{"id":3840,"date":"2021-03-31T22:26:22","date_gmt":"2021-04-01T03:26:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3840"},"modified":"2021-03-31T22:26:22","modified_gmt":"2021-04-01T03:26:22","slug":"the-equality-act-is-still-trying-to-garner-equal-support-from-both-parties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3840","title":{"rendered":"The \u201cEquality Act\u201d is Still Trying to Garner Equal Support From Both Parties"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sarah Ryan<\/em><\/span>
\nAssociate Editor<\/em><\/span>
\nLoyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2022<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Last week, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held its first round of hearings<\/a> regarding passage of HR 5, known as the \u201cEquality Act.\u201d The Equality Act<\/a> aims to codify protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. President Biden has continually reiterated his support<\/a>, urging \u201cCongress to swiftly pass this historic legislation<\/a>.\u201d While the bill has been introduced multiple times before, its potential impact has changed with the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s rulings in cases like Bostock v. Clayton Co<\/a>, which held that terminating a man\u2019s employment because he had a same-sex partner qualified as sex discrimination under Title XII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act<\/a>. Rather than rely on the term \u2018sex\u2019 as an umbrella encompassing sexual orientation and gender identity, the Equality Act would actually amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, sex and national origin. For all of these groups, the Equality Act would also go beyond the 1964 Civil Rights Act\u2019s protections in the areas of employment and housing to have a broader reach, by including federally funded programs and \u201cpublic accommodations,\u201d which can include retail businesses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Equality Act supporters are remaining cautiously optimistic, as the bill also previously passed the House in 2019<\/a>. The bill\u2019s future in the Senate is unclear, especially in light of a House vote<\/a> that was strongly divided along party lines: 221 Democratic votes were aided by only 3 Republican votes in favor of the bill\u2019s passage. Meanwhile, 206 Republicans voted \u2018Nay,\u2019 with two representatives not voting.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

All those in favor, say \u201cYea\u201d <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Equality Act\u2019s advocates also maintain that it will \u201csimply extend basic, broadly accepted tenets of the Civil Rights Act to classes of people that the bill doesn\u2019t explicitly<\/em> protect,\u201d NPR<\/a> reported. The White House has demonstrated its support, with President Biden making its enactment a top legislative priority<\/a> during his first 100 days in office, as well as issuing an executive order<\/a> directing agencies to interpret the Bostock <\/em>ruling to apply beyond employment discrimination to other areas of the law where sex discrimination if prohibited. Equality Act proponents note that this bill would solidify such protections so that they do not rely on changing administration\u2019s differing interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Notable proponents of the Equality Act include the ACLU<\/a>, the Human Rights Campaign<\/a>, and the American Psychological Association<\/a> (APA). Supporters like the Human Rights Campaign argue that the Equality Act would fill existing gaps in the \u201cpatchwork<\/a>\u201d of anti-discrimination laws across the states that leave LGBTQ Americans vulnerable to discrimination (currently 27 states<\/a>\u00a0do not have LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws). The Equality Act would remedy this by creating explicit federal protections for LGBTQ Americans across previously overlooked, yet important areas of life, including housing, credit, and public spaces and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) acknowledged that the House\u2019s vote showed how Congress was \u201ccatching up to the rest of the country<\/a>,\u201d citing shifts in public opinion<\/a> regarding LGBTQ rights and anti-discrimination legislation. These attitudes are corroborated by research demonstrating that such protections are greatly needed. A 2020 survey<\/a> from the Center for American Progress revealed that 1 in 3 LGBTQ Americans, including more than 3 in 5 transgender Americans, experienced discrimination in the past year. Research<\/a> published by the APA demonstrates that in addition to discrimination adversely affecting physical and mental health, public policies aimed at reducing discrimination and extending legal protections for LGBT people are actually associated with reduced stigma, leading to better physical and mental health outcomes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Those opposed, say \u2018Nay\u2019 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Opponents of the Equality Act anticipate negative effects with respect to religious freedom, freedom of speech, and biological sex. The Heritage Foundation<\/a>, one of the bill\u2019s most fervent challengers, contends that \u201cEquality Act\u201d is a misnomer, since the law would actually \u201cfurther inequality<\/em> by penalizing everyday Americans<\/a> for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex.\u201d The Equality Act\u2019s opponents cite to situations, like the one in the Masterpiece Cakeshop<\/em><\/a>case to garner fear around the effects that federal LGBTQ-friendly legislation would have on \u201cbusinesses or organizations<\/a>that have religious objections to serving LGBTQ people.\u201d In Masterpiece Cakeshop<\/em>, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to design a custom cake for a gay couple.<\/span><\/p>\n

By specifying its application to \u201cpublic accommodations,\u201d the Equality Act seeks to overtly prohibit establishments like bakeries, flower shops<\/a>, custom t-shirt businesses<\/a>, and wedding-video-production service companies<\/a>, from the types of discrimination the Civil Rights Act currently prohibits, while clarifying that this includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Many of these religious concerns stem from the Equality Act\u2019s explicit mention that it trumps the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (\u201cRFRA\u201d). This provision aims to bar entities from using RFRA as a defense to claims made under the Act. Advocates maintain that this will prevent use of RFRA as a \u201clicense to discriminate,\u201d<\/a> but opponents argue that it will be used \u201cto punish people for their beliefs.\u201d<\/a> Politicians such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have repeatedly voiced opposition<\/a> to the Equality Act. Some \u201cfeminist<\/a> and women\u2019s<\/a> groups\u201d also oppose the bill based on fears that the bill \u201cendangers the sex-based rights<\/a> of women and girls, including \u2018women\u2019s sports\u2019 and \u2018women-only\u2019 spaces.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

With such division, the Equality Act\u2019s future is still uncertain. Senate Democrats broadly support the bill, but it needs sixty votes to avoid a filibuster<\/a>. Regardless of its success in the Senate, it demonstrates a conitnued push and growing support for permanant protections for the LGBTQ community.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held its first round of hearings regarding passage of HR 5, known as the \u201cEquality Act.\u201d The Equality Act aims to codify protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. President Biden has continually reiterated his support, urging \u201cCongress to swiftly pass this historic legislation.\u201d While the bill has been introduced multiple times before, its potential impact has changed with the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s rulings in cases like Bostock v. Clayton Co, which held that terminating a man\u2019s employment because he had a same-sex partner qualified as sex discrimination under Title XII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Rather than rely on the term \u2018sex\u2019 as an umbrella encompassing sexual orientation and gender identity, the Equality Act would actually amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to race, color, religion, sex and national origin. For all of these groups, the Equality Act would also go beyond the 1964 Civil Rights Act\u2019s protections in the areas of employment and housing to have a broader reach, by including federally funded programs and \u201cpublic accommodations,\u201d which can include retail businesses.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1205],"class_list":["post-3840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-journal-of-regulatory-compliance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}