Category Archives: First Amendment

February 5, 2017 Filed under Op/Ed, Opinions

A Maroon editor asked me to write 400 words on the First Amendment, suggesting that our students know little about the Bill of Rights in general or the First Amendment in particular. What needs to be said to begin to understand the First Amendment can take an entire semester and an entire course; at least Ive not been asked to distil it down to 143 characters, though Ive already gone beyond the limit many students can process (and worse, no emojis.)

Justice William Brennan argued that the Founders included a free speech clause in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: (1) free speech is indispensable to democratic government, and (2) self-expression is a fundamental component of human dignity. Democratic self-government is in danger if freewheeling and uninhibited discussion of matters of public concern is absent. And respect for the equal dignity of each human being requires toleration of individuals speech even when that expression is overwhelmingly unpopular.

More recently, Burt Neuborne described the First Amendment as a chronological description of the arc of a democratic ideafrom conception to codification. The two religion clauses protect freedom of thought. Individual interaction with the community then develops from expression of an idea by an individual to mass transmission of that idea by a free press to collective action by the people supporting that idea to the culmination (in the petition clause)introduction of the idea into the formal process of democratic lawmaking.

A free press transmits important ideas but also provides information vital to public deliberation about the idea. Deliberative democracy is a charade without an informed citizenry. And a government bent on oppression has no better tactic than delegitimization of the press by shrill accusations of fake news whenever a fact the government does not like is reported. (Time to haul out the alternative facts.)

The other ally of such a government is ignorant citizens, and Facebook, Twitter, 90% of what is on television, a good deal of what is on the internet and similar distractions do little to eliminate this ignorance. They deepen it.

Contemporary First Amendment protections are much broader than the understandings of Madison and the Framers. In large part, that is because of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning in the early decades of the 20th century, elucidated a series of interpretations that made the Amendment the bedrock of the democratic process that it is today.

But what the Court giveth the Court can take away. For the next four years, at least potential appointees will have to face a litmus test of willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade, and a Justice who will do that likely will have few qualms about reversing cases that have protected the rights of women, African-Americans, LGBTQ persons and the First Amendment rights of all of us.

One hopes readers who did not know all of this will seek to learn more. Ignorance is curable, but willful ignorance can be insuperable, and fatal to our democracy.

View original post here:
Opinion: students cannot be ignorant to the First Amendment - Maroon

Jack Greiner 7:17 p.m. ET Feb. 2, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group.(Photo: Provided)

Firma Helget, an administrative assistant with the Hays, Kansas Police Department, discovered recently that not all speech by a public employee receives First Amendment protection. As a result, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of her wrongful termination suit against the department.

The case arose when Helget provided an affidavit to assist officer Blaine Dryden in his own wrongful termination suit against the department. The department claimed it fired Dryden based on his unprofessional and inappropriate conduct at a court hearing in December 2010. But Dryden alleged that was a pretext, to cover up the fact that he was fired for his union activities. Part of Drydens proof that that the department had decided to terminate him before the court incident was the fact that the department had decided, before the December court incident, not to issue him a ballistic vest.

At Drydens request, Helget provided an affidavit asserting that she had been instructed to remove Dryden from the ballistic vest ordering list in early December 2010. In May, 2011, the department fired Helget stating four reasons, one of which was her disclosing confidential information in the Dryden litigation.

In her wrongful termination suit, Helget contended the firing violated her First Amendment right of free speech. The trial court, and ultimately the appellate court, disagreed.

Public employees, unlike private sector employees, are protected by the First Amendment. The reason is simple. The First Amendment prohibits certain conduct by the government, not private conduct.

But courts recognize in the employment setting, the issues are a little different. It would be a pretty tough place to work if a public employee could march into the managers office every morning and tell the manager exactly how inept the manager was. An absolute view of the First Amendment, however, would not allow that employee to be disciplined.

Courts have accordingly, adopted a balancing approach. Public employees may speak out on matters of public concern, but a public employer may protect the efficient operation of the workplace. The daily tongue lashing would no doubt disturb the operation of the office, so in that case, the employee could be disciplined.

Helgets case was not as clear cut. She provided an affidavit in a case that alleged a police officer lost his job for engaging in protected conduct union activity. The affidavit did not immediately affect the operation of the office, in the same manner as the hypothetical.

