Equality Act Hr5 Civil Rights Policy Analysis

H.R.5, which passed the house on February 25, 2021 is entitled the “Equality Act.” This act looked to expand the prior definitions, interventions, and punishments for those who discriminate based on race, sexual orientation, sex, or gender identity. Specifically, the bill expands previous bills to include establishments that provide services related to recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, displays, and transportation services. The policy also provides the Department of Justice with addition powers to enforce equal protection laws. Finally, and arguable the most controversial portion of the policy, prohibits the denial of access of shared facility, bathroom, locker-room, or dressing room that is aligned with the individuals gender identity (Allison, 2021).

May

The idea of fairness and equality has long been espoused within the bible. Deuteronomy 10:17 reads, “For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.” Likewise, John 13:16 reads, “ Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” Both of these biblical principles detail how the bible view equality. This is reflected in the concept of inalienable rights within the United States legal system which are designed to eliminate discrimination. Likewise, these elements are embedded in the concept of federalism and the spread of country throughout government (Fischer, 2012).

The constitution provides congress with the broad authority to create and enact legislation. It also provides the supreme court the power to determine if the legislation is constitutional or not. In the case of Equality Act, certain provisions within it will undoubtedly be challenged at both the state and federal level. Here, the ability to mandate when a person can prohibit entry into a bathroom or locker room may be construed as a violation of certain freedoms and inalienable rights. In certain instance, a man, even if he “identifies” as woman, should not be allowed to go into a women’s dressing room. This could invite a large number of nefarious and criminal acts upon unsuspecting women, violate their own inalienable rights. The act is current with the Senate, with many of the provisions being changed to account for the rights of both men and women as it relates to social justice (Coleman, 2016).

Can

This social justice policy is very contentious throughout the country. For one, many individuals agree with the general concept of equality. However, the ability to take action based solely on “gender identification” has become very combative within society. Under the current social justice policy proposal, males can “identify as a woman” and use female restrooms, locker rooms and bathrooms. This concept has created a large amount of political discourse and debate. From review of this opposition of the social justice policy, it is unlikely that this law will pass as is.

From a financial perspective, this law will not provide a large financial burden on society. The primary financial burden will come lawsuits and compliance issues related to those who refuse to adhere to the policy if passed.

From a practicality perspective, the implementation of this policy is fairly simple as it is based heavily on concrete concepts and terms.

From my analysis, this social justice policy should not be approved as it has too many controversial elements that require much more thought and analysis. Here, it is important to understand that equality is favored by society but the extent to which society is willing to impose on the rights of others is limited. Forcing organizations to accept those who “identify” with a certain gender causes many legal and societal concerns. As a result, it is my belief that his social justice policy should be refined to better accommodate the concerns of others (Bojer, 2000).