Is Supreme Court Jurisprudence Making State Religious Freedom Bills More Dangerous?
March 11, 2014
3:51PM
Post by Sarah Posner
As the Mississippi House weighs SB 2681, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a group of legal scholars has written to Mississippi legislators in opposition to the bill, arguing that "the Bill's combination of context, timing, and specific provisions will send a powerful message that religiously justified refusals to serve particular classes of customers are legally superior to any state or local prohibitions on invidious discrimination."
It was rumored the Mississippi House would vote on the bill last week; that vote could come today or tomorrow.
The letter makes the case that although the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (passed in 1993) and state statutes modeled on it were once seen as "politically even-handed," they have now become a means to give religious cover to discrimination. The Mississippi bill, as I noted here, has been criticized for its overbreadth, and how it could be construed to permit individuals and business owners to use religion to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and other factors. SB 2681, the legal scholars' letter notes, may not be limited to refusals to participate in same-sex weddings; it could be interpreted to permit a religious exemption from other Mississippi statutes which prohibit discrimination in the provision of medical care, lending, and housing, based on "the patient's race, color, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed or sexual orientation."
The legal scholars point out that in light of federal court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans, "the timing and context of SB 2681 reinforces the perception that it is designed to strengthen the ability of commercial actors to avoid the restrictions of state and local civil rights laws." But while one line of jurisprudence—which could well be headed toward the rendering of same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional—seems to be provoking the supporters of these state religious freedom laws, another line of jurisprudence could make these bills, should they become law, even more far-reaching than "protecting" religious actors from having to participate in same-sex weddings.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7680/is_supreme_court_jurisprudence_making_state_religious_freedom_bills_more_dangerous/