Don’t forget about the Equality Act

You’d be forgiven for forgetting that the Equality Act is stuck in the Senate. Even its most ardent supporters have likely distracted themselves with other worthy causes since it passed the House in February. Though they wouldn't readily admit it, the bill’s sponsors likely knew that it would languish in the glacial bureaucracy of the Senate before it was variously gutted, warped, or outright killed. While that instinct is probably justified, I think that the moral implications of passing the Equality Act make it worth our continued attention.

If you’re unsure about the Equality Act, I’d like to provide some perspective as an individual who does not personally need it; my status as a heterosexual, cisgender, religious man exempts me from the entirety of the societal ills that the Equality Act is designed to deter. Moral implications aside, it does nothing for me personally on a practical level. Even so, I am extremely eager to see it become the law of the land.

Broadly speaking, the essential argument against the Equality Act is that it would infringe upon religious freedom; forcing individuals or businesses to serve members of the LGBTQ+ community. If you find that argument compelling, ask yourself this:

Would you be comfortable with a business denying service to a black person, as justified by a sincerely-held religious belief? How would you feel if you were denied service because of an element of your identity that you had no control over?

Religious freedom, as established by the first amendment, guarantees an individual the right to worship freely without government interference. It is not a Constitutional wild card that grants an individual the ability to infringe upon the rights of others. Like race, sexuality and gender identity are not chosen; they are immutable aspects of an individual's identity. While race, sexuality, and gender are not directly analogous, the fact that they are original, immutable characteristics of an individual’s identity ought to justify their legal protection under anti-discrimination codes. It is logically inconsistent to support legislation that prevents discrimination based on race while simultaneously opposing legislation that prevents discrimination based on sexual and/or gender identity.

I can’t convince anyone to personally accept members of the LGBTQ+ community; I don’t think that I’m capable of doing so. That said, I am confident that I can successfully appeal to our nearly universally professed (if inconsistently upheld) national ethos that ‘all men are created equal.’ Codifying legislative protections to this effect represents another step towards fully realizing this ambition. I want to live in a country where no individual will ever be denied the opportunity to work, live, or love because of their identity, and regardless of your personal stance on LGBTQ+ rights, you should too.