|
The Truth About the Freedom of Conscience Bill By Forest Thigpen If all the things being said by the opponents of HB 1523 were true, I would be against it as well. But they are not. Some opponents of the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act," including Clarion Ledger Executive Editor Sam Hall, make the outlandish assertion that this bill would allow a person to be "refused service at a restaurant, not allowed to shop at a grocery store," and other sweeping generalizations. Sam says these are in "specific, detailed language" in the bill, but the words "restaurant" or "grocery store" appear nowhere in the bill, nor does any provision for those businesses to keep people out. HB1523 does not create any protection for businesses that deny service to a person based on sexual orientation. The bill is confined almost exclusively to wedding-related services that may be declined, and only under certain circumstances. Here's why that's in the bill. Many merchants, such as bakers, and many professionals, such as attorneys, have said they gladly serve their customers regardless of sexual orientation, but they draw the line at assisting in a wedding ceremony, which they consider a sacrament or act of worship, if that ceremony would violate their beliefs about God's design for that form of worship. Newspaper Guilty of Denial of Service? Let's look at another form of denying service to a person seeking to exercise a Constitutional right. Should I be able to sue the Clarion-Ledger if it chooses not to print my comments? That's a "denial of service" for my right to free speech - a right which is explicitly stated in the Constitution. If you oppose HB1523 - and if you want to be consistent - you would have to believe that I could sue, or the government could punish the newspaper for denying my right to express my views. Other distortions about what HB 1523 supposedly does concern foster care and adoption. The bill clarifies that a religious organization like Catholic Charities does not have to abandon its faith in order to continue providing foster care services in Mississippi. Some states and cities have banned such groups for politely declining to place children with same-sex couples. I'm not saying you have to agree with that stance by those organizations. But given that no one was forced to use their services, and there were other providers that would make those placements, was it really worth it to ban them from participating in the program? There are two employment provisions in the bill. One would allow businesses, schools, and religious organizations to set dress codes and to keep men out of women's bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers, etc. The bill does not require those restrictions; it merely says you can't be punished by the government for choosing those policies. The other is a protection for public employees who express their views about marriage on their own time. This protection would apply to a situation like the one in Atlanta, where Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired because he wrote a Bible study on his own time that briefly referenced the Bible's views on sexual morality. Who is Forcing Whose Views on Others? After the Roe v. Wade decision, many states enacted conscience protections for health professionals whose deeply-held beliefs would not allow them to assist in performing an abortion. HB1523 is a similar response to a Supreme Court decision on another issue that created potential conflicts for people of faith. President Obama's own Solicitor General, when arguing the same-sex marriage case before the Supreme Court, said that respecting rights of conscience of those who disagree "is going to depend on how States work [it out]... and how they decide what kinds of accommodations they are going to allow under state law. And different states could strike different balances." Our society, I hope, would never be alright with the government forcing an African-American t-shirt shop to design and print shirts for a Klan parade, even if that parade is legally organized. We would never think of forcing a Jewish baker to make a swastika-adorned cake for a neo-Nazi wedding, which is also legal to hold. Why would we think it's OK to force a religious business owner to assist in a wedding ceremony that violates his or her deeply-held beliefs, simply because it is now legal to hold such events? HB1523 is not forcing anyone's views on anyone else. On the contrary, it is protecting people from having someone else's views forced on them to violate the tenets of their faith regarding marriage. Some have said the bill pits one person's religious views against another, but consider the effect of each: a person who "denies service" is not preventing a same-sex couple from exercising their right to get married.* But if the couple prevails, it is preventing the objector from exercising his or her freedom of religion. HB1523 is a narrowly-tailored measure that provides a reasonable balance for those competing rights. If we head down the road of having the government force us to abandon our religious beliefs, especially when reasonable alternatives are available, where will it end? What will be left of the freedom of religion? * A Circuit Clerk will not be protected under this bill if a license is not provided to a same-sex couple "without delay." The Clerk may "seek recusal," but one of the conditions of that recusal is that the Clerk "shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the...licensing...is not impeded or delayed..." Thus, if the license is delayed, the Clerk has not met the conditions for protection under this bill. |
| NEWS RELEASE:
