As I have discussed before, many states (35) have legalized same-sex marriage. Many people who oppose national same-sex marriage, argue that the issue should be left up to the states to decide, but the problem with this is that without national recognition of same-sex marriage, state legislators are still free to discriminate against same-sex couples in other ways that effect their lives drastically.
For example, Indiana governor, Mike Pence, signed into law a “religious freedom” bill this week that could be used to discriminate against LGBT members in the same way the religious exemption of Obamacare ruling in Hobby Lobby discriminates against women who want to use contraception. The Indiana law provides, “the government cant substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” so people who feel that providing services to LGBT members puts a burden on their religious beliefs can turn to this law to provide them with a religious exemption from providing their services to the LGBT community.
What does this law mean or what could it lead to?
This law could mean that LGBT members living in Indiana or other states that have passed religious freedom laws could potentially be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, denied medical treatment, or denied services from business simply based on their sexuality. All of this discrimination for the sake of religious protection.
There are twenty states that have some form of religious freedom laws which provide ways for businesses and other forms of public entities that provide varying services to discriminate against the LGBT community as a response to the shifting and accepting legal mindset on same-sex marriage. While there are twenty-one states that currently have laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but only within the work place. That still leaves plenty of venues the legal right to discriminate against LGBT members.
I recently spoke with a politician who was fighting for a city ordinance in Bloomsburg Pennsylvania that would provide protection for LGBT members against discrimination based on sexual orientation. He proposed this legislation after a bridal shop refused to sell dresses to a lesbian couple and in which I signed his petition in September and the legislation was struck down by the city council in December.
Even had this legislation been passed as a city ordinance, Pennsylvania’s broad religious freedom law would have invalidated it. The law would have no protection against discrimination based on religious freedom laws. Many states that have these laws are trampling the progress different city ordinances because state law trumps municipal laws and thus nullifying the progress LGBT members have made against discrimination. But, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law trumps state law, so hopefully when the Supreme Court rules on the issue of same-sex marriage this year, the ruling will end this discrimination.
Same-Sex Marriage and the Civil Right to Marry 