With an understanding that the Fairness for All Act has a long road ahead in terms of refinement and passage, Sutherland Institute fully supports its intent to fairly consider the rights of both the LGBTQ and faith-based communities. Sutherland’s opposition to the Equality Act is based on the act’s one-sided effort to expand rights for the LGBTQ community at the expense of the faith-based community. FFA is a reasonable and productive step toward compromise.

The policy environment created by dueling extremes in the debate surrounding religious liberty and LGBTQ+ rights serves the agenda of only a few, and – in the long term – the well-being of no one. Preventing reasonable solutions from moving forward only feeds well-funded campaigns that instill fear and extend an unending political and partisan fight. It also jeopardizes the rights of many, as extreme ideological and political tactics guarantee legislative gridlock, erode trust, and ensure that policy questions are decided by all-or-nothing court rulings.

A sound policy solution to this dilemma should leave politics aside. It should consist of the approach and substance contained in the Fairness for All Act (FFA). Instead of demanding rights for one group at the expense of others, the FFA seeks to protect the rights of everyone. It establishes new and inclusive legal protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, adoption and public accommodations. It also strengthens protections for religious identity in the workplace, the marketplace, education and adoption. In today’s polarized climate, this act may stand as a portent: Have we reached the point where a principled path toward consensus assures its rejection?  Our hope is that reasonable people of goodwill recognize the value in seeking the common good – protecting everyone – rather than devolving to the pursuit of protecting one at the expense of the other.

Sutherland president and CEO Rick Larsen adds, “It is a sad commentary on the state of political affairs when an effort seeking to respect both side of a debate – to be fair – is dismissed by some as unfair. We encourage all sides to come to (and stay at) the table, and build on this principled approach.”

Our Founding Fathers did not reject every imperfect policy idea when crafting the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they recognized the balance that two imperfect policy ideas could establish when combined – that striking the proper balance can establish good policy. For example, rather than adopting a rigid stance that the American people could be properly represented based only on population (the House of Representatives) or based only on state of residence (the Senate), they recognized that freedom and equality would be best established and protected by balancing one form of representation with the other. They also recognized that federal powers established by the Constitution would best secure liberty when balanced by a Bill of Rights limiting those powers.

The Fairness for All Act applies those lessons to the case of religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. When properly balanced, protection of both ensures freedom, community and equality, regardless of identity. When they are imbalanced, it ensures oppression and unjust application of the law against one group or the other. With two deeply personal identities at stake, the best policy is fairness for all.