Legal scholars and political pundits may still be debating whether the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a shot across the bow of legalized gay marriage that was actually an attempt to validate discrimination against the LGBT community.
But no one can doubt the intent of HB 707 — the Marriage and Conscience Act — introduced in the Louisiana House by Rep. Mike Johnson (R).
Louisiana is one of 20 states that already have Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws on the books. Johnson’s proposal would ratchet up the protections offered to those who believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. And as its title would imply, it leaves no doubt as to its intent.
The legislation put forth by Johnson, an attorney by profession, has been described as a proactive defense to an expected Supreme Court ruling that could impact Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The fifteenth line of the proposal makes that clear: “Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, this state shall not take any adverse action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction about the institution of marriage.”
Johnson’s proposal would prevent Louisiana officials from punishing anyone or any business which “exercises religious liberty or moral conviction about the institution of marriage” with tax penalties, or other sanctions such as exclusion from receiving state grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, loans, professional licenses, certifications and accreditations.
The Marriage and Conscience Act could also be used as a defense against any claims of discrimination if a business, let’s say a bakery or a photographer, declined to provide services for a gay marriage.
“It would be a license to the private sector to refuse, for religious or moral reasons, to recognize same-sex marriages. It covers not just churches and religious organizations, but also the for-profit sector, and with no limit on size or diversity of ownership,” Douglas Laycock, a constitutional law and religious liberty expert at the University of Virginia, told the Times-Picayune.
Johnson also makes it clear in his proposal that this is about the quest for religious liberty in the face of “conflicts between religious liberty and changing ideas about the institution of marriage (that) are very real, rapidly increasing.”
Johnson believes, as he wrote in HB 707, that “protecting religious freedom from government intrusion is a government interest of the highest order,” and that his Marriage and Conscience Act is in society’s best interests.
“Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate similar tolerance and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society,” he argues in the proposal.
The Louisiana Legislature is expected to begin debating Johnson’s proposal at the committee level when the Spring Session convenes this month.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has not released a statement on Johnson’s proposal. But he strongly defended the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act on NBC’s Meet the Press April 5.
“This is about business owners that don’t want to have to choose between their Christian faith, their sincerely held religious beliefs, and being able to operate their businesses,” Jindal told the show’s host, Chuck Todd. “Now, what they don’t want is the government to force them to participate in wedding ceremonies that contradict their beliefs.”
Jindal pointed out the financial burden being put on small-business owners — florists, musicians, and caterers who are being forced to either pay thousands of dollars or close their businesses if they don’t want to participate in a wedding ceremony.
Jindal said he sees that as a violation of their religious liberties.
“They simply want the right to say, ‘We don’t want to be forced to participate in those ceremonies,’” Jindal added. “I was disappointed that you could see Christians and their businesses face discrimination in Indiana. I hope the legislators will fix that and rectify that.”
However, even if the Louisiana Legislature approves Johnson’s proposal and Gov. Jindal signs it, the legislation would not affect Louisiana communities such as New Orleans and Shreveport that have ordinances protecting the LGBT community from discrimination.
Still, Bruce Parker, a coalition manager for Equality Louisiana, said his organization that backs LGBT civil rights is not happy with Johnson’s proposal.
Parker believes Johnson’s agenda actually involves more than protecting a traditional view of marriage.
HB 707 would also make it legal to deny the same-sex spouse of an employee access to life-saving benefits such as health insurance.
Parker thinks it could also open the door to the possibility of denying those same benefits to couples in which one partner has been divorced, interracial couples and married couples from different religious traditions than their employers.
“The reaction of the citizens of Indiana and Arkansas, the business community and fair-minded people across the country to the bills that would legalize discrimination, under the false pretense of protecting religious liberty, closed the door on Rep. Johnson running a bill like that in Louisiana,” said Parker.
“It is no surprise that, as an accomplished legal scholar and advocate, he has found a way to try to bring discrimination to our state through the backdoor.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member