The West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HB 4012) passed the House of Delegates 72-26 and is favored in the Republican-controlled Senate, but Democrat Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin may veto the bill. Christians say the new RFRA law is necessary because the growing number of local nondiscrimination ordinances allow violations of their religious beliefs. Sexual revolutionaries are threatening businesses in order to pressure politicians to kill the bill.
"This bill will give state courts a balancing test that guides judges in considering cases alleging that the action of a governmental body has violated a citizen's deeply held religious belief." -- House Speaker Tim Armstead
"Religious freedom is a basic human right, and a vital Constitutional right, that deserves protection under West Virginia law. Every West Virginian should be free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being punished by the government." -- House Majority Whip John O'Neal
The proposal would let people cite religious objections to state actions in certain court proceedings.
Proponents say it protects people's freedoms to express sincere religious beliefs, as long as there isn't a compelling state interest to restrict them.
Opponents say it's a license to discriminate, particularly against gay people.
The bill models after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and laws that have been adopted by more than 20 other states.
Under the bill, if a person attempts to defend in court their religious beliefs against government action, a judge would use the following questions to evaluate the merits of the case:
1.) Does a person have a sincerely held religious belief?
2.) Has that belief been substantially burdened by government?
3.) Does the government have a compelling interest to substantially burden that belief?
4.) Has government exhausted all other means to achieve its goals without infringing on that belief, and is the action the least restrictive of that citizen’s religious beliefs?
Supporters, mainly Republicans, argued that the bill simply codifies a balancing test for courts to abide by when determining if a person’s religious beliefs are being violated by state action and doesn’t guarantee any outcome of that test. Opponents, mainly Democrats, argued that the potential legislation will be bad for business, harm West Virginia’s reputation and encourage discrimination against marginalized groups.
Delegate Mike Azinger, R-Wood, spoke fervently and at length about his belief that the Founding Fathers supported a Christian government.
Some Democratic lawmakers noted that religion has been used to discriminate in the past.
Mayors of several cities with LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances, as well as a coalition of businesses worried about the economic impact of the bill, had spoken out against it.
Local business owners plan to display “All Kinds Welcome Here” stickers, designed by Jessica Kennedy, to signal that the businesses are friendly to the LGBT community.
Paul Greco, owner of Sam's Uptown Cafe and the Boulevard Tavern, in Charleston, said he hopes, “All Kinds are Welcome Here” stickers, which were designed by Jessica Kennedy, will be ready for distribution at Sam's by the end of the week. Interested businesses can also reach out through the Sam's Facebook page.
Keeley Steele, owner of Bluegrass Kitchen, Tricky Fish and Starling's, said she would post the sticker at her businesses.
Julia and Frank Gonzales, owners of Mi Cocina de Amor, said they would post the sticker, as well.
A spokesman for Procter & Gamble, which is building a $500 million plant near Martinsburg, said the company believes it is “premature and inappropriate” to comment on the bill, since the company doesn't yet employ anyone in West Virginia.
The West Virginia United Health System is the second-largest private employer in the state, according to a Workforce West Virginia report from last fall. Amy Johns, a spokeswoman for WVU Medicine, said . . . that no administrators were available to comment on the bill.
Charleston Area Medical Center spokesman Dale Witte said officials with that hospital system, the third-largest private employer in West Virginia, would not comment on the bill.
Marshall University spokesman Dave Wellman said the school also would not comment on the bill.
Representatives of Wal-Mart, West Virginia's largest private employer, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the state's fifth-largest employer, did not return multiple phone calls and emails. Wal-Mart opposed a similar bill in Arkansas, where the company is based.
Gary Broadbent, spokesman for Murray Energy Corp., said the company would not comment. Murray Energy is the sixth-largest private employer in the state, employing about 3,000 people in West Virginia. Broadbent did say the company has an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination policy.
In a potential landmark case countering the First Amendment, Massachusetts Superior Court Justice Douglas H. Wilkins ruled that Massachusetts anti-discrimination law trumps the religious liberty of the private all-girls Fontbonne Academy in Milton, Massachusetts (south of Boston), which argued that hiring a man in a same-sex "marriage" would be "inconsistent" with Catholic Church teachings.
