Last week, the Mississippi Legislature passed an anti-gay bill disguised as the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.” You might have heard about it; it generated a bit of controversy, and as of this writing it is sitting on the desk of Republican Gov. Phil Bryant.
If this sounds repetitive, that might be because Georgia passed an anti-gay measure a few weeks ago, only to have it vetoed by their Republican governor. Or that might be because North Carolina passed and signed a controversial measure earlier this year also related to gay rights.
Ah, but that is not where the coincidence lies. No, the coincidence is that two similar bills were introduced in the Washington House of Representatives this year.
How similar? Well consider this: Section 2 of the Mississippi bill reads: “The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by the act are the belief or conviction that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.”
In Washington, House Bill 2752 contained the exact same language except for changing “or” to “and” in section (a) and removing the “and” before section (c). The bill had nine co-sponsors, all Republicans but none from Clark County. This being Washington, the bill quickly went nowhere.
Maybe that is because Washington recognizes unfettered bigotry when it sees it. Maybe that is because the state’s citizens approved gay marriage in 2012 with 54 percent of the vote. Maybe that is because gay marriage has not resulted in plague and famine being delivered upon the state. And through it all, there is reason to take issue with laws professing to defend “religious freedom” as they seek to extend that freedom beyond private homes and houses of worship while codifying discrimination in the public sphere.
Supporters say that a florist or a baker or a photographer should be allowed to decline to serve a wedding simply because the participants are gay. But as my favorite columnist wrote a couple years ago: “The hypocrisy of such bills is that they institutionalize selective enforcement. Some florists or bakers or photographers might not wish to serve a gay wedding, but that rationale doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Do such businesses serve weddings between people who have been divorced? What about between fornicators or idolaters or the unrighteous? Those people violate the teachings of the Bible, yet I’m guessing that businesses have no problem serving them.”
Change for the better
No, it is only in the past couple years — especially since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last year — that these states determined the religious freedom of its citizens was being violated. In the process, they have opened the door for discrimination in employment and housing and public services. In the process, they have attempted to cling to an America that no longer exists — the loss of which should not be lamented.
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, racial discrimination was codified in this country. In many areas, black people could not use the same drinking fountains or the same restrooms as white people, and supporters of these policies often quoted scripture in defending such bigotry (Google “Preacher Phil Snider” to see a brilliant takedown of this issue). While race relations are far from perfect these days, at least we have worked to remove institutionalized racism. At least we have worked to live up to the ideal that, “All men are created equal,” and we have even included women in that notion.
Someday, state laws that protect discrimination under the guise of religious freedom will be viewed as derisively as Jim Crow laws are today. And it won’t be a coincidence that we will be a better nation for it.
Morning Briefing Newsletter
Get a rundown of the latest local and regional news every Mon-Fri morning.
