Don't underestimate religious freedom law's impact

A recent editorial in the Columbia Basin Herald warned us to not overreact to the new “Freedom of Conscience Act” law in Mississippi. Much of the editorial is correct — some reactions have been overstated. However, that doesn’t mean the act should be ignored, or its impact underestimated.

This law rightfully protects religious organization from lawsuits. However, under this law, public officials with religious objections are allowed to refuse to perform their assigned duties. Signing a paper giving people a legal status guaranteed by the state is not an act of conscience or faith. It’s a job. Protecting a person’s right to refuse to perform her assigned job based on a religious conviction makes no sense.

The law also pertains to private individuals, who may refuse service based on a client’s perceived sexual orientation or deviation from biologically-assigned gender. This section of the law is clearly a violation of a person’s right to privacy.

The editorial states that “no one will be refused housing” under this law. This is not true. The law defends a religious organization’s right to refuse housing or adoption services to LGBTQ people. Why? LBGTQ people have never been shown as a group to be poor parents or tenants. The reason behind this protection can only be to allow punishment of people based on assumptions about what they do in private, or what it says on their birth certificate. How is that any different from refusing to rent to a person or to allow a person to adopt a child based on that person’s race or religion?

I agree that people’s religious rights should be protected. However, this law allows people to refuse to honor the rights of others based on their assumptions about that person’s private life. That’s just wrong.

Steve Close

Moses Lake