A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis, serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. © James Conner.
Rep. Carl Glimm’s (R-Kila) so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act, HB-615, failed to secure a majority on its second reading in the MT House at 1658 MDT this afternoon. The vote was a tie, 50–50.
Flathead Democrats Rep. Ed Lieser and Rep. Zac Perry voted against the bill. All Flathead Republican representatives, including Frank Garner, whom some Democrats consider a closet liberal, voted for it.
HB-615 was written as a legislative referendum for the 2016 Montana general election. A successful attempt to reconsider the bill could restore it to life and send it on to the Senate.
The key language in HB-615 is in Section 5 (2):
A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened or is likely to be burdened in violation of [sections 1 through 5] may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state of Montana or one of its political subdivisions is a party to the proceeding. The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the state of Montana or its political subdivisions. Appropriate relief includes but is not limited to injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and costs and attorney fees.
HB-615 issues a not required to obey the law card to everyone who can keep a straight face while claiming the law burdens the free exercise of his religion.
For example, Louie “Leadfoot” Oldfield, former champion dirt track racer, could fight a speeding ticket by arguing that he belonged to the High Church of the Open Road, which worships speed and believes God prohibits speed limits. How would a judge determine whether Louie was sincere, even if deluded, or just mouthing off after swigging too many red beers before appearing in court?
I’m not sure Glimm’s intends that HB-615 provide Leadfoot (or maybe Scott Sales or Jonathan Windy Boy) with a defense for zooming down the freeway at tire smoking triple-digit speeds, but the bill is written so broadly that it does just that.
Glimm’s intent, I believe, is that deeply religious people should have the right not to perform certain duties required of them by their jobs, such as serving gay couples at the lunch counter, filling prescriptions for contraceptives or morning after pills, or issuing marriage licenses to gay people, because they believe that God tells them not to abet the sinful acts of others. During the debate, Glimm actually held up a bible (version unknown) in his right hand.
I watched part of the debate. It was undistinguished. Some Democrats were embarrassingly mawkish. Some Republicans gave what amounted to religious testimony. There were no Gerry Spences or Clarence Darrows on either side.