Rhetoric Muddles Effects of 'Anti-Gay' 'Religious Rights' Bill | Jackson Free Press | Jackson, MS

Rhetoric Muddles Effects of 'Anti-Gay' 'Religious Rights' Bill

Gov. Phil Bryant has said he would sign a bill that has sparked controversy in Mississippi and nationwide.

Gov. Phil Bryant has said he would sign a bill that has sparked controversy in Mississippi and nationwide. Photo by Trip Burns.

Does Senate Bill 2681, which the Mississippi Legislature approved, protect religious freedoms or open the door to legal discrimination?

It depends on whom you ask. Rep. Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, a Baptist pastor and chairman of a House committee that toned down highly controversial language in the original bill, said this week that "it protects Christians in the state from discrimination." Other lawmakers have said the bill mirrors federal legislation that progressive Democrats such as U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts supported in the early 1990s.

On the other side of the debate over SB 2681, the ACLU of Mississippi characterizes it as a law that "could open the door to discrimination." Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Washington, D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign, said that even with the changes, SB 2681 "has the effect of making LGBT people strangers to the law."

"Before Mississippi has had the opportunity to robustly discuss the lived experiences of LGBT people, this bill would hollow out any non-discrimination protections at the local level or possible future state-wide protections," Warbelow said through a news release about 2681, which also adds "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

Bryant has said he would sign the bill, but civil-liberties activists vow to fight its implementation. Today, advocates held a noon rally at the Capitol to call on Bryant to veto the bill, which says the state may not "substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion."

Originally, the bill said neither the state nor individuals could burden the practice of religion, which LGBT activists said meant that a business owner could use religious beliefs as a basis to refuse service to religious minorities and same-sex couples, for example. Supporters of 2681 often cited the example of a Canton city ordinance that would have made it burdensome for a church to open downtown.

Legal experts say adding the words "substantial burden" and limiting the effect of the bill to state action was important. The new version of 2681 could prevent Canton from blocking the church from opening up, but would not allow businesses to ban Muslims, for example, from shopping there.

However, because LGBT people do not yet have the same constitutional protections as other minority groups, advocates fear that some individuals in religiously conservative Mississippi might use the law ban same-sex couples and other LGBT groups from their establishments.

In 1993, Congress passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which many Democrats, including Reps. Frank and Schumer as well as then-President Bill Clinton, supported. The federal RFRA also prohibits federal government agencies "from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion" unless the government can prove the burden "furthers a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

Eighteen states have adopted their own versions of the federal law, while some other states, including Georgia, Idaho, Maine and Ohio, have rejected measures like the one Mississippi considered. Most recently, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a RFRA that state was considering and statehouses in Oklahoma and Missouri are considering their own RFRA bills.

"Nobody should be refused service because of who they are," said Jennifer Riley-Collins, executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi. "We remain hopeful that courts throughout the state will reject any attempts to use religion to justify discrimination."

Like independent media outlets around the world, the Jackson Free Press works hard to produce important content on a limited budget. We'd love your help! Become a JFP VIP member today and/or donate to our journalism fund. Thanks for considering a JFP VIP membership or one-time support.

Comments

bevmar 5 years ago

Christianity is the MAJOR religion in the United States. What in the blazes does being able to discriminate against LGBT have to do with "protecting religion?"

The fact is that NOBODY would deliberately CHOOSE to be LGB or T. NOBODY. That was a "choice" that was hardwired into them while still gestating.

Would "religious freedom" be denied if someone was born without arms or legs? Would it be denied if someone was born with a wine stain on their faces? The plain fact is that nobody can tell if someone is LGBT unless they are "flaming."

The sheer ignorance and unfounded fear of some people is beyond asinine. Although a straight woman, I've friends who would fall somewhere in the LGBT spectrum. They're all intelligent, friendly, and just nice folks.

I guess soon people in Mississippi will be walking around with the letter "S" tattooed on their foreheads to prove they're not LGBT people.

The big problem with Christianity is that they are losing young people because the old hell fire and brimstone preaching is as outdated as a Model T Ford. They don't like being threatened with hell when they know there is no such place. If Christianity continues on its current course, it will become...what...dead, discarded? No, unless it become relevant to today's people.

1

Ginjurr 5 years ago

The message that there is a God who created you and loves you is the message of Christ. That is a relevant message no matter what day and time we might be in. Unfortunately you may have experience some christians who caused you to believe otherwise. I assure that is not the attitude of every Christian.

This article only says "advocates FEAR that SOME individuals in religiously conservative Mississippi MIGHT use the law to ban same-sex couples..."

This sounds more like unfounded fear to me. I don't personally know any Christians anyway who wouldn't accept or be friends with an LGBT person. I've heard about the "angry christians" on the news and tv/movies, but I am fairly skeptical of using an entertainment source as my only foundation for forming an opinion.

0

thabian 5 years ago

Ginjurr, I'm really glad that you don't personally know any "Christians" who wouldn't accept or be friends with a LGBT person. It sounds like you may actually be hanging around with Christians who practice the teachings of Christ. However, and with all due respect, there are people who call themselves Christians in this community and across our state who HATE LGBT people and who would take every opportunity available to them to discriminate, deny rights and even terrorize gay and lesbian people in the name of God. I've witnessed it first-hand.

And in fact, there are people who call themselves Christians who openly discriminate against people of other religions in Mississippi, whether overtly or through more subtle means. I've witnessed it first-hand.

And in fact, there are people who call themselves Christians who openly discriminate against people of other races right here in Mississippi. I've witnessed it first-hand. I didn't need a movie to reflect it. I saw it. And I still see it.

For those Christians like you who profess to believe in the teachings of Christ, and that he created everyone and loves everyone, my plea to you is to recognize that there is no shortage of people who call themselves Christian who do use their religion to justify the mistreatment, discrimination and terrorizing of LGBT people and others. I see it all the time, right here in our community. I would challenge you and others also to stand up against it.

Denial or turning a blind eye is the worse thing we can do.

0
comments powered by Disqus