Democrats in Congress already have staged a massive campaign to promote their Equality Act, which would impose the LGBT agenda on churches and faith-based organizations.
But now they’re working on a backup plan should the aggressive Equality Act fail.
It’s named the Do No Harm Act, but it would destroy protections for the exercise of religion by changing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The bill would make the exercise of religion in public life subservient to LGBT rights in all cases.
The RFRA has helped protect religious freedom since it was enacted in 1993.
The law was cited when a Texas town arbitrarily tripled water connection fees for churches to make up for “lost” property taxes.
The RFRA has enabled citizens to use their constitutionally protected religious faith as a defense against unwarranted demands, including those of LGBT activists.
Doctors have used it to decline to do abortions. Pharmacists have, under its protections, declined to provide abortion-causing drugs.
It has been used to protect a Christian foster care program in South Carolina that provides homes for hundreds of kids. The Barack Obama administration threatened to shut down the program if it didn’t adhere to a “nondiscrimination,” pro-LGBT policy.
Democrats believe they can reverse the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision if the RFRA is changed. The ruling protected a Christian baker from being forced to violate his religious beliefs by creating a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Now come Democrats with their H.R. 1450.
While it claims to be the Do No Harm Act, it would allow LGBT activists to impose their religious “views, habits, or practices” on Christians or people of other faiths.
It would prevent using the RFRA to protect a citizen’s religious liberty if the action imposes “dignitary harm” or an insult “on a third party.”
It would modify the RFRA simply to say its provisions do “not apply” in such disputes.
And it states that “sexual orientation or gender identity” protections trump constitutional protections for religious freedom.
Faith-based morals also could not be used to deny “a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation.”
Courthouse News reported this week the House will hold a hearing on the bill.
The report explained it condemns “those who wield their faiths to hurt others,” according to a civil-rights lawyer.
Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State claimed the Trump administration is “weaponizing” the law to “undermine civil rights protections.”
She said it harms “women, people of no religion, the LGBT community and religious minorities.”
She condemned RFRA because it allowed the South Carolina foster agency to operate according to its faith, which she said is unacceptable.
Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., had a different perspective.
“This isn’t about forcing religious beliefs; this is about forcing people of faith to abandon their beliefs.”
An obstetrician, he asked: “Will I be forced to perform something I believe is wrong? Will I be forced to perform an abortion?”
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., explained that the Constitution doesn’t confine religion to houses of worship.
“I understand that I am a Christian first and a congressman second. My faith is not divorced from my life. And I would expect everyone else who has a similar belief, that they, in this country, should be free, whether they’re Judeo-Christian or not,” he said.