A controversial bill that proponents say will restore religious freedom but opponents say will weaken local nondiscrimination ordinances is up for a vote in the House of Delegates on Thursday.
The West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which opponents are calling the "License to Discriminate" Act, was on second reading in the House of Delegates Wednesday.
Three amendments, offered by Democrats, failed. One amendment, offered by Delegate John Shott, R-Mercer, passed. It would limit the amount that could be paid to those who would file lawsuits as a result of the legislation.
House Bill 4012 establishes a legal process for courts to follow when determining whether a person's religious beliefs have been violated. Because the bill allows people and businesses to argