Letter to Congress Opposing “Fairness for All Act”
Dear Rep. Chris Stewart:
I write today in opposition to the Fairness for All Act (H.R. 1440) in the hope that you would reconsider your support and that each co-sponsor would withdraw his or her name from the legislation.
As you know, the Fairness for All Act, like the Equality Act, enshrines sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under the Civil Rights Act, whereby a failure to conform amounts to illegal discrimination.
H.R. 1440 attempts to temper this revolutionary change in our laws, culture, and society with a religious liberty exemption for churches and religious institutions. It purports to be a compromise amidst the culture wars, but it concedes far too much.
First, H.R. 1440 is founded on an untruth about human nature. The bill is based on a sexually progressive ideology that rejects human beings as created as male and female with distinctions that run so deep that no physical or pharmacological interventions can erase them. To affirm this is to embed in our nation’s laws, which themselves serve to teach our nation, a lie about who we are as Americans at a most fundamental level.
Second, the legislation assumes that the only citizens in need of protection are religious. No citizen should have to live in a society that denies the biological differences of men and women in both its public accommodations and what its government attempts to coerce. Female-only spaces should be off limits to men who identify as women. Female sports should not be destroyed by male competitors. And medical professionals should not be forced to perform gender transitions with which they fundamentally disagree. These are matters of security, fairness, privacy, and conscience for individuals across this nation, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Third, the religious liberty protections offered are fundamentally inadequate and are based on the bizarre notion that people practice their faith only in houses of worship or as part of religious organizations. The narrow protections for religious institutions contrast with the broad language and scope of the transgender enforcement provisions. No doubt many believers will find themselves victims of civil rights lawsuits for living out their faith in their communities. They would be embroiled in conflict and labeled bigots.
To be clear, we share the likely motivation of supporters of H.R. 1440–to treat all human beings with dignity and respect. But this bill fails that test, because it treats as bigots vast numbers of citizens in this country who refuse to assent to secular progressive orthodoxy. Accordingly, we ask that you re-examine and remove your support for this flawed legislation.
Sincerely,
Russell T. Vought
President
Citizens for Renewing America, Inc.
Cc: Representative Adam Kinzinger
Representative Andrew Garbarino
Representative Blake Moore
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick
Representative Burgess Owens
Representative Carlos Gimenez
Representative Chris Jacobs
Representative Claudia Tenney
Representative Elise Stefanik
Representative Fred Upton
Representative Jefferson Van Drew
Representative John Curtis
Representative Maria Elvira Salazar
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart
Representative Mark Amodei
Representative Michael Simpson
Representative Nicole Malliotakis
Representative Steve Stivers
Representative Tom Reed
Related Posts
Policy Brief: An Introduction to Making America Healthy Again
This connection among what people eat, how food is grown, how patients are treated as they develop chronic disease, and how taxpayer resources are used to fuel these seemingly disparate industries is at the heart of a bipartisan movement to reverse the collapse of the American people’s health. The time to make America healthy again has arrived.
Primer: Refuting the Leftist Anti-Impoundment Narrative
Impoundment is constitutional and enjoys a long history of usage. Further, the restoration of impoundment—and the inherent understanding that appropriations are permissive ceilings and not mandatory floors—diminishes partisan political warfare and returns the federal government back to a healthier era where tension was vested more in separate branches of government and less in partisan differences and the courts.
