Mar 25, 2005  |  By: EARTHA MELZE  | COMMENTS     

U.S. senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) have introduced a bill that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require employers to do more to accommodate religious employees.

Kerry and other supporters — including gay-friendly U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 — have characterized the Workplace Religion Freedom Act as a bill that would protect people from being penalized for taking time off to observe religious holidays or from being discriminated against for wearing turbans, headscarves or other religiously required clothing.

Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, said many religious groups support the bill, including organizations such as the Religious Action Center and the Anti-Defamation League, which have been longtime allies on gay and lesbian rights issues.

Labonte said that though the bill was apparently created with good intentions, the way it is written could cause harm to gay people.

HRC outlined its objections about WRFA in a letter March 15 to members of Congress:

“The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading ‘God hates fags’ in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the ‘sins of the homosexual lifestyle’ over lunch and on breaks; where a social worker proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender; or where a truck driver on 24-hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with a co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.”

HRC also expressed concern that WRFA could allow health care professionals to refuse to provide basic services for a gay or transgender patient.

“Kerry has made promises that he would try to fix the bill, but his office has been adamantly unwilling to make changes,” said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington office.

April Boyd, press secretary for Kerry, said that the former presidential candidate has a 100-percent approval rating from HRC and would not sponsor legislation that diminishes the rights of gays.

Officials in Clinton’s office did not return calls from the Blade by press time.

Anders, at the ACLU, said several groups, including the National Women’s Law Council, the National Council of Jewish Women and Planned Parenthood, have held meetings with the Democratic co-sponsors “to try and show them that there are ways to fix the bill without harming access to civil rights or health care.”

“They could have added language so WRFA could not be used to override state or federal civil rights laws or company non-discrimination policies or block access to health care,” he added. “This has not been done.”

Workplace discrimination
Anders said it is important that the bill be changed because there have been attempts under current law to use religion to justify workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

He mentioned cases in which a counselor cited her religion in refusing to counsel gay employees on their relationship issues; a nurse refused to treat men dying of AIDS unless she was allowed to proselytize to them; and a man who responded to a workplace poster celebrating diversity month by posting a homophobic biblical quote from Leviticus in his office.

“The two main targets of misuse of WFRA are going to be gay men and lesbians and people seeking reproductive health services, especially emergency contraception,” Anders said.

He pointed out that six of the eight Democrats who are sponsoring the bill, which was simultaneously introduced in the House and Senate, are from New York. That state already has a religious accommodation law and protects people against discrimination based on sexual orientation. It also protects access to health care for gay men and lesbians.

“With this bill, people in New York could override these protections,” Anders said.

He also said that for Democrats who have signed on to WRFA, being supporters of a religious bill seems to outweigh concern about gay and lesbian issues.

Current federal law prohibits discrimination based on religion. But in cases where an employee’s religious beliefs conflict with requirements of his or her job, courts have interpreted “undue hardship” as anything more than a minimal cost or difficulty for the employer.

The bill would define “undue hardship” for employers as an action requiring “significant difficulty or ...