About 60 people turned out to speak at a public hearing Thursday morning on a bill that would allow businesses, individuals and others in West Virginia to argue that civil rights laws don't apply to them based on their religious beliefs. Most speakers were against the bill.
Then, Thursday afternoon, more than 300 people turned out for a rally, hosted by the conservative Family Policy Council of West Virginia on the Capitol steps, in support of the legislation (HB 4012).
Many opponents of the bill said that while it purports to protect religion, their own religious and moral values encourage them to support love and acceptance, not discrimination.
Bill supporters said they want to be able to practice their religion in all areas of their lives.
The bill, called the West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, establishes a process for determining if state action is violating a person's religious freedom.
"Every West Virginian should be free to live and work according to their faith, without fear of being punished by the government," said Delegate John O'Neal, R-Raleigh, lead sponsor of the bill.
Civil rights advocates say the laws could be used to discriminate against the LGBT community, women and other groups.
Several supporters of the bill, including Republican National Committeewoman Melody Potter, of Kanawha County, said the potential legislation is not about discrimination against the LGBT community or others.
"People of faith are the ones being discriminated against," Potter said.
Others agreed.
"Please allow me to practice my faith in the public arena," said John Carey, a representative of the Family Policy Council.
Similar arguments were made last year on behalf of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who cited her religious beliefs in refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court had said those marriages are legal. Davis was briefly sent to jail by a federal judge, and her office is now issuing those licenses.
Jamie Lynn Crofts, a Charleston resident, said rejecting the bill is about "equality and morality."
"Should I be forced to wear a badge, identifying myself as bisexual, before a restaurant can decide whether it wants to serve me?" Crofts said. "Should people in interfaith or interracial or same-sex marriages be forced to disclose the name, race and gender of their spouse before making a hotel reservation? Should unmarried fathers and mothers be forced to wear scarlet A's on their chests while crib shopping?"
Crofts is a lawyer for the ACLU, but said she was appearing at Thursday's hearing as a private citizen.
Several speakers listed economic reasons for opposing the legislation. In Indiana, organizers of 12 conventions cited a similar law as why they did not choose Indianapolis as their meeting site, costing the state about $60 million, The Indianapolis Star reported earlier this week.
"The last thing this state needs is a boycott like Indiana is getting," said Jeremy Brannon, one of the speakers against the bill.
Others pointed to corporate support for nondiscrimination policies. According to the civil rights group Human Rights Campaign, 89 percent of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination. Representatives from local Embassy Suites and Marriott hotels also spoke against the bill.
"We have a Legislature that's heralded as pro-jobs," said Jill Rice, who represents Opportunity WV, a coalition of businesses opposing the legislation. "[The bill] will drive businesses away, when we are working so hard to entice them to come."
The Indiana law gained national attention after a pizza parlor said it would refuse to cater a same-sex wedding. But Logan physician Dr. Derek Harman said the bill could have much more dire repercussions.
Harman asked lawmakers to imagine a patient being denied birth control or fertility medications because the doctor's religion objects to "unnatural" interference in the cycle of reproduction.
"Under this bill, any doctor, nurse or paramedic could refuse care to a patient, including emergency care," Harman said. "Health care workers are currently legally and ethically bound to care for all patients. Our society's high standard of obligatory treatment, no matter your church affiliation or your race or your sexual orientation or whatever makes you different, goes out the window with House Bill 4012."
He also said parents could refuse to accept life-saving treatment, such as vaccines, for their children based on religious beliefs. "Children of parents who refuse treatment based upon religious grounds need a voice," he said.
Allen Whitt, president of the Family Policy Council, said the bill is not about refusing service to customers.
"You have the right to be able to follow your business mission," Whitt said. "It allows people a day in court to decide these things."
After the public hearing, O'Neal also said the bill is not about civil rights, but he was not receptive to the idea of including a provision that exempted civil rights laws from types of laws that religious conviction could supersede.
"I would say that really is a separate issue," he said. "This bill doesn't really address that."
At the rally on the Capitol steps, Whitt cited "sinful and depraved" behavior as justification for the proposed law, and Carrie Bowe, a representative of state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey's office, cited the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage as a reason for the attorney general's support of the bill.
Several lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, spoke in support of the bill, as did Barronelle Stutzman, a florist from Washington state who was sued after refusing to provide a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding. Stutzman spoke Wednesday in Indiana, at a hearing to consider changes to that state's law.
Whitt encouraged the people at Thursday's rally in Charleston, some of whom drove hours to attend, to lobby their lawmakers after the rally.
"Each and every one of you has become a lobbyist for your faith," he said. "Your job is to occupy this Capitol."
Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the national conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, claimed during the rally that a majority of other states have enacted similar legislation. Just 21 states, though, have passed similar laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The federal government also has, but the state's version is broader because people who believe their religious beliefs are violated could sue private individuals and businesses.
Fiedorek was another supporter who said the law is not about the discrimination. If it were, she said, "we would oppose it, would we not?"
The line was met with half-hearted applause from a scattering of people throughout the crowd.
Reach Erin Beck at erin.beck@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5163, Facebook.com/erinbeckwv, or follow @erinbeckwv on Twitter.