On Friday, Conservative Democratic Bob Damron sponsored the controversial bill impacting on freedom of speech. Kentucky House of Representatives voted 82-7 in favor of House Bill 279 (HB 279), a piece of legislation clearly stating that the “government shall not burden a person’s or religious organization’s freedom of religion” and that the government must “protect the right to act or refuse to act on religious grounds.”
Many rights groups are concerned that if the bill is passed into law by the Republican-controlled Senate, women, religious minorities and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people will suffer as a result.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) come out in opposition to the bill after the vote, saying that similar legislation in other states has been used to deny women access to contraception and has been used to discriminate against gay and transgender people.
«We are particularly concerned that this bill could be used to undermine existing LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] fairness protections for individuals covered by local statutes in Louisville, Lexington, Covington and Vicco, Kentucky,» the ACLU said Friday in a written statement.
The concern was echoed by the small number of representatives who voted against the legislation including Rep. Mary Lou Marzian, a Democrat representing Louisville. Marzian voiced concern, believing that many Catholic hospitals would deny employees access to birth control.
«Religious freedom sounds so Mom and apple pie,» Marzian said, but notes that similar bills in other states have resulted in a litany of unintended, discriminatory consequences.
In the 2006 case Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock, Elaine Photography in Albuquerque, New Mexico refused to be hired for a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony. The photography company attempted to use “religious freedom” as a pretext for denying the couple service.
The New Mexico Human Rights commission later found that Elane Photography was guilty of sexual discrimination, a decision upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals in June 2012.
Freedom of religion is already a protected form of free expression guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The constitution has been used by some groups to expand the religious freedom of individuals to practice freely. In most cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanding religious freedom as long as it doesn’t pose a threat to public safety or individual rights.
Some Native American tribes have even successfully challenged drug laws, gaining the ability to use hallucinogenic peyote cactus as part of religious services.