For Interviews Call: (601) 969-1300 New poll shows Mississippi voters want to protect pastors, churches, schools, and businesses from government discrimination and unjust punishment JACKSON, MS - A new poll of registered Mississippi voters shows significant support for a bill moving through the state legislature that ensures the government does not discriminate against individuals and organizations because of their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. According to the poll, conducted this week by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, 63 percent of Mississippians support such a law. Every segment of the population identified in the poll - by race, age, sex, and political party - expressed support. "These poll results confirm the broad and diverse support HB 1523 has across the state," said Forest Thigpen, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, which released the poll. "Mississippians understand that religious freedom is the most basic and important of all our freedoms," said Thigpen. "HB 1523 is narrowly focused to protect sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage being a one-man/one-woman relationship." Thigpen said most people in the state believe in the principle of "live-and-let-live." He said: "Mississippians want to protect themselves and their neighbors from government overreach and from penalties for living according to their beliefs. The polling data confirms that Mississippi voters strongly agree that schools, churches, business owners, and public employees have a right to believe and act according to their views about one-man/one-woman marriage." The telephone survey of 625 registered Mississippi voters was conducted March 28-30. Respondents were asked whether they agreed with protecting people from government discrimination, including loss of employment or loss of nonprofit status, because of a sincere belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thigpen said, "HB 1523 ensures charities, nonprofits, churches, and pastors who serve the state in countless ways are not targeted or punished by the government but instead remain free to continue to serve their fellow citizens according to their heartfelt convictions." "It seems that the opponents have not even read the bill, or they have picked out specific words or phrases without seeing or understanding the context. If they do understand it, their opposition shows the extreme nature of the Left and some corporate interests that treat even mild religious protections as unacceptable." "Freedom of religion is a basic human right that deserves protection under the law," Thigpen said. "The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act advances this commonsense principle. This poll shows that Mississippi voters strongly agree." * Full question cross-tab matrix and respondent results
|
By Forest Thigpen
To hear this commentary click here.
Here's the truth about the Freedom of Conscience bill. Its purpose is to keep the government from discriminating against people who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. It protects religious colleges that want to house only opposite-sex couples in their married-couple housing. It protects Catholic Charities from being excluded from foster care and adoption programs, as has happened in other states, because they will not place a child in a home headed by a same-sex couple. It protects a business or agency that prohibits men from using the women's restroom.
This bill is narrowly written and does not authorize discrimination against homosexual people as a class, but it does allow refusal to assist in a same-sex wedding. Circuit clerks can refuse to sign a marriage license, but only if there is someone else available to sign it so that it is "not impeded or delayed..."
It allows a doctor to refuse services only for sex change procedures and prohibits withholding emergency treatment to cure an illness or injury.
Join us for lunch with Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow of Constitutional Studies at Cato Institute. Ilya will discuss Justice Scalia's legacy and the impact of his passing on pending cases and the future of the U.S. Supreme Court.
| March 2, 2016 CONTACT: Mike Hurst [email protected] (601) 969-1300 Taxi drivers file civil rights suit against City of Jackson |
February 25, 2016
CONTACT: Forest Thigpen
[email protected]
(601) 969-1300
MCPP Launches Mississippi Justice Institute
Former Assistant US Attorney Mike Hurst to direct legal efforts
(JACKSON) -- Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) today announced the creation of the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) as the Center's legal arm to represent Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Hurst has joined MCPP to serve as its General Counsel and as Director of MJI.
"For 23 years we've worked to help legislators write laws to guard the liberty of the people of Mississippi, to enhance their opportunities, and to protect their families," said Forest Thigpen, President of MCPP. "Through the Mississippi Justice Institute, we will pursue those same goals in the judicial system by working to ensure our laws are carried out in a way that protects the liberty of our people and honors their Constitutional rights.
Thigpen said, "We're thrilled to have Mike Hurst join us to lead this effort. Mike's work as a federal prosecutor, fighting public corruption in Mississippi, and his experience in constitutional issues in Washington, D.C., make him a perfect fit for this new project."
Hurst said, "With the creation of MJI, I am excited about the opportunity to continue to pursue the interests of freedom and justice on behalf of Mississippi citizens in our courts. In the past, conservative legal groups from outside have come to Mississippi in order to fill this void - and they've done a fine job - but not all the violations of rights are headline grabbers. Mississippians need someone here to fight for the rights of our citizens whose life, liberty and property rights are being abused or limited by government. MJI will represent individuals or groups whose rights are threatened or infringed upon by the government, and we will intervene when important liberty interests or issues are being litigated in the courts, considered or decided upon by administrative agencies, or debated in the public square."
Hurst noted MJI's activities would include direct litigation on behalf of individuals, intervening in cases important to public policy, participating in regulatory and rule making proceedings, and filing amicus, or "friend of the Court," briefs to offer unique perspectives on significant legal matters in Mississippi and Federal courts.
