GOP Rep. pitches LGBTQ rights bill with religious exemptions

As Democrats champion anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community and Republicans counter with worries about safeguarding religious freedom, one congressional Republican is offering a proposal on Friday that aims to achieve both goals.

The bill that Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart plans to unveil would shield LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other public services — while also carving out exemptions for religious organizations to act based on beliefs that may exclude those of different sexual orientations or gender identities.

Stewart’s bill counts support from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but it has yet to win a backer among House Democrats who unanimously supported a more expansive LGBTQ rights measure in May.

But the uphill climb for his plan doesn’t daunt Stewart, who sees the bill as a way to “bridge that gap” between preventing discrimination and allowing religion to inform individual decisions. …

"The bill that Utah GOP Rep. Chris Stewart plans to unveil would shield LGBTQ individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and other public services [??? emphasis added] […]"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

With all due respect to misguided Rep. Chris Stewart’s bill, one constitutional problem with it is this imo. The states have never expressly amended the Constitution to give the feds the specific powers to dictate INTRAstate policy for any of the referenced public services.

"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

The next problem with Stewart’s bill imo is that, in stark contrast to the rights that the Founding States expressly protected with the Bill of Rights and other protection amendments to the Constitution, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT “rights.”

In fact, the only constitutionally enumerated sex protection that gives Congress the power to legislate protections on the basis of biological female and male sexes is limited to voting rights issues, evidenced by the 19th Amendment.

"19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."

Also, how do the feds protect LGBT people without effectively granting them special privileges which would arguably violate the Founding States' constitutional prohibition on the feds establishing privileged / protected classes?

"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

Corrections, insights welcome.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.