2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For The Equality Act, Which Would Provide
LGBTQ Anti-Discriminatory Protections By Prohibiting Discrimination On
The Basis Of Sex, Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Under The 1964
Civil Rights Act. In February 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for the Equality
Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit
discrimination or segregation based on sex, sexual orientation and
gender identity under 1964 Civil Rights Act protections, including in
public facilities, public education, federal assistance programs,
employment, jury service and areas of public accommodation." The vote
was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 224-206. [House
Vote 39, 2/25/21;
Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21; Congressional Actions,
H.R.
5]
Democrats Argued That The Equality Act Would Aid People From
Losing Their Homes Or Employment On The Basis Of Their Sexual
Orientation Or Gender Identity. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "Democrats who supported the bill (HR 5) argued it would
prevent people from losing their homes or jobs on the basis of
sexual orientation or gender identity." [Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21]
Republicans Claimed The Equality Act Would Hinder Religious
Freedom And Put Women In Danger. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "In floor debate over the measure, Republicans claimed
the bill would stomp on religious freedom and potentially endanger
women. Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., argued the bill would allow men
access to 'traditionally women spaces' such as shelters."
[Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21]
According To The Human Rights Campaign, At Least 70% Of The Public
Supported The Equality Act. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"David Stacy, the government affairs director for the LGBTQ rights
group Human Rights Campaign, said that federal law already provides
protections for religious freedom and cited significant public
support for the bill. His organization has cited polls conducted by
HRC and others showing 70 percent or more of the public support the
bill." [Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21]
According To Various Democrats, The Equality Act Would Not Hinder
Religious Liberty, But Instead Grant Gender Identity And Sexual
Orientation The Same Protections As Other Established Categories
Within Civil Rights Law. According to Congressional Quarterly,
"Democrats like Cicilline said the bill doesn't touch religious
liberty exemptions that already exist in the law. It only gives
sexual orientation and gender identity the same protections as other
categories such as race. 'All of the other areas of civil rights law
have established religious exemptions, they would apply in the same
way to the provisions of the Equality Act. The LGBTQ community is
not looking for more protections, nor are we willing to accept
less,' Cicilline said." [Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21]
Several Religious Groups Lobbied Against The Equality Act And
Claimed The Measure Challenged Religious Liberties By Not Creating
Religious Exemptions. According to The Washington Post, "A number
of religious denominations, however, are lobbying against the
measure, saying its lack of religious exemptions creates one of the
most sweeping challenges to religious liberty in decades." [The
Washington Post,
2/26/21]
Several Religious Groups Claimed The Equality Act Would Prevent
Free And Low-Cost Meals For Children Who Attend Single-Gender
Religious Schools, Require Religious Community Centers To Rent Space
To Conduct LGBTQ Ceremonies, And "Threaten Federal Security Grants
For Synagogues And Mosques Facing Violence." According to The
Washington Post, "Groups including the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, Orthodox Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, among
others, say it could halt free and reduced-cost lunches for children
across the country who attend single-gender parochial schools,
require church community halls to rent space for LGBTQ ceremonies,
and threaten federal security grants for synagogues and mosques
facing violence." [The Washington Post,
2/26/21]
Republicans Claimed The Equality Act Would Infringed Upon
Religious Beliefs And Continuously Brought Up The Issue Of
Transgender Women Participating In Women's Sports. According to
The Washington Post, "Republicans have said that the Equality Act
infringes on the religious beliefs of individuals and repeatedly
raised the specter of women's sports." [The Washington Post,
2/26/21]
On The House Floor, Representative Andrew S. Clyde Of Georgia
Continuously Called Transgender Women "Biological Males" And Claimed
The Equality Act Would Infringe Upon Women's Privacy Rights And
Safety In Locker Rooms And Showers. According to The Washington
Post, "In remarks on the House floor Thursday morning, Rep.
Andrew S. Clyde (R-Ga.) repeatedly referred to transgender women as
'biological males' and said the Equality Act would violate women's
right to privacy and safety in locker rooms and showers. 'God help
us,' Clyde said. 'Have we lost our ever-loving minds?'" [The
Washington Post,
2/26/21]
The House Freedom Caucus Attacked The Equality Act And Claimed It
Was "A Broader Liberal Attack On Traditional Christian Values."
According to The Washington Post, "Members of the hard-right House
Freedom Caucus delivered a broad attack on the substance of the bill
Thursday, with many calling it part of a broader liberal attack on
traditional Christian values." [The Washington Post,
2/26/21]
Representative Randy Weber Of Texas Claimed The Equality Act Was
An "Anti-Life, Anti-Family And Anti-Faith" Bill And Representative
Yvette Herrell Of New Mexico Claimed It Would Transition The Country
Away From Judeo-Christian Values And Take Away Parental Choice.
