Leave a Comment Jacob Combs
NH House panel considers ‘license to discriminate’ bill
January 25, 2012
By Jacob Combs
The New Hampshire legislature may be holding off on voting to repeal the state’s marriage equality law, but that doesn’t mean their schedule is entirely anti-gay free. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee considered a new bill, HB 1264, that has become known as the “license to discriminate bill.” From the Eagle-Tribune:
The bill would put an exemption in state marriage law. The proposed text says no person, including a business owner or employee, should be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for wedding services in “violation of the person’s conscience or religious faith.”
Proponents of the bill say they are worried clergy could be forced to officiate same-sex marriages against their will. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that religious officials are already protected under the New Hampshire marriage law and the federal constitution. They believe the bill has a different aim: to open the door for anyone, including business and individuals, to cite their religious views in denying services to same-sex couples.
This is familiar ground for marriage equality advocates. Last summer, the religious exemptions in New York’s marriage equality bill were crucial in garnering Republican support to pass the measure. The civil union bill passed last year in Rhode Island contained religious exemptions that were so broad (and could provide for such blatant discrimination) that it was condemned by many LGBT organizations. Only a few couples have entered into civil unions in the state.
Passage of the New Hampshire bill is unlikely–it is, in a way, even more radical than the overarching repeal bill. And, as ThinkProgress points out, there’s another wrinkle:
Given the bill doesn’t even specify “same-sex” marriage, it would hypothetically protect the right of “conscience” to discriminate against any kind of marriage, including interracial, binational, and interdenominational couples. For this reason, it’s likely this bill would be preempted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other nondiscrimination statutes.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
25 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Sagesse | January 25, 2012 at 9:10 am
@
2.
MFargo | January 25, 2012 at 9:26 am
Doubtful this would pass Contsitutional muster, but it does reveal–at least–some acknowledgment, however reluctant, of the inevitability of marriage equality; otherwise they wouldn’t bother with “exemptions” at all.
3.
fiona64 | January 25, 2012 at 9:32 am
Um … if you don't want to offer services to the public, then don't obtain a business license. Period.
4.
chris from CO | January 25, 2012 at 9:38 am
I think adding this in their laws are laughable. But it coud work in our favor if those limitations are added to law then they might lose votes to repeal the gay marriage law. Then the laughable part would happen the courts will take the law up and toss it out and gay marriage will still be on the books.
5.
Ann S. | January 25, 2012 at 9:55 am
§
6.
Bob Barnes | January 25, 2012 at 10:16 am
I'm laughing at this… it will either be overturned by the courts or will be repealed when the TeaPublicans are thrown out. May the fastest route win!
7.
Gregory in SLC | January 25, 2012 at 10:31 am
Indeed!
8.
Fr. Bill | January 25, 2012 at 11:03 am
Let's hold our laughter. The Roman Catholic bishops have a new committee headed up by Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Dolan of NY on "preserving religious liberty". They are losing on the marriage front so they are trying to carve out as much space for their "religious liberty" as we will tolerate. Their view of freedom of religion goes way past the First Amendment. They are trying to get religious conscience exemption for people whose consciences are "violated" by various civil laws. He actually used the woman in NY State who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple as an example of "religious rights" being trampled – forget that she refused to do her job. This NH bill is just a clumsy opening of this new legal concept they are trying to get the American public to buy into. The Evangelicals are right there with them on this also.
9.
chris hogan | January 25, 2012 at 11:13 am
I have come to the conclusion that these folks really could care less whether we can get married or not. Or join the military, or work for a company. All they REALLY want is to MAINTAIN THE PERCEPTION THAT THE PUBLIC IS WITH THEM ON HATING HOMOSEXUALITY. And they will try to pass any law that directly or indirectly signals that. They just never give up. How PATHETIC.
10.
Gregory in SLC | January 25, 2012 at 11:16 am
I think Santorum would like that law…his comments to a mom in FL:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/25/411111/s…
11.
Bob Barnes | January 25, 2012 at 11:20 am
With all due respect, we've seen this happening now for the past 6 years. To date I've yet to see any success for them, that is a broad approval of legal discrimination in the public arena.
12.
Michael | January 25, 2012 at 11:21 am
So this is to "protect" those florists and cake-makers who don't "agree" with marriage equality and would turn away good customers, right? It seems unnecessary. From my point of view, I'd like to know who these people are so they can be shamed out of business. Name and shame. (Then make sure they know exactly how much money they lose out on from gay/lesbian couples and their friends and families.)
In other words, why do people need legal protection to make stupid business decisions?
13.
Gregory in SLC | January 25, 2012 at 11:42 am
OT – Gene Robinson, first Episcopalian Gay Bishop Documentary being featured @ Sundance this week:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/g…
LOVE FREE OR DIE
14.
JefferyK | January 25, 2012 at 11:49 am
These people are obsessed with stigmatizing us. If they can't do by denying us access to marriage rights or preventing us from serving opening in the military or firing us or kicking us out of our apartments or not letting us adopt kids, they will try to find other means. And they really cannot stand people talking back to them and calling them on their s**t. That drives them NUTS.
15.
Lymis | January 25, 2012 at 11:57 am
What, other than anti-gay bigotry, is the possible justification for limiting this to weddings? There's obviously not a lot of wedding-related anti-Muslim or anti-atheist or anti-pagan discrimination going on, or we would have heard about it.
But why is some bigot's right not to bake a cake for fags more of a religious liberty issue than not driving a Muslim (or a Christian) in your cab, or allowing them on your bus, or refusing to let someone in a yarmulke eat in your restaurant? Why is not renting a hall to a pair of dykes more of an issue than not letting someone in burkha into your grocery store?
The point is that none of these people are being forced to do something that violates their own religion – they are being asked to do their job and provide a service to someone else who is choosing to do something they disapprove of.
Pastors and priests not having to perform the wedding, yes. Churches being free not to hold the ceremony in their churches, yes. But a county clerk's job is filing paperwork, and a baker's job is to bake. Why is it a violation of their religion to pipe icing that says "Adam and Steve" but not to pipe icing that says "Adam and Steve?"
And are these people prepared to be turned away because THEY are Christian? Or because they are bigots and someone else declares bigotry violates their own beliefs?
16.
Seth from Maryland | January 25, 2012 at 12:34 pm
NJ Lawmakers Rip Chris Christie for Suggesting Civil Rights of Gay People Should Be Put to a Vote: VIDEO
Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/njdems.html#ixzz…
17.
AnonyGrl | January 25, 2012 at 12:43 pm
It seems so very clear to us that the whole "religious liberty" business is simply a smoke screen for "I want to be allowed to discriminate". It is exactly the same as people who kicked and fussed when it became illegal to discriminate against blacks, women, people with disabilities, worshippers of other gods and so on.
How is this not crystal clear to everyone? I really have no idea how some people don't see it, but am heartened that more and more people ARE realizing it every day. We are winning equality, and despite the horrendous delays and the uphill battles, it really feels wonderful that we are.
18.
AnonyGrl | January 25, 2012 at 12:45 pm
No, of course they are not willing to be turned away because they are Christian. That, to their minds, WOULD be bigotry. What they are asking for is merely the right to follow their beliefs.
Sadly, they do not see the irony in that stance.
19.
MightyAcorn | January 25, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Word. Or do it entirely off the grid on your own dime, without use of the streets, sewers, sidewalks, water, electrics, streetsweeping, garbage collection, telephone, broadband, or other public amenities I pay for. You'll exclude access over my dead Constitutional body, I tell you what.
20.
MightyAcorn | January 25, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Power and control, my dears. That's entirely what it's about. The fact that they focus on sexual issues so intently–not just homosexuality, but birth control and women's sexual rights–makes that control issue rather perverse.
21.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 25, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Very true – reminds me of why the author Anne Rice not too long ago declared "I quit being a Christian."
She said, "I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life."
22.
Mike | January 25, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Well, look… no religious institution should be forced to go against their beliefs. Although I think it is silly not to be accepting of indifference and support your community, if a church doesnt want to marry a gay couple fine…
but extending that to businesses that provide wedding services is ridiculous because they are not a religious institution.
23.
Mike | January 25, 2012 at 3:46 pm
If a church, or religiously tax exempt organization doesn't want to wed gay couples, fine. Although it is dis-compassionate not to accept the indifference and support your community in health an happiness, it just shows how insecure they are, so be it.
If a business who provides wedding services want to discriminate against same sex couples, its discrimination regardless of spiritual beliefs.
24.
Fr. Bill | January 25, 2012 at 3:53 pm
That's just the point, they have no intention of limiting it to providers of wedding services – and they know full well that clergy currently have a right to refuse to marry anyone who doesn't comply with their religious beliefs/rules. Once they get this through, what about pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions? What about Catholic clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses to divorced people? Where do you draw the line when you grant religious exemptions to civil laws?
25.
I_T | January 26, 2012 at 7:05 am
I believe that we need to challenge this sort of nonsense with other examples where religious freedom and belief conflicts with civil law and practice. I've written a blog post here: http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/2012/01…
But basically the examples I use are:
1) The desire of orthodox Jews in New York to have sex-segregated city buses: which is illegal
2) The desire of that same community to restrict rentals to fellow Jews: but laws forbid discrimination in rental on the grounds of religion or race
3) THe Roman Catholic rejection of marriage following civil divorce. The church DOES NOT recognize such marriages as sacramentally valid; do you suppose that they provide health care to such spouses?
Please read my blog for citations and expansion of this argument.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.