Walk carefully toward new ‘religious freedom’ laws

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has directed the Texas Senate State Affairs Committee to recommend ways the Legislature can further protect Texans’ “sincerely held religious beliefs” when lawmakers next convene in January 2017. With that charge in hand, the committee met last week to hear arguments for and against measures that would expand as well as shield religious freedoms.

Federal and state laws — the congressional Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1999 — already protect the religious rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and do so without throwing off balance the equally important need to protect competing rights to avoid faith-based discrimination. The legislative journey Patrick wants lawmakers to take next year is an unnecessary one. But since he and his allies appear determined to take it, we urge them to tread the path carefully.

To protect one Texan’s religious liberty is potentially to allow another Texan’s religious discrimination. Conservative Christians, angered by court rulings and nondiscrimination municipal ordinances, and motivated by last year’s Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, want the government to exempt them from following certain laws that protect gay, bisexual and transgender Texans from discrimination. Such laws violate their religious beliefs, they say.

“Religious freedom” legislation could include laws protecting businesses from having to serve or sell to same-sex couples, allowing faith-based adoption agencies to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, exempting religious groups from prohibitions against discrimination in hiring and housing, and allowing public officials and employees to refuse to comply with the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling. Whether state lawmakers pass these measures piecemeal — Republican state Sen. Joan Huffman of Houston, chairwoman of the State Affairs Committee, appeared to support this approach during her panel’s hearing on Wednesday — or wrap them in a comprehensive measure, they would risk allowing discrimination cloaked and protected by personal religious beliefs.

What is good for one group of religious believers must be good for all religious believers. Religious liberty for conservative Christians must also mean religious liberty for all Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Pastafarians and Wiccans — the list goes on. Nor should protecting the religious liberties of some Texans violate the liberties of those Texans who want to live free of religion. This equal applicability of the law is fundamental.

Religious conservatives emphasize the phrase “sincerely held religious beliefs” to try to draw some vague distinction between religious liberty and government-sanctioned discrimination. The demand to be exempted from certain laws — to allow businesses, as Republican state Sen. Craig Estes of Wichita Falls put it, to “choose who to do business with” — is fraught with legal and constitutional dangers. Those who support measures expanding religious liberties underscore that the exemptions they seek are only for laws related to sexual orientation or same-sex marriage. But the logical extension of their arguments opens the door to other forms of discrimination.

At Wednesday’s committee hearing, Democratic state Sen. Rodney Ellis heard in their arguments echoes of similar arguments once used to justify racial discrimination. How would you get around allowing public officials to opt out of doing their jobs when it comes to same-sex couples, Ellis asked, but not couples of different races?

It’s a good question. We await a good answer.

To allow businesses, individuals and organizations to ignore laws that they say their religious beliefs don’t allow them to follow is to invite chaos. They are arguing for the right to let their religious views dictate what the law allows them to do. This not only is contrary to the First Amendment, but it also goes far beyond its guaranteed protections and renders the Constitution a matter of personal choice.

It seems inevitable that lawsuits will follow whatever the Legislature does. Business leaders fear the state could suffer an economic backlash if lawmakers embrace faith-based discrimination.

A delicate balance protects religious freedom and prevents religious discrimination. The call for legislation protecting religious liberty cannot be a call to discriminate.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Was Jeff Davis Avenue named after a different Jefferson Davis?
Was Jeff Davis Avenue named after a different Jefferson Davis?

Pop quiz: Jeff Davis was ________________________. (a) A populist governor and U.S. Senator from Arkansas in the early 1900s. (b) A comedian on the TV show “Whose line is it anyway?” (c) The first and only president of the Confederacy. (d) An artist who creates mementos out of old vinyl records. OK, technically all four of those men were...
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2018
Letters to the editor: April 26, 2018

Re: April 23 letter to the editor, “Mafia? Comey flatters Trump.” I’ve stood blithely by while insults are hurled back and forth between opposing political and social factions without ever saying or writing a word of protest. But now one of your readers has gone too far. As co-captain of the Hooligan golf group in Georgetown, I must...
Commentary: Help pre-K kids manage feelings instead of suspending them
Commentary: Help pre-K kids manage feelings instead of suspending them

What about the four-year-old who tears posters off the classroom wall? Or the pre-K student who threw his shoes? Those are two of the responses we’ve received to our report about the 101,000 times Texas school districts suspended students in pre-K through second grade in a single year. We can imagine how frustrating and disruptive it was for...
Commentary: Austin City Council shouldn’t gut important ethics law
Commentary: Austin City Council shouldn’t gut important ethics law

The Austin City Council votes Thursday on whether to eviscerate one of Austin’s most important ethics and conflicts-of-interest laws. This law requires that at least two-thirds of the Planning Commission, who are appointed by the mayor and council, to be “lay members not connected directly or indirectly to real estate and land development...
Why Austin isn’t getting as much affordable housing money as you might think

Facing an urgent need to fund more affordable housing in Austin, the City Council set its sights on some tax dollars it figured no one would miss. New tax dollars. Specifically, the shiny new tax revenue that materializes when government-owned land, which doesn’t pay property taxes, becomes private housing, commercial...
More Stories