Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Congressional Republicans Attach North Carolina-Style Discrimination To Defense Budget
Republicans in Congress have indicated that they like what’s been happening in North Carolina and want to see some of the same anti-LGBT discrimination at the federal level. Last week, they added an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act intended to roll back LGBT protections introduced by the Obama administration in 2014 in a way that mirrors North Carolina’s HB2.
Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) introduced his amendment shortly after midnight Friday morning in the House Armed Services Committee. Though the text of his measure does not specifically mention sexual orientation and gender identity, it is that absence that actually defines what he hoped to accomplish with it.
Federal law does not explicitly offer any protections in employment, housing, or public accommodations to LGBT people, though some oversight has been inconsistently secured under protections based on “sex”. That’s why in 2014, President Obama issued an executive order declaring that any entity that contracts with the United States must have a policy protecting its LGBT employees. Though it did not protect all workers across the country, it still impacted some 28 million employees at some 30,000 companies and also incentivized some to establish inclusive policies that previously did not exist — most notably at ExxonMobil.
Russell’s amendment is seemingly designed to override that order, as he confirmed in the discussion that followed its introduction. It specifically stipulates that when the Federal Government establishes any kind of contract or financial relationship with any religious-identified entity, it must “provide protections and exemptions consistent with… the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and… the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”
Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) introduced his amendment shortly after midnight Friday morning in the House Armed Services Committee. Though the text of his measure does not specifically mention sexual orientation and gender identity, it is that absence that actually defines what he hoped to accomplish with it.
Federal law does not explicitly offer any protections in employment, housing, or public accommodations to LGBT people, though some oversight has been inconsistently secured under protections based on “sex”. That’s why in 2014, President Obama issued an executive order declaring that any entity that contracts with the United States must have a policy protecting its LGBT employees. Though it did not protect all workers across the country, it still impacted some 28 million employees at some 30,000 companies and also incentivized some to establish inclusive policies that previously did not exist — most notably at ExxonMobil.
Russell’s amendment is seemingly designed to override that order, as he confirmed in the discussion that followed its introduction. It specifically stipulates that when the Federal Government establishes any kind of contract or financial relationship with any religious-identified entity, it must “provide protections and exemptions consistent with… the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and… the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/05/02/3774488/defense-bill-anti-lgbt-amendment/
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