"America and Mississippi prosper with a limited government that allows free markets to work. Limited government isn't just a conservative idea; it is the heart and soul of our state and federal constitutions. In practical matters, for families and businesses and citizens, an unconstitutional law or policy is only overturned if someone stands up and fights against it. MJI will be that champion for Mississippians in need." He said MJI will be announcing its first legal action "very soon."
Prior to joining MCPP, Hurst served as Assistant United States Attorney from 2006 until 2015, when he resigned and ran as the Republican nominee for Mississippi Attorney General. As a federal prosecutor, Mike led some of the largest and most complex public corruption and white collar cases in the state's history, including the recent bribery case against the former Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner. In 2014, Hurst was awarded the Director's Award for Outstanding Prosecution of Fraud and Service to Fraud Prevention by the U.S. Department of Justice's Executive Office of the United States Attorneys. Previously, Hurst served as Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee focusing on the U.S. Constitution, and later as Legislative Director and Counsel for Congressman Chip Pickering.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is an independent, non-profit organization based in Jackson. It works to advance the ideals of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families. Its work, including the Mississippi Justice Institute, is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations. To learn more about MCPP, visit www.mspolicy.org.
--30--
MCPP Commentary By Forest Thigpen
To hear this commentary click here.
For 23 years, our organization has worked to help legislators write laws to guard the liberty of the people of our state, (more…)
By Forest Thigpen
To hear this commentary click here.
High school students in Mississippi are required to take a US History test before graduating. But you won’t find George Washington or Abraham Lincoln on that test.
Many of the great problems we face in our country stem from a lack of appreciation for our unique role in human history. Whether they followed them perfectly or not, our nation's Founders built our country on a set of principles that recognized the inherent value of the individual, created by God, with certain rights and powers.
It's critical that our high school graduates have a basic understanding of these principles. The current U.S. History test should be replaced with the Civics Test given to immigrants who want to become U.S. citizens. Its 100 questions cover some current facts, such as the name of the president, and a good smattering of questions that cover the whole span of U.S. History.
Let your legislators know you think students should be tested on all U.S. History.
Proponents of spending more money on education say, or at least imply, that "fully funding the MAEP formula" will produce better results for students. But will it?
Most people probably think that if public school funding is increased, most of it will be spent on increasing teacher salaries. But will it?
Obviously, money is necessary for educating children. But the truth is that almost all the top-spending districts are among the lowest-achieving districts. The inverse is also true: almost all the lowest-spending districts are among the highest-achieving.
As you can see for yourself on our new website, SeeTheSchoolSpending.org*:
The 20 highest-spending districts yielded these grades from the Mississippi Department of Education, based on state-administered tests: 5 Fs, 6 Ds, 8 Cs, 1 B, and no As.
The 20 lowest-spending districts achieved 6 As, 10 Bs, 1 C, 3 Ds, and no Fs.
Of the 19 Districts with an A grade, none are in the top 20 for spending, and only 4 are in the top 90.
Of the 15 Districts with an F grade, none are in the bottom 20 spending districts, and all but 2 spend more than the state average.
The highest-spending districts spend more than twice as much per student as the lowest-spending districts.
When education funding is increased, where does it go?
A recent report by the legislative accounting watchdog, PEER (Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review), found that from 2005-2014, school districts' spending in the "Instructional" category, when adjusted for inflation, decreased by approximately $75 million, while spending in the "Administration" category increased by $57 million.
More specifically, the total spent on salaries of teachers and other professional personnel in the Instructional category declined by approximately $130 million, or about 8.6%. During the same period, expenditures for salaries in the Administration category increased by $15 million, or 8.1%.
On SeeTheSchoolSpending.org, you can see this trend has continued over the past two decades. In 1993, more than 41% of per-student spending was spent on teacher salaries. By 2014, that had declined to less than 33%. (In 1960, which precedes the data shown on SeeTheSchoolSpending, teacher salaries made up 60% of school spending.)
This means that the bulk of new spending has gone to things other than teacher salaries. If more money is put into the current MAEP formula, that trend is likely to continue.
Questions
Is it possible there is enough money already going into the school system? Could it be that too much money is being directed toward people or programs that do not improve student learning? Based on the findings described above, the answer to those questions appears to be "yes."
Will "fully funding the MAEP formula" cause student achievement to improve? If more money is appropriated, will it find its way to the classroom, where real progress can be made? If past performance is an indication of future results, the answer to those questions is "no."
* Click on the "Rank" heading to sort in order; click it again to sort in reverse order. This link shows 2013 comparison. Spending and grades for 2015 have not been reported, and the 2014 accountability grades are meaningless (see "Waiver Grades").