Conservative politicians advocate limited government. They abhor unnecessary laws and regulations.
Or claim to.
Sometimes, though, the urge to pander overwhelms their adherence to conservative principles. Such is the case with the so-called “Pastor Protection Act.”
Florida House Bill 43, sponsored by Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, passed the House Civil Justice Committee last week. The 9-4 vote, along party lines, came after a hearing that featured deeply divided testimony by members of the clergy.
The bill text does not mention same-sex marriage. But it clearly is motivated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this summer that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to be married.
The bill says churches, religious organizations and individuals may not be required to “solemnize” any marriage if doing so would “violate a sincerely held religious belief of the entity or individual.”
Further, the bill says that refusal to “solemnize” any marriage cannot serve as the basis for a civil or criminal cause of action by the state or any political subdivision of the state.
So what’s wrong with that?
Start with the fact that such a law is completely unnecessary. Plakon himself has acknowledged that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already provides all the legal protection pastors need.
That guarantee of religious freedom forbids the government to dictate doctrine. Every denomination remains free to decide for itself whether to permit its clergy to preside at same-sex weddings.
Secular entities, on the other hand, are not free to discriminate. That’s why Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of court, appropriately was compelled to issue marriage licenses in her county.
Further, the bill’s backers don’t provide examples of any city or county in Florida attempting to force a member of the clergy to perform a same-sex marriage. Again, that shows that the proposed legislation is unnecessary.
We are aware that the issue of religious freedom can become complicated. That is the case when religious organizations offer services to the general public. In those instances, religion should be accommodated to the extent possible, but religious beliefs must not be allowed to become an excuse for otherwise prohibited discrimination.
An example pertinent to the Florida discussion concerns for-profit wedding chapels in Las Vegas and elsewhere that have turned away same-sex couples. In those cases, because they are businesses licensed by government entities, they should not be allowed to discriminate.
However, the proposed Florida statute says governments may not withhold licenses from any entity or individual covered by the law. Does that mean that for-profit chapels could refuse to marry same-sex couples in Florida? And by the way, the law’s language is problematically vague, allowing any individual with a “sincerely held religious belief” to act or refuse to act based on that belief. What about an individual whose sincere religious belief would ban mixed-race marriages? Could they operate a whites-only for-profit wedding chapel?
Such an attempt to legalize discrimination by a business would itself invite legal challenges, another ironic result from a supposedly “conservative” law.
Of course, it is obvious what is going on here. The state has dragged its feet and resisted at every opportunity the legalization of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Pam Bondi has wasted tens of thousands of dollars opposing same-sex marriages in court.
Having lost at the highest level, some politicians still are looking for opportunities to pander to opponents of same-sex marriage. And that’s where Plakon’s proposed law comes in.
This is the same pandering pattern we’ve seen with gun rights. Most notoriously, the Legislature approved a bill forbidding doctors to ask patients about gun ownership. It did this despite the fact that there was no demonstrated need for the law.
Florida faces enough divisive and substantial issues to occupy a Legislature that has been infamously ineffective in recent sessions. It does not need a manufactured controversy over “pastor protection.”
