House panel kills LGBT effort on defense bill

The House Rules Committee has killed an effort by supporters of the LGBT community to eliminate language in a defense bill.

The language says that religious corporations, associations, educational institutions and societies that receive federal contracts and grants cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion.

{mosads}Opponents say the broad language would allow any contractor, religious or otherwise, to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The also say the language would apply to all federal contractors, not just those working with the Department of Defense.

The panel, in a party-line 3-9 vote late Tuesday, decided against allowing a floor vote on an amendment to strike the language from this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The full House will consider the bill on Wednesday.

Proponents of the language argue it clarifies ambiguities in existing law and protects religious contractors from acting against their beliefs.

“All this does is put those organizations, those corporations, on the same footing as they deal with the government that they would be on if they deal with the private sector,” Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) said.

Some Democrats have indicated the language will play a factor in how they vote on the entire NDAA.

“I don’t want to have to go home to my partner of 24 years and my kids and explain to them why I either voted against protections, basic, decent employment protections for gays and lesbians or I voted against the fight against ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] or I voted against the strong national defense,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) told the Rules Committee in supporting the amendment to strike the language.

The amendment was offered by Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) and co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Adam Smith (Wash.), Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Scott Peters (Calif.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.) and Rick Larsen (Wash.), as well as Republican Reps. Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.), Mike Coffman (Colo.), and Carlos Curbelo (Fla.).

Dent argued that the NDAA was not the place to have a debate about religious freedom versus nondiscrimination.

“We can’t let ourselves fall into the misconception that religious freedom and nondiscrimination are mutually exclusive,” Dent said. “We can do both.”

On Wednesday morning, leading LGBT rights organization Human Rights Campaign slammed the Rules Committee’s decision.

“We are extremely disappointed that the House Republican Leadership has refused to allow a debate and vote on a bipartisan amendment to strike a discriminatory, harmful provision that undercuts protections for LGBT employees of federal contractors and grantees,” David Stacy, the group’s government affairs director, said in a written statement. “The House is poised to join the ranks of North Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana and other states that are targeting LGBT Americans.”