Last Thursday I posted a piece on SB916, a bill sponsored by state Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-27) that would allow every Tom, Dick and Harry businessman in the state to refuse service to folks they don’t approve of simply by claiming that the individuals in question offend their religious sensibilities. In that post I pointed out that Wallingford’s assertions that the bill was not intended to target the LGBT community were rather obviously specious.

In particular, Senator Wallingford claimed that the bill contained language that precluded its use as a defense in court cases against civil rights violations covered by Missouri’s anti-discrimination statutes. As I pointed out, though, the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMO) Chapter 213 does not address the type of discrimination that Wallingford seeks to enshrine in Missouri’s law. Senator Wallingford was somewhat ineptly trying to deflect attention from the obviously distasteful goals of his proposed legislation and in doing so, showed that he has little regard for either the truth or the intelligence of most Missourians.

Protections for LGBT individuals are pretty scarce in Missouri – they’re sitting ducks for folks like Wallingford. When I wrote the post, I consulted Wikipedia which identified Missouri as one of the states that forbids employment discrimination based on sexual orientation – but, at the state level only, a distinction that I failed to make (hence the correction). There are currently no such protections for those employed by private enterprises. Missouri does, as I stated in the earlier post, extend hate-crimes protections to the LGBT community, and there is also a federal hate-crime law that protects LGBT individuals.

Folks who are revolted by Senator Wallingford’s effort to pander to the anti-gay bigots, can take heart that there are anti-Wallngfords in the legislature, namely those state representatives who continue to support HB1858, which, in the words of one of those supporters, Rep. Stacy Newman:

… would change the law regarding complaints filed wiht [sic] the Missouri Commission on Human Rights be [sic] revising the definition of discrimination to include unfair treatment based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It is wrong that the LGBT community can be fired from their job or evicted by their landlord in Missouri – that it would be legal to suffer that discrimination.  The House bill has never been granted a floor debate but every year the bill gains new sponsors and supporters.

There you have it: SB916 or HB1858. It’s up to us to decide – and to let our state legislators know what we’ve decided.

Conservatives have opposed extending civil rights protections in the past claiming that it grants “special privileges” to LGBT individuals. Bills like SB916, though, show us exactly why these laws are so necessary. We don’t need laws to protect heterosexuals qua heterosexuality because opportunistic politicians are unlikely to try to score political points by trying to take heterosexuls’ civil rights away – they’d be laughed out of office if they tried. Not the case for LGBT indivuals – as SB916 proves. We need laws like HB1858 to protect our LGBT citizens from individuals like Senator Wallngford and the folks who put him in office and continue to support his anti-gay antics and those of other folks who have decided that religion can be used as a club to suppress outsiders and minorities.

One could argue that creating a more inclusive environment via bills like HB1858 will help protect the folks who support legislation like SB916 from themselves. It is well recognized that such laws may comprise a double edged sword:      

If Christians really believe they are becoming a marginalized movement, why would they want to disempower marginalized people in the marketplace? It’s easy to codify your own biases when you’re part of the majority and get to be the one refusing services to others. But what if you’re the minority? What if others are turning you away because they think you are the abominable one?

Many Christians believe that the Book of Revelation predicts a coming time of persecution and evil. In the apocalyptic book’s 13th chapter, it is predicted that a time will come when Christians won’t be able to buy or sell in the marketplace. If Christians believe this time is coming, they must also ask, “How might such a reality be realized?” Could it be that they are unwittingly becoming the authors of their own demise?

Conservative Christian activists often argue that these bills put us on a ride down a slippery slope that could lead to the government forcing conservative Christian pastors to perform same-sex weddings against their wills. (Never mind that legal exemptions for houses of worship and pastors are woven deeply into American law or that there is no historical precedent for such predictions.)

But these prophets of doom only acknowledge one side of the slope. They fail to consider how these laws could be used against members of their own communities. If you are able to discriminate against others on the basis of religious conviction, others must be allowed to do the same when you are on the other side of the counter. You can’t have your wedding cake and eat it too.

Maybe Senator Wallingford’s bill, which has attracted lots of attention, admittedly mostly of the derisive variety, will serve a good end. It can help to make the case that we really do need legislation like HB 1858. It can also serve to open up a serious dialogue about what religious freedom is really all about and bring us back to a time, not so long ago, when churchmen actually understood that the doctrine of separation of church and state served to protect the churched as much as the unchurched.

You know how rightwingers like to talk about how everything they do is because of freedom? Freedom from corporate regulations that protect air, water and consumers, freedom from unions and those pesky rights that unions protect, freedom from Obamacare and the healthcare it provides for millions; the list of what these freedom fighters struggle against is almost endless and covers most of the things that guarantee a happy, healthy and prosperous middle class in America.

The most recent freedom drumbeating seems to involve the freedom of certain brands of religious folks to discriminate against those who offend them. In the wake of LGBT successes in obtaining marriage rights via state legislatures and in the courts, rightwingers have fought back with bills that would enable businesses to refuse service to folks whose “lifestyles” upset their fundamentalist Christian sensibilities (I add the word “fudamentalist” to make it clear that not all Christians are bigots). If, like me, you’re of a certain age, it makes you think of the bad old days when good, white Christian businessmen refused to serve African-Americans because Jesus wanted the inferior races kept in their place.

And the similarity to old-time racial discrimination hasn’t gone unnoticed by those responding to a bill introduced in the Missouri legislature by state Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-27), SB 916:

Mike Masterson, chairman of the Cape Girardeau County Democratic Central Committee, said the attack on freedom of religion is somewhat a recreation of Jim Crow laws. Stating his opinion as an individual and not for the local Democrats, he wrote in an email to the Southeast Missourian that “There is no war on religion as is being asserted by Mr. Wallingford. To me, this type of proposed legislation is camouflaging bigotry behind the shield of religion.”

Wallingford, disingenuously, claims that the bill does not seek to target the LGBT community and is not meant to defend violators of existing civil rights laws. However, he seems somewhat unclear on the concept, or, as the SouthEast Missourian suggests, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth:

On Wednesday, Wallingford posted on his Facebook page that his bill “is simply a measure to improve the Religious Freedom Registration Act by allowing individuals to have access to RFRA protections in private lawsuits, rather than having to sue the state for relief after their rights have been violated. This bill is meant to ensure that the government is not able to force individuals to violate their religious beliefs, and will provide protections to all. This is not a bill about discrimination. Indeed, it specifically says that the law shall not be construed to provide a defense in discrimination cases.”

In a story published on the Kansas City Star’s website Tuesday, Wallingford was quoted as saying his bill “is trying to provide a defense in those types of instances.” The newspaper reported that Wallingford pointed to examples such as a case publicized in Washington state, where a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding and where a baker in Colorado refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men

.

The  bill does indeed specify that it cannot be used to defend against infractions of current civil rights laws. But, while Missouri has enacted employment non-discrimination laws that recognize sexual orientation and hate-crime laws that protect transgender individuals as well, that’s the extent of explicit LGBT protections. It’s hard not to conclude that LGBT individuals in Missouri are absolutely vulnerable to this law – along, potentially, with other unprotected classes of individuals who might cause the sensitive moral antennae of some religious folks to quiver. Given the delicate sensibilities of some conservative Christians, it could get to be quite a free-for-all.

The irony is that this bill, which Wallingford admits is modeled on the outrageous freedom to discriminate bill passed by the Arizona legislature, has been taken up here in Missouri just a few days before Governor Jan Brewer saw fit to veto the Arizona bill. As TPM’s Josh Mashall notes, the most recent response to these blatant attempts to institutionalize discrimination has been “an almost comical run for the exits by various supporters and quasi-supporters trying to get out from under legislation that a growing body of people saw as silly, mean-spirited, economically damaging and completely needless.”  But not Missouri, no sir, we work hard to earn our backwardness label.

Quotes added in 2nd paragraph. Fourth paragraph edited slightly for clarity.

By @BginKC

A Missouri state senator is sponsoring one of those vile, hateful “religious liberty” bigotry bills that would codify in law second class citizen status for gay and lesbian Missourians and allow every inbred Ozark goober who “hates fags” to refuse to sell gasoline to the driver of a car sporting a rainbow flag – or a Darwin fish – because they’re good Christians and they’re confident that Jesus would discriminate against those degenerates, too.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Wallingford of Cape Girardeau, states that a governmental authority shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest.

To supporters of the idea – similar to legislation filed in several other states – the goal is to make it clear that private individuals can use religious beliefs as a defense in litigation.

“We’re trying to protect Missourians from attacks on their religious freedom,” Wallingford said.

Opponents contend bills like Wallingford’s would allow businesses to discriminate against anyone they do not like, most notably gays and lesbians.

“It’s a legislative attempt to legalize discrimination toward (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) individuals,” said A.J. Bockelman, executive director of the LGBT rights organization PROMO.

Wallingford said he based the bill loosely on legislation that has been debated in other states, such as Kansas and Arizona. He pointed to instances that have cropped up in debate in those other states.

When I saw the article on the Kansas City Star site yesterday, I first hit the ceiling, then I got dangerous – that’s what my husband calls it when I get quiet and methodical – I put my “journalist” hat on and called his office (that number is 573-751-2459 if you want to call him) and I got his office voice mail. I identified myself by name and press affiliation as well as my phone number, and said I just had one question: If he was personally financially responsible for defending this blatantly unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause in the courts, instead of the bill falling to the taxpayers of this state, would he still be sponsoring it? I then repeated my name and affiliation and phone number, and asked for someone to please call me back. Quelle surprise…no one did.

Representative Wayne Wallingford (r) introduced a bill that is apparently a companion to Senator Jane Cunningham’s SB 222 celebration of child labor.

… It is the intent of the general assembly that all embryos created in Missouri be birthed….