According to The Washington Post, "Rep. Randy Weber (R-Tex.) called
the bill 'anti-life, anti-family and anti-faith,' while Rep. Yvette
Herrell (R-N.M.) said it 'moves our nation away from our
Judeo-Christian values and takes away parents' rights to decide.'"
[The Washington Post,
2/26/21]
The Equality Act Would Modify The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 To
Include Protections Against Discrimination Based On Sexual
Orientation And Gender Identity. According to NPR, "The Equality
Act would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly prevent
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity."
[NPR,
2/24/21]
An Entity Would Not Be Able To Use The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act Of 1993 To Challenge The Equality Act's Provisions,
Nor Would It Be Used As A Defense To A Claim. According to NPR,
"Under the Equality Act, an entity couldn't use RFRA to challenge
the act's provisions, nor could it use RFRA as a defense to a claim
made under the act." [NPR,
2/24/21]
Some Opponents Of The Equality Act Claimed It Would Threaten
Business And Organizations That Object Serving LGBTQ On The Basis Of
Religious Objections And Force Them To Choose Between Their Beliefs
Or Continuing To Operate. According to NPR, "Another key fear
among opponents of the Equality Act is that it would threaten
businesses or organizations that have religious objections to
serving LGBTQ people, forcing them to choose between operating or
following their beliefs." [NPR,
2/24/21]
2020: The Supreme Court Ruled That He Civil Rights Act Of 1964
Protections On The Basis Of Sex Extended To LGBTQ Individuals.
According to CBS News, "Last year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling
stating that the protections guaranteed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act
on the basis of sex extended to discrimination against LGBTQ
Americans." [CBS News,
2/26/21]
The Equality Act Would Place Protections Against Discrimination
Based On Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity, Instead Of Having
Those Protections Under The Broad Term Of "Sex." According to CBS
News, "The Equality Act would explicitly set those protections for
people based on orientation and gender identity, as opposed to
having those safeguards included under the umbrella term of 'sex.'"
[CBS News,
2/26/21]
The Equality Act Would Benefit Members Of The LGBTQ Community And
Women, Who Would No Longer Be Denied Services By Health Care
Establishments. According to Center For American Progress, "The
Equality Act would establish sex and SOGI protections in public
accommodations. This means that businesses open to the public, such
as restaurants and pharmacies, would face accountability if they
discriminate against, mistreat, or refuse to serve LGBTQ
individuals. These amendments would not only benefit LGBTQ
individuals; all women could no longer be charged higher prices than
men for equivalent services or be denied services by establishments
that provide health care." [Center For American Progress,
3/15/21]
The Equality Act Would Expand The Range Of Public Accommodations
To Include Health Care Providers. According to Center For American
Progress, "By expanding the range of public accommodations
recognized under civil rights law, the Equality Act would ensure
protections for race, color, religion, national origin, and sex,
including SOGI, in public spaces, including retail stores,
transportation, and health care providers." [Center For American
Progress,
3/15/21]
Op-Ed: By Adding "Sex" To Discrimination Laws That Would Require
Public Accommodations Regarding Pregnancy, Childbirth Or Related
Medical Condition, The Equality Act Would Consider A Form Of Sex
Discrimination For A Health Care Provider To Refuse Abortion
Services. According to The Daily Signal op-ed by Melanie Israel,
"The Equality Act adds the term 'sex' to Title II of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act on public accommodations to mean pregnancy, childbirth,
or related medical conditions. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals have interpreted
'related medical condition' to include abortion. Because of the way
the Equality Act is drafted, this new definition of sex
discrimination---understood to include a medical condition such as
abortion---would be applied to areas of law, such as federally
assisted programs, public accommodations, and Obamacare's
nondiscrimination provision. In practice, it could mean that a
health care provider would be discriminating on the basis of sex if
they refused to perform an abortion procedure; a hospital could be
discriminating on the basis of sex if it refused to allow abortions
to take place within its facility; and health insurance plans could
be discriminating on the basis of sex if they do not include
coverage for elective abortions." [Melanie Israel Op-Ed -- The
Daily Signal,
2/22/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For The Equality Act, Which Included
Transportation Services And Service Establishments, Such As Retailers,
Health Care Facilities And Legal Services, To The Definition Of Public
Accommodations Within Anti-Discriminatory Protections. In February
2021, Fitzpatrick voted for the Equality Act which would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "expand the definition of 'public
accommodations' to include transportation services and any establishment
providing a good, service or program -- including retailers, health
care facilities and legal services." The vote was on passage. The House
passed the bill by a vote of 224-206. [House Vote 39,
2/25/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/25/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5]
According To A 2020 Public Religion Research Institute American
