Skip to main content

So-called 'religious freedom' order would allow discrimination based on sexuality and gender

On Jan. 30, 2017, LGBTQ Nation claimed several anonymous sources were reporting a proposed executive order by the Trump administration that "will allow for discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, social services, business, and adoption." White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked that same day by a reporter if an executive order to curtail LGBT rights would be forthcoming, said only, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue...we have nothing on that front now.” Deputy Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham reiterated his position, writing that "we don’t want to get ahead of the EO/As [executive orders and actions] that are coming, but that isn’t the plan at this time."

It wasn't true. There was indeed a plan in the works. Two days later, a draft of just such an executive order was leaked to the press. It is four pages long, anonymously written, and titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom.” The misnomer "religious freedom" here means that people who claim certain religious beliefs, beliefs that just so happen to be common tamong conservative Christians, would be legally free to express their disapproval of others' sexuality by discriminating against them. According to the proposed executive order, the following "religious" beliefs would be protected when they are expressed in words, actions, or refusals: “that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.” Individuals and organizations employed by the federal government would have such beliefs "reasonably accomodate[d]" within the scope of their federal employment assignment, and federal agencies could not subject them to any "adverse action" in response to such beliefs expressed outside of the scope of their assignment. Additionally, the status of religious organizations — here defined to include "closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious" — must not be in any way "disadvantage[d]" in response to such beliefs.

“We do not have plans to sign anything at this time," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told ABC News on Feb. 1. This is, of course, the same White House that had just denied that the proposal existed at all. A White House official acknowledged on Feb. 2 that hundreds of potential executive orders have been drafted and that this is indeed one of them.

Sarah Posner wrote for The Nation: "The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as 'sweeping' and 'staggering,' may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Sources

“Sources: Trump executive order allowing anti-LGBTQ discrimination is coming soon,” Jeff Taylor, Jan. 30, 2017.

" White House says anti-LGBTQ executive order ‘not the plan at this time’," Jeff Taylor, LGBTQ Nation, Jan. 30, 2017.

"Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination." Sarah Posner. The Nation. Feb. 1, 2017.

"Proposed Trump Executive Order Could Curtail LGBT Rights," Rick Klein, ABC News, Feb. 1, 2017.

" Draft Of Trump ‘Religious Freedom’ Executive Order Signals Major Win For Conservative Christians," Antonia Blumberg, Huffington Post, Feb. 2, 2017.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Castration at the Battle of Adwa (1896)

On March 1, 1896, the Battle of Adwa "cast doubt upon an unshakable certainty of the age – that sooner or later Africans would fall under the rule of Europeans." In this battle, Ethiopians beat back the invading Italians and forced them to retreat permanently. It was not until 1922 that Benito Mussolini would again initiate designs against Ethiopia; despite Ethiopia's defeat in 1936, the nation ultimately retained its independence. "Adwa opened a breach that would lead, in the aftermath of world war fifty years later, to the rollback of European rule in Africa. It was," Raymond Jonas wrote, "an event that determined the color of Africa." (p. 1) It was also significant because it upheld the power of Ethiopia's Christian monarchy that controlled an ethnically diverse nation (p. 333), a nation in which, in the late 19th century, the Christian Emperor Yohannes had tried to force Muslims to convert to Christianity. (p. 36)The Victorian English spelling…

Review of Cliff Sims' 'Team of Vipers' (2019)

After he resigned his position, Cliff Sims spent two months in Fall 2018 writing Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House. Many stories are told, some already well known to the public, some not. One buys this book, most likely, to gape at the colossal flameout spectacle that is Donald Trump, as with most things with Trump's name. Sims exposes the thoughtlessness, the chaos, the lack of empathy among his fellow insiders in the campaign and later in the White House, but he does not at all acknowledge the real consequences for ordinary Americans — there might as well be no world outside the Trump insider bubble, for all this narrative concerns itself with — and therefore falls far short of fully grappling with the ethical implications of his complicity.Previously, Sims was a journalist. "I had written tough stories, including some that helped take down a once-popular Republican governor in my home state," he says. "I had done my best to be acc…

It is not journalists' job to vet political nominees, but...?

The position of U.S. national intelligence director is open, following the resignation of Daniel Coats. John Ratcliffe withdrew his name from consideration on August 2, 2019, only five days after Trump nominated him. An article in The Guardian about why Trump picked Ratcliffe:Ratcliffe is a frequent Trump defender who fiercely questioned the former special counsel Robert Mueller during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee hearing last week.Even as Mueller laid bare concerns that Russia was working to interfere with US elections again, Ratcliffe remained focused on the possibility that US intelligence agencies had overly relied on unverified opposition research in investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.Unfortunately for Ratcliffe, he had embellished his credentials. According to Vox: He had "frequently boasted about overseeing the arrest of 300 illegal immigrants in one day at a poultry plant in 2008," but the operation was much smaller and his role w…