“It is clear that, because he is male, he suffered gender discrimination when he was denied employment for marrying a person whom a female could have married without suffering the same consequences.” -- Justice Douglas H. Wilkins
Matthew Barrett was offered a job [in 2013] as Fontbonne Academy‘s food services director, but the offer was withdrawn after he listed his husband as his emergency contact.
Barrett sued. A judge ruled Wednesday that the school discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and gender. The judge rejected Fontbonne’s claim that it should be exempt from the law because it would infringe on free exercise of religion. The Catholic church opposes same-sex marriage.
The judge said the exemption applies only if a religious organization limits admission. Fontbonne is open to students and employees of all faiths.
The school argued that as a Catholic institution, it had an obligation for all staff to model the values of the church, which teaches that homosexual activity is immoral.
"He was not denied employment for any advocacy of same-sex marriage or gay rights; he only listed his husband as an emergency contact on a 'new hire' form," [Judge] Wilkins wrote.
He noted that Fontbonne also employs people who are not Catholic as well as those who are married outside the church.
Fontbonne said in a statement: "We have received the court's decision in this matter and are considering our options."
Barrett’s lawyer, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the decision marks the first time a judge has rejected a religious organization’s assertion that it had a constitutional right not to hire employees because they were spouses in same-sex marriages.
Several legal experts contacted Thursday by the Globe said they believed the ruling was the first in a legal dispute involving a religious organization and an employee in a same-sex marriage.
Barrett, 45, who lives in Dorchester, sued Fontbonne in Norfolk Superior Court last year, claiming that the school discriminated against him on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender.
. . . John Bagley, attorney for Fontbonne, argued there is an exemption from employment laws for certain religious institutions. . . . [saying] that the school's message was being interfered with by the hiring of someone who is in a same sex marriage which the Catholic church doesn't acknowledge or condone.
He said it would conflicted with teachings in theology class if students see an employee at the school who is engaging in a practice inconsistent with what is taught in the classroom.
"There are many activities at the school that are outside of the classroom setting in which spouses are
invited," Bagley told the judge.
He also said when
interviewed for the position then Head Mistress Mary Ellen Barnes told
Barrett even though he would not be teaching he would have to "model the
faith" as an employee of Fontbonne.
Wilkins ruled the religious exemption to Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination law did not apply because Fontbonne employs and educates people of all faiths.
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts called the decision “a frontal assault on religious freedom, an appalling subordination of the First Amendment to the Massachusetts gay rights law, and a victory by homosexual activists in their campaign to coerce Christians into compliance with same-sex marriage.”
The liberal stronghold of Madison, Wisconsin has become the first city in the nation to recognize the nonreligious as a protected class of citizens. The Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), along with other atheists, spoke at the city council in favor of the proposed ordinance, but not a single citizen spoke in opposition; the ordinance passed unanimously.
"This is important because I believe it is only fair that if we protect religion, in all its varieties, we should also protect nonreligion from discrimination. It's only fair." -- Ald. Anita Weier, City of Madison Common Council
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
“It was something I’ve been thinking about for quite a while,” Weier said. “I’m not running for reelection, so it’s something that I wanted to get passed before I left office. Anyone who was seeking reelection might not have introduced it.”
The ban was added to an existing equal-opportunity ordinance, which protects people from discrimination based on a list of factors, including race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity. The March 31 vote added the phrase “religion or non-religion” to the ordinance, which applies to employment, housing and public accommodations.
Although the Constitution prohibits government office seekers from a religious litmus test, people who don’t believe in God are banned from office in six southern states and Maryland. Non-believers say they frequently face discrimination, and a 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans are more likely to vote for gays or Muslims than atheists.
UW graduate student, and former Atheists Humanists and Agnostics president Chris Calvey was among the five atheists speaking in favor of the proposals.
