Republicans quietly slip 'religious freedom' clause into funding bill

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Raw Story

June 9, 2025 2:41PM ET


House Republicans have inserted anti-LGBTQ language into a $66 billion must-pass funding bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, effectively granting civil immunity under federal law to individuals and organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples—by citing a religious or moral belief that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. It also bans the federal government from taking a range of actions against those who hold and act on anti-same-sex marriage beliefs.

Section 544 bans the use of federal funds to take any "discriminatory action" against someone who cites their "sincerely held religious belief" or "moral conviction" that marriage is only "a union of one man and one woman."

A portion of the provision exactly matches language U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) urged the House Appropriations Committee to include in 2023 legislation. Rep. Roy cited praise from anti-LGBTQ hate group leader Tony Perkins and other anti-LGBTQ activists in his press release urging inclusion of the amendment in a 2023 bill. It is not known who drafted or approved the current 2025 provision. Journalist Jamie Dupree, who writes Regular Order at Substack, first reported on the provision in the DHS funding bill.

The language could prohibit the government from withholding federal funds from a federally-funded religious school that fired a teacher who supports same-sex marriage. It could block the IRS from revoking the tax-exempt status of organizations that promote the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman. It could ban the federal government from taking action against a hospital that receives federal funds if it refused certain services in some cases.

Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-quietly-slip-religious-freedom-clause-into-funding-bill/

[Karasu]

1. Ban all unrelated riders and provisions from legislation. This shit has been the GOP's "secret" weapon for far too

Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2025, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

long. It's a fucking joke that this kind of shit is even allowed in this country. There's nothing "democratic" about it.

[TygrBright]

2. That's a weird and narrow enough definition of "religious freedom" to violate the Establishment clause. n/t

[slightlv]

7. That's just what I was thinking, too... they sure as heck aren't going to make sure

no one discriminates or harasses us non-christians. They'll start burning women again before admitting the First Amendment says anything about freedom -of- and freedom -from- religion.

[Norrrm]

3. Religious freedom for whom?

[walkingman]

4. Well, it sure isn't because they have any morals or ethics. Praise be.

[Nigrum Cattus]

5. Marriage has nothing to do with "belief"

Why do you need a "license" to get married ?
Because you are actually forming a corporation.

[TomSlick]

6. Non-fiscal stuff should take this out of the reconciliation process.

The Byrd-Bath should wash these out.