The American Family Association (AFA, www.afa.net) is applauding a court ruling that will allow the state of Mississippi to start enforcing its law that bans government discrimination against those who operate businesses or perform their job duties according to their closely held religious beliefs.
A three-judge panel for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed another judge’s previous decision that blocked the law from taking effect, according to OneNewsNow.com, AFA’s news division.
The “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act”—HB 1523—protects citizens, public servants, businesses and religious institutions from government reprisal for operating publicly according to their beliefs that: 1. marriage is reserved for one man and one woman; 2. sexual activity is intended only for married couples; and 3. one’s biological sex cannot change.
“Religious freedom has been under assault in our country, especially against Christians,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “This decision is another reason to give thanks to the Lord, and AFA also thanks our friends at the Alliance Defending Freedom for taking this case up on behalf of the people of Mississippi. Too many headlines have told the tragic story of Christians losing their homes or businesses for standing up for their religious beliefs. Now, the faithful in Mississippi will be protected from this government intrusion.”
Wildmon has interviewed Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant on the topic. Bryant championed and signed the law in April 2016. Listen to the “Today’s Issues” clip here.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kevin Theriot helped write the Mississippi law and praised the court decision in a statement.
“The sole purpose of this law is to ensure that Mississippians don’t live in fear of losing their careers or their businesses simply for affirming marriage as a husband-wife union,” he said. “Those who filed suit have not and will not be harmed but want to restrict freedom and impose their beliefs on others by ensuring dissenters are left open to the government discrimination that has already occurred in states without protective laws like this one.” {eoa}
See an error in this article?
To contact us or to submit an article
