NATIONAL
16 • DECEMBER 13, 2019 • LOSANGELESBLADE.COM
Activists slam Fairness for All Act
Patrick Bumatay is one of President Trump’s openly gay judicial nominees
SHOCKER: Senate confirms out gay judge nominated by Trump In a counter-intuitive development, the U.S. Senate approved on Tuesday an openly gay federal prosecutor named by President Trump for a seat on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, making him the highest-ranking openly gay federal judge in the country. The Republican-majority chamber approved Patrick Bumatay, who previously worked as a U.S. attorney in Southern California, to a lifetime seat on the federal appeals court. The vote was 53-40. With Republicans voting in his favor and Democrats voting against him, the traditional party roles on LGBTQ rights were shifted on the confirmation vote. Democrats cited Bumatay’s lack of appellate experience as a reason to vote against him. Trump chose Bumatay for the seat after ignoring the recommendations of Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein of California for the seat on the Ninth Circuit. Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in the Senate, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the chamber’s only open bisexual, were among the Democrats voting against Bumatay. Also voting against was Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate. No senator — either for or against Bumatay — took to the floor to speak out on the nominee days before his confirmation or the cloture vote to end the filibuster to end his nomination. Now that he’s confirmed, Bumatay, who’s gay and Filipino, is not only the highestranking openly gay person on the federal bench, but also the highest-ranking Filipino. Previously, the only other openly gay federal appeals judge is U.S. Circuit Judge Todd Hughes of the Federal Circuit, whom the Senate confirmed in 2013 after he was nominated by President Obama. But the Federal Circuit isn’t considered as prestigious or high-ranking as the Ninth Circuit. It’s the second openly gay person Trump has confirmed to the federal bench. The first was Mary Rowland, who was approved in August and is now a federal judge in Illinois. To be sure, Trump has nominated and the Senate has confirmed scores of judicial nominees who have lacked diversity and have anti-LGBTQ records. Among them is Lawrence VanDyke, who was set to have a vote for confirmation to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week. CHRIS JOHNSON
Newly introduced legislation in the U.S. House backed by the Mormon Church seeks to strike a middle ground on LGBT rights and religious freedom in federal civil rights law, although major proponents of each refuse to support the legislation. Introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) on Friday, the Fairness for All Act would strike a balance between LGBT rights and religious freedom in a way proponents say would protect First Amendment rights. That way, however, permits anti-LGBT discrimination from religious institutions and small-business wedding vendors. “Throughout history, there are times when principles come into conflict, and often they are conflicting good principles, both of them with equal value,” Stewart said at Capitol Hill news conference. The Fairness for All Act is seen as an alternative to the Equality Act, legislation approved by the House in May under the Democratic majority — with five Republican votes. The Equality Act would make anti-LGBT discrimination a form of sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and clarify the Religious Freedom Restoration Act can’t be a justification for discrimination. Much like the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act would make anti-LGBT discrimination against federal law, but it would also institute an accommodation for institutions like religious groups and small-business wedding vendors. The Fairness for All Act would prohibit antiLGBT discrimination in employment, housing, jury selection, credit, federal programs and public accommodations, but do so without defining anti-LGBT discrimination as sex discrimination. The bill would also expand the definition of public accommodations beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But in contrast to the Equality Act, the Fairness for All Act would preserve the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and protect the tax-exempt status of religious colleges and universities that oppose samesex marriage, such as Brigham Young University, Bethel University and Catholic University. The Fairness for All Act would also extend protections to small businesses whose owners refuse to provide services to same-sex weddings based on religious objections. Among them is Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who gained notoriety when his case reached the Supreme Court and justices ruled narrowly in his favor based on the facts of the case. The measure would prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination at “any store, shopping center or online retailer or provider of online services that has 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year,” but states the threshold doesn’t apply to claims of discrimination based on race, color or national origin or the small business
wedding vendors excluded under the measure. Similarly, the measure says “a property owned or operated primarily for noncommercial purposes by a non-profit religious corporation that holds itself out to the public as substantially religious, has as its stated purpose in its organic documents that it is religious, and is substantially religious in its current operations” is not a public accommodation under the legislation. Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said he “strongly oppose[s]” the Fairness for All Act because it sells LGBTQ people short and erodes existing protections under federal civil rights law. “The so-called Fairness for All Act is an unacceptable, partisan vehicle that erodes existing civil rights protections based on race, sex and religion, while sanctioning discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people,” David said. CHRIS JOHNSON
Defense spending bill omits trans ban remedy LGBTQ rights supporters were quick this week to slam an agreement on major defense spending legislation for leaving out language overturning President Trump’s transgender military ban, but the measure retains some minor provisions for LGBTQ troops. Although the House approved an amendment introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) as part of the fiscal year 2020 defense authorization bill to ensure transgender people can serve in the armed forces, the final $738 billion package House and Senate conferees unveiled late Monday excludes the provision. However, the defense bill retains language based on an amendment introduced by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) seeking to codify the process by which service members expelled under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can update their DD-214 paperwork to “honorable” if they had “other than honorable” or “dishonorable” discharges. Additionally, the defense measure contains a provision along the lines of an amendment introduced by Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.) requiring the Defense Department to produce reports on waivers granted to transgender enlistees under the Trump ban. Also included as part of that provision is a paragraph encouraging the military to grant waivers to transgender people seeking to enlist in the armed forces in the same manner that would be granted to other applicants seeking waivers. That language goes beyond what the Brown amendment initially sought. CHRIS JOHNSON