An opinion piece that recently appeared in the Inquirer correctly stated “it’s the job of Congress to pass legislation that protects all of us.” As a gay man who has worked on the issue of non-discrimination in multiple states, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the so-called Equality Act — which that piece was supporting — fails to protect many Americans, and carries an enormous moral risk for LGBT Americans like myself: that we become the bullies we decried all along.

A significant majority of Americans, myself included, support enhanced protections for my community, including the right to work and live without fear of being “outed” and fired, which is a reality many of us face in more culturally conservative areas of Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But the Equality Act reaches much further; as written, it would put religious business-owners, charities and hospitals in impossible positions, and empower the federal government to play locker room police, when many decisions are best made locally.

Our nation was founded on religious liberty — that’s why it’s in the first amendment of our Bill of Rights. We must allow room to live for people of good conscience who will happily serve gay and transgender customers every day, but do not want to participate in events of specific significance, such as weddings and celebrations to mark gender transition. (A conservative baker in Colorado recently refused to sell a custom “transition cake,” which sparked controversy around this issue.)

The Equality Act allows for no such room…

Read the full editorial on the Philadelphia Inquirer!

Albert Eisenberg is a co-founder of Broad + Liberty. @albydelphia

3 thoughts on “Albert Eisenberg: There are fair compromises on LGBT protections — but the “Equality Act” falls short”

  1. I completely agree with this.

    They don’t want equality. They want to be on top and use being LGBT as a bully pulpit.

    1. Wait did you come up with this comment all by yourself or did you copy and paste a quote from the 60’s about civil rights and swap a word out for “LGBT”?

  2. Sounds a lot like the arguments people made against civil rights protections in the 60s. The laws are too burdensome, hard to enforce, short of perfect etc. Some things never change I suppose.

Leave a (Respectful) Comment

Your email address will not be published.