On April 7, the divide in Springfield became clear.
Voters narrowly passed a repeal of a controversial bill that last fall expanded the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance to include protections in the areas of housing, public accommodations and employment to people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
The repeal measure, which appeared on municipal ballots as Question 1, garnered 15,347 votes, or 51.4 percent of those cast.
The politically charged atmosphere isn’t unique to Springfield.
In Indiana and Arkansas, religious-freedom initiatives have garnered national attention, public protests and business boycotts.
And this session in Jefferson City, a Springfield representative sponsored a bill designed to protect the rights of religious groups on college campuses statewide. The effort has drawn Rep. Elijah Haahr sharp public and personal criticism.
In January, the second-term Republican was a target on Twitter by those opposed to the bill. Among the harshest comments was by Robert Rufa, a self-described liberal war veteran: “Jesus forgives everyone except bigots. … Those he sends to hell.”
The tweets pointed at Haahr haven’t slowed the momentum of his bill, which was the subject of an April 7 Senate hearing. A week later, senators voted their approval during an executive session.
Haahr said the bill is designed to ensure religious groups on college campuses are treated the same as any other student organization.
“In the last few years, schools have begun adopting ‘all-comers’ policies. Traditionally, colleges have had nondiscrimination policies, but those policies have not applied to student groups. Now, with all-comers policies, what is essentially being said is that the only way you can exist on campus is if you accept all-comers into your group,” Haahr said, pointing to the University of California and Vanderbilt University as examples.
To address potential problems in the Show-Me State, he said HB 104 follows a path taken by at least seven states, including Oklahoma and Virginia.
“All it says is that you can’t treat religious groups differently than you treat other student groups,” he said. “Campuses don’t want to do that because there are some very popular groups that clearly do have very selective admission standards. The easiest one would be the Greeks. You can’t be a woman and join a fraternity. You can’t be a man and join a sorority. There are also political clubs. If you want to join the Republican club, they’re going to want you to be a Republican.”
Haahr’s bill and ballot Question 1 appear to be products of polarized attitudes amid a changing legal and cultural backdrop, said Kevin Pybas, an associate professor of pre-law at Missouri State University. He said issues that once weren’t controversial are now hotly debated in growing public circles.
“I think politicians in Indiana and Arkansas might have been caught by surprise because the federal law, RFRA, which Congress passed in 1993 in response to a Supreme Court decision, was probably the most bipartisan piece of legislation passed in decades,” Pybas said.
In 1997, he said the Supreme Court ruled it wasn’t a good law with respect to the states, so states began to pass their own versions.
“The laws, not very long ago, were pretty milk toast and white bread,” Pybas said.
“They weren’t controversial at all.”
Roughly 20 states have passed similar measures – including Missouri – and he said at least 30 have laws in line with the RFRA.
The contentious feelings about the laws are understandable, Pybas said, but also largely unwarranted. Anti-discrimination laws and religious-freedom measures don’t need to be seen as mutually exclusive, he said.
Speaking to the SOGI issue, he said part of the problem is neither side has been willing to concede any ground.
“To my mind, both sides claim too much for themselves and their positions,” he said. “Both sides articulated their positions in almost absolute terms, unwilling to recognize the least bit of legitimacy in the other’s point of view. That’s understandable, in a way, with respect to gays and lesbians because they have suffered real discrimination. But there is a real, core religious liberty issue here.”
Culturally, opinions on same-sex unions, in particular, have changed dramatically over the past two decades, according to Gallup research. In 2014, 55 percent of those polled felt gay marriages should be valid and 42 percent did not. In 1996, 27 percent supported gay marriages with 68 percent opposed.
The same-sex marriage issue is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court this summer, Pybas said, but the debate between religious freedom and LGBT rights could take years to play out in the courts.
In Springfield, Everything Kitchens LLC owner Emily Church said her public support of the repeal has been misunderstood by some of those on the other side of the issue.
In particular, she wants the public to know the company serves everyone regardless of their sexual orientation. She said a rumor has been spread that she doesn’t serve those identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
“Why would I not sell someone a mixing bowl because they were gay? Do I believe they shouldn’t be allowed to eat? Come on,” she said. “It is such a highly emotional topic, and understandably so, that no one is thinking about it clearly.”
Given the SOGI ordinance’s exemption for religious organizations but none for commercial operators, Church said the nondiscrimination bill could have affected businesses with customer bases primarily in one group or the other.
“I’m liberty-minded, and I want everyone to be as free as they possibly can be, and I felt like there were quite a few scenarios where people could be put in a bad position,” Church said. “For instance, with a gay bar, they should be able to hire just gays and nobody sue them for not hiring heterosexuals. Or owners of a Christian bookstore should probably be able to hire someone in line with their views.”
Opponents of the repeal, organized under No Repeal SGF, had garnered support from well over 100 business professionals, including architect and Springfield Public Schools board member Tim Rosenbury. The Butler, Rosenbury & Partners Inc. principal said he hopes his stance won’t hurt his business.
“The position I took was a personal position,” he said.
“There’s always a price to pay when you take a position that is going to be unpopular with a large group of people. The closeness of the vote indicates that the issue is not totally resolved. The business cycle in architecture is long, so I have no idea whether it makes a difference. I hope it isn’t anything negative, of course.”
Pybas said he hopes people on both sides can find common ground.
“To me, one of the more distressing things about the local issue is that both sides are making similar claims. That is, they want to live their lives in noncompartmentalized ways. Gay, lesbians and transgendered individuals have beliefs that go to the core of their identities. That’s the same as religious conservatives here. And to acknowledge that is not to say that it’s a trump card, but it’s a starting point. There’s some common ground here.”[[In-content Ad]]
