Jeff Munzinger: SJR 39 discourages investment in Missouri by large, diverse companies.
Springfield residents have seen this debate before.
A struggle between those defending the rights of religious business owners and those seeking uniform treatment in public dealings is underway in the state capitol via a proposed state constitutional amendment. The Queen City was the battleground in 2012, and 2014 and 2015, stirred by a nondiscrimination ordinance that included protections in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations for persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
The proposed amendment, formally known in the General Assembly as Senate Joint Resolution 39, would prohibit the state from penalizing religious organizations that act in accordance with “sincere religious beliefs or practices” concerning same-sex marriages. The proposal also includes the right to refuse to perform or allow a same-sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization’s property.
If approved by voters, the state also would not be able to penalize an individual or closely held commercial entity that declines to provide goods of artistic creation for a same-sex wedding or reception.
SJR 39 sponsor Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, said he feels it is a targeted way to protect business owners of faith. But those opposed, including members of the business community, see the move as a way to enshrine discrimination in the state constitution.
The Springfield divide
Jeff Munzinger of Munzinger & Co. Inc., a sales company for boat manufacturers, is strongly opposed to the amendment.
“It’s bad for Missouri, and especially bad for business,” said Munzinger, a Democratic candidate for the state House of Representatives in the 136th district.
Munzinger and his wife, Kathy, have two grown children – one gay and one straight. The parents, who each served terms as president of the local chapter of PFLAG – formerly known as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays – spoke at public hearings in 2012 and 2014 at City Hall on previous proposals to expand the city’s ordinance. With business groups and local church leaders landing on opposite sides of the issue, last spring, Queen City voters narrowly approved a repeal of the ordinance.
Jeff Munzinger believes the amendment is anti-business.
“The list of corporations that embrace diversity is lengthy,” he said, pointing to a list of PFLAG sponsors, including Johnson & Johnson, American Airlines, General Motors, Marriott and Lockheed Martin.
After Gov. Jay Nixon issued a statement opposing SJR 39, MasterCard sent him a letter of thanks, joining Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. in publicly standing against the proposal. The Big 12 Conference and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry have voiced opposition, too. Though the basketball tournament is committed to Kansas City through 2020, conference officials are threatening to leave Missouri and take its $13.3 million economic impact elsewhere.
Many in the faith community see it differently.
Dick Hardy, owner of Springfield-based pastoral-leadership consultancy The Hardy Group, was among those canvassing the streets of Springfield to collect signatures for the SOGI repeal effort.
For Hardy, the constitutional amendment addresses a concern for Christians in a changing world. He said if he hired a homosexual, but that person was looking to change his or her life around, he would offer his support. Without changing, Hardy wouldn’t want that person working for him.
“Evangelicals believe – there’s no medical evidence, there’s no gay gene – it’s a behavior,” he said. “And when the government says to me that I have to employ a person with a behavior that runs contrary to what I believe scripture says, that’s problematic for me.”
Largely symbolic?
Religious freedom bills are nothing new, said Kevin Pybas, an associate professor of prelaw at Missouri State University. Missouri is among some 30 states that have passed religious-freedom laws following a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
The current proposed amendment appears to be largely symbolic, Pybas said, as Missouri’s RFRA law already allows religious business owners to deny services and employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
As for the threat that institutions or administrators might have to host same-sex weddings, he said the First Amendment already protects them.
“I would call this the belt-and-suspenders approach,” Pybas said, noting lawmakers might be worried about how future court rulings could impact the Show-Me State.
Resolution sponsor Onder said the proposal is a defensive measure.
“It prevents state and local governments from imposing penalties on churches, pastors, religious organizations and some wedding vendors. As far as granting some broad-based license to discriminate, it does nothing of the kind,” said Onder.
Sarah Rossi, director of advocacy and policy with the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, said the problem with SJR 39 is it establishes a broad definition for a religious organization.
She said it would allow any social-services organization to refuse to work with a same-sex couple. She suggests schools and state agencies could discriminate if the person running the agency has a “sincere belief” that gay marriage is wrong.
“The impact of it, the breadth of it – while the sponsor and chair have said otherwise – is much greater than they’d want you to know,” Rossi said, adding the amendment would trump the 14 municipal ordinances in the state with SOGI protections in place.
Onder said the political subdivisions that currently have SOGI ordinances have stood despite Missouri’s religious freedom law in place since 2003.
“It would not really affect those ordinances at all except that it would create in that wedding context a conscious exemption, if you will,” he said. “I do think this issue deserves to be in our constitution, mostly because it deals with our fundamental rights.”