But in the courts view, Helgets speech was related more to an employment dispute than a matter of public concern, and her voluntary disclosure of confidential information caused her superiors to lose confidence in their ability to trust her with information going forward. Based on this finding, the court had little difficulty rejecting her First Amendment claim.

Given our divisive political climate, it is likely employees public and private will be tempted to air their views. That may result in a lot of tests of the First Amendment over the next four years.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2k6w4nc

See the original post here:
Public worker's speech not protected by 1st Amendment - Cincinnati.com

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. questions Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2017, during the committee's confirmation hearing for Sessions. Alex Brandon / AP

Now, Sessions' support of FADA is being called into question. In his list of

Sessions balked at the idea that FADA is "deceptively named," telling Franken: "The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction." Other supporters of the bill have similarly stressed the concept of federal government "discrimination," rather than addressing the bill's protection of those who engage in discrimination.

Franken wasn't happy with Sessions' answers to his questions about the bill.

"Contrary to Senator Sessions' response, federal law does not allow the government to discriminate against someone on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief," Franken told NBC News. "The First Amendment Defense Act would legalize discrimination, pure and simple."

Sen. Mike Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told NBC News that FADA "explicitly does not preempt state law, so it does not enable discrimination anywhere." That was a direct response to questioning about how FADA would apply in the 20-plus U.S. states that currently have laws protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination. Would FADA only apply in half of the country?

The ACLU's Ian Thompson, a Legislation Representative specializing in LGBTQ policy, told NBC News the bill's text actually states the oppositeand would evenly apply nationwide.

"The notion that national law can only apply to some states boggles the mind. If FADA passed it would apply in every state," Thompson said. "At the very beginning of FADA, you will see that it clearly states 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' That's essentially saying that it overrides any other law."

Besides, Thompson said, FADA it so sweeping in its reach that it would impact LGBTQ people everywhere, even if state laws did offer protection.

"If you went down to the Social Security office with your partner," Thompson said, "an employee would be empowered to say 'I can't help you because of my religion or morals regarding same-sex couples.' It would allow a federal contractor in NYC to discriminate despite the Obama executive order. It would allow commercial landlords to reject a same-sex couple or an unmarried couple."

Regardless of state-level or even local anti-discrimination ordinances, experts say FADA would apply to any entity that receives federal funding. Franken told NBC News that it would "sanction sweeping discrimination."

"A homeless shelter could turn away a married same-sex couple seeking a safe place to sleep," Franken explained. "A commercial landlord could refuse to rent to a single mom or a pregnant single woman, because the business doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage.This is a dangerous bill."

Ambiguous, confusing language "notwithstanding any other provision of law" and the use of the term "discrimination" is part of what makes the true intent of the First Amendment Defense Act so difficult to untangle. Interpretation of FADA's scope varies wildly, too, between its supporters and its opposition. That could be due to the changing drafts of the bill, which first appeared to allow religious and moral-based discrimination universally, and was later changed to exclude federal contractors, publicly traded companies and hospitals.

But even the version of the bill that excludes hospitals from the right to turn away LGBTQ patients or patients having sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage would allow an individual employee to opt out, according to Sen. Lee's spokesperson.

"Pro-life doctors work at hospitals that provide abortion services all the time, but those hospitals don't force doctors to perform abortions," said Carroll, who told NBC News the newest draft would likely resemble the

The version of FADA that will be reintroduced to Congress this term has yet to be seen, and despite Carroll's assertion that FADA will probably exclude hospitals, the only version that was ever actually introduced to Congress did not mention exclusions at all leaving all businesses and institutions free to claim a moral objection to serving LGBTQ people or unmarried couples.

All versions of FADA so far entrust the Attorney General to press charges against any "independent establishment" that violates the law. That means that if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights protections in the workplace were to try and do its job, for example, Sessions could take the agency to court.

"It says to federal agencies like the EEOC that they can't step in and protect these people," Thompson said.

The legal scope of FADA isn't the only criticism it has faced. Clergy of all stripes, including Baptists, have spoken out against the law. In 2016, a group of clergy in Georgia held a press conference where they said FADA would allow adoption agencies to put bias ahead of children's best interests.

