"This bill wouldn't defend the First Amendment. It would contort the protections beyond recognition and destroy its value."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Editorial: Freedom of religion isn't a get out of jail free card
By The Mercury News, July 28, 2016

The "First Amendment Defense Act": Who could argue with a cause like that?

But in fact it's one of the most disingenuous, insulting pieces of legislation to crop up in this Congress -- an excuse for discrimination against gays and lesbians and a bizarre empowerment of government to be the arbiter of whether an action is grounded in religious belief. It would turn religious freedom into something more like religious privilege to ignore laws with which a group might not agree.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans' freedoms of religion, speech, press and peaceable assembly, as well as our right to petition the government.

Defending it isn't what this bill is about. Introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, it plays offense more than defense.

According to the official summary, HR 2802 "prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

By "discriminatory action" it means, among other things, government couldn't withhold tax exemptions, contracts, loans and licenses from people or corporations that defy federal laws requiring equal treatment of LGBT people.

It could be used "as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government."

Sen. Lee has said the bill is pushback against the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. It is meant to provide legal protection for religious groups that object to gay marriage.

For example, the bill could allow a business to deny time off to a gay or lesbian employee to care for an ailing spouse. It could allow an insurance company to deny coverage to a gay couple or a private school to refuse to accept the child of gay parents.

Thomas Jefferson tried to craft "a wall of separation between church and state" to guarantee Americans' freedom to believe and worship as they choose without interference from the government. But this law would turn our legal system into a biased referee, tilting the playing field to the advantage of people of faith.

Waving religious beliefs as Get Out of Jail Free cards to get around laws that apply to everybody else cannot be what Jefferson envisioned.

This bill wouldn't defend the First Amendment. It would contort the protections beyond recognition and destroy its value.

Stop it.
...................................................................................................................................................................