Customer Non-Discrimination Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Watson Coleman, Bonnie [D-NJ-12]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 9, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to expand federal civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ individuals in public accommodations by explicitly including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics and limiting religious freedom defenses.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It expands the definition of 'public accommodation' to include a wider range of establishments, including online retailers and healthcare providers, and clarifies rules regarding access to shared facilities based on gender identity. Crucially, it states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used as a defense against claims under this Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a crucial step towards ensuring equal treatment and dignity for LGBTQ+ individuals, preventing discrimination in everyday life, and aligning federal law with evolving societal standards and judicial interpretations. They contend it closes existing loopholes where individuals can be denied basic goods and services based on their identity, asserting that the right to religious freedom does not include the right to discriminate.
Opponents contend
Opponents typically raise concerns about religious freedom, arguing that businesses or individuals with sincere religious objections should not be compelled to provide services that conflict with their beliefs. They may also express concerns about the implications for single-sex spaces, despite the bill's explicit language on shared facilities, and view the limitation on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as an infringement on constitutional rights.
The bill is concise, allowing for a quick read, but its implications warrant careful consideration beyond the text itself.
Section 2(a)(1)
Inclusion of Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity in Public Accommodations Protections
This provision amends Section 201(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly add 'sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)' as a protected characteristic. This means that discrimination or segregation based on these grounds would be prohibited in places of public accommodation, ensuring LGBTQ+ individuals are protected from denial of service.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this is a fundamental expansion of civil rights, ensuring that LGBTQ+ individuals are afforded the same basic protections as other protected classes, preventing them from being denied essential goods and services.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue this infringes on the religious freedom of business owners who hold sincere beliefs that conflict with serving LGBTQ+ individuals, or that it oversteps federal authority into areas traditionally regulated by states.
Tradeoffs
Balances the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to be free from discrimination against the claims of religious freedom for business owners.
Section 2(a)(2)
Broadening the Scope of Public Accommodations
This provision expands the types of establishments considered 'public accommodations' under the Civil Rights Act. It explicitly includes online retailers/service providers, health care providers, accounting/legal services, food banks, shelters, and various transportation services, among others, ensuring these entities cannot discriminate.
Section 2(c), adding new Section 208(a)
Clarifying Definitions for Protected Characteristics
This section defines 'gender identity' as gender-related identity, appearance, or characteristics regardless of designated sex at birth, and 'sexual orientation' as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality. It also clarifies that 'sex' includes sex stereotypes, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex traits, and that protected characteristics include association with or perception of another person's protected status.
Section 2(c), adding new Section 208(b)(2)
Access to Shared Facilities Based on Gender Identity
This rule explicitly states that an individual shall not be denied access to shared facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms, that are in accordance with the individual's gender identity. This provision aims to ensure transgender individuals can use public facilities aligning with their gender.
Section 2(c), adding new Section 210
Non-Application of Religious Freedom Restoration Act
This provision explicitly states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) shall not provide a claim or defense to a claim under this title, nor a basis for challenging its application or enforcement. This means religious objections cannot be used to justify discrimination prohibited by this Act.
Clarifies that an 'establishment' is not limited to a physical facility and includes individuals whose operations affect commerce and who are providers of goods, services, or programs, explicitly covering online retailers or service providers.
Section 2(c), adding new Section 209(c)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define scope and applicability in a dedicated section, but its broad implications for online commerce could be overlooked.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures the law is future-proof and applicable to modern forms of commerce, preventing discrimination in the digital sphere which is increasingly central to daily life.
Case against: Critics might argue that this broadens the scope of federal regulation beyond traditional brick-and-mortar businesses in a way that could be burdensome or difficult to enforce for online platforms.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the reach of anti-discrimination law to the vast and growing online economy.
Defines the term 'including' to mean 'including, but not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning in Federal law.' This clarifies that lists within the bill are illustrative, not exhaustive.
Section 2(c), adding new Section 208(a)(3)
Why it matters:Standard legislative drafting to clarify interpretation, but its impact is to ensure that lists within the bill (e.g., types of public accommodations) are illustrative, not exhaustive.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures flexibility and broad interpretation of the law, allowing it to adapt to new forms of discrimination or public accommodations without requiring constant legislative updates.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this creates ambiguity and allows for an overly expansive interpretation of the law by courts or agencies, potentially extending its reach beyond legislative intent.
Estimated impact: Provides a broad interpretative framework for the entire Act, allowing for expansive application.