Tuesday, Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed into law a bill with the Orwellian title “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.” It is the most egregious of a series of similar bills around the country that, while purporting to bolster religious liberty, actually serve only to encourage bigotry directed at people of differing sexuality.
Ostensibly, such laws are needed to protect the freedom of people of faith to refuse to engage in or condone actions they see as immoral or wrong. And typically, they have been written broadly enough at least to attempt to mask their underlying motivation. One defender told National Public Radio that religious freedom laws protect churches feeding the homeless from complaining neighbors and defend the rights of Muslim women to wear veils.
The Mississippi law, however, employs no such fig leaf. It says outright that, “The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this 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 birth.”
It goes on to say what actions Mississippi residents can take based on such convictions, generally involving refusing services. It says religious organizations can deny adoption services, decline to perform marriages and refuse to rent or provide housing. In particular, it says state employees may refuse to perform or license marriages to which they morally object.
The mention of religious organizations is a distraction. Churches and the like already have the right to set their own rules on just about anything, including marriage.
More to the point, the religious freedom of all Americans is already protected by the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ...”
What that does not guarantee is the right to impose one’s beliefs on others, let alone to use the state to do so.
An episode last year illustrates that. A county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. A brouhaha ensued that included her being briefly jailed and her office issuing licenses without her name with the notation that their issuance was to comply with a federal court order.
Does Davis have a right to her religious beliefs? Of course. Does the Constitution guarantee her right to express those convictions and to live her life in accordance with them? Absolutely. Does she have the right to refuse to act in a way that violates her faith? Yes.
But she does not have a constitutional right to be a county clerk. Nor does she have a right to use that office to impose her views on others. And neither do state legislatures.
The Supreme Court has said same-sex marriage is legal. If Davis, or state officials in Mississippi or elsewhere, object to that, they have every right to step down. They do not have the right to enshrine their personal beliefs as public policy.