"I find it unacceptable at every level as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father," said Trey Lyon, a pastor at Atlanta's Park Avenue Baptist Church, according to

Progressive Christians have been fighting similar laws, with one

Follow NBC Out on

Read the original:
First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions' Confirmation ...

The Constitution can be heartbreaking sometimes.

The free speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment do not apply to the rogue National Park Service employees who have been tweeting out facts about climate change, courageously defying the Trump administrations stance on the environment.

Many people have rallied around these government workers, whose social media postings on climate science and research could very well land them in trouble, according to First Amendment experts.

Federal agencies, not individual employees, control messaging on their official accounts,explained Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who specializes on free-speech issues.

The First Amendment doesnt protect [these employees] right to speak on the employers Twitter feed in a way that the employer disapproves of, he said, pointing to an important Supreme Court case dealing with the speech of government workers.

Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project,more or less concurred with that assessment.

The new administration is entitled to use the official channels of government whether they be press briefings or websites or social media accounts to put out its own messages, and it can decide what federal employees are allowed to communicate when they are on the job, Bhandari wrote in a blog post.

This means that these brave employees couldnt raise the First Amendment defense if they get in trouble at their jobs for these tweets, although there may be other civil service protections available to them.

In addition, nothing prevents these workers from using their personal Twitter accounts to speak out about issues of public concern but even there, Bhandari cautions that First Amendment protections are strongest when they are speaking about issues that do not relate to their job duties.

There are also whistleblower protections for federal workers who would like to sound the alarm about unethical or otherwise illegal activity occurring at their agencies.

The federal government must foster an environment where employee disclosures are welcomed, Carolyn Lerner, the head of theU.S. Office of Special Counsel, said Wednesday in a statement.This makes our government work better and protects taxpayer dollars through disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse.

But on the broader realm of freedom of speech, things are more complicated. Ken White, a longtime criminal defense attorney and First Amendment lawyer, wrote acheat sheet on these issues for people who would like to learn more, which may come handy in the Donald Trump era.

Those limitations aside,public outcry may ultimately play a role.

Heidi Kitrosser, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, told Reuters that the Bush administration caused an outcry in 2006 after The New York Timesreported that a public affairs appointee at NASA was essentially placing a gag order on a climate scientist who wanted to speak freely to the press. Things changed at the agency after a congressional investigation.

Bad press and public pressure help,Kitrosser said. The main thing right now is screaming.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Doesn't Protect The Federal Workers ...

Preamble

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Read this article:
First Amendment Rights - aclu.org

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

There is no more precious freedom we have than that of free expression. The first amendment to the constitution isnt telling you what you can do, it is telling the government what they cant do. The founding fathers believed that the rights in the first amendment were inherent or understood to be true. Those 45 words, about twice as long as a standard tweet, were written to make sure they could not be taken from you.

The first amendment guarantees five rights.

Now, there are some things you cannot do, but the list is relatively short, for example. You cannot maliciously defame someone, you cannot spread hateful talk and you cant yell, Fire in a crowded theater (unless there is one).

Free expression is not a principle common to most countries. A recent Freedom House survey found that only 16 percent of the worlds inhabitants live in countries with a free press. And many of them dont have the broad protection our first amendment offers. Many governments restrict the information their people can get by disallowing foreign news programs, the internet, publications and often even discussions. Even our friends in England, do not have the protection that Americans do. The English have no document like our First Amendment.

While there are five guarantees in the amendment, Im going to focus on just one today, the guarantee of a free press.

It is a given throughout history that Governments that do business under the watchful eye of the media are likely to go about their business more honestly than they would otherwise. The news media, also known as the fourth estate, keeps tabs on the three branches of government. Without that scrutiny or the threat of it, we would not have a clue as to what was happening with our tax dollars or what elected representatives were doing.

Even if you dont like the news media and think they are biased, unfair and inaccurate it is still in your best interests to support their continued existence because without them we become just another dictatorship where the people are kept in the dark about everything.

