2021: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted Against 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted Against The Equality Act, Which Defined Gender Identity, Which Would Differentiate From Designated Sex At Birth. In February 2021, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Voted Against The Equality Act, Which Would Allow Justice Department Interference In Equal Protection Cases Relating To Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity. In February 2021, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against The Equality Act. In February 2021, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against The Equality Act, Which Would Have Prohibited Discrimination Based On Sex, Sexual Orientation, And Gender Identity. On May 2019, Schweikert voted against 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]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Preventing The D.C. Voucher Program From Being Used At Schools That Discriminate Applicants Based On Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity. In April 2016, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "codif[ied] exclusion from the bill's private school voucher program any eligible entity or school that discriminates against program participants or applicants on the basis of 'actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.'" The underlying legislation would have "reauthorize[d] the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) program at current funding ($60 million annually) through fiscal 2021." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 167 to 228. [House Vote 178, 4/29/16; Congressional Quarterly, 4/29/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4901]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Prohibit Federal Contractors From Discriminating Based On Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity As Part Of An FY 2017 Energy And Water Appropriations Bill. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an FY 2017 energy and water appropriations bill, which included policy riders such as prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and provisions targeting the Iran nuclear deal sanctuary cities. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "provide[d] $37.4 billion in fiscal 2017 to fund the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. It would [have] provide[d] $30.1 billion for the Energy Department, of which $12.9 billion would be designated for the National Nuclear Security Administration. It also would [have] provide[d] $6.1 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation. As amended, the measure would [have] prohibit[ed] use of funds to buy heavy water from Iran or in contravention of an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, except as required under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I of the Constitution." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the legislation by a vote of 112 to 305. [House Vote 266, 5/26/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/26/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Exempt Religious Groups From President Obama's Order Preventing Federal Contractors From Discriminating Against LGBT Employees. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to the Washington Post, "But Republicans are pushing back in a broader effort to preserve 'religious liberty' from Obama's recent actions --- one to prevent discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors and the other directing the nation's public schools to provide bathrooms and locker rooms for transgender students that correspond to their gender identity. The House also voted 233-186 to approve a measure introduced by Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) that would exempt religious groups from Obama's directives to contractors and public schools." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 233 to 186. The House later rejected the overall legislation. [House Vote 259, 5/25/16; Washington Post, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1130; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Contractors From Discriminating Based On Sexual Orientation Or Gender Identity. In May 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar[red] use of funds made available by the bill in contravention of an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, except as required under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and Article I of the Constitution." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 223 to 195. The underlying bill later failed to pass in the House. [House Vote 258, 5/25/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/25/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1128; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5055]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Effectively Allow Employment Discrimination By Federal Contractors On The Basis Of Being LGBT. In May 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "bar use of appropriated funds in contravention of an executive order that prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity." The underlying legislation was the FY 2017 Military Construction and VA appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 212 to 213. [House Vote 226, 5/19/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/19/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1079; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4974]
Amendment Was The Result Of Language Allowing LGBT Employment Discrimination By Federal Contractors In A Recent NDAA Bill. According to Think Progress, "Maloney's amendment was a response to an amendment Republicans attached to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) gutting protections President Obama had extended to LGBT employees of federal contractors. That bill passed the House on a party-line vote Wednesday night, but the White House has indicated it would veto the NDAA as it's currently written in part because of its endorsement of discrimination." [Think Progress, 5/19/16]
House Republican Leadership Kept The Vote Open To Ensure That The Amendment Failed, With The Democrats Chanting 'Shame" As A Result. According to POLITICO, "The House erupted in chaos Thursday morning with Democrats crying foul after Republicans hastily persuaded a few of their own to switch their votes and narrowly block an amendment intended to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination It was an unruly scene on the floor with Democrats chanting, 'Shame!' after GOP leaders barely muscled up the votes to reject, 212-213, an amendment by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have effectively barred federal contractors from getting government work if they discriminate against the LGBT community. At one point, a monitor in the House gallery showed there were 217 votes supporting the legislation, eliciting cheers of joy from Democrats who thought the measure might actually pass. But over the course of about 10 minutes, those votes suddenly dropped one by one to 212 --- and the amendment failed." [POLITICO, 5/19/16]
A Number Of Lawmakers Changed Their Vote On The Amendment To Ensure Its Failure. According to POLITICO, "A number of lawmakers from western states, who originally voted yes, changed their votes. According to a list tweeted out an hour after the vote by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's (D-Md.) office, they included: California Reps. Darrell Issa, David Valadao, Jeff Denham, Mimi Walters, and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, Rep. David Yong of Iowa and Rep. Bruce Poliquin of Maine. Their offices have not yet responded to a request for comment." [POLITICO, 5/19/16]
2016: Schweikert Voted For An FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Which Included A Provisions Which Would Effectively Allow Federal Contractors To Discriminate Against LGBT Employees. In May 2016, Schweikert voted for an FY 2017 NDAA, which authorized over $600 billion for discretionary defense program and included a provisions allowing federal contractors to discriminate against LGTB emplyees. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "specifie[d] that the government, when awarding contracts or grants to any religious organization, must abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act (PL 101-336). (Many members believe that this language would effectively supplant a July 2014 executive order by President Obama that added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of list of protected categories that apply to federal contractors and their employees. Opponents of that executive order argue that it requires religious organizations receiving government money to override their religious beliefs when offering services.)" The underlying legislation would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize[d] $602.2 billion in discretionary funding for defense programs in fiscal 2017. The total would [have] include[d] $58.8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations funding, of which $23.1 billion of would be used for non-war, base defense budget needs." The vote was on the legislation. The House passed the bill by a vote of 277 to 147. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill, but a different defense authorization later became law. [House Vote 216, 5/18/16; Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/16; Congressional Actions, S. 2943; Congressional Quarterly, 5/16/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4909]