Religious liberty bill worries LGBTQ advocates who say it targets fairness ordinances

FRANKFORT — A bill backers say is meant to strengthen religious freedom in Kentucky but which opponents say will weaken fairness ordinances in the state passed out of a House committee Wednesday despite bipartisan concerns. 

After an hour of debate, the House Judiciary Committee approved the measure 14-6.  Rep. Stephanie Dietz, R-Edgewood, joined Democrats in voting against it. Several Republicans who voted for it said they had concerns about the bill and may change their votes on the floor. 

A few hours later, at the annual Fairness Rally in the Capitol Rotunda, LGBTQ+ advocates spoke against the bill, which garnered boos from the gathered  crowd. 

Primary Sponsor Rep. Steve Rawlings, R-Burlington, said in committee that House Bill 47 will “ensure that Kentuckians are free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being unjustly punished by their government.” 

His bill states that Kentuckians whose “religious exercise has been substantially burdened” can take legal action against others and seek various kinds of relief. This “applies to all state and local laws, administrative regulations, and ordinances,” the bill draft says. 

Opponents who testified against the measure said the bill will harm LGBTQ+ Kentuckians and is not needed. 

Bonnie Meyer, the president of the Northern Kentucky Pride Center, said with the bill “we’re stripping away the rights of LGBTQA folks” because the bill sends a message that “fairness (ordinances) don’t matter” 

Berea pastor Kent Gilbert, who spoke as a representative of the Kentucky Council of Churches, said “this bill is not helpful” because it “broadens definitions” and “makes possible the kind of discrimination that persons of integrity of every faith tradition abhor.” 

“Never once were any of our member bodies consulted about this legislation,” Gilbert said. “And I can also report to you that never once in the council that meets regularly to discuss matters that are precisely related to religious freedom have we seen an urgent need for this.”  

The debate 

Co-sponsor Rep. Jason Nemes, R-Louisville, pointed to a 2018 incident in which a Muslim woman sued the Louisville government after she was photographed at the jail without her hijab and asked to remove the religious head covering in front of men. 

The Courier Journal reported in 2019 that Clara Ruplinger was arrested after a protest of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Ruplinger removed her head covering in a private room in which only women were present willingly but was “embarrassed, humiliated and intimidated” when she had to remove her hijab in front of men. 

Her lawyers argued at the time that her constitutional rights to religious freedom were violated by this and by the uncovered headshot being published. 

“It doesn’t seem like there’s a compelling government interest to make her take off her hijab,” Nemes said in Wednesday’s committee. “And if you’re going to do that then it’s easy to accommodate (with) women officers only. And why would it need to be published in that way, where she doesn’t have her headscarf on? That was her religious beliefs.” 

Nemes said it was “wrong” that Ruplinger could not recover in her case and sees her case as a reason the bill is “necessary.”  

“I support our fairness ordinance,” he said. “I’d like fairness ordinances to go statewide.”   

Rep. Pamela Stevenson, D-Louisville, and Rep. Kim Moser, R-Taylor Mill, both had questions about what could be protected as a religious right. 

“I have a concern that this would potentially undo one of the bills that we passed in 2020…which outlawed female genital mutilation,” Moser said. “As I understand … it’s a religious practice in some areas. … We also have laws against child abuse and domestic violence protections.”  

Backers promised HB47 would not undermine any of those protections. 

“There’s some people that have a religion that will do things like: ‘you have to have sex with a virgin,’” Stevenson said. “You have to do particular things and they call it a religion. Why are we now trying to give anybody the power to claim a religion to do bad?” 

Rawlings replied, “It’s not power that this bill seeks at all. It’s protections and it’s not about discrimination either. It’s about respect of all. We need to be (respectful) of all persons.” 

Louisville Democrat Rep. Keturah Herron asked specifically about a “discriminatory” case involving Sunrise Children’s Services’ refusal to place children with LGBTQ+ families. The agency cited religious freedom in a contract “standoff” with the state, The Courier Journal reported in 2021, as they argued for their right to not accept same-sex couples for foster or adoption. 

“That was a discriminatory situation,” said Herron, who in 2022 became Kentucky’s first openly gay House member. “If I wanted to go through Sunrise Services to help our young people in the state, they would have the right to discriminate and tell me ‘no,’ that they would not place a child with me.” 

Rawlings said that was “not the reason I brought the bill forward” and that “my intention was to protect people of faith to be able to practice their religious beliefs.” 

“I’m sorry that you feel that way about it,” Rawlings told Herron. “But we’re looking at a broader protection of religious rights for people across the commonwealth, that they can practice their religion according to what they believe.” 

“I do have a strong Christian faith and background,” Herron said. “However, I do think that we have to be very careful when we say that based on your religious belief that you’re allowed to discriminate against people. That is not what we need to be doing here in this commonwealth, nor across the nation. And basically, this is what this bill says.”