Louisiana Committee Rejects Religious Protections

Louisiana House of Representatives (photo credit: Jeffrey Schwartz via Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

In Louisiana, IBM sent a letter claiming the Marriage and Conscience Act (which prevents government punishments against traditional marriage believers) would interfere with attracting talent, and the tourism industry helped lead the fight against any conscience protections for traditional marriage believers.

By an overwhelming bipartisan vote, the House legal committee killed the bill 10-2.

Gov. Jindal, to his credit, issued an executive order preventing the executive branch from engaging in any such punishment or deprivation of benefit.

No protections are going to be won by religious conservatives without direct political involvement and organization of a massive new kind; business as usual means the ongoing redefinition of traditional believers as racists.

Maggie Gallagher is a senior fellow at American Principles in Action. Continue Reading

Bobby Jindal: No Government Coercion Based on Marriage

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (photo credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Gov. Jindal has taken to the most prominent enemy territory he can find, the op-ed pages of the old grey lady herself, to say: “no retreat baby, no surrender”*:

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

There are two primaries going on simultaneously: the money primary and the voter primary.  Jindal knows which side he is on:

I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me.

The Marriage and Conscience Act prevents the government from punishing anyone because they refuse to participate in a marriage against their conscience. It is viewpoint neutral; that fab gay caterer doesn’t have to help faithful Catholics get married either. Continue Reading