In a memo sent to staff in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Acting Director Craig E. Leen claims the department must “proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of… religious beliefs” when enforcing nondiscrimination laws.
Although federal laws like the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 prohibit contractors from discriminating on the basis of characteristics like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” the directive alleges that these regulations do not apply to faith-based entities acting in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
“In line with the longstanding constitutional requirement that government must permit individuals and organizations, in all but the most narrow circumstances, to participate in a government program ‘without having to disavow [their] religious character,’” Leen writes.
The government agencies, he adds, allow “faith-based and community organizations, to the fullest opportunity permitted by law, to compete on a level playing field” in all federal contracts.
As precedent for the directive, the OFCCP cites the Supreme Court’s ruling inMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which it claims “addressed the broad freedoms and anti-discrimination protections that must be afforded religion-exercising organizations and individuals under the United States Constitution and federal law.”
While the Supreme Court did, in fact, side in favor of baker Jack Phillips in its June verdict, the 7-2 decision was a “narrow” procedural ruling on whether Colorado’s civil rights body had been fair in its decision to sanction Phillips for turning away a same-sex couple because of his Christian beliefs.
Judges ruled the commission illustrated unconstitutional bias against people of faith in its deliberation but declined to weigh in on broader “religious liberty” claims.
In a statement toINTO, Harper Jean Tobin of the National Center for Transgender Equality claims the memo is a misunderstanding of both the key tenets of theMasterpiece Cakeshopruling and federal civil rights regulations.
“Religious organizations have ample protections under federal law, but they are not allowed to use federal money to discriminate against people,” says Tobin, who serves as the advocacy group’s director of policy. “The language of this directive is so broad and so vague because it is part of a long line of attempts by this administration to sow confusion and encourage any employer to act on their worst prejudices.”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, adds that the memo is actually “contrary to established law.”
“This directive seems designed to undermine the current requirement that federal contractors may not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or status as a protected veteran,” Minter claims in comments emailed toINTO. “In the past, the Department of Labor has made clear that religious contractors may prefer members of their religion, but may not discriminate on any of those bases.”
“By eliminating that important qualification, the new directive is confusing at best and at worst sends a dangerous and false message that such discrimination is now permitted,” he continues.
The memo is one of a number of decisions by the White House undermining LGBTQ protections in the name of “religious freedom.”
In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the formation of a “religious liberty task force” to “help the department fully implement” a federal guidance released by the Department of Justice last year. The order advises that people of faith “should be reasonably accommodated in all government action, including employment, contracting and programming.”
“Except in the narrowest of circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law,” Sessions wrote at the time.
The language is extremely similar to this week’s directive.
Four years ago former President Barack Obama signed an executive order extending nondiscrimination protections to federal employees for the first time. After taking office in January 2017, President Trump claimed he would not rescind that order — although the Justice Department ruled sexual orientation and gender identity are not covered under federal civil rights laws.
3 comments:
This is, as always since DJT is in the White House, very outrageous to see how LGBT rights are baffled and going backward to the 60's.
USA is such a contradictory country where religious lobby influences are still part of the politic sphere.
USA have to put appart religion and politic power and enter in the real 21st century democracy.
It's also so sad that the basic Human Rights are not recognised by discriminating LGBT, religion as Muslims and race. Yes, black people are still struggling in many states in USA.
When DJT's administration is pulling out of the UN Human Rights it shows how bad it's going to be in USA.
The law is a slippery slope generally, and more often a tightrope coated with Crisco. I read the case used to justify this new directive, and the court's "narrow" ruling was definitely far too narrow. For an honest understanding of how the ruling should have been, read the Ginsberg/Sotomayor dissent. In the so-called "similar" cases, the majority conveniently ignored that the requester specifically asked for messages designed to foment hate and discrimination, hence the cakemakers refused to make the cakes, but said they would make the cakes without the hate-motivating messages. The court majority ignored this because they wanted to (and did) claim that Colorado enforcement was unequal, regardless of the facts.
Once again we have proof that while the court is supposed to be apolitical, such is not the case. While the objects may be different, we are seeing a pattern that was used by former Chief Justice William Howard Taft (previously POTUS) in the 1920's, that ultimately led to the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.
It's more than that, I worry that there is a strong desire to go back to Puritan days, only this time it could lead to open rebellion that could do great damage to our country. I know I sound like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling, but the "sky" definitely has a pattern that's not good.
You're right, this is what happens when people don't vote. The question is: how do we break the "frog in the pot of water" syndrome before it's too late? Hopefully the midterm elections will help, but it's still going to be a battle.
Yours is still the last blog I read because it's the best.
@ anonymous,
As you mentioned, some judges are badly judging some trials when it comes to Human Rights and LGBT rights in USA.
From my Canadian point of view, it's not surprising when I see how your magistrates are nominated in regard of their politic allégeances. DJT is just «stuffing» the Supreme Court of USA with bigot and far right judges.
Something we don't see here in Canada because NO judges as the right to say about their political orientation and are named in regard of their past ruling as judges and by a consensus of the government.
Our judges have to show «nutrality» in their beliefs and actions.
Religion isn't part of our politic system as in USA that makes it more neutral.
Must also say that our Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties is providing all protection against any discrimination coming from a Canadian to another one.
So a «Cakegate» as you had would go to court on the spot to protect the gay guys against this discrimination.
More, all the «Neo-Nazi» and «racist» manifestations or bad ideology spreading in medias would be prosecuted by our laws. Even your «so called president» could face justice many times in regard of his numerous tweets that are racists and against basic Human Rights.
USA is sick and I'm not sure that the mid-term election will bring the voters to a common sense to vote against GOP and DJT.
DJT is such a bad ass and he is maintaining hate for his base and making the liberals trembling.
Post a Comment