|Public Theology||About Organize Theology Church Philosophy Ethics Politics Planning Society Economy Creation Peace Preach Media TheoEd Contact Home Subscribe||
Get Our Newsletter
Judge Blocks Religious Tyranny Bill in Mississippi
The state of Mississippi adopted a religious tyranny bill against gay and lesbian people under the guise of 'religious freedom'. Judge Carlton Reeves saw through it and threw it out. Good for him.
By German Lopez
Editor's Note: Both the so-called "evangelical right" and conservative Roman Catholic bishops have been claiming that "religious freedom" means they have a right to discriminate against gay and lesbian persons. They have taken one of the most important values of the constitution and turned it into its opposite. Now a federal judge in Mississippi has thrown out a law based on this false thinking. Good for him. Here is the more on the story:
When Mississippi passed its anti-LGBTQ law earlier this year, state lawmakers argued that they were defending religious freedoms. Specifically, the law explicitly allowed government officials, businesses, and religious organizations to cite their religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBTQ people in certain settings.
A federal judge, however, has just blown up the entire argument for the law, finding that it in fact violates religious freedoms — by favoring explicitly anti-LGBTQ religious views over LGBTQ-friendly religious views. Since the entire point of religious liberty is that the government can’t favor one religious belief over another, Mississippi’s law is blatantly unconstitutional.
In a ruling that struck down the entire law (and will likely be appealed), US District Judge Carlton Reeves wrote:
HB 1523 grants special rights to citizens who hold one of three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” reflecting disapproval of lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons. … That violates both the guarantee of religious neutrality and the promise of equal protection of the laws.This is an incredible turn of the tables. In a supposed attempt to defend religious freedoms, Mississippi actually violated religious freedoms, according to Reeves. Legislators violated the constitutional principle they said they wanted to defend.
Reeves doesn’t stop there. Going through the history of the Mississippi law’s passage, he concludes that the statute is clearly meant to allow discrimination:
The majority of Mississippians were granted special rights to not serve LGBT citizens, and were immunized from the consequences of their actions. LGBT Mississippians, in turn, were “put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental sphere” to symbolize their second-class status. As in Romer, Windsor, and Obergefell, this “status-based enactment” deprived LGBT citizens of equal treatment and equal dignity under the law.The implications are clear for Mississippi, but this also creates a big barrier to anti-LGBTQ efforts across the country. Following their defeat over same-sex marriage, anti-LGBTQ activists have focused on passing so-called “religious freedom” bills that in fact target LGBTQ people to allow government-sanctioned discrimination against them. With this ruling, anti-LGBTQ activists will have to give a little more thought to whether their tactics can really work.
This appeared at Vox.
Sponsored by the
|About Organize Theology Church Philosophy Ethics Politics Planning Society Economy Creation Peace Preach Media TheoEd Contact Home Subscribe||