The ‘Equality Act’ and what it means for you

By Wayde Hoppe
Van Buren Township
The U.S. Senate will soon consider the “Equality Act.” It is intended to prevent discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity and makes them a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill applies to any establishment that provides a good, service or program, public or private. There are plenty of reasons to care about this bill and, as they say, the devil is in the details.
A portion of the text reads, “An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.” In other words, a person is never to be denied access to any public facility based on his or her own perceived gender.
Biological males would have access to facilities, services and jobs typically reserved for biological females including the following: battered women’s shelters, women’s homeless shelters, women’s locker and shower rooms, women’s toilet rooms, women’s dressing rooms, positions on female athletic teams, college scholarships for women, set-aside loans for women owned businesses, female prisons, TSA agents that conduct pat-downs on women, and all school and college facilities designated for females.
The bill would force every business and public entity to endorse (and in some cases participate in) such behavior including: mandatory preferred pronoun use, a nation-wide ban on conversion therapy, forced participation in same-sex weddings, endorsements in school sex-education materials, and sex change conversion for children without parental consent.
The bill equates abortion to pregnancy while prohibiting “pregnancy discrimination,” making it illegal for health-care professionals to refuse to participate in abortion.
This bill is especially troublesome for religiously operated institutions because it prohibits employment decisions based on sex or sexual behaviors. Failure to comply with the bill would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status and in the case of private colleges, loss of accreditation.
Privately operated businesses that have religious convictions, would fare no better if they refuse, probably losing their license to conduct business. And the bill specifically prohibits exemption claims due to sincerely held religious beliefs: the first amendment is no defense.
Physicians would be required to provide mastectomies and hysterectomies on physically healthy women and amputations of healthy male sex organs. Conscientious objections would be met with fines, job loss and probably loss of a medical license.
Faith-based organizations, such as adoption agencies, would no longer be eligible for a waiver and would be required to submit or go out of business.
This bill will also stretch our cultural acceptance of dress codes and public nudity when applied to beaches, public pools, public places or places of public accommodation.
This bill is problematic on many levels. Why create a bill that antagonizes the religious community and then prevents them from claiming a first-amendment defense? At least three major religions in our country have very strong commitments to sexual mores and both the laity and the clergy are likely to resist.
The constitution guarantees the freedoms of speech, association and religion. Why write a bill that gives preference to a legislative act over enumerated constitutional rights? Those who have a strongly held religious conviction would suffer the most from this bill. The hostility toward religion seems conspicuous.
Women have made great strides in this country. Why jettison their gains, including privacy rights, in order to advance transgender interests? And why jeopardize women and children?
This is clearly an instance when the government is favoring a viewpoint that differs from many of its citizens. And this is exactly why the constitution protects speech, association and religion. After all, only dis-favored speech, associations and religion need to be protected.
If passed, it seems likely that the courts will be filled with contests for years to come, trying to resolve the innumerable conflicts created by this piece of legislation. Congress may have been trying to resolve a real problem or they may have just been trying to dismantle long held sexual mores. But they are going to generate legal troubles for a multitude of American citizens who are not vindictive, but will be punished nonetheless. It is also troubling to think of the way this bill will adversely affect women and children
It may be time to revisit the Civil Rights Act which will now be used by the government to silence dissenting views.