They told the council stories of housing, employment, volunteer, community, and parental custody discrimination because of their non-belief in God, saying that fact has no bearing on their character, values or what type of job they do.
"Having it on the books, where we're legally a protected class, that'll make things much easier for atheists," Calvey said. "And we'll be able to be confident that at least if we're honest about what we actually believe, then we have the law backing us up so we can't legally be discriminated against."
"It's really making a big statement that we're not going to put up with discrimination in the name of God. That being a believer doesn't mean you can discriminate," Freedom From Religion Foundation co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor said.
Amid screaming accusations of discrimination and intolerance from homosexualists, bureaucrats and their comrades in business, Indiana Governor Mike Pence just signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 101) into law to protect citizens from the increasingly rampant lawless judiciary sweeping the American landscape. UPDATE 4/3/15: Indiana GOP Legislature & Governor Turn on Christians, Protect Homosexuals (see article excerpts below)
Governor Mike Pence today issued the following [excerpts from a] statement after signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SEA 101) in a private ceremony.
“The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action.
“Last year the Supreme Court of the United States upheld religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case based on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but that act does not apply to individual states or local government action. At present, nineteen states—including our neighbors in Illinois and Kentucky—have adopted Religious Freedom Restoration statutes. And in eleven additional states, the courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide a heightened standard for reviewing government action.
“In order to ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law, this year our General Assembly joined those 30 states and the federal government to enshrine these principles in Indiana law, and I fully support that action.”
The measure could allow business owners to refuse services to same-sex couples and has set off a firestorm of controversy.
"This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," the govenor added. "In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than twenty years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana."
The organizers of Gen Con, the city's largest convention, sent a letter to the governor Tuesday threatening to move the event elsewhere in future years if the bill becomes law. And the Disciples of Christ, a Christian denomination based in Indianapolis, said it would look to other cities for its annual convention if Pence signs the bill.
The proposal has drawn criticism from several business groups and convention planners who worry that it presents Indiana as an unwelcoming state and who are asking Pence to veto the measure.
Backers say the proposal is aimed at protecting religious freedom and preventing the government from compelling people to provide services for activities such as same-sex weddings that they consider objectionable.
Supporters also say discrimination concerns are overblown because the bill is modeled after a federal religious freedom law Congress passed in 1993 and similar laws are on the books in 19 states. However, the current political climate is far different than it was when most of those were approved because the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this year on whether gay marriage bans violate the Constitution.
The bill has already passed the Indiana House 63-31 and the Senate 40-10. It would pass into law whether Pence signs it or not. He would have to veto the measure to stop it.
Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is poised to sign into law a controversial religious religious freedoms bill that critics – including groups typically aligned with Republican interests – say is discriminatory towards gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
"I don't believe this legislation truly represents our state or our capital city," [Indianapolis Mayor Greg] Ballard, a Republican, said Wednesday in a statement, according to the IndyStar. "We are a diverse city, and I want everyone who visits and lives in Indy to feel comfortable here."
Some of the Indiana's biggest employers – including global pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Co., diesel engine manufacturing company Cummins, tech giant Salesforce and aluminum producer Alcoa Inc. – have come out in opposition to the bill, as has the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.
Adding more scrutiny to the bill is the upcoming NCAA men’s basketball Final Four championship, which will be held in Indianopolis. Jason Collins, the first openly gay athlete in the NBA, tweeted, “[I]s it going to be legal for someone to discriminate against me & others when we come to the #FinalFour?”
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff late Wednesday joined a last-ditch effort by at least a dozen Indiana tech company executives to persuade Gov. Mike Pence to veto the controversial "religious freedom" bill, even as Pence made clear he planned to sign the measure Thursday.
Benioff, along with six other Indiana tech CEOs, co-signed a letter opposing the measure. When asked about his participation in the effort, Benioff said in an email to IBJ: "We will be forced to dramatically reduce our investment in Indiana based on our employees' and customers' outrage over the Indiana religious freedom bill."
