Home » OPINION » Columns » FOREST THIGPEN — The truth about the Freedom of Conscience bill

FOREST THIGPEN — The truth about the Freedom of Conscience bill

forest thigpen


If all the things being said by the opponents of HB 1523 were true, I would be against it as well.

But they are not.

Some opponents of the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” make the outlandish assertion that this bill would allow a person to be “refused service at a restaurant, not allowed to shop at a grocery store,” and other sweeping generalizations. But the words “restaurant” or “grocery store” appear nowhere in the bill, nor does any provision for those businesses to keep people out.

HB1523 does not create any protection for businesses that deny service to a person based on sexual orientation. The bill is confined almost exclusively to wedding-related services that may be declined, and only under certain circumstances.

Here’s why that’s in the bill. Many merchants, such as bakers, and many professionals, such as attorneys, have said they gladly serve their customers regardless of sexual orientation, but they draw the line at assisting in a wedding ceremony, which they consider a sacrament or act of worship, if that ceremony would violate their beliefs about God’s design for that form of worship.

Newspaper Guilty of Denial of Service?

Let’s look at another form of denying service to a person seeking to exercise a Constitutional right. Should I be able to sue the Clarion-Ledger if it chooses not to print my comments? That’s a “denial of service” for my right to free speech – a right which is explicitly stated in the Constitution.

If you oppose HB1523 – and if you want to be consistent – you would have to believe that I could sue, or the government could punish the newspaper for denying my right to express my views in the newspaper I chose.

There is a provision in the bill to protect public employees who express their views about marriage on their own time. This would apply to a situation like the one in Atlanta, where Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired because he wrote a Bible study on his own time that briefly referenced the Bible’s views on sexual morality.

After the Roe v. Wade decision, many states enacted conscience protections for health professionals whose deeply-held beliefs would not allow them to assist in performing an abortion. HB1523 is a similar response to a Supreme Court decision on another issue that created potential conflicts for people of faith.

Who is Forcing Whose Views on Others?

Our society, I hope, would never be alright with the government forcing an African-American t-shirt shop to design and print shirts for a Klan parade, even if that parade is legally organized. We would never think of forcing a Jewish baker to make a swastika-adorned cake for a neo-Nazi wedding, which is also legal to hold. Why would we think it’s OK to force a religious business owner to assist in a wedding ceremony that violates his or her deeply-held beliefs, simply because it is now legal to hold such events?

HB1523 is not forcing anyone’s views on anyone else. On the contrary, it is protecting people from having someone else’s views forced on them to violate the tenets of their faith regarding marriage.

Some have said the bill pits one person’s religious views against another, but consider the effect of each: a person who “denies service” is not preventing a same-sex couple from exercising their right to get married. (Circuit Clerks must ensure that a marriage license is issued “without impediment or delay,” or they do not qualify for the protections in the bill.)

But if the couple prevails, it is preventing the objector from exercising his or her freedom of religion. HB1523 is a narrowly-tailored measure that provides a reasonable balance for those competing rights.

If we head down the road of the government forcing us to abandon our religious beliefs, especially when reasonable alternatives are available, where will it end? What will be left of the freedom of religion?

» Forest Thigpen is president of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, an independent think tank based in Jackson.


… we’d like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi’s most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.

If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.

Click for more info

About Contributing Columnist


  1. What you failed to mention is that the dress code provision is a blank check to discriminate against trans people in employment, and the bill codifies in state law that gender identity does not have to be respected. If nothing else were wrong with it that would be more than enough reason to oppose it

  2. Interesting comparison of the LBGT community to analogies involving the Klan and Nazis. Hmm.

  3. You, sir, are a liar. This bill clearly affects employment related decisions, in addition to the sale, rental and occupancy of dwellings. It affects medical treatment related to transitioning, counseling, and fertility treatment. It gives public officials the right to recuse themselves from providing marriage related services, while disingenuously claiming it will cause no delay to providing those services.

  4. I understand it would be nice if your reading of this law was as benign as state. It is not so in it’s wording or it’s intent. Your reading of the law does not comport with the text or the ‘protections’ afforded to those eager to discriminate. Be that from laziness in review or unfamiliarity regarding legal protections, I don’t know.

    Quite telling is you comparison of ‘views’. being gay or married is not a “VIEW”. it is an inborn trait and a right. One is not born in the Klan, with a swastika, or a letter to the editor. Those are choices. This observation of the law is either facile or knowingly misconstrued. What is certain, it is an argument that could only be made from the safe end of the oppressive behavior it purports to deny. Convenient, that.

  5. Andrew Whitehurst

    Mr. Thigpen:

    I offer this: If this law was necessary for an orderly society, then 47 other states would see fit to pass the same kind of law that 3, including our state, have passed. I don’t see them doing it. Mississippi is an aberration in this just as it has been an outlier in so many other categories. The legislature has invited this status and Governor Bryant has given it the nod – again. “We don’t sell no gay wedding cake” is just as wrong as “we don’t sell no black gasoline.” I read through the bill – I didn’t parse it for a constitutional analysis, however as an attorney who was instructed in U.S Constitutional Law, I don’t think the law is going to be upheld, given what the Federal Courts do on this subject. It may take two levels of appeal to come to that conclusion, but that will be the end of it. For Governor Bryant this isn’t about the Constitution. He had an opportunity to err on the side of grace, but he affirmatively decided to sign the bill and stick his finger in the eye of thousands of citizens who he was elected to serve. He is dancing with the folks who brung him and who expect defiance and intolerance from him. Well, they got it.

Leave a Reply