INDIANOLA — I’ve been critical of the Republican leadership in the Mississippi Legislature on plenty of issues this year, but it made the right call on the one for which it has received the most national rebuke.
House Bill 1523 prevents state government from discriminating against people who oppose gay marriage. For example, the state could not revoke the tax-exempt status of a church that teaches against homosexuality.
The broader goal of the bill, which passed the state Senate March 30 and awaits Gov. Phil Bryant’s signature, is to give a legal justification for businesses to deny services to gay people if it would violate their religious conscience to do so.
The sudden, overwhelming wave of gay rights in this country has necessitated such protections to ensure free expression of religion, one of this nation’s core beliefs.
Many Christians, based on teachings recorded in both the Old and New Testaments, in this state and country oppose gay marriage and homosexual relations. The Jewish Torah and Muslim Quran also speak against the practices.
Of course, there are more liberal members of all three of those religions who employ various interpretive techniques to say those passages do not apply today. That’s their right in America to teach that doctrine and practice it as they see fit.
At the same time, those who take a more traditional approach based on the face value of their religion’s scriptures should be free to do the same.
There are plenty of honest, loving Christian people who would feel legitimate religious opposition to participating in a gay marriage ceremony as a photographer or florist, for example.
Here’s an example that perhaps would help the opponents of HB 1523 see where its supporters are coming from. Should a Catholic doctor who was opposed to abortion based on church teachings be forced to perform that procedure if a patient came requesting one? Everyone hopefully would see that as a serious violation of religious scruples.
The same should apply equally to other professions.
Yet there have already been legal challenges to that notion. For example, a Washington state florist, Barronelle Stutzman, was sued in 2013 after declining to provide flowers for a gay wedding ceremony “because of my relationship with Jesus.” Judges found she violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws and ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine (an appeal is pending before the Washington Supreme Court). Also, the website GoFundMe, which facilitates donations for various causes, shut down a legal fund for the florist.
Those actions by the courts and private businesses show a legitimate concern among Christian business people for their free exercise of religion, as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. You cannot restrict religion to the church house; adherents must be allowed to fully practice their beliefs in the public sphere.
The Mississippi Legislature took a wise step in helping protect those rights in our state, however unpopular it may be with national gay rights advocates.