The letter was authored by Jon Gilman, CEO of Indianapolis-based Clear Software, and addressed to Pence. It includes the signatures of Scott McCorkle, CEO of Salesforce Marketing Cloud, and John McDonald, CEO of CloudOne.
Several corporations, including Cummins Inc., have for weeks decried the measure as it advanced through the Legislature. But in recent days, tech executives in particular have gone public with their sentiments, many labeling it as damaging to their efforts to attract and retain tech talent in Indiana.
The [bill signing] comes as Pence considers a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination — and just a year after Pence and socially conservative lawmakers lost their first policy battle against gay Hoosiers. In 2014 they had sought to amend Indiana’s constitution to ban same-sex marriages — but were beaten back by a highly-organized coalition of Democrats, traditionally right-leaning business organizations and fiscally focused supporters of Pence’s predecessor, former GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels.
If Pence decides to mount a dark horse presidential bid — which looks increasingly unlikely as candidates like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker court the same supporters he would need — the “religious freedom” bill could give him a boost among GOP primary voters, especially in socially conservative states like Iowa.
The governors of Arkansas and Indiana on Thursday quickly signed revised versions of their respective religious freedom laws, hoping to quell a national uproar that united business leaders and gay rights activists who fought the measures as potentially discriminatory.
The amendment is “a very strong statement to [ensure] that every Hoosier’s right will be protected,” House Speaker Brian Bosma, an Indianapolis Republican, said at a news conference where the new language was unveiled. The law “cannot be used to discriminate against anyone.”
The amendment offers some protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the first time an Indiana law has addressed the issue. But the amendment stops short of being a separate anti-discrimination law, which some critics of the law had sought. Indiana has anti-discrimination laws, but they do not cover cases involving sexual orientation.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, said more battles would come.
. . . a lawyer for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty says the proposed legislative “fix” is not only unnecessary, it would undermine the religious rights of Hoosiers and leave them vulnerable to criminal prosecution for following their religious beliefs, the opposite of what RFRA was intended to do.
“Individuals asked to be part of a same-sex wedding who decline because they feel it violates their religious beliefs would not be able to raise the RFRA under the ‘fix’,” [Becket legal counsel Daniel] Blomberg told CNSNews.com. “It would leave them defenseless. It also makes specific allowances for criminal prosecution. So not only is the ‘fix’ not helpful, it should not be accepted.
“We have a choice on how to handle these situations. We can allow government to drive religious people out of business, fine them and possibly imprison them, or we can allow religious people to have their day in court, and let the courts balance their religious claims against other competing values.”
“Nothing in this law would enable a small business to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of a public accommodation, goods, etc.,” said Americans for Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera, reading in part from the proposed changes before they were signed into law by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Thursday evening.
“This language is unacceptable. It actually reverses the progress of the religious freedom law,” LaBarbera said. “No law would be better than eviscerating this religious freedom bill as it was with the new language.”
“The actions taken by the Indiana General Assembly do not clarify our Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s purposes or goals. Our legal advisers tell us that it actually changes our law in a way that could now erode religious freedom across Indiana. If this revised law does not adequately protect religious liberty for all, it is not really a religious freedom act,” said AFA of Indiana Executive Director Micah Clark in a statement.
Mississippi legislators learned a lesson from the national furor over Arizona earlier this year and successfully enacted a new law to protect citizens and their businesses from being silenced or from being forced to condone, or to participate in, deviant lifestyle choices advanced via the Gay Agenda under threat of lawsuit. The law is intended to ensure the free practice of religion without government interference.
An early version of the bill, considered weeks ago, was similar to one Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed after business groups said it could hurt that state's economy. Supporters say the final Mississippi bill bears little resemblance to the failed Arizona measure.
Outside the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 75 gay-rights supporters protested against the bill. Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center, said as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment.
Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business.
There were several iterations of Mississippi Senate Bill 2681, the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” before the Legislature passed it Tuesday, and even the lawmakers voting on it have at times been unclear about what it would or wouldn’t do.
