Wrongly named First Amendment Defense Act

From Americans United email...


AU's Legislative team attended a committee hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives about a proposal called the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA).


Don’t you love the names they come up with for these things? FADA wouldn’t “defend” the First Amendment, it would eviscerate it. This legislation would allow those who hold religious beliefs that oppose “extramarital relations” and marriage for same-sex couples to ignore laws that conflict with those beliefs.

This discriminatory proposal is obviously aimed at the LGBT community, but it could also affect single parents, unmarried couples who live together or even people who are divorced and remarried – as well as the innocent children of these folks.

In short, the rights of millions of Americans could be trampled by FADA, which allows religion to be used as an excuse to discriminate under the law.

For weeks, AU’s Legislative Department has been working around-the-clock to fight this terrible bill.

In addition to joining coalition partners https://support.au.org/page.redir?target=http%3a%2f%2fstatic1.squarespace.com%2fstatic%2f55672ab5e4b03d7bf298564a%2ft%2f577d47ef6a4963e1998a1e3f%2f1467828207930%2f07-06-16%2bSign-On%2bto%2bChairman%2bChaffetz%2bre%2bFADA%2bHearing.pdf&srcid=17619&srctid=1&erid=6737440&trid=e16cfdcd-639f-4e7e-8ba8-5a49b1aeccf9 to urge Congress to cancel the hearing – which shamefully took place exactly one month after the horrific Orlando LGBT nightclub murders – Americans United also worked with congressional staff and submitted powerful testimony to the committee explaining why this bill is such a threat.

Yesterday, members of our Legislative team spent hours at the hearing, updating our supporters about the deliberations via Twitter and Facebook. In addition, AU Executive Director Barry Lynn wrote an opinion column https://support.au.org/page.redir?target=https%3a%2f%2freligionnews.com%2f2016%2f07%2f12%2fthe-first-amendment-defense-act-is-actually-bad-for-religious-freedom%2f&srcid=17619&srctid=1&erid=6737440&trid=e16cfdcd-639f-4e7e-8ba8-5a49b1aeccf9 for Religion News Service outlining why FADA is a threat to the rights of all Americans, religious and non-religious.

We’ve been working hard to tell Congress why the First Amendment Defense Act is bad legislation, and will continue the fight. You can act, too! Please contact your member of the House and urge him or her to stand up and publicly oppose this dangerous legislation. Share our posts about FADA on Facebook and Twitter, or send this link to your friends.

FADA isn’t about “religious freedom” – it’s about other people using religion as an excuse to harm you, your family and your neighbors!

Please lift your voice to protect your rights and those of your neighbors. Thank you for your support of church-state separation!

»»»»»»»»

From AU's Protect Thy Neighbor

Not One, But Three: All Versions Of FADA Sanction Discrimination In The Name Of "Religious Liberty"

(Update: The FADA hearing ended at 1:00pm. You can find video of the hearing here.

)

Today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is holding a hearing on HR 2802, the deceptively named First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). We’ve been writing about FADA a lot lately because it’s just such a bad bill.

Not surprisingly, the people pushing this legislation have realized just how egregious it is and have floated proposals that might make it better at the margins—but at heart, they still sanction discrimination under the guise of religion.

Here’s a rundown of the three versions of the bill: The one that’s been formally introduced in Congress (HR 2802 or FADA 1.0) and the revised versions (FADA 2.0 and 3.0) that the bill sponsors may discuss at today’s hearing.

Before I get to the details, I might as well state the obvious: all three versions of FADA seek to allow discrimination in the name of religion, and Congress should reject any and all of them.

Any of the three versions of FADA could allow claims by:

⊙A taxpayer-funded domestic violence shelter to turn away a woman because she lives with, but is not married to, her abuser.

⊙A business with hundreds of employees to refuse to provide its LGBT workers time off to care for a sick spouse even though it is otherwise required by the Family and Medical Leave Act.

⊙A restaurant to refuse to host a young child’s birthday party once it discovers that his parents aren’t married.

None of these outcomes are consistent with religious freedom: Religious freedom does not justify discrimination and harm to others.

More:

http://www.protectthyneighbor.org/posts/2016/7/12/0ljud6hc5wspsbk7ghceyac5ebpmag
.