![]() “RFRAs today are promoted by organizations and ideologies and aren’t concerned about individual religious observances. “Unfortunately, people have seized upon a good idea and turn it a shield into a sword,” said Baumwell, who spoke in opposition to the bill. The laws are similar to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, which allows federal regulations that interfere with religious beliefs to be challenged.Įli Baumwell, advocacy director and the Interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, said the 1993 federal law was designed to designed to protect people, especially religious minorities, from laws that affected their ability to engage in personal practices of their faith. “This bill will do nothing but spread hate and violence across our state.”Īt least 23 other states have religious freedom restoration acts. “I should not be afraid of not being served at a restaurant because I have a different relationship than you do,” she told lawmakers. ![]() ![]() Chris Pritt of Kanawha County, who is a Christian, said the bill is not just about protecting Christians, but religious minorities in the state, too.īut Catherine Jones, a gay woman, said the bill would do nothing but “legalize discrimination against already marginalized communities.” She said she fears the bill could allow businesses to challenge city ordinances prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The provision was included as abortion rights groups are challenging abortion bans in some states by arguing the bans - supported by certain religious principles - violate the religious rights of people with different beliefs. The bill also dictates that the proposed law could not be used to permit access to abortion, which was banned by West Virginia lawmakers last year. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael wiped away tears on the Senate floor as he spoke in support of Democratic-proposed amendment that would bar the legislation from being used to discriminate against LGBTQ people. The bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week and is now before the full House of Delegates, would require a government entity to have a compelling reason to burden someone’s constitutional right to freedom of religion and to meet its goals in the least restrictive way possible.Ī similar bill failed in 2016 after lawmakers voiced concerns about how it could affect LGBTQ residents. “Exercising your religion does not mean discriminating or condemning people because they do not have same beliefs as you,” said Jessica Eplin, who said she is worried about how the proposed law could affect her as an atheist and her child, who is transgender. Others who spoke during a public hearing at the state Capitol Friday said they are worried the proposal advancing in the Legislature will be used to discriminate against LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |