Do These 43 Republicans Really Support President Obama’s LGBT Agenda?

When 43 Republicans voted for U.S. Rep. Sean Maloney’s and House Democrats’ amendment to strip faith-based military contractors of their religious freedom on Wednesday night, it raised a number of eyebrows.

Did they really mean it?

According to at least some, they supported the amended version of the “policy rider” because it still ensured constitutional protection by referencing Article I and the First and 14th amendments. But there were others who were openly supportive of the measure.

That caught the attention of Ryan Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He researches and writes about marriage and religious freedom for the conservative think tank.

In a piece he wrote for The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal, he stated:

Congress should not be ratifying Obama’s radical transgender agenda and imposing these outcomes on private employers just because they contract with the government.

All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about contentious issues. The federal government should not use government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.

Obama’s executive order and the Maloney Amendment treat conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were invidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions.

By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.

As for the argument for “constitutional protections” offered in the amended version of the policy rider, Anderson noted that liberal activist judges have and will continue to “do all they can to ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity policies will trump religious liberty protections.” Congress, he added, should never elevate sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes that garner special legal privileges.