The Southern Baptist Convention, in June 2021, adopted a Resolution on the Equality Act in addition to the Resolution on the Sufficiency of Scripture for Race and Racial Reconciliation I discussed in my previous post.  The Equality Act is a bill that was first passed by the United States House of Representatives in 2019, but was not acted on by the Senate.  In February 2021, the House passed it again and it is currently awaiting action in the Senate.  The Southern Baptist Convention is strongly opposed to it.  In this post, I will examine both the bill and the SBC resolution.

The Equality Act is new legislation that proposes to update the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Its authors note, among other things, that

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations—including restaurants, senior centers, stores, places of or establishments that provide entertainment, health care facilities, shelters, government offices, youth service providers including adoption and foster care providers, and transportation. Forms of discrimination include the exclusion and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment, harassment, and violence. This discrimination prevents the full participation of LGBTQ people in society and disrupts the free flow of commerce.

The bill recognizes, in particular, that there is widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people (and women) on “employment and various services” by entities that receive funding from the Federal government.  Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It also violates the rights of liberty and privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The bill proposes to extend to LGBTQ people the full range of remedies available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and states the following:

This Act makes explicit that existing Federal statutes prohibiting sex discrimination in employment (including in access to benefits), healthcare, housing, education, credit, and jury service also prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

As a Christian and a person of color, I am inclined to embrace any attempt to combat discrimination and level the playing field, even if it benefits people who are not like me, or people I do not agree with.  As for LGBTQ people, I recognize that they are not like me, but I proceed under the assumption that they are, as much as I am, entitled to the pursuit of happiness.  At the very least, they should be able to make a living without being discriminated against.  Furthermore, the New Testament emphasis on love and equality before God, which I fully accept, makes me suspicious of anyone who wants to limit somebody else’s rights and freedoms.  Therefore, as I look at SBC’s resolution, I admit that the burden of proof I place on its authors is quite high.

The resolution is reproduced below in italics.  I have added my comments on some of its articles.

WHEREAS, All persons are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), are made to glorify Him (Isaiah 43:7), and, based upon these truths, possess inherent dignity; and

Does this inherent dignity include the right to be treated fairly on matters of employment (including access to benefits), healthcare, housing, education, credit, and jury service?

WHEREAS, God’s design was the creation of two distinct sexes, male and female (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4), which designate the fundamental distinction that God has embedded in the very biology of the human race; and

Genesis 1:27 is reproduced here for convenience:

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”

The logic here is that Genesis 1:27 does not talk about anything other than males and females.  Therefore, LGBTQ people, as they define themselves, are not part of God’s creation.

Christians once believed that the earth, according to the Bible, was the center of the universe and they persecuted Galileo for suggesting that the earth rotates around the sun.  Genesis 1:27 is a general statement about creation that does not enter into the details of the human condition.  It does not say, for example, that some people are born without a clear definition of their sexual organs, and that surgery is performed by humans to assign a sex to them.  Why would anybody use Genesis 1:27 to justify a refusal to acknowledge a reality that the medical profession has been obtaining more and more insights into?

WHEREAS, The Bible gives us clear instruction and boundaries with regard to what constitutes God-honoring expression of human sexuality (Genesis 2:24; Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1:26-27); and

To the above references, I would add Leviticus 20:13, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”  If this is really what God ordered, then why doesn’t SBC carry out God’s orders today?  By the way, Jesus said no sinner has the authority to inflict capital punishment.  Was he contradicting God?  Or does this mean that all biblical statements do not carry the same authority, and some of them need to be carefully examined?

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists resolved in 2014 “On Transgender Identity” that, “The Fall of man into sin and God’s subsequent curse have introduced brokenness and futility into God’s good creation,” and therefore, as a result some are tempted to question God’s gift of sexuality; and

Is this statement implying that LGBTQ people are not created by God? That the whole LGBTQ thing is merely a lie introduced by humans corrupted by sin? That these people do not possess the inherent dignity mentioned earlier?  Is SBC willing to persecute a class of human beings simply because they are not listed in Genesis 1:27?

WHEREAS, The Equality Act seeks to revise the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and

WHEREAS, The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the Congress from making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; and

WHEREAS, Congressman Chuck Schumer and Senator Ted Kennedy wrote that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification” in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which President Bill Clinton signed into law after the act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Congress; and

WHEREAS, If enacted, the Equality Act would explicitly exclude RFRA claims in relation to the Equality Act and would explicitly permit the government to place substantial burdens upon religious exercise without having to demonstrate any compelling justification in order to do so; and

On the contrary, it is religion that should have the obligation to justify any infringement on the rights of people it does not accept.

WHEREAS, This change in the status of the the right to free exercise enjoyed by all Americans, if it were to take place, would bring sweeping and historic changes to religious liberty with devastating effects to this foundational freedom; and

Religion, as practiced by SBC, has infringed on the rights of Black people and women in the past.  It now wants to continue to infringe on the rights of LGBTQ people without justification.  Any religion that wants to treat others as second class citizens is questionable.

WHEREAS, Faith-based charities whose core religious beliefs about human dignity, sexuality, gender, and marriage shape their ministry policies would be forced under the Equality Act to choose between freely exercising those core religious beliefs or abandoning their ministries; and

If SBC truly believes in basic human dignity, then equal protection under the law should come first.  Then religions would have to request possibly legitimate exemptions to this general rule.  Looking at it the other way is pernicious.

WHEREAS, This sort of governmental punishment against faith- based charities for serving the common good according to their cherished beliefs would be unprecedented; and,

It cannot be called common good if it must exclude a class of people.

WHEREAS, The Equality Act would empower the government to punish individuals whose vocations include creative expression or require professional licensure because of their sincere and reasonable convictions about gender and sexuality; and

These individuals should make their case separately to request exceptions.  The general rule should be equal protection for all.

WHEREAS, The Equality Act would coerce healthcare providers to participate in and provide abortions, hormone therapies, and other procedures which may violate their deeply held religious beliefs; and

Let them make their case separately and request exemptions.

WHEREAS, The Equality Act would undermine the bipartisan, nearly half-century old Hyde Amendment, which protects federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortion; and

Such cases should be separately decided by the courts.  Equal protection under the law should come first.