LETTER - Religious Freedom Amendment to the Defense Budget

I urge you not to include this amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act.

While I understand the rights of any American to conscientiously object, the language used - "any religious corporation, religious 5 association, religious educational institution, or religious 6 society that is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or 8 cooperative agreement" - is very broad, and not limited to the Defense Department, allowing the possibility of considerable misuse.

I'm an American citizen, raised by a hard-working Evangelical family in Wisconsin. I am a former missionary and religious advocate and I understand the complexities of working within and around religious spaces. But I am also a gay woman, and, as such, I would be vulnerable to discrimination by any Federally-funded group that can claim some religious affiliation. I'm an average working American, and I could not afford to dispute the loss of a contract for which I was otherwise perfectly qualified. I would argue that the effect I would feel, as a employee denied work, is disproportionate to the discomfort of a Federally-funded employer who is morally opposed to homosexuality on religious grounds.

Certainly there should be and must be religious exceptions to discrimination laws, such as a military chaplain seeking religious supplies, and there must be the option, wherever it is appropriate and not harmful to others, of religious objection. But I argue that this would be harmful to many hardworking Americans, who might find themselves ineligible for work through an employer's subjective and often arbitrary beliefs about the immutable characteristic of those workers' bodies, a religion those workers follow (as fervently as their objectors), or a lifestyle decision those workers have the legal right to pursue (such as the gender of their spouse or the medications they choose to take).

As with many common-sense laws, the laws' weakness is that, while perhaps effective when exercised in the way it was intended, it has long-range unintended consequences that could potentially harm the employment of thousands of Americans in ways that are potentially very hard for an individual to contest. While the federal government has resources available to argue that they should, in a particular instance, be allowed to disregard certain discrimination laws (as in the case of the hypothetical chaplain), those discriminated against generally have little recourse.

Please do not include this amendment, which is potentially broad and damaging, and instead find a way to argue cases where and when they are needed without giving carte blanche to anyone claiming religious affiliation to discriminate against potential employees.