The First Amendment Defense Act

A bill is before Congress that would protect individuals, churches, and other organizations from being discriminated against because of their beliefs about gay marriage.  The First Amendment Defense Act, which ingeniously frames the issue in terms of discrimination, has been bottled up in committee for over a year.  Lawmakers don’t seem to want to take it up, even though Republicans control both houses.

Though President Obama would surely veto the bill, both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump (though not John Kasich) have promised to sign it.

From Nate Madden, Why Hasn’t the House Moved to Protect Religious Freedom?, Conservative Review:

As the House of Representatives comes back into session on Tuesday, proponents of First Amendment protections shouldn’t expect to see any movement on a key piece of federal civil rights legislation anytime soon, as it is still being “reviewed” by GOP leadership.

The First Amendment Defense Act, or FADA, was introduced in June 2015 by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) in the House and by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) in the Senate and has has been sitting in committee in both houses ever since. . . .

“The First Amendment Defense Act  (S. 1598, H.R. 2802) would prevent any federal agency from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman,” explains a corresponding press release from Senator Lee’s office. “For example, the bill would prohibit the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings.”

Specifically, the bill prevents the federal government as a whole from taking

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.

The House version of the bill describes a “discriminatory action” as any of the following actions “taken by the federal government to—”—

(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);

(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;

(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

It also has a section that would prohibit the federal government from not accrediting, licensing or certifying “for purposes of Federal law any person that would be accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such purposes but for a determination against such person wholly or partially,” because of that person’s belief in marriage. This would be wonderful news for religious schools and colleges—among many other institutions—many of whom have been concerned that a post-Obergefell federal government may seek to go after their accreditation statuses because of their institutional beliefs.

The bill is a grand total of seven pages long and would do nothing more than put a fence around the federal government’s ability to persecute people who disagree with its worldview on marriage.

[Keep reading. . .]