Almost everyone agrees that a free press is necessary but there is always a but. For example, the norm in this country is to be a Democrat or a Republican and either a Christian or Jew. Few will argue that they should be restricted. But, when we deviate from the norm and allow a communist to speak freely, the Ku Klux Klan to hold a rally, and the Islamic faith to establish itself thats when many people will make exceptions to the guarantees of the First Amendment. And thats when Congress shall make no law, comes in. You either have free expression or you dont. We must protect Congress shall make no law with all of our energy even when to do so hurts a little. One of the very special things about the first amendment is it balances itself. It says we have a right to free speech and a free press and often the free speech is critical of the free press, and thats as it should be.

Having a free press means we have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes thats hard. But even if on occasion we must suffer their criticism, we are still better off for it. Often, the media in their competitive arena will balance a story by offering several perspectives on the same issue. To be fair, if you are going to judge the news media, then it must be done on a macro basis rather than looking at one or two members and concluding they are all that way.

The first amendment is a clear, bold and loud restriction on Government power and it must be protected at all costs. Without freedom of expression, we have no freedom at all. Thomas Jefferson said, Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Journalism is an inexact business because it depends entirely on what other people, who have no obligation to be honest, tell the reporter. There is a huge difference between a journalistic inquiry and testimony in a court of law. In the courtroom there are penalties for lying, you must appear in court if ordered to do so and you are required to answer the questions. In a news interview the subject appears voluntarily, can lie if he or she wants to and can refuse to answer questions. The entire news gathering process depends on people volunteering honest information.

The late and great Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post, David Broder described a newspaper this way;

a partial, hasty, incomplete, inevitably somewhat flawed and inaccurate rendering of some of the things we have heard about in the past 24 hours distorted, despite our best efforts to eliminate gross bias by the very process of compression that makes it possible for you to lift it from the doorstep and read it in about an hour. If we labeled the product accurately, then we could immediately add: But its the best we could do under the circumstances, and we will be back tomorrow, with a corrected and updated version.

If youd like to know more about the first amendment and the constitution this link offers some excellent information.https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-i

And from where I sit, thats the truth

Like Loading...

View post:
The First Amendment Your Protection from Government Bob ...

The First Amendment Foundation is a highly visible and accessible source of authoritative information, expertise and assistance to the public and news media.Founded as a non-profit organization in 1984 by The Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of Newspapers Editors and the Florida Association of Broadcasters to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

Floridas Sunshine Laws guarantee our right to open government, but government officials can get downright creative to keep their decision-making in the dark. Like the state agency that demanded $3,200 to copy a single page of a public record, or the city commissioner who accidentally dropped her government phone in the toilet after a reporter asked her to see her text messages. And of course, you, the taxpayer footed the $1.3 million legal tab to keep our Governor and his cabinet out of court over secret emails. Fortunately, we have the Florida First Amendment Foundation fighting on our side. I urge you to support the First Amendment Foundation and keep Florida government by the people, for the people and in the Sunshine.

Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald columnist and author ofSkin Tight,Strip Tease, Skinny Dip, Nature Girl, Star Island,Bad Monkey, Razor Girl and many more.

Thepurpose of the First Amendment Foundation is to protect and advance the publics constitutional right to open government by providing education and training, legal aid and information services. Funding is based on voluntary contributions from various organizations and concerned individuals.

You know, the critical research of my book would not have been possible without access granted by law via Floridas longstanding Open Government laws. Without Sunshine, stories like the injustice I uncovered in Central Florida could not have come forward. The Florida First Amendment Foundation has been protecting your citizen right to know for the past 31 years. Support the First Amendment Foundation. Support Open Government. It pays dividends.

Gilbert King, February 2016. Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

Our actions get results. In the past year, we led a broad coalition of open government advocates anddefeated a billthat would have made it harder to hold agencies accountable for public records violations. In dozens of courthouses and government offices around the country, citizens with FAFs help won access to the recordsand meetings.

Still,our job has never been more challenging and,with your help, we will continue to fight efforts to erode Floridas long-standing tradition of open government.

Find out more about the First Amendment Foundation.

Read more:
First Amendment Foundation - - Protecting Your Right to ...

Donald Trump AP Photo/Cheryl Senter

Donald Trump has been courting the LGBTQ vote throughout this presidential election, claiming he would be the better choice for the community than opponent Hillary Clinton and promising to protect us from terrorismin his Republican National Convention speech.

