A House committee on Wednesday shot down a religious freedom bill the sponsor argued was simply about providing protections to those with deep religious convictions.

The House Civil Justice subcommittee voted against Rep. Andy Holt's “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which he told The Tennessean on Tuesday was intended to “give the ability for people with strongly held or deeply held religious convictions the opportunity to embrace their religion or their view on marriage without legal repercussions.”

The bill specifically sought to allow a “minister, clergy member, pastor, religious organization, organization supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, or individual employed by a religious organization" the ability to refuse to marry or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges if doing so would “violate a sincerely held religious belief.”

Although Tennessee has a religious freedom law, the way Holt's bill was written led some opponents to believe it would provide protections to businesses similar to legislation that was proposed in Indiana in 2015.

That legislation generated significant outcry, including boycotts and bans of state-funded travel from several states’ governors, after Gov. Mike Pence signed it into law in March 2015. The next month, state lawmakers passed an amendment aimed at providing protections to the LGBT community, which Pence enacted.

Aware of the controversy that surrounded the Indiana law, Holt said, “There’s no intention to discriminate here. There’s an intention to protect people’s religious liberties, and I think that’s the most important thing that can be recognized.”

When asked about Holt’s legislation, Gov. Bill Haslam said on Monday that he was still studying the bill.

“We just looked at that bill Friday. That’s different than some of the (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) bills like what passed in Indiana that were broader than just members of the clergy. We’re drilling down in the middle of that to see exactly what the impact of that would be in Tennessee,” he said.

While Holt previously said he was actively working on an amendment about the business aspect of the bill, he offered no such amendment on Wednesday during the committee's meeting.

Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol, said he was comfortable with the state's current religious freedom law but not with Holt's bill.

"I don't think government should get involved in religion," he said, while encouraging Holt to consider working on the bill and bringing it back in the future.

Calling his legislation “more of a preventative measure than anything,” Holt said the state has some ambiguity as to whether a priest or pastor who refused to marry a couple could be sued.

But Reps. Sherry Jones, D-Nashville, and Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah, said there is nothing that requires pastors to marry a couple if they didn't want to.

"I don't have to marry anybody that walks up to me and says 'Will you marry me?' I can say no," Jones said.

Carter said there has not been one case in the entire country where a pastor has been sued for refusing to marry someone.

As Holt was arguing for the necessity of his bill, a member of the committee made a procedural move to end all discussion before voting it down.


Read or Share this story: