In June, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which aims to protect “religious beliefs and moral convictions” regarding marriage.

If approved, it would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against a person who acts on a belief that marriage should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage.

According to Labrador’s office, FADA would prevent the federal government from denying a tax exemption, grant, contract, license, or certification to an individual, association, or business based on their belief about marriage – traditional marriage or same-sex marriage.

“For our Founding Fathers, religious freedom was not an afterthought. When listing those rights most fundamental to a free and fulfilled people, they placed freedom of religion prominently before the rest,” Labrador said. “Freedom of religion is not only the right to worship in private but is also the right to publicly exercise our religion without fear of government interference. Critics of FADA intend to force religious views out of the public square. They are even willing to mislead the American people about what this bill does to accomplish their agenda.”

On Tuesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the bill.

Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) said if the law was enacted, it would prevent the federal government from taking action to prevent individuals or other entities from discriminating against same-sex couples and those who engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.

“It was disappointing that Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on legislation that allows discrimination against LGBT individuals and single parents. And it was deeply insensitive to hold this hearing on the one-month anniversary of the tragic mass shooting in Orlando that targeted LGBT individuals,” Lieu said. “H.R. 2802 is backwards in so many ways. If it were to pass, schools could refuse to accept the child of LGBT parents; single parents could be fired from their jobs or lose their homes; and health insurance companies could deny coverage to same-sex couples. These are only a few of the potential consequences.”

Lieu said the bill is not just backwards, it is also “dangerous.”

“It would take one particular religious belief of one religion and elevate it to secular law, which would irresponsibly erode the First Amendment,” he explained. “America is great because we are a democracy, not a theocracy. As has been noted, members of Congress place their hand on a Bible and swear an oath to protect the Constitution – not the other way around.”

The Los Angeles LGBT Center also released a statement on the hearing.

“The response of House Republicans on the one-month anniversary of the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history is to try to legalize mass discrimination against LGBT people,” the statement read. “The First Amendment Defense Act is a misnomered ruse based in homophobia, bigotry and hate. If Republican leaders had any decency, they would instead honor the lives of those lost in Orlando by holding hearings and a vote on the Equality Act, which protects LGBT people in public accommodations, housing and employment.”

Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, has introduced S. 1598, a companion bill in the U.S. Senate.