Obviously this addresses future labor needs (pun intended) in the State of Missouri.

The bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 515

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WALLINGFORD (Sponsor), LICHTENEGGER, HINSON, FITZWATER, SCHARNHORST, KORMAN, FLANIGAN, JONES (89), McNARY, SMITH (150), CAUTHORN, McCAHERTY, FREDERICK, DIEHL, ROWLAND, FRANZ, COOKSON, CONWAY (14), LASATER, SCHOELLER, CURTMAN, HAMPTON, ENTLICHER, RIDDLE AND WRIGHT (Co-sponsors).

1145L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 453, RSMo, by adding thereto four new sections relating to embryo transfer.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 453, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto four new sections, to be known as sections 453.250, 453.252, 453.254, and 453.256, to read as follows:

           453.250. 1. Sections 453.250 to 453.256 shall be known and may be cited as the “Embryo Transfer Act”.

           2. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Agent”, a licensed attorney, fertility clinic, relative within the second degree of consanguinity, or other legal entity that participates in embryo transfer, except entities that participate in stem cell research;

           (2) “Embryo” or “human embryo”, an individual fertilized ovum of the human species from the single-cell stage to day seven;

           (3) “Embryo relinquishment” or “legal transfer of rights to an embryo”, the relinquishment of rights and responsibilities by the person or persons who hold the legal rights and responsibilities for an embryo and the acceptance of such rights and responsibilities by a recipient intended parent;

           (4) “Embryo transfer”, the medical procedure of physically placing an embryo into the uterus of a female;

           (5) “Legal embryo custodian”, the person or persons who hold the legal rights and responsibilities for a human embryo;

           (6) “Recipient intended parent”, a person or persons who receives a relinquished embryo and who accepts full legal rights and responsibilities for such embryo and any child that may be born as a result of embryo transfer.

           453.252. 1. It is the intent of the general assembly that all embryos created in Missouri be birthed.

           2. A legal embryo custodian may relinquish all rights and responsibilities for an embryo to a recipient intended parent prior to embryo transfer. A written contract shall be entered into between each legal embryo custodian and each recipient intended parent prior to embryo transfer for the legal transfer of rights to an embryo and to any child that may result from the embryo transfer. The contract may cover more than one embryo collection from the donor. The contract shall include the designation by the recipient intended parent or parents or an agent of such parent or parents who is authorized to act on behalf of such parent or parents. The contract shall be signed by each legal embryo custodian for such embryo and by each recipient intended parent in the presence of a notary public and a witness. Initials or other designations may be used if the parties desire anonymity. The contract shall nullify any prior written agreement governing disposition of the embryo. Any subsequent embryo relinquishment or legal transfer of rights to an embryo shall be subject to the same agent restrictions set forth in subdivision (1) of subsection 2 of section 453.250.

           3. If the embryo was created using donor gametes, the sperm or oocyte donors irrevocably relinquish their rights to the embryo to an agent of an in vitro fertilization clinic.

           4. Upon becoming a legal embryo custodian, the legal embryo custodian shall designate a successor legal embryo custodian for the embryo who is authorized to act in the event of the death or incapacitation of the legal embryo custodian. Upon the death or incapacitation of the legal embryo custodian, the designated successor legal embryo custodian shall become the legal embryo custodian.

           5. Prior to the creation of an embryo:

           (1) The legal embryo custodian shall establish that the embryo donor has been screened and tested negative for all infectious agents on the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Complete List of Donor Screening Assays for Infectious Agents and HIV Diagnostic Assays. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to an embryo in existence prior to the effective date of this section; and

           (2) The person or persons creating the legal embryo shall designate a legal embryo custodian for the embryo who is authorized to act in the event of the death or incapacitation of the person or persons creating the embryo. Upon the death or incapacitation of the person or persons creating the embryo, the designated legal embryo custodian shall become the legal embryo custodian.

           6. Upon embryo relinquishment by each legal embryo custodian under subsection 2 of this section, the legal transfer of rights to an embryo shall be considered complete, and the embryo transfer shall be authorized.

           7. A child born to a recipient intended parent as the result of embryo relinquishment under subsection 2 of this section shall be presumed to be the legal child of the recipient intended parent; provided that each legal embryo custodian and each recipient intended parent has entered into a written contract.

           453.254. 1. The court shall give effect to any written waiver of notice and service in the legal proceeding for embryo transfer.

           2. In the interest of justice, to promote the stability of embryo transfers, and to promote the interests of children who may be born following such embryo transfers, the court in its discretion may waive such technical requirements as the court deems just and proper.

           453.256. A completed embryo transfer contract shall terminate any future parental rights and responsibilities of any past or present legal embryo custodian or gamete donor in a child which results from the embryo transfer and shall vest such rights and responsibilities in the recipient intended parent.

“…except entities that participate in stem cell research…”

Interesting.

And we all thought the right wingnut republicans in the General Assembly di
dn’t have a plan.