Obama’s LGBT Executive Order
undermines pluralism and religious liberty
Daily Caller – Ryan T. Anderson
– 7/21/2014
Today President
Barack Obama issued an executive order barring federal contractors from
what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation and
gender identity. Employers should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their
employees, but today’s executive order undermines our nation’s commitment to
pluralism and religious liberty.
Today’s executive order does
not contain any religious liberty protections—though it does retain an older
federal regulation that permits religious organizations that favor employment
of co-religionists to continue such practices. But there is no protection for
organizations that hire based on mission—not on affiliation—to continue to do
so. This in effect excludes taxpayers who hold conscientious beliefs about
sexuality that run counter to Obama’s from being eligible for federal contracts
funded with their own tax dollars.
Federal policy on government contracts should not
seek to enforce monolithic liberal secularism. Today’s order undermines our
nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity. All citizens
and the groups they form should be free to exist and participate in relevant
government programs according to their reasonable beliefs. The federal
government should not use the tax-code and government contracting to reshape
civil society on controversial moral issues that have nothing to do with the
federal contract at stake.
All educational institutes,
for example, that meet bona fide requirements about education (not sexuality)
should be eligible for federal contracts if they fulfill the federal purpose of
the program—education.
Today’s order disregards the consciences and
liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s
opinions about issues of sexuality.
Previous guidelines for federal contractors
prohibited discrimination on race, color, national origin, sex, and religious
affiliation. These protections make sense, because race, color, national origin
and sex are rarely—if ever—relevant to job performance, while religious
affiliation is relevant for some religious organizations (and, as noted above,
there were religious hiring exemptions). But sexual
orientation and gender identity are not like race.
Indeed, sexual
orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can
refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is
reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions.
By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to
traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike
voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.
Worst of all, today’s
executive order is unnecessary. Voluntary market forces are already eliminating
true discrimination, as making employment decisions based on non-relevant
factors hurts one’s ability to compete. Indeed, the liberal Williams Institute
at UCLA, which conducts research on sexual orientation and gender identity law
and public policy, reports
that most federal contractors do not consider sexuality:
• As of May 2014, 86 percent
of the top 50 federal contractors prohibited discrimination based on sexual
orientation, and 61 percent prohibited discrimination based on gender identity.
• All but two (96 percent)
of the top 50 Fortune 500 companies prohibited discrimination based on sexual
orientation as of May 2014, and 70 percent prohibited discrimination based on
gender identity.
But the federal government
should not penalize those contractors that do conscientiously judge sexual
orientation or gender identity to be relevant to their mission and purpose.
In response to this
executive order, Congress
has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience.
Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any
individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs
that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are
reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating
against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing,
accreditation, or contracting.
The Marriage and Religious
Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133)
with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties and sponsored by Sen. Mike
Lee, R – Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the
federal government from taking such adverse actions. Protecting religious
liberty and the rights of conscience fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed,
tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.
Northwoods Patriots - Standing up for Faith, Family, Country
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment