Shocking Honesty: VA Democrats Really Are Targeting Churches
Gone are the [short-lived] days of “You can have religious liberty as long as you keep it inside the four walls of your church.” Even that sentiment has now become a relic of the past. Now it’s about making sure that churches, religious schools, and nonprofit ministries with Biblical and historical viewpoints can no longer continue to function consistent with their core faith tenets. As the new Democrat majority has made crystal clear over and over throughout this process, they truly do intend to use the coercive power of the state to purge many religious groups of their basic religious orientation and identity – all in the name of elevating the notions of disordered sexual orientation and identity.
Yesterday, as Democrats passed SB 868 (D-Ebbin) 54-46 on the House floor, we witnessed yet another revealing round of “Simon Says.” Delegate Marcus Simon (D-Fairfax), increasingly acting as spokesperson for his fellow Democrats, continues to squelch all doubts as to the intent and the impacts of their SOGI legislation for faith-based individuals and organizations who maintain traditional, orthodox and frankly just scientific positions about the nature of marriage and human sexuality. Delegate Simon AGAIN made it emphatically clear that the primary purpose of their main SOGI bill is to prevent religious groups, including churches, synagogues, and schools from operating in accordance with their core faith tenets in the areas of sexual conduct and identity.
Simon’s shockingly honest remarks came after Delegate Dave LaRock (R-Loudoun) proposed an amendment to SB 868, which simply sought to clarify in the section on private employment that “a religious organization may require that all employees or applicants for employment conform to the religious tenets of such organization.” After all, that’s the way religious organizations have always been able to operate. The proposed amendment was just one of several very modest additions needed in the bill to protect religious organizations from being unjustly targeted, but this single amendment was ultimately offered up as perhaps the only one House Democrats might possibly agree to. Clearly, that was far too optimistic. (With one notable exception: Democratic Delegate Clinton Jenkins voted for the amendment and against the bill.)
Watch the roughly 5-minute exchange between Delegates LaRock and Simon HERE. Below is the key substance of Delegate Simon’s remarks:
“Madam Speaker, speaking to [Delegate LaRock's] amendment. …We have a religious exemption in this bill[.] (partially quotes it)…So, they can restrict employment to members of their religion. That's not what [Delegate LaRock's amendment] says. This one says that employees or applicants will conform to the religious tenets of the organization. So, this isn't about who you are. This isn't about what your religion is. This is about what you DO in your private life. And this gets very much to gutting the entire purpose of this bill.
But the truth of the matter, whether Del. Simon understands it or not, is that for people of sincere religious faith and organizations who exist to further the purposes of that religious faith, there can be no meaningful distinction between who a person is and how they conduct their lives. What a person does proves who they really are, and their overall conduct relative to the central tenets of their faith is the only discernable measure of whether they actually believe it. For religious organizations, what would be the value in being able to purposefully hire someone of the same religion if they had no corresponding ability to expect them to actually adhere to the major tenets of that religion?
The Democrats are trying to use the law to separate conduct from belief, so that “religion” or “religious liberty” is effectively nothing more than a mere claim of belief or identity, and that one's conduct has nothing to do with their religion. This is especially ironic, given that they are using this very legislation to prohibit anyone from distinguishing between a person’s claimed “sexual orientation/gender identity” and any conduct consistent therewith. Hypocritically, Democrats insist they're one and the same when it comes to SOGI, but not religion.
There is at least one glaring problem with their strategy: The Constitution expressly protects the free “exercise” of religion – both in one’s public and private life! It's just a shame that, without the amendment language, many religious organizations are very likely to end up in costly litigation in order for a court to affirm that.
Furthermore, Del. Simon’s remarks were EXTREMELY telling, given that he considers our meager protection for churches' and religious schools' ability to continue operating according to their core religious tenets as the equivalent of “gutting the entire purpose of this bill.” The Family Foundation actually helped draft the amendment, and we never considered it as “gutting” this monstrous bill. After all, the amendment didn’t even apply to the thousands of private businesses to whom these prohibitions will now apply for the first time – including cake artists, wedding photographers, and countless others who have been sued in other states. And it still didn't address the problem of religious organizations now being considered “places of public accommodation.” While Del. Simon was wrong in claiming that “gutting the entire purpose of the bill” was our intention in clarifying that religious groups can continue operating the way they always have, it’s incredibly revealing that he views certain people of faith as being the sole problem to be rooted out in Virginia through this law.
For more context of this battle for religious freedom, check out our recent posts:
URGENT Action Alert: Status of Bills Attacking Religious Freedom
EMERGENCY Alert: This Bill Will Destroy Churches and Religious Schools!
2020 Mid-Session Report Card on Religious Freedom (Note: Grades may no longer reflect current voting totals)