A history of the controversial measure:
• Authored by Sen. Philip Gandy, R-Waynesboro, SB2681 passed the Senate unanimously in January with little debate beyond an amendment to add “In God We Trust” to the state seal. Gov. Phil Bryant had wanted a separate bill by Sen. Michael Watson adding the words to to the state seal. Most senators appeared to think the bill was innocuous. The bill then sat for weeks unattended in a House judiciary committee.
. . .
• On Tuesday, , a final version of SB2681 was passed by both chambers. It was crafted to be a “mirror” of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which supporters note was passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton,.
To read the entire article above, outlining the bill history, CLICK HERE.
American Family Association (AFA) worked closely with friends and supporters in Mississippi, including the Christian Action Commission, to pass the bill.
“This measure in Mississippi is timely given the increasing assault on religious liberty in our nation,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Hopefully, after Gov. Bryant signs the bill into law, Mississippi residents will have the means to defend their religious freedoms in the marketplace without fear of repercussions from decisions that are in line with their religious and moral convictions.”
. . . the new law’s language was edited extensively over the past few weeks and bears very little resemblance to the Arizona proposal. It provides for modest changes . . .
According to reports, the crux of this law, which will go into effect this summer, is to limit the burden government may place on those practicing their faith – no matter the religion.
Nevertheless, leftists are apoplectic, envisioning a state overrun with homophobic bigots curtailing the rights of gays in Mississippi.
Despite the fact that 18 other states have religious protection laws already on the books [passed since 1996], activists apparently believe they can get some attention by targeting and mischaracterizing the context of this law.
“We remain hopeful that courts throughout the state will reject any attempts to use religion to justify discrimination,” Morgan Miller, communications director of the Mississippi ACLU, said in a statement. “Nobody should be refused service because of who they are.”
The highly-controversial law will allow anyone to discriminate against anyone else in the name of religious liberty, and places the rights and desires of the faithful over those with no religious beliefs. In short, it is a license to discriminate and likely will land the state in court.
Bryant has now signed two anti-gay “religious freedom” bills into law: SB 2633 and SB 2681.
. . . as Think Progress’ Zack Ford notes, the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act is different from other states’ RFRAs “because Mississippi law defines the word ‘person’ to include businesses, and thus it applies to corporations instead of just private citizens exercising their religious beliefs.” On March 14, 2013, Bryant signed SB 2633, the Mississippi Student Religious Liberties Act into law.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
The following statement just came in, verbatim, from the The Christian Action Commission of the Mississippi Baptist Convention:
On Tuesday, SB 2681 was approved by the state House (79-43) and Senate (37-14). Mississippi is now one of 19 states that have passed a RFRA since 1996. This law is based on the federal law introduced by now U.S. Senator (then U.S. Representative) Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and former U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). The federal version passed 97-3 in the U.S. Senate, unanimously by voice vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Dr. Jimmy Porter released the following statement:
“The MS Religious Freedom Restoration Act is an affirmation of MS Baptist’s 1991 resolution that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment 'require government to demonstrate a compelling state interest before it is permitted to burden our religious freedom.' . . .”
To read the entire statement, in the article above, CLICK HERE.
After attending the signing ceremony, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins thanked [Gov.] Bryant and other political leaders in the state "for their leadership in defending religious freedom and for refusing to cower to egregious misrepresentations of a fair and reasonable religious liberty measure." Perkins said the measure "prevents the government from discriminating against religion."
A number of media sources are calling Mississippi's law "anti-gay." While the law, like Arizona's vetoed bill, was created as a reaction to efforts against religious freedom by homosexual activists, it generally guarantees the First Amendment freedoms business owners and others possess. The law does not target homosexuals.
After Miami-Dade County commissioners advocating for an expanded "gay rights" ordinance were forced to drop it due to public pressure generated by Christians, homosexualists have now launched a smear campaign against Lynda Bell, the lone commissioner of twelve who publicly voted against the measure. Bell is an outspoken pro-life Christian who was key to the reinstitution of prayer at Commission meetings in December 2012.
