Tweak S.C.’s religious freedom law
A bill introduced by S.C. state Sen. Brad Hutto that would bar discrimination by businesses based on sexual orientation could save the state a big headache.
The uproar caused by the recent passage of so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in Indiana and Arkansas indicated how controversial these laws can be. While conservative groups asserted that the laws were designed specifically to protect the right not to participate in practices that might be offensive to one’s religious beliefs, critics viewed them as a legal right to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
As the laws originally were written, both individuals and businesses would have had legal grounds to refuse service to customers because of their sexual orientation. After a national flood of criticism of the laws and threats of boycotts, the governors of both states relented and asked their respective legislatures to “tweak” the bills to address concerns about discrimination.
The national uproar regarding the laws came not only from gay-rights groups but also from businesses, organizations and even governors of other states, some of whom threatened to halt all official state travel to Indiana. WalMart, which is headquartered in Arkansas, expressed concerns over the original law, as did the National Collegiate Athletic Association, whose headquarters are in Indianapolis.
The criticism clearly was not going to subside until the laws were changed.
South Carolina, passed its own religious freedom law in 1999, but, like laws in 20 other states, South Carolina’s law is patterned after the federal RFRA, which applies only to disputes between a person or entity and a government. The intent of the federal law, passed in 1993, was to protect religious minorities from unintentional discrimination by laws passed by the federal government.
Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, proposed the new language for the South Carolina law last week as a way to head off any misunderstanding about the state’s intent. His bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in five areas of state law: the sale and rental of homes, admission into hospice or home care, and employment.
In those areas, he said, no one should be discriminated against for any reason.
While no complaints have arisen to date about South Carolina’s law, the precaution strikes us as a smart move. Even those who might not see the non-discrimination clause as an act of fairness might be able to reconcile it as a way to avoid boycotts or adverse publicity that might hurt the state’s ability to attract business.
“This would send a signal to businesses and consumers from all over the world that South Carolina truly has one of the most inclusive and welcoming business environments in the entire country,” Hutto said last week.
We think that makes sense. Even if the law has drawn no complaints so far, clarifying the intent of the law before it becomes an issue might help South Carolina avoid controversy and criticism similar to what was leveled against Indiana and Arkansas.
And, just as importantly, Hutto’s bill would help ensure that everyone in the state, whatever their race, creed or sexual orientation, would have access to housing, hospice and home care, and a job. Hutto is right: Make it clear that South Carolina doesn’t discriminate, and avoid the controversy.
In summary
Bill would clarify that South Carolina has no intention to discriminate based on its religious freedom law.
This story was originally published April 7, 2015 at 7:19 PM with the headline "Tweak S.C.’s religious freedom law."