Barney Frank’s bill should be rejected: an open letter to Baron Hill

By Scott Tibbs, September 21, 2007

Representative Hill,

As you know, Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to prohibit private employers from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or "gender identity". The first and most glaring problem with this, Mr. Hill, is that Representative Frank's bill is not compatible with the United States Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that unless Congress is specifically granted the authority to do something, the power rests with the states. The text of the Tenth Amendment follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If homosexuals should be protected from workplace discrimination, Mr. Hill, then the proper place for that protection to be implemented is in the 50 state legislatures. There are quite a few "progressive" states that can implement such protections.

I ask you to refrain from voting for a divisive piece of legislation like H.R. 2015. There is no consensus on whether homosexuals should have specific protection, and if Congress makes this decision on behalf of all 50 states it will lead to an unfortunate increase in political tensions as well as provoke resentment toward Washington D.C. Given that many major employers already have internal policies prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals, Representative Frank's bill is increasingly irrelevant.

But there is a more basic issue here, Representative Hill, and that is allowing business owners to run their companies the way they see fit. If a Christian businessman is uncomfortable with having an open homosexual working for him, he should not be required to hire that person by the federal government. Given that you profess to be a Christian and that you oppose having the government recognize homosexual marriages, I ask that you respect the beliefs of Christian business owners.

Despite the claims of those who favor such protections, homosexuality is not the same as skin pigmentation or national origin. The objection that people of faith have to homosexuality is that Scripture specifically and forcefully prohibits homosexual behavior. It is my contention that having the federal government place a stamp of approval on that behavior is an act of hatred against those who struggle with this particular sin.

There will eventually be questions and controversy over what businesses will be exempt from this statute. While churches and other organizations that have the primary mission of teaching doctrine will be exempt, what about faith-based charities? Will Backstreet Missions in Bloomington be forced to hire homosexuals for fear of breaking federal law? I urge you to thoughtfully consider these potential problems.

Ultimately, this is a bad piece of legislation, running contrary to the federalist principles on which this country was founded and endangering religious freedom. I encourage you to vote against H.R. 2015. Thank you for your time.