Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Religious discrimination

Beliefs do not trump legal obligations

The Colorado House of Representatives is considering two rather incredible measures that would allow businesses and individuals to withhold services when providing them would infringe upon individuals’ religious beliefs. When considered at a very cursory level, this might sound acceptable. When examined slightly more deeply, though, it is unconscionable.

House bills 1161 and 1171 would extend constitutionally protected religious liberties far beyond those that hold them, so much so that such liberties could compromise the safety, health and access to goods and services of others. The measures are wholly partisan in their nature, with only Republicans signing on as sponsors in both the House and the Senate. This means they have little change of passage, particularly in the Democratic-controlled House, but they warrant discussion nonetheless.

Under the measures, individuals would be able to claim religious exemption from performing job duties when doing so would offend their religious sensibilities. HB 1171, the “State Freedom of Conscience Protection Act,” is perhaps the most dangerous of the two in that it prohibits governments from compelling individuals to act in such a manner that runs afoul of their religious beliefs – but defines those beliefs incredibly broadly with a similarly vast scope of protection. Namely, it gives government employees’ religious beliefs precedence over the duties of their jobs. This applies to the “exercise of religion,” which is defined as the “ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.” That leaves an incredibly wide berth for employees to discern to whom and how to provide services. Fundamentally, this bill, and its companion, HB 1161, would legalize discrimination.

That is a line that religious freedom – enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – does not cross, and for good reason. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it is not acceptable to restrict others’ access to goods and services as a consequence. Under the religious freedom measure at the Colorado Legislature, just such behavior would be allowed. The American Civil Liberties Union, which strongly opposes HB 1161 and 1171, envisions police officers being within their rights to refuse to protect synagogues or mosques, pharmacists refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions or guidance counselors forgoing their services for gay youth. None of these is an appropriate application of religious freedom, nor should it be cloaked as such.

The House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee will consider the measures on Tuesday, and lawmakers would do their constituents and the First Amendment a great service by ending the bills’ journey there. Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, and Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, have both signed on as co-sponsors of HB 1171, though they have not added their names to HB 1161, which protects a person’s right against being “involuntarily compelled in speech, acts of artistic expression or acts of religious expression” – a wholly redundant restatement of the First Amendment.

Neither bill is appropriate for Colorado and would be a disheartening retreat from the anti-discrimination advances the state has made in recent years. The Legislature should swiftly and decisively kill HB 1161 and 1171.



Reader Comments