"The Miami-Dade Commission deferred, then finally dumped this misguided, discriminatory ordinance. Meanwhile voter opposition to this type of legislation continues to grow nationwide." -- Dr. Eladio Jose Armesto, Chairman, Florida Democratic League (FDL)
In May, the county's largest gay rights group, SAVE Dade, introduced a "TransEquality" campaign "to pass a trans-inclusive countywide Human Rights Ordinance" that would amend Miami-Dade's 1998 anti-discrimination law. The law protects gays and lesbians, but doesn't include language for transgender rights.
The proposal seemed on track when, sponsored by Commissioners Bruno Barreiro and Audrey Edmonson, it passed on its first reading with an 11-1 vote -- with Bell casting the lone vote against it, according to the Miami Herald.
The amendment then went to the Health and Social Services Committee, of which Bell is a member.
The committee then decided to defer the discussion; Tuesday, its co-sponsors were forced to drop the proposal when it didn't have enough committee votes.
"Time and again Commissioner Bell has taken the side of bigotry and discrimination," SAVE Dade Deputy Director Maria Barth said in a news release after commission co-sponsors dropped a proposed addition to the county’s gay-rights ordinance.
Bell struck back by calling the SAVE Dade attack “dishonest and slanderous.”
“I am one vote on the commission, and I do not have the power to single-handedly derail any piece of legislation,” Bell said in a statement to the Miami Herald. “To indicate or suggest otherwise, based on the results of one preliminary vote is misleading at best and divisionary and inflammatory at worst.”
After lobbying by Miami-Dade's statewide Christian Family Coalition, the committee declined to discuss the proposal at its July 8 meeting and originally decided to defer until Aug. 26. Realizing the committee votes weren’t there, co-sponsors dropped the proposal on Tuesday.
“The commission has decided to withdraw the item in order to allow more time to educate the county commission on this important issue,” said Maria Barth, deputy director of SAVE Dade, the county’s leading gay-rights group.
The county’s existing gay-rights law that passed in 1998 doesn’t cover transgender people. Monroe County and Key West updated their human rights ordinances in 2003, Miami Beach in 2004, Palm Beach County in 2007 and Broward County in 2008.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said Tuesday’s decision “is the step that needed to be taken.”
“It’s fairly apparent the education failed and the politics failed,” she said. “They now know who they need to educate and who they need to advocate with.”
[CFC's] organized field and lobbying effort effectively communicated the message that the proposed "Transsexual" ordinance was discriminatory, unnecessary, and undermined public safety. The campaign culminated on July 8th, when more than two-hundred and fifty pro-Family, Human Rights advocates showed up at Miami-Dade County Commission chambers calling for a "NO" vote on the harmful, ideologically-based measure.
Miami-Dade is not alone in rejecting this dangerous and discriminatory "Transsexual" ordinance. Just this year, the Florida legislature rejected a similar proposal as did the City of Jacksonville last year along with at least half a dozen other municipalities across the country.
Our thanks to the entire coalition of human rights organizations and individuals that generously worked in this effort, especially Florida State Representative Daphne Campbell (D) North Miami.
The victory in liberal Miami-Dade “is really landmark,” said Christian Family Coalition executive director Anthony Verdugo . . . “Last Wednesday, August 14, to the glory of God, the sponsors publicly announced that they were withdrawing it.”
The Miami-Dade campaigners developed a coalition of 17 Republican, Democrat, human rights and religious organizations and worked with numerous churches to educate and mobilize the opposition.
Realizing last week that they didn’t have the votes, SAVE Dade members asked commission co-sponsors to pull the proposal. The group immediately blamed Bell for the defeat, and the next day thanked [Audrey] Edmonson, [Bruno] Barreiro, [Sally] Heyman and [Barbara] Jordan.
State and national LGBT activists believe eventually the law will pass.
“We’re going to meet with commissioners again to make sure the support is there, and the education is there, as well,” said Maria Barth, deputy director of SAVE Dade, the county’s leading LGBT rights group. “Then we’re going to continue with our ground game, our advocacy work within the county. Our staff is completely committed to passing this ordinance.”