Values Survey, Over 8 Out Of 10 Americans Support Protections For
LGBTQ Individuals Against Discrimination In Employment, Public
Accommodations And Housing. According to The Washington Post, "In
the ensuing decades, public opinion has shifted dramatically toward
support of such protections. More than 8 in 10 Americans favor laws
that would protect LGBTQ people against discrimination in jobs,
public accommodations and housing, according to a 2020 Public
Religion Research Institute American Values Survey." [The
Washington Post,
2/26/21]
According To A Statement By Representative David N. Cicilline Of
Rhode Island, LGBTQ Individuals Can Be Denied Housing In 27 States,
Education In 31 States And Jury Duty In 41 States. According to
The Washington Post, "In 27 states, a person can be denied housing
because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They can be
denied access to education in 31 states and the right to serve on a
jury in 41, according to a statement released last week by the
office of Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.), the chief sponsor of the
measure." [The Washington Post,
2/26/21]
The Equality Act Would Amend Civil Rights Laws To Guarantee
Protections For The LGBTQ Community In Areas, Including Employment,
Education, Housing, Credit, Jury Duty, And More. According to The
Washington Post, "The legislation would amend federal civil rights
laws to ensure protections for LGBTQ Americans in employment,
education, housing, credit, jury service and other areas." [The
Washington Post,
2/26/21]
The Equality Act Would Expand Public Accommodations And Covered
Discrimination To Federally Funded Programs. According to NPR,
"The Civil Rights Act covered discrimination in certain areas, like
employment and housing. The Equality Act would expand that to cover
federally funded programs, as well as 'public accommodations' --- a
broad category including retail stores and stadiums, for example."
[NPR,
2/24/21]
The Equality Act Would Broaden The Definition Of Public
Accommodations To Expand To Online Retailers And Transportation
Providers, Thus Racial And Religious Discrimination Would Also Be
Covered Under Those Establishments. According to NPR, "'Public
accommodations' is also a category that the bill broadens, to
include online retailers and transportation providers, for example.
Because of that, many types of discrimination the Civil Rights Act
currently prohibits --- like racial or religious discrimination ---
would now also be explicitly covered at those types of
establishments." [NPR,
2/24/21]
The Equality Act Would Benefit Members Of The LGBTQ Community And
Women, Who Would No Longer Be Denied Services By Health Care
Establishments. According to Center For American Progress, "The
Equality Act would establish sex and SOGI protections in public
accommodations. This means that businesses open to the public, such
as restaurants and pharmacies, would face accountability if they
discriminate against, mistreat, or refuse to serve LGBTQ
individuals. These amendments would not only benefit LGBTQ
individuals; all women could no longer be charged higher prices than
men for equivalent services or be denied services by establishments
that provide health care." [Center For American Progress,
3/15/21]
The Equality Act Would Expand The Range Of Public Accommodations
To Include Health Care Providers. According to Center For American
Progress, "By expanding the range of public accommodations
recognized under civil rights law, the Equality Act would ensure
protections for race, color, religion, national origin, and sex,
including SOGI, in public spaces, including retail stores,
transportation, and health care providers." [Center For American
Progress,
3/15/21]
Op-Ed: By Adding "Sex" To Discrimination Laws That Would Require
Public Accommodations Regarding Pregnancy, Childbirth Or Related
Medical Condition, The Equality Act Would Consider A Form Of Sex
Discrimination For A Health Care Provider To Refuse Abortion
Services. According to The Daily Signal op-ed by Melanie Israel,
"The Equality Act adds the term 'sex' to Title II of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act on public accommodations to mean pregnancy, childbirth,
or related medical conditions. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals have interpreted
'related medical condition' to include abortion. Because of the way
the Equality Act is drafted, this new definition of sex
discrimination---understood to include a medical condition such as
abortion---would be applied to areas of law, such as federally
assisted programs, public accommodations, and Obamacare's
nondiscrimination provision. In practice, it could mean that a
health care provider would be discriminating on the basis of sex if
they refused to perform an abortion procedure; a hospital could be
discriminating on the basis of sex if it refused to allow abortions
to take place within its facility; and health insurance plans could
be discriminating on the basis of sex if they do not include
coverage for elective abortions." [Melanie Israel Op-Ed -- The
Daily Signal,
2/22/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For The Equality Act, Which Defined Gender
Identity, Which Would Differentiate From Designated Sex At Birth. In
February 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for the Equality Act which would,
according to Congressional Quarterly, "define 'gender identity' as
'gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related
characteristics of an individual,' regardless of designated sex at
birth." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of
224-206. [House Vote 39,
2/25/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/25/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5]
Opponents Of The Equality Act Included Members Of Various
