Much has been said about the Equality Act when it comes to advancing LGBT rights. President Joe Biden has implored for Congress “to swiftly pass the historic legislation” in a February White House brief and echoed similar urging in his speech to Congress several weeks ago.

As popular as this legislation is, it may surprise some that there is an alternate measure to the Equality Act. This alternate legislation, titled Fairness for All, was reintroduced by Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah in February. Heralded as a “political breakthrough” by Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institute, this legislation was the outcome of “over seven years of conversation and relationship-building” between LGBT and religious groups and was modeled after an earlier Utah law called The Utah Compromise. The Utah Compromise has been successful since its passage five years ago and has shown that a winner-take-all approach is not needed to secure rights for the LGBT and religious community.

Essentially, Fairness for All would also outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but additionally would “expand legal protections for people of faith.” Unfortunately, The Equality Act has no such provisions for religion and in fact would narrow “existing religious-liberty protections,” according to Rauch.

This fact has been noted by Tyler Deaton, a senior adviser to the American Unity Fund, an organization that “advances the cause of freedom for LGBTQ Americans and religious freedom.” In a piece for the Hill, Deaton, who is gay, writes that the Equality Act will not pass unless “it grapples honestly with religious freedom.” Moreover, the biggest mistake of the Equality Act, he writes, is its “unwillingness even to protect the sorts of religious freedoms that are constitutionally guaranteed.”

Perhaps what makes the Equality Act so historic is that it hasn’t passed in the 45 years since its initial introduction in 1974, primarily because of the legislation’s refusal to compromise and work with the conservative community. On the other hand, Fairness for All has support from such conservative churches and groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Seventh Day Adventists, among others. Such support is significant.

In the words of Stewart, this nation has “wasted enough time, energy, and money fighting over who deserves which legal protections.” The time is now to find alternatives to the largely one-sided Equality Act and endorse legislation that draws on discussion from both sides. Stewart and Utah have shown us a better path. This better path would secure needed rights for the LGBT community without driving a wedge.

Indeed, we need legislation that crafts civil liberties with a scalpel and not an ax. Fairness for All exhibits such a careful and sensitive approach in securing rights for both the LGBT community and the religious conservative, without engaging in the divisive rhetoric that is increasingly plaguing both sides.

The rights of the LGBT community and the religious conservative are important. Why, I ask you, can’t we have both?

Jacob Olson is a native of Utah and is currently a graduate student at the University of Iowa. Upon graduation, he intends to remain in Iowa and teach social studies education. Contact: crosscountryjacob@gmail.com.