Miami-Dade, where singer and Florida orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant led a 1977 repeal of the county’s original gay-rights ordinance, again banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1998. Voters upheld the law in 2002.
The San Antonio proposed anti-discrimination ordinance forbids the city from appointing, employing or contracting with anyone who has ever said, or privately believed, that homosexual behavior is sinful. City Council members say the old ordinance is outdated because it doesn't address sexual orientation and gender identity.
Critics argue the ordinance threatens to silence religious freedom because it proposes “No person shall be appointed to a (city) position” or board, if they ever “engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization.”
According to [Councilman Diego] Bernal, the ordinance puts San Antonio’s anti-discrimination laws on par with other Texas cities. He also admits any potential changes to the ordinance are just a draft right now and could be changed.
“The people of San Antonio need to know litigation will start, small business owners need to know it will impact their business and the city needs to know we will file a lawsuit against them based on the fact it’s blatantly unconstitutional,” said Patrick Von Dohlen of San Antonio Family Association.
“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” [Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International] tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”
Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.
Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
The opponents explain that the ordinance would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.”
The proposal, however, does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful.
Church leaders who oppose the proposed change argue it violates First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It also violates, they say, the Texas Religious Freedom Act and the Texas Constitution.
San Antonio joins nearly 180 other U.S. cities that have nondiscrimination ordinances that prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Supporters in red shirts and opponents in blue sat on opposite sides of the ornate council chamber Thursday. Church leaders vowed petitions to recall council members, and the shouts of protesters outside City Hall often carried through the stone walls of the century-old building.
More than 700 people registered to speak Wednesday during a marathon session of citizen testimony that stretched past midnight. Just a few hours later, 100 people signed up Thursday morning to get in a final word before the vote.
"The problem I have is that you criminalize us if we speak our faith," said Marc Longoria, 42, a pastor at My Father's House Church. "We are Christians all the time. We don't have an on and off switch."
. . . Christian and conservative leaders in the city and throughout the state warned of the consequences of giving special treatment to a group of individuals based on behavior a majority of the community's residents consider morally wrong. Days before passage of the ordinance a group of local African-American pastors showed up at city hall with hundreds of black and Latino Christians to voice their strong disapproval of the proposed measure. Speaking for the group, local pastor Charles Flowers said that he and other minority Christian leaders opposed the ordinance “because it is based on the notion that those who choose to practice a certain lifestyle cannot change. Yet the preponderance of evidence refutes this.”
Before the vote, a conservative group called the San Antonio Human Rights Coalition warned that while empowering homosexuals, the ordinance would effectively make acting on one's opposition to homosexuality against the law. While agreeing that “all people should be treated with dignity and all share the same fundamental human rights,” the coalition warned that the ordinance “punishes certain people of faith if they attempt to peacefully live in accordance with their beliefs or share their beliefs with others, thereby violating these believers’ human rights of conscience and speech.”
. . . One of the key supporters of the ordinance, City Councilman Diego Bernal, insisted that “we are not breaking new ground or doing anything revolutionary. We are merely doing what more than 180 cities and towns have done, which is to say that everyone deserves to live free from discrimination.”
At the annual meeting of the Exxon Mobil corporation this week, a proposal by homosexualists to add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the company's anti-discrimination policy was defeated by a vote of 81-19. Exxon Mobil remains one of the few large corporations bucking the politically correct trend embracing the Gay Agenda.
That proposal, which had drawn increased scrutiny from activists in recent weeks, had support from just 20 percent of shares voted. The company, in advising shareholders to vote against the measure, said its policies already prohibit “all forms of discrimination” in all its workplaces worldwide.
It was the 16th defeat for Exxon resolutions on discrimination against gays and the seventh on greenhouse emissions.
The ban on bias based on sexual orientation was proposed by a retirement fund for New York state employees. George Wong, an official for the New York comptroller's office, said the lack of specific protection for gays hurt the company's ability to recruit employees from the widest pool of talent.
Wong said Exxon discriminates by refusing to extend spousal benefits to employees who marry a gay partner in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal.