That argumentgets harder to believe by the week, as he gives speeches at anti-LGBTQ events, sticks up for homophobic and transphobic legislation and surrounds himself with bigoted politicians and advisers. Now we have a new offense to add to the list.

Related:Cher: I shudder to think what President Trump will do to trans Americans

Trump has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), if passed by congress. It was first introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 and would effectively legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination across the board, includingamong employers, businesses, landlords and healthcare providers,as long as they claim to be motivated by a firmly held religious beliefs.

It would act to overturn the executive order signed in 2014 by President Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors.

Related:Mike Pences top seven most homophobic moments (out of many)

The statement, added to Trumps website on Thursday under the title Issues Of Importance To Catholics and the subtitle Religious Liberty,reads:

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

FADAs text reads:

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines discriminatory action as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines person as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

Original post:
Donald Trump pledges to sign anti-LGBTQ First Amendment ...

Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

Array ( [actionDate] => 2015-06-17 [displayText] => Introduced in House [externalActionCode] => 1000 [description] => Introduced )

First Amendment Defense Act

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines "discriminatory action" as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

More here:
H.R.2802 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): First Amendment ...

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump arrives to speak during a USA Thank You Tour event at Giant Center in Hershey, Pennsylvania, U.S., December 15, 2016. Lucas Jackson / Reuters

FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

Ironically, the

On December 9, Sen. Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told

"Hopefully November's results will give us the momentum we need to get this done next year," Carroll said. "We do plan to reintroduce FADA next Congress and we welcome Trump's positive words about the bill."

"During oral arguments in Obergfell, President Obama's solicitor general admitted that if a right to same-sex marriage were created, religious institutions, including many Catholic schools, could have their tax exempt status revoked by the IRS," Carroll told NBC Out on Wednesday. "The First Amendment Defense Act was created to make sure that does not happen."

But while Carroll claims "FADA in no way undermines federal or state civil rights laws," it would take away the government's recourse in terms of punishing businesses, institutions or individuals who break civil rights law by discriminating against LGBTQ people.

Jennifer Pizer, Law and Policy Director at Lambda Legal, told NBC Out FADA "invites widespread, devastating discrimination against LGBT people" and is a deeply unconstitutional bill.

"This proposed new law violates both Equal Protection and the Establishment Clause by elevating one set of religious beliefs above all others," Pizer said, "And by targeting LGBT Americans as a group, contrary to settled constitutional law."

Pizer warned that the bill's language also left room for individuals and businesses to discriminate against unwed heterosexual couples and single mothers, because of the clause stating that "sexual relations are properly reserved" to marriage between a man and a woman.

"There cannot be even one iota of doubt that this bill endorses one set of religious beliefs above others, and targets people in same-sex relationships, married or not, as well as unmarried heterosexual couples who live together," Pizer said. "It's an unconstitutional effort to turn the clock back to a time when unmarried mothers had to hide in shame, and LGBT people had to hide, period."

RELATED:

FADA was first filed in the House and Senate in 2015, but was met with protests from Democrats and resulted in just one House hearing amid concerns that Obama would veto the bill. It is currently co-sponsored by 171 House Republicans and just one Democrat (Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.)

State-level legislation similar to FADA has failed in recent years, usually resulting from lawsuits and nationwide boycotts. When Vice President-elect Mike Pence passed a "religious freedom" bill as governor of Indiana in March 2015, it was met with

Mississippi's

A lawsuit brought by Mississippi religious leaders alleges the state law actually violates religious freedom by determining that religious belief necessitates anti-LGBTQ discrimination. The group of ordained ministers suing the state said in the lawsuit,

Barber v. Bryant is currently at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, after a federal trial court ruled HB 1523 violates the federal Equal Protection and Establishment Clauses. Pizer said the case stands as an example of the legal explosion that would occur in reaction to FADA.

"If Congress were to pass the federal FADA as currently written, and the next president were to sign it into law, I'm confident heads would spin at how fast the constitutional challenges would fly into court," Pizer said, adding "we're likely to have a great many allies because these attempts to misuse religion for discrimination offend enormous numbers of Americans who cherish both religious liberty and equality for all."

Follow NBC Out on

Read more:
First Amendment Defense Act Would Be 'Devastating' for LGBTQ ...