First Amendment Defense Act Introduced In Congress

Act Would “Prevent Discriminatory Treatment” Of People Who Act According To Personal Views On Marriage. The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which was introduced in Congress three weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House and over two dozen in the Senate. The bill's language seeks to prohibit the government from taking action against anyone who “acts in accordance with a religious or moral belief” toward anyone who doesn't live according to those convictions. From the text of the bill:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage. [Washington Post, 7/17/15, H.R.2902, accessed 8/5/15]

Iowa's CBS 2 Fails To Investigate Representative's Claims In Support Of First Amendment Defense Act

CBS 2 Failed To Challenge Rep. Rod Blum's Spokesman On The Effects Of FADA. CBS 2's reporting on the controversy surrounding FADA failed to challenge statements made by Rep. Blum's spokesperson, who said the law is not discriminatory and is “really a constitutional question” about support of the First Amendment.

ANCHOR: The race for Iowa's 1st District House seat heated up today in downtown Cedar Rapids. Democratic primary candidate Monica Vernon led an anti-discrimination rally in front of Iowa Congressman Rob Blum's office. CBS 2 News Reporter Kevin Berry explains what it was all about.

BERRY: (inaudible) when Congressmen Blum co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act in the House of Representatives last month. That bill would stop the government from revoking tax exemptions, denying grant money, or other federal benefits from an individual person or corporation that has a religious belief or moral conviction that first marriage is between man and a women or second that sexual relations should be reserved to marriage. Opponents say it would open the door to discrimination against same sex couples or potentially single mothers or anyone else who might violate those two ideas.

MONICA VERNON: I mean, this is a hate bill. This is a bill that legitimizes and legalizes discrimination. And we just wanted to call out the congressmen on it. I think if you do these things and you are not called out, you continue doing them. So we just wanted to call him out on it.

KEVIN BERRY: The bill was introduced right around the same time the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples are allowed to marry nationwide. Congressmen Blum is in Dubuque this afternoon, but his district director, John Ferland, says the congressman wouldn't back anything that would discriminate against anyone and that claims about the bill being discriminatory are false.

JOHN FERLAND (BLUM SPOKESPERSON): And the thing to know is that Congressman Blum would never vote for any legislation that would discriminate against anyone, especially a single working mother. If you support the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, I mean you support the First Amendment. So it's really a constitutional question. Do you support the First Amendment? I think everyone does.

KEVIN BERRY: The Blum staff points out that bill does deal with businesses potentially losing the tax exempt status after the Supreme Court decision about same sex marriage and doesn't deal with the hiring and firing of employees at all. Covering the corridor in Cedar Rapids, Kevin Berry, CBS 2. [KGAN, 8/4/15]

In Contrast, ABC 9 Reported That FADA Would Allow Discrimination

ABC 9 Reviewed The Text Of FADA To Fact Check Statements Made By Rep. Blum's Office And Found Discrimination Would Be Possible. After reviewing the wording of FADA, ABC 9's fact check team found that, contrary to what Blum's spokesperson said, the law would allow businesses and other organizations to discriminate against gay people and unmarried pregnant women, which the news station reported during its segment.

ANCHOR: People today protested a bill that critics say would let businesses discriminate against people who are gay or pregnant. Monica Vernon organized the protest outside 1^st District Congressman Rod Blum's office in Cedar Rapids. Vernon is running to challenge Blum's seat next year. The protest centered on Blum co-sponsoring the “First Amendment Defense Act” in the U.S. House. It would prevent the government from punishing a person for following their religious belief of traditional marriage. But Vernon says one clause could even allow a business to fire a woman for getting pregnant and not being married.

MONICA VERNON: I think about my daughters. If one of them would become pregnant and choose to raise the child, have the child, raise the child, whatever. I mean just being pregnant could get her fired from a position.

JOHN FERLAND (BLUM SPOKESPERSON): The lie is that this bill, or the First Amendment Defense Act, would allow an employer to fire an unmarried single mother.

ANCHOR: Blum's spokesperson said the bill is aimed at protecting religious organizations and their beliefs. But the KCRG fact check team found the bill, as written, would apply to businesses, as well. Blum says there are plans to rewrite the law but that's not happened yet. [KCRG, 8/4/15]

Experts And Civil Rights Advocates Agree: First Amendment Defense Act Would Open The Door To Discrimination

ACLU: If Passed, FADA Would “Open A Pandora's Box Of Taxpayer Funded Discrimination.” Ian S. Thompson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would have far-reaching consequences:

[P]rominent members of the House of Representatives, as well as leading anti-LGBT organizations, are pushing a bill - disingenuously titled the First Amendment Defense Act - that would open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers, and unmarried couples.

