The same day a pro-business coalition was announced to oppose a bill that claims to "restore" religious freedom in West Virginia, the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill.
The 16-9 vote wasn't strictly along party lines. Republicans J.B. McCuskey of Kanawha County and Ryan Weld of Brooke voted against it. Democrats Justin Marcum of Mingo County and Steven Shaffer of Preston voted for it.
The West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act has resulted in fierce opposition from civil rights advocates over the last several days.
Businesses and organizations that spoke out against the bill as part of the pro-business coalition, Opportunity West Virginia, include the West Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association, AT&T, Embassy Suites, Charleston Marriott Town Center, and Generation West Virginia.
"This movement reinforces the business community's commitment to West Virginia and its people," Jill Rice, spokeswoman for Opportunity West Virginia, said in a statement. "At the end of the day, legislation that would result in discrimination against individuals from any background sends a message that our state is not open for business."
The bill codifies a legal process for determining whether a person's religious beliefs are being violated, and whether a "compelling interest" of the state overrides their concerns. Because those who think their beliefs are being violated could argue in court that local nondiscrimination ordinances, among other civil rights laws, violate their religious beliefs, civil rights advocates fear that the law could be used to discriminate against the LGBT population, among other historically-discriminated against groups.
In the House Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday, lawmakers heard from Dr. Derek Harman, a Logan physician who worried parents would attempt to refuse to vaccinate their children; Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom who told lawmakers the law has not been used to justify any criminal behavior, as some have feared; and Andrew Schneider, executive director of the LGBT rights group Fairness West Virginia.
In an interview, Schneider said, "I often hear about businesses not wanting to serve the LGBT population."
"What they're dreaming of are countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which legalize discrimination in the way they are trying to emulate with this bill," he said. "I don't think those are countries we want to emulate."
While some have argued the law is not an effort to target civil rights, an amendment by Delegate Barbara Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, that would have clarified the law could not be construed to permit discrimination based on sexual orientation was ruled not germane to the bill by the committee chairman, Delegate John Shott, R- Mercer.
Fleischauer also spoke against the bill.
"If you read your history book, you know that there were lots of people that said slavery was justified by the Christian religion," she said.
Delegate Stephen Skinner, D- Jefferson, said during the hearing that he believes the bill is clearly an effort to target civil rights, noting that the religious freedom laws have become contentious since same-sex marriage became the law of the land.
He said LGBT West Virginians only have a "shred of a right" right now.
"They only have one in this state, and that's to get married," he said.
Brian Casto, an attorney for the committee, while explaining the committee substitute said several times that the bill is not meant to "restore" religious freedom, as the title says, but is meant to "reaffirm" existing case law. He cited decades-old cases in West Virginia in which people have attempted to argue their religious beliefs were being violated, and the state prevailed using the test in the bill that cites "compelling governmental interest."
Schneider said if that's the case, "Why are we wasting time when we have this mega deficit in West Virginia?"
Delegate Tom Fast, R-Fayette, tried to answer that question when he spoke in support of the bill.
"It just takes one case to go up to the Supreme Court and you could have a change in our protections," he said.
The committee was voting on a substitute for the bill that was originally introduced. The committee substitute says that nothing in the bill should be construed to create a cause of action by an employee against a non-governmental employer, and nothing shall be construed to constitute a defense to any claim based upon a refusal to provide emergency medical services.
"We listened to what people said at the public hearing and tried to address as many of those concerns as we could," Shott said.
Skinner wanted to ask Allen Whitt, president of the conservative Family Policy Council, about his comments at a rally last week that "sinful and depraved" behavior was justification for the law. Whitt, who was at the hearing, left before his turn to speak.
Delegate Andrew Byrd, D-Kanawha, moved to postpone the bill indefinitely in an effort to kill it, citing the same comments. The motion failed.
"Given that these statements are in the news about the true intent of this bill, it's a grave concern to me that we're going to have exactly what happened in Indiana," Byrd said.
Chris Gahl, vice president of marketing and communications for Visit Indy, said last week that Indianapolis lost $60 million when 12 conventions cited the legislation and chose not to locate there.
Reach Erin Beck at erin.beck@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5163, Facebook.com/erinbeckwv, or follow @erinbeckwv on Twitter