Religious Groups And Opponents To Transgender Women Participating In
Women's Sports, Citing A Provision That Would Guarantee Access To A
Restroom, Locker Room Or Dressing Room Based On An Individual's
Gender Identification. According to CNN, "But critics of the
legislation include members of some religious communities as well as
those who oppose the participation of transgender women in women's
sports. Republicans point to a provision in the legislation saying
an individual could not be denied access to a restroom, locker room
or dressing room based on their gender identity." [CNN,
3/16/21]
Some Opponents To The Equality Act Reject The Legitimacy Of
Transgender Identifies And Expressed Concern Over Transgender Women
And Cis Women Sharing Private Spaces. According to CNN, "Some
opponents reject the validity of trans identities, and are concerned
about transgender women and girls sharing private spaces with
cisgender women and girls." [CNN,
3/16/21]
Representative Andy Biggs Of Arizona, Chairman Of The House
Freedom Caucus, Claimed The Equality Act Would Be A "Devastating
Attack On Humanity," Argued It Attacked Religious Freedom, First
Amendment Rights, The Notion Of Two Genders, And Claimed That Women
Would Need To Surrender Their Privacy In Private Spaces. According
to CNN, "Republican Rep. Andy Biggs, who is the chair of the most
conservative caucus in the House, railed against the legislation,
saying it would be a 'devastating attack on humanity.' 'While it
attacks religious freedom, freedom of expression and freedom of
association, all important rights recognized in the first amendment,
it doesn't stop there, it also denies the biological facts that men
and women are the two genders,' he said Thursday. 'The bill
recklessly requires girl's and women's restrooms, lockers, gyms, or
any place a female might seek privacy, to surrender that privacy to
biological males. Women's sports are already being infiltrated.'"
[CNN,
3/16/21]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted For The Equality Act, Which Would Allow
Justice Department Interference In Equal Protection Cases Relating To
Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity. In February 2021, Fitzpatrick
voted for the Equality Act which would, according to Congressional
Quarterly, "allow the Justice Department to intervene in equal
protection cases regarding sexual orientation and gender identity." The
vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 224-206.
[House Vote 39, 2/25/21;
Congressional Quarterly,
2/25/21; Congressional Actions,
H.R.
5]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In
February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
for the "Greene, R-Ga., motion to adjourn." The vote was on a motion to
adjourn, thus delaying the vote on H.R. 5. The House rejected the motion
by a vote of 199-219. [House Vote 38,
2/25/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/25/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In
February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
against the "adoption of the rule (H Res 147) that would provide for
House floor consideration of [...] the Equality Act (HR 5). The rule
would provide up to 90 minutes of debate on HR 5." The vote was on the
adoption of the rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-208.
[House Vote 35, 2/24/21;
Congressional Quarterly,
2/24/21; Congressional Actions,
H.R.
803;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
147]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In
February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
against the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate
and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 147) that would provide
for House floor consideration of [...] the Equality Act (HR 5). The
rule would provide up to 90 minutes of debate on HR 5." The vote was on
a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the motion
by a vote of 219-211. [House Vote 34,
2/24/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/24/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
147]
2021: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In
February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
for the "Greene, R-Ga., motion to adjourn." The vote was on a motion to
adjourn, thus delaying the vote on H.R. 5. The House rejected the motion
by a vote of 202-214. [House Vote 33,
2/24/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 2/24/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
5;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
147]
2019: Fitzpatrick Voted For The Equality Act, Which Would Have
Prohibited Discrimination Based On Sex, Sexual Orientation, And Gender
Identity. On May 2019, Fitzpatrick voted for the Equality Act.
According to Congressional Quarterly, "[p]assage of the bill that
would prohibit discrimination or segregation based on sex, sexual
orientation, and gender identity under 1964 Civil Rights Act
protections, including in public facilities, public education, federal
assistance programs, employment, jury service, and areas of public
accommodation [sic]. It would expand the definition of 'public
accomodations' [sic] to include transportation services and any
establishment providing a good, service, or program, including
retailers, health care facilities, and legal services. The bill would
define 'gender identity' as 'gender-related identity, appearance,
mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual'
regardless of designated sex at birth. The bill would also allow the
Justice Department to intervene in equal protection cases regarding
sexual orientation and gender identity." The vote was on passage. The
House passed the bill by a vote of 236 to 173. [House Vote 217,
5/17/19; Congressional
Quarterly, 5/17/19; Congressional
Actions, H.R.
5]