Its parade of horribles would:

· allow federal contractors or grantees, including those that provide important social services like homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people or anyone who has an intimate relationship outside of a marriage

· let commercial landlords violate longstanding fair housing laws by refusing housing to a single mother based on the religious belief that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage

· permit a university to continue to receive federal financial assistance even when it fires an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant

· permit government employees to discriminate against married same-sex couples and their families - federal employees could refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples

· allow businesses to discriminate by refusing to let gay or lesbian employees care for their sick spouse, in violation of family medical leave laws [ACLU, 7/20/15; Media Matters 7/28/15]

Washington Post: Anti-Discrimination Advocates Oppose FADA's Sweeping Language. The Washington Post reported that LGBT advocates, including Freedom for All Americans, who are pushing for tougher anti-discrimination laws oppose FADA's broadly-written language:

Equal-rights advocates are opposing the bill, saying it opens the door to discrimination against people in same-sex marriages by federal contractors who are now barred from discriminating through executive order. They also warn that gay people won't be the only ones who could be affected: a teacher at a private school receiving federal funding could be fired after having a child out of wedlock, they say -- thus violating beliefs concerning whether “sexual relations are properly reserved” for traditional marriage.

Freedom for All Americans, an advocacy group pushing for stronger anti-gay-discrimination laws, called the First Amendment Defense Act “a broadly written bill that would allow individuals and organizations to discriminate against millions of Americans -- including LGBT people, single mothers, unmarried couples, same-sex couples and others -- based on their marital status.” [Washington Post, 7/17/15]

FADA Would “Nullify” Current Federal LGBT Protections. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern described the impact FADA would have on existing federal protections for LGBT people:

What effect would all of this densely packed legalese have in practice? To start, it would instantly revoke every federal gay rights measure ever passed and pre-emptively nullify any future measures. President Obama's LGBT nondiscrimination order would be entirely undermined: Federal contractors would only need assert that gay sex and gay marriage violate their “moral convictions,” and they could fire gay employees with impunity. Federal grantees, such as homeless shelters and drug treatment programs, could turn away gay people at the door. Businesses could refuse to let gay employees care for a sick spouse, in contravention of medical leave laws. Even low-level government employees could refuse to process gay couples' tax returns, Social Security checks, or visa applications. [Slate, 7/23/15; Media Matters 7/28/15]

Cedar Rapids' Gazette Fact Checker Rated Rep. Blum's Claim That FADA Was Only About Churches “False.” Blum claimed “the bill is about just churches” and would not impact private, for-profit businesses, but the fact checker at the Cedar Rapid's Gazette found that statement false, writing: “The bill clearly states: protection for corporations and ”for profit" entities, which include businesses."

Blum spokesman Keegan Conway said the congressman stands by his statements.

“The congressman would never support anything that allows businesses to discriminate against anyone,” Conway said. “The clear intent of the legislation is to protect religious organizations like churches from discrimination ... He stands by his statement that the legislation is not intended to impact businesses.”

Conway cited quotes from Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., which Conway said articulate how acting in opposition to same-sex marriage could put churches at risk of losing tax-exempt status, and how the bill's intent is to protect “churches, charities or private schools.”

Conway said the author of the bill, Labrador, is considering changing the wording “to clarify that businesses would not be included.”

Iowa State University political science professor Steffen Schmidt put it bluntly.

The bill as written would allow people in any occupation, such as a photographer, wedding planner or baker, to refuse services for same-sex marriages, he said.

Tim Hagle, a University of Iowa political science professor, had a similar interpretation. Justices will look to the language of a bill before trying to decipher intent, he said.

“That one person's statement doesn't appear to be supported by what is here, even though that may be what they are trying to get at,” Hagle said.

Conclusion

Blum's spokesman explained need and intent, but that doesn't trump what the bill clearly states: protection for corporations and “for profit” entities, which include businesses.

If the bill is redrafted, Blum may wind up being correct, but at this point, he is not. The language of the bill is what counts.

Fact Checker scores this an F. [The Gazette, 8/3/15]