Statement of Forest Thigpen on the Lawsuit to Kill Charter Schools in Mississippi
(JACKSON) --
Jackson, MS, July 12, 2016 - Forest Thigpen, president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit filed yesterday by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The suit alleges that charter school funding violates the Mississippi constitution, in part because the plaintiffs say charter schools are not "free" schools:
Charter schools are public schools, and since they charge no tuition, any rational person would conclude that they are "free" schools as referenced by the state constitution.
Parents are responsible for their children's education. It is immoral for the government to force parents to send their children to schools that do not meet their academic and related needs, especially when other public options are available, including charter schools.
Parents who have enough money to move to a better district or to send their children to private schools already have options. Charter schools, as demonstrated by the student population at the two schools that opened this year, primarily serve families who cannot afford either of those options.
Improving educational outcomes is one of the most important ways to lift children out of poverty, and charter schools offer that hope to parents who want a better future for their children. By pursuing this lawsuit, it appears as though the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to perpetuate, not alleviate, southern poverty.
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--
By Forest Thigpen
To hear this commentary click here.
What happens when two Constitutional rights are in conflict?
After the Roe v. Wade abortion decision, the federal government and almost all states enacted conscience protections for health professionals whose deeply-held beliefs or moral convictions would not allow them to assist in performing an abortion.
Last year, another Supreme Court decision created potential conflicts for people of faith. There now exists the freedom of religion and the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. What happens when those two rights conflict?
HB 1523 provides the framework for addressing that question so that both of those rights can be exercised.
If bakers and florists choose not to be involved in a same-sex wedding, the same-sex couple will still be able to exercise their right to get married. But if the government were to force the bakers and florists to participate, those business owners would not be allowed to exercise their right to the free exercise of religion.
For more perspective on this issue, and to read the bill for yourself, go to mspolicy.org.
Protecting Freedom of Conscience
from Government Discrimination
Why is the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" (HB 1523) needed today?
Before the Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), we saw states discriminate against people who believe in one man/one woman marriage. For instance:
- California judges were barred from joining organizations that affirm one man/one woman marriage.
- A Washington state judge was admonished by the state judicial commission for saying he was "uncomfortable" with performing same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs. He was ordered to not make such statements in the future.
- Governments in Illinois, Mass., and D.C. cancelled contracts to Christian-run adoption agencies because they only place a child with a married mother and father, even though the agencies referred other couples elsewhere.
Then, during oral arguments in Obergefell, the U.S. Solicitor General admitted that the tax-exempt status of private universities and colleges (and, by implication, all religious organizations) that define marriage as the union of one man/one woman would "be an issue" if the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage -- which it did.
Following the Obergefell ruling, the pressure to approve of same-sex marriage has only increased for religious schools, nonprofits, public employees, small business owners and others. All of these individuals and organizations should be protected from government coercion that would force people with sincerely held beliefs about one man/one woman marriage to violate their conscience.
What does HB 1523 do?
The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act (HB 1523):
- Protects individuals and entities from being penalized by the state or local governments for their moral or religious beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
- Protects individuals and entities who believe that sexual relationships are properly reserved to such marriages -- such as a religious school that requires students and faculty to refrain from engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage.
- Protects individuals and entities from being penalized for believing that "male" and "female" are biologically based.
- Is supported by a majority (63 percent) of Miss. voters from both parties and every major demographic.
What does HB 1523 NOT do?
The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act does NOT:
- Change the legal definition of marriage.
- Hinder or slow the process for providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
- Prevent the government from providing benefits or services authorized under state law.
- Create a "license to discriminate."
The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act is focused on preventing government discrimination. States should not be in the business of forcing pastors, business owners and public employees to affirm conduct or practices that violate their sincerely held beliefs. Our government should never discriminate against, punish, or penalize people based on their sincerely held belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Last year, the Clarion-Ledger issued a dire report on economic freedom levels in Mississippi. (Claudia Williamson, "Gov't spending, regs hurt Miss business climate," THE CLARION-LEDGER (Feb. 20, 2015) available at http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/02/20/govt-spending-regs-hurt-miss-business-climate/23759031/.)
What is economic freedom? According to the article, "[t]he term economic freedom describes the degree to which individuals can live their lives and make personal choices without government intervention."
The article noted that "over the past five years, Mississippi has been declining in economic freedom." "The effects of Mississippi's restrictions on freedom and personal autonomy are real and they are harsh..." Examining the state's neighbors, the article describes how both Louisiana and Texas, which have much higher economic freedom rankings, are also much richer than Mississippi. It concludes that "Mississippi is relying too much on government and too little on personal choices."
The Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act increases freedom for all Mississippians. The Act limits the power of state and local governments to impose additional regulatory burdens and punitive sanctions on individuals and certain businesses. The Act is precisely the kind of solution to make Mississippi more economically free and that was recommended by the Clarion-Ledger.
Importantly, the Act protects the freedom of individuals to "live their lives and make personal choices without government intervention." It ensures that wedding business owners are not compelled to participate in events that violate their religious or moral beliefs. Such freedom is attractive to business owners, many of whom launched their business because they wanted the freedom to direct their own lives and determine their own livelihoods.
It is noteworthy that, Louisiana and Texas, the two states that the Clarion-Ledger looked to as models for Mississippi, both have robust protections for religious liberty. Last year, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal issued an executive order that implemented many of the same protections contained in Mississippi's bill. And both Texas and Louisiana have strong religious freedom protection laws.
Simply put, laws like the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act expand both religious freedom and economic freedom. It protects churches and pastors, but also individuals and wedding businesses from harmful government regulation. And like the Clarion-Ledger found, Mississippi needs to reduce such government regulation.
|
NEWS RELEASE: April 14, 2016 For Interviews Call Forest Thigpen or Dr. Jameson Taylor: (601) 969-1300 |
| NEWS RELEASE:
April 11, 2016 For Interviews Call Forest Thigpen or Dr. Jameson Taylor: (601) 969-1300 |
|
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.