeanMaloney right out of the gate pushing back on distorted narrative in opening statement of Ranking Member Hice. His experience as an adoptive parent shows what this is really about: kids having a right to be placed with parents prepared to love and support them

.@RepMarkTakano notes that we have a robust tradition of exchanging different beliefs. But when orgs choose to be funded by taxpayer dollars, then it is appropriate to require them not to discrimination.. Well said.

Rep Kelly passionately advocating that religiously affiliated child welfare agencies that would put their own religious beliefs ahead of the welfare of children should be able to demand taxpayer support for their operation.

What he calls a policy of "inclusion" is actually a policy that limits the ability of children to be placed in safe and secure homes with LGBT parents or others who do not satisfy that org's religious litmus test. That is exclusion., not inclusion.

.@RepJoeKennedy speaking with passion about how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been distorted and misused as a tool to facilitate anti-LGBT discrimination. The #DoNoHarmAct is a critical piece of legislation that would course correct, and is long overdue.

Looking forward to the second panel, and couldn't help but note the ever-so-slightly changed tone of the Chairwoman as she introduced @family_equality's CEO, the REVEREND Stan Sloan. Take 'em to church, Stan!

But first, powerful testimony from Ernesto Olivares from San Antonio, TX, about his painful experience as a child in a system that allows religious service providers to strike terror in the heart of kids who are (or think they might be) LGBTQ. Heartbreaking.

The #EveryChildDeservesaFamily Act (HR3114) would be an important step toward rooting the kind of discrimination Ernesto experienced out of the child welfare system. :earn more about ECDF here: (link)

Evan Minton now shares his harrowing story - a day before his scheduled hysterectomy, his surgery was cancelled by the hospital because he is transgender. As is the case for many people, Evan's local hospital was a catholic hospital.

We were proud to be one of the organizations that sued to prevent the Denial of Care Rule from taking effect, and we won! We hope that no one will ever again have to go through what Evan suffered, and we won't stop fighting until that day comes.

 

[lpetrich]

More of that hearing. Hice is Rep. Jody Hice, a Republican.

.@HRC's Sarah Warbelow up next to talk about how devastating these assaults on the LGBT community have been.

Hiram Sasser from the First Liberty Institute picking up where Ranking Member Hice left off, although more measured in his tone.

Stan Sloan from @family_equality notes that there are 440,000 children in our child welfare system, but 20,000 will "graduate" from the system having never found a permanent home. LGBT people have stepped up to provide loving homes but are too often turned away. This must end.

.@RepMaloney highlighting the fact that Title IX exists to protect ppl from sex discrimination w/ some great questions to Stan and Sarah., noting that the actions of Dept of Ed have undermined these protections and made schools more dangerous for students, particularly LGBTQ

After an exchange b/t Rep Miller from WV and Mr. Sasser from First Liberty, @EleanorNorton has an opportunity to offer her unique perspective as the representative for DC, a jurisdiction that has been ahead of the curve in defending LGBTQ ppl from discrimination

Her exchange with the two witnesses who experienced discrimination, Mr. Olivares and Mr. Minton, highlights the need not only for protections but also for data collection and proactive oversight of entities subject to fed'l jurisdiction.

@RepHarley from CA taking Sarah Warbelow on a ride on the Republican "absurdity train" with respect to the implications of their religious liberty arguments. Buckle up! (And a nice answer from Sarah re SCOTUS being poised to strip protections that exist under T7 and elsewhere)

.@RepRaskin builds upon the "illuminating" (ahem) exchange b/t Ranking Member Hice and Mr. Sasser by citing numerous historical examples where religious liberty arguments were used to deny service to black diners or seekers of lodging. And SCOTUS rejected these arguments.

And surprise surprise, Mr. Roy (from TX) has no interest in engaging with the real and concrete examples of discrimination that have been shared today, and only wants to tee up questions to Mr. Sasser. The lack of empathy for what these folks have suffered is really stark.

.@CongressmanRaja opens his comments by declaring that discrimination is a contagious disease that we must take as seriously as any virus. Well said!

Had a technology glitch, but then got back on line to watch Constitutional-Law-Professor-turned-Congressman Raskin flex his brain. I couldn't be more proud to call him my representative in Congress. #TeamRaskin

@RashidaTlaib uses her 5 minutes to point out that this administration has been engaged in a campaign of state-sanctioned discrimination vs LGBTQ+ people & other disfavored groups from day 1. Notes this must be understood as connected to racism and other systemic oppression.

Powerful emotional plea from @RashidaTlaib to talk with the people who are most affected, incl. LGBTQ+ ppl & those who love them. Moved by her emotion when talking @ meeting a mom who lost child to transphobic violence. Incredible passion and compassion - we need more of that

And now moving words from @RepDebHaaland - it makes such a difference when we have lawmakers who not only see us and know us, but are part of the LGBTQ family. She is a proud mom of a two-spirit child, and her service in Congress is a gift to the entire nation.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is the end of it.

@RepAOC noting how difficult it is to sit there as a person of faith and hear religious liberty argument be used....AGAIN.... to justify discrimination.

@AOC proclaiming: it is not holy to deny someone medical care, prevent a child from finding a loving home. All people are holy.

Amen to that.

@AOC uses the remainder of her time to remember Layleen Polanco, who lost her life because of all of the ways in which LGBTQ ppl of color experience a mosaic of marginalization.

@RepPressley talking about the school-based trauma that disproportionately affects LGBTQ students, and calls attention to her legislative proposal to respond to this crisis, the PUSHOUT Act. Read more about it here: (link to Rep. AP's page)

.@RepLynch and Stan Sloan with a great exchange about how LGBTQ ppl are also people of faith - these are not two distinct communities. There are groups who have an interest in promoting that myth, but it is indeed a myth

.@RepSarbanes talking about all-hands on deck effort in Congress to learn more about how dangerous Denial of Care rule was formulated, who was behind it, etc., HHS has refused to provide anything other than publicly available info. Another e.g., of the lawlessness of this admin

@RepKatiePorter asks the panel to speak about the economic harm caused by discrimination, which compounds the human cost of discrimination. And then ends by noting that, as a single mother, this fight is personal for her as well. Loving families take many forms.

And with that, @RepRaskin brings this historic hearing to a close. What a powerful day of testimony, and a strong show of force from our friends in the House who understand just how important these issues are to the health of our families and our nation as a whole. THANK YOU!!

Today's hearing re this administration's religious liberty assault on LGBT rights was important and powerful, and I am tremendously grateful to those who made it happen (incl @sashabuchert from @LambdaLegal) . Couldn't pull myself away, so here are my highlights (linking to the beginning of the Twitter thread)

 

[Metaphor]

So, if someone providing a service doesn't respect my choice of life partner, it's proper ettiquette for me to respect their disrespect?

Um.... no.

What?

 

[Metaphor]

Typically, they don't. They're just seeking a photographer or baker or whatever without knowing the provider discriminates.

What kind of redress do people want, and why?

Varies. Outcomes are likely to be punitive measures or compensation for violating anti-discrimination statutes. Why people want this or the impact they hope it will ultimately have is going to vary.

My response would be "oh, fuck you then, and I'm going to take my money to somebody who does want to do it".

Which is what happens in the cases I've read about. But it isn't mutually exclusive with filing a complaint.

So, the point of this is to force homophobes to provide services to people they hate?

What is the positive from that? If I hire a photographer who hates same-sex marriages, wouldn't it be better that I know that and he tell me that, so that I can not hire him?

 

[just_me]

The trouble with all this is that the premise for denying services to these people comes from cherry picking parts of the Bible and conjecture. Its an interpretation of scripture to fit a purpose. If these people want, only the business of those who conform to the guidelines of their religion then they need to restrict their business to those that agree with them.

They should make it clear who they are willing to deal with by placing a sign, clearly visible to the public and let the public decide if they want to deal with them. If not then they need not deal publicly at all.

Freedom is not so much a right as it is a responsibility not to interfere with the freedoms of others.

 

[James Madison]

You can't force people to go against their religion. One of my friends used to work at a Hilton Hotel and he worked with a Muslim guy who was the cook there and refused to touch the pork. Someone else had to cook the pork instead. He wasn't fired.

That is not quite parallel to what is under discussion. Federal law requires employers to provide accommodations to the religious beliefs/practices of employees where it is not an "undue hardship" to do so. That is different from prohibiting public accommodations from discriminating who it will serve on the basis of sexual orientation, including public accommodations where owner/operator/ceo, is religious. The latter is being discussed, the former is not parallel to the latter.

The religious beliefs of the owner/operator/ceo of a public accommodation can legitimately be minimized by laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when the religious beliefs of the ceo/owner/operator of the public accommodation leads them to want to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[lpetrich]

Final Ending PUSHOUT Act Summary.pdf - The Ending Punitive, Unfair, School-Based Harm that is Overt and Unresponsive to Trauma (PUSHOUT) Act, by Ayanna Pressley

Court Rules Transgender Man Can Sue Hospital That Canceled His Hysterectomy - that was to be part of Evan Minton's female-to-male transition.

About ECDF Act — Every Child Deserves a Family - "The Every Child Deserves a Family Act (ECDF) would prohibit federally-funded child welfare service providers from discriminating against children, families, and individuals because of their religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status. It also ensures that children and youth in foster care receive the identity-affirming, culturally competent care they deserve."

The Trump/Pence Administration’s Disturbing Efforts to Demolish the Separation of Church and State, Starting with Kids in Foster Care | Lambda Legal

Sean Patrick Maloney on Twitter: "My husband & I have been raising kids for 27 years. Our eldest came to us when he was almost 3. His mom OD’d & his dad went to jail. There was no one to take care of this little boy, so we did. When you discriminate against LGBTQ couples, you deprive kids like mine of good homes. https://t.co/n7d8VRAwnB" / Twitter

Human Rights Campaign on Twitter: ""When students face discrimination in education, they are more likely to end up a part of the homeless population...They are more likely to end up in that cycle of poverty." - @HRC Legal Director @SarahWarbelow speaking to @RepPressley. https://t.co/0RYEMqPSfp" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

Someone clipped AOC's entire speech there:

Sharon_McGowan on Twitter: ".@AOC breaking it down like few others can. Thank you for participating in today's hearing, and using your voice to call for an end to discrimination cloaked in the language of religious liberty. https://t.co/fscIKdR9EW" / Twitter
noting
NowThis on Twitter: "'The only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination. I'm tired of it' — @AOC just flipped the entire ‘religious freedom’ argument on its head https://t.co/DXIByZAUYC" / Twitter

Clipped a second time:

Oversight Committee on Twitter: "In today’s hearing on the Trump Admin’s assault on #LGBTQ+ rights, @RepAOC delivered an unapologetic sermon on her vision of faith. While this Admin only advances religious freedom in the name of bigotry and discrimination, @RepAOC believes religious freedom is about inclusion. https://t.co/LDW23WAsaA" / Twitter