Jonathan Bailey
Well-Known Member
I recently wrote to my federal elected officials including President Trump favoring this action. Sen. Lankford (R) of Oklahoma responded to me with this message:
Dear Mr. Jonathan Bailey,
Thank you for contacting me about S. 788, the Equality Act. I appreciate your engagement in this important issue.
As you may know, S. 788 was reintroduced by Senator Jeff Merkley (OR) on March 13, 2019. The bill amends long-standing civil rights law to establish penalties for discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations and facilities, education, employment, housing, credit, juries and any entity that receives federal funding. The bill currently awaits further action in the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
No one should be discriminated against for any reason. I believe each person is created in the image of God and has value and worth; every person deserves respect. All people should be treated with dignity and have their constitutional rights, including the right to freely exercise their first Amendment freedoms, protected. Unfortunately, this legislation may not end discrimination. Instead, it may transfer discrimination to other individuals, including women, parents, children, medical professionals, people of faith, business owners, and nonprofits.
Because the bill redefines current civil rights law, including Title IV, legal protections for women would be eroded. Biological males would be allowed to compete against women in sports, which could diminish opportunities for achievement that often lead to scholarship or career opportunities. Private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and housing, including battered women's shelters, would be opened to biological males, putting some women's sense of safety and security at risk. In states that have similar laws to the Equality Act, we have seen examples where women have been disadvantaged, threatened or harmed by men who took advantage of poorly constructed laws.
Additionally, the Equality Act could diminish rights for parents whose young children experience gender dysphoria. This includes denying access for parents to receive accurate medical information on the side-effects and harms of gender transition treatments, such as cross-sex hormones and sex reassignment surgery and puberty blockers for their children. In some instances parents have already lost custody of their children for pushing back against these laws in states.
Similarly, the bill forces medical professionals, including counselors and doctors to violate their consciences, and sometimes their better medical judgement, when it comes to affirmation of gender dysphoria and prescriptions for cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and the performance of sex reassignment surgery.
The effects of the Equality Act translate to people and institutions of faith as well, without any right of conscience. The Equality Act would be the first bill ever to exempt the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a critical federal civil rights law. RFRA states that the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that the burden exists to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. It is unnecessary to exempt RFRA because RFRA itself implements a balancing test, which allows the government to override a religious claim when there is a compelling government interest. The only reason anyone would bar RFRA from applying to legislation is to allow the government to override and infringe on religion when it does not have a compelling reason to do so.
The Equality Act also has a problem in the text related to the phrase "perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." If an employer chooses not to hire a person after an interview, this language allows anyone to sue the employer for discrimination based on a belief that the employer "perceived" something about their sexual orientation or gender identity. This puts every employer in the difficult position of trying to prove that they did not make a decision about hiring, firing, raises or bonuses on their thoughts or perceptions about someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. Employment decisions should be related to person's quality and quantity of work, but the Equality Act creates a special protection and unique challenge for every workplace regarding any "perception or belief, even if inaccurate."
The freedom to agree or disagree is part of what makes America strong. The federal government should not force us all to think, act or believe the same way, including about our beliefs on gender and marriage. A nation that allows diverse opinions to flourish is a truly free nation.
Whether or not we agree on this issue, I hope we can solve other issues together where we have common ground. I remain committed to help our nation in every way we can. Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.
In God We Trust,
James Lankford
United States Senator
I replied as follows:
Dear Senator Lankford:
Thank you for your reply.
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects certain classes of people from discrimination in employment, etc.
Though religion is protected under the 1st Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it does not permit people and entities of faith to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, national origin, etc. though their religious principles may not permit a certain race, for example, to be employed in a certain position. Some people might feel by their religious faith and clear conscience that it is permissible to kill a person because they perceive the person as evil or supposedly God commanded the person to commit the deed. The criminal law system in America doesn't permit murder on religious principles even. I don't believe "the devil made me do it" or "God told me to do it" holds up in any court of law within the United States of America.
Therefore a person should also not be discriminated by prospective employers based upon the sex of the person he or she loves. People are naturally born with the predisposition to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex, same sex, both sexes or attracted to neither sex. Biological males who present themselves as females, vice-versa, may also be naturally born with such predisposition to do such. We don't discriminate on the basis of race or sex because those are characteristics of a person's biological natural birth. Babies are not conceived and born with the choice or free will to be a boy or a girl, Mexican, German, baptized as a Catholic in infancy, white, black, etc. The same goes for sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
Yes, people might (correctly or incorrectly) perceive somebody as homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, etc. just as we might (correctly or incorrectly) perceive a person to be male or female, black, Asian, Hispanic, disabled, white, etc. There is no black and white in terms of perception. Perception is not always reality.
The United States Supreme Court, to my understanding, has already forced, by one or more rulings, the several states to recognize same-sex marriage and I do applaud that decision. Many states now recognize marijuana as legal for at least medicinal purposes though I believe federal law still prohibits marijuana use and possession. The federal government has passed much legislation over the past against the will of one or more several states. Some Southern states were opposed to integration and provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, historically speaking.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bailey
Comanche County Registered Voter
"I always remember on November!"
Dear Mr. Jonathan Bailey,
Thank you for contacting me about S. 788, the Equality Act. I appreciate your engagement in this important issue.
As you may know, S. 788 was reintroduced by Senator Jeff Merkley (OR) on March 13, 2019. The bill amends long-standing civil rights law to establish penalties for discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations and facilities, education, employment, housing, credit, juries and any entity that receives federal funding. The bill currently awaits further action in the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
No one should be discriminated against for any reason. I believe each person is created in the image of God and has value and worth; every person deserves respect. All people should be treated with dignity and have their constitutional rights, including the right to freely exercise their first Amendment freedoms, protected. Unfortunately, this legislation may not end discrimination. Instead, it may transfer discrimination to other individuals, including women, parents, children, medical professionals, people of faith, business owners, and nonprofits.
Because the bill redefines current civil rights law, including Title IV, legal protections for women would be eroded. Biological males would be allowed to compete against women in sports, which could diminish opportunities for achievement that often lead to scholarship or career opportunities. Private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and housing, including battered women's shelters, would be opened to biological males, putting some women's sense of safety and security at risk. In states that have similar laws to the Equality Act, we have seen examples where women have been disadvantaged, threatened or harmed by men who took advantage of poorly constructed laws.
Additionally, the Equality Act could diminish rights for parents whose young children experience gender dysphoria. This includes denying access for parents to receive accurate medical information on the side-effects and harms of gender transition treatments, such as cross-sex hormones and sex reassignment surgery and puberty blockers for their children. In some instances parents have already lost custody of their children for pushing back against these laws in states.
Similarly, the bill forces medical professionals, including counselors and doctors to violate their consciences, and sometimes their better medical judgement, when it comes to affirmation of gender dysphoria and prescriptions for cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and the performance of sex reassignment surgery.
The effects of the Equality Act translate to people and institutions of faith as well, without any right of conscience. The Equality Act would be the first bill ever to exempt the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a critical federal civil rights law. RFRA states that the government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that the burden exists to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that government interest. It is unnecessary to exempt RFRA because RFRA itself implements a balancing test, which allows the government to override a religious claim when there is a compelling government interest. The only reason anyone would bar RFRA from applying to legislation is to allow the government to override and infringe on religion when it does not have a compelling reason to do so.
The Equality Act also has a problem in the text related to the phrase "perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." If an employer chooses not to hire a person after an interview, this language allows anyone to sue the employer for discrimination based on a belief that the employer "perceived" something about their sexual orientation or gender identity. This puts every employer in the difficult position of trying to prove that they did not make a decision about hiring, firing, raises or bonuses on their thoughts or perceptions about someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. Employment decisions should be related to person's quality and quantity of work, but the Equality Act creates a special protection and unique challenge for every workplace regarding any "perception or belief, even if inaccurate."
The freedom to agree or disagree is part of what makes America strong. The federal government should not force us all to think, act or believe the same way, including about our beliefs on gender and marriage. A nation that allows diverse opinions to flourish is a truly free nation.
Whether or not we agree on this issue, I hope we can solve other issues together where we have common ground. I remain committed to help our nation in every way we can. Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.
In God We Trust,
James Lankford
United States Senator
I replied as follows:
Dear Senator Lankford:
Thank you for your reply.
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects certain classes of people from discrimination in employment, etc.
Though religion is protected under the 1st Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it does not permit people and entities of faith to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, national origin, etc. though their religious principles may not permit a certain race, for example, to be employed in a certain position. Some people might feel by their religious faith and clear conscience that it is permissible to kill a person because they perceive the person as evil or supposedly God commanded the person to commit the deed. The criminal law system in America doesn't permit murder on religious principles even. I don't believe "the devil made me do it" or "God told me to do it" holds up in any court of law within the United States of America.
Therefore a person should also not be discriminated by prospective employers based upon the sex of the person he or she loves. People are naturally born with the predisposition to be attracted to a person of the opposite sex, same sex, both sexes or attracted to neither sex. Biological males who present themselves as females, vice-versa, may also be naturally born with such predisposition to do such. We don't discriminate on the basis of race or sex because those are characteristics of a person's biological natural birth. Babies are not conceived and born with the choice or free will to be a boy or a girl, Mexican, German, baptized as a Catholic in infancy, white, black, etc. The same goes for sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
Yes, people might (correctly or incorrectly) perceive somebody as homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, etc. just as we might (correctly or incorrectly) perceive a person to be male or female, black, Asian, Hispanic, disabled, white, etc. There is no black and white in terms of perception. Perception is not always reality.
The United States Supreme Court, to my understanding, has already forced, by one or more rulings, the several states to recognize same-sex marriage and I do applaud that decision. Many states now recognize marijuana as legal for at least medicinal purposes though I believe federal law still prohibits marijuana use and possession. The federal government has passed much legislation over the past against the will of one or more several states. Some Southern states were opposed to integration and provisions under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, historically speaking.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bailey
Comanche County Registered Voter
"I always remember on November!"