Recently, Exxon -- the nation's largest oil and gas company -- received a score below zero on the Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) ranking of corporate policies towards LGBT employees.
Exxon officials had reportedly been sent two nearly identical resumes for a job opening at its office in Patoka, Ill. by LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Work in conjunction with a high-powered Washington law firm. One of the fictional applicants had been depicted as a gay rights activist and did not receive a callback despite having significantly higher high school and college grades than the other, who was contacted, according to the AP.
Interestingly, Mobil had policies protecting gay and lesbian employees, and it offered domestic partner benefits prior to its 1999 merger with Exxon after the merger, according to the Dallas News. Those policies were rescinded immediately after the merger
Conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, applauded shareholders for rejecting the proposal.
“While other businesses drift away from their principles or capitulate under pressure, Exxon is putting its stock in something other than political correctness,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “Exxon is setting a good example for other businesses who think promoting extreme political views is the only away to avoid the strong arm tactics of far left special interests.”
In their submission to shareholders, homosexual advocates noted that more than 90 percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
A week before Wednesday’s shareholder meeting, the oil giant was sued by the LGBT advocacy group Freedom to Work, which alleges that ExxonMobil discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation by hiring a less-qualified administrative assistant rather than one who served as treasurer of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.
The Los Angeles Times noted that a lawyer for the plaintiffs called ExxonMobil “an outlier that refuses to follow industry standards.”
Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case of a college club with a Christian mission that desires to restrict its leadership to Christians, not homosexual activists or atheists.
In a case that carries great implications for how public universities and schools must accommodate religious groups, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law is defending its anti-discrimination policy against charges that it denies religious freedom.
The college, which requires officially recognized student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join, may be well-meaning, says the student outpost of the Christian Legal Society. But the group contends that requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would be a renunciation of its core beliefs, and that the policy violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion.
"Hastings' policy is a threat to every group that seeks to form and define its own voice," the group told the court in a brief. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, will be argued in the Supreme Court Monday morning.
Hastings counters that the CLS, a national organization that seeks to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law," is demanding special treatment. It wants the college's official stamp of approval and the access to benefits and student activity fees that come with it, but it will not commit to following the nondiscrimination policy that every other student group follows.
The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.
A senior official of the Chinese ministry responsible for the country’s coercive population-control program is citing the controversial “one-child” policy as a successful way to reduce emissions of the gases blamed for global warming. [Chinese] women still complain of forced abortions, sterilizations, and invasive bureaucratic oversight.
China's efforts at population control have helped mitigate the human impact on climate, a family planning official said, underlining Beijing's sense its achievements are being overlooked at the Copenhagen summit.
China's "one-child" policy has created heart-ache for millions of Chinese couples but has also allowed the country to grow economically without having to deal with the exploding population numbers faced by many developing countries.
According to Chinese calculations, the one-child policy has resulted in 400 million fewer people than would otherwise have been born.
"Such a decline in population growth leads to a reduction of 1.83 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in China per annum at present," the Xinhua news agency quoted Zhao Baige, vice minister of China's National Population and Family Planning Commission, as saying on Friday.
A report on Zhao’s comments in the state-run China Daily said she acknowledged that the one-child policy was not without “consequences” – but the only ones she mentioned were the skewed gender balance and a rapidly ageing society.
Critics of the policy say it not only deprives individuals the right to choose how many children they want, but also gives rise to an array of human rights abuses including forced abortion and sterilization, infanticide, sex-selective abortions and the levying of punitive fines or loss of jobs for policy violators.
Arguments about links between global warming and population have circulated in population-control circles for years, but climate change negotiators have generally sidestepped them because of the sensitivities surrounding population-limiting policies.
The Sierra Club in a 2007 position paper called for “greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”
In its most recent annual report on the state of world population, released on the eve of the Copenhagen conference, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) broached the subject.
Earlier this week, Canada’s Financial Post said that humans are overpopulating the world and that a global law “such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate…”
According to the newspaper, despite its polluting coal plants, China “is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.”
