Montana’s march to the right continues. There was an article in the paper this morning entitled, “Governor backs religious freedom legislation.” “The proposal has been cheered by supporters as a fortification of religious rights in court while opponents it could give discrimination legal footing in the state.”1 The governor, who is a deeply religious conservative, voiced his support of this legislation through the Lt. Gov. Kristen Juras, who went on to say, “Gov. Gianforte emphasizes this is not a license to discriminate against the LBGT. They are hired as employees across the state. It is not a license for lodging facilities or private employers to discriminate.”1
These words ring pretty hollow given that the legislature has already passed two bills restricting the rights of the LBGT community. In addition, this bill was opposed by the Americans Indian Caucus as well. They sent a letter to the legislature based upon their long history of being the subjects of discrimination. Anyone who thinks this legislation will not provide a license to discriminate based upon ‘religious beliefs,’ is deluding themselves. There have already been several cases that have worked their way threw various state courts and even up to the US Supreme Court. For example:
“In a hotly anticipated decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against a florist who was fined for not providing services for a gay couple’s wedding.
The court had previously heard the case, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, ruling that Barronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for refusing to make floral arrangements for a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman claimed that she was only acting in accordance with her religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the state high court to take another look at whether it violated her religious rights by not being neutral to her religion when making its decision.2”
While most of these cases so far have involved various vendors and companies refusing to serve gays and lesbians, it is only a matter of time before some group will claim the right to not serve blacks, or Mexicans, or who knows, based upon some obscure ‘religious belief.’ Legislation like that being proposed in the Montana legislature sets a very dangerous precedent.
Ironically, I read a Letter to the Editor in the Chronicle last week and felt compelled to respond. My response was published in the paper this morning – the same day that this article on the Governor’s support for this religious freedom legislation appeared. My letter:
“I read Kody Van Dyke’s letter in the Sunday Chronicle with both amusement and frustration. The one thing I agree with is the statement that people should think for themselves and respect others’ right to do the same. Where we differ is when legislators enact legislation that forcibly imposes their views on personal decisions upon others. The author lists several examples areas where people disagree: transgender issues, abortion, election integrity, and tax cuts. Transgender people should have the same rights that Van Dyke wants for everyone – to be able to express their own opinions (and their sexuality) and live their lives without government influence. When legislators pass laws to infringe upon those rights, particularly if those laws have no basis in scientific and medical fact, they are not allowing ‘people to think for themselves.’ Similarly, I have a completely different view of the abortion issue than the author, but the legislature has seen fit to completely discount my personal views and impose their beliefs upon me and many, many other people. What happened to my ability to ‘think for myself’ and make those personal decisions based upon my personal beliefs? If the author chooses to not associate with transgender people or they choose not to have an abortion – great. I respect that. However, it’s obvious the author believes that the right to think for oneself is a one-way street. I and other like-minded people are not allowed the luxury to think for ourselves and make those decisions. Debates on election integrity and tax cuts are policy issues that should be debated. But issues like transgender rights and access to abortion are deeply-held personal beliefs and people should be able to make those decisions by thinking for themselves. “Anything less is authoritarianism and we know where that leads.””
I am still unable to get my head around the fact that the same Republicans who are pushing this type of legislation are the same people who espouse ‘smaller government’, ‘less regulation’, ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘individual rights’. I think the term for this is ‘cognitive dissonance.’ It makes absolutely no logical sense.
So, come on up to Montana where you will have a license to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs but you don’t need a license to carry a concealed weapon!