PlanetKiller
New member
I have some questions about the "Equality Act" (house bill H.R. 5) (senate S. 788).
This should link to the bill in full:
Equality Act
To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.
What are the "other purposes"?
In SEC. 701A. Rules of construction.
(b) Unlawful employment practices (and anywhere else a similar phrasing is found is found)
Would:
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “enterprise,” and inserting “enterprise, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity,”.
allow anyone identifying as another gender to be considered qualified for that gender's occupation?
Would it allow men identifying as women to enter women's sports and jobs that are tailored for females (and vice versa)?
Would a person doing this be able to sue if they suffered an injury that others in the field avoided due to actual and natural physical differences?
Why or why not?
The above wording appears numerous times in similar forms throughout the bill.
In SEC. 1101. Definitions and Rules.
“(a) Definitions.—In titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX (referred to individually in sections 1106 and 1107 as a ‘covered title’):
“(1) RACE; COLOR; RELIGION; SEX; SEXUAL ORIENTATION; GENDER IDENTITY; NATIONAL ORIGIN.—The term ‘race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’), or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an individual, includes—
Would:
“(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of the individual.
(The above appears numerous times throughout the bill.)
allow a white person to claim they are African, or allow "false" claims within numerous categories?
Could these claims be used to acquire goods and services the claimant isn't entitled to?
What if someone claimed an identity that didn't previously exist or is subjective (alien, pirate, Apache attack helicopter)?
Could this allow protection for more unpopular sexual orientations?
Why or why not?
Also, would:
“(b) Rules.—In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)—
“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”
(The above appears numerous times throughout the bill.)
allow males claiming to be females to freely enter the above facilities (and vice-versa)?
Now for the part that might cause some negativity.
in SEC. 1106. Rules of construction
“(a) Sex.—Nothing in section 1101 or the provisions of a covered title incorporating a term defined or a rule specified in that section shall be construed—
“(1) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition provided by section 701(k); or
“(2) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of sex available under any provision of Federal law other than that covered title, prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex.
“(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the Equality Act, regulation, or policy.
“(c) No negative inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.
(and it modifies numerous other laws and statutes)
With SEC. 1107. Claims.
Would
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”
remove/reduce the freedoms of others? Could it be used to punish\persecute others for exercising/speaking their beliefs?
Could it be used to force online artists to do artwork they are not comfortable with (example: an artist that only does SFW art being forced to do NSFW art, etc.)?
Wouldn't a law that stripped other groups of freedoms be technically bad?
If these concerns are valid and the bill is "bad", is there anything else in it to be concerned about?
One final, slightly off-topic question.
Could laws/bills be passed or "fast tracked" during the impeachment of an official?
This should link to the bill in full:
Equality Act
To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes.
What are the "other purposes"?
In SEC. 701A. Rules of construction.
(b) Unlawful employment practices (and anywhere else a similar phrasing is found is found)
Would:
(3) in subsection (e)(1), by striking “enterprise,” and inserting “enterprise, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity,”.
allow anyone identifying as another gender to be considered qualified for that gender's occupation?
Would it allow men identifying as women to enter women's sports and jobs that are tailored for females (and vice versa)?
Would a person doing this be able to sue if they suffered an injury that others in the field avoided due to actual and natural physical differences?
Why or why not?
The above wording appears numerous times in similar forms throughout the bill.
In SEC. 1101. Definitions and Rules.
“(a) Definitions.—In titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX (referred to individually in sections 1106 and 1107 as a ‘covered title’):
“(1) RACE; COLOR; RELIGION; SEX; SEXUAL ORIENTATION; GENDER IDENTITY; NATIONAL ORIGIN.—The term ‘race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’), or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an individual, includes—
Would:
“(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of the individual.
(The above appears numerous times throughout the bill.)
allow a white person to claim they are African, or allow "false" claims within numerous categories?
Could these claims be used to acquire goods and services the claimant isn't entitled to?
What if someone claimed an identity that didn't previously exist or is subjective (alien, pirate, Apache attack helicopter)?
Could this allow protection for more unpopular sexual orientations?
Why or why not?
Also, would:
“(b) Rules.—In a covered title referred to in subsection (a)—
“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”
(The above appears numerous times throughout the bill.)
allow males claiming to be females to freely enter the above facilities (and vice-versa)?
Now for the part that might cause some negativity.
in SEC. 1106. Rules of construction
“(a) Sex.—Nothing in section 1101 or the provisions of a covered title incorporating a term defined or a rule specified in that section shall be construed—
“(1) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition provided by section 701(k); or
“(2) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of sex available under any provision of Federal law other than that covered title, prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex.
“(b) Claims and remedies not precluded.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the Equality Act, regulation, or policy.
“(c) No negative inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.
(and it modifies numerous other laws and statutes)
With SEC. 1107. Claims.
Would
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”
remove/reduce the freedoms of others? Could it be used to punish\persecute others for exercising/speaking their beliefs?
Could it be used to force online artists to do artwork they are not comfortable with (example: an artist that only does SFW art being forced to do NSFW art, etc.)?
Wouldn't a law that stripped other groups of freedoms be technically bad?
If these concerns are valid and the bill is "bad", is there anything else in it to be concerned about?
One final, slightly off-topic question.
Could laws/bills be passed or "fast tracked" during the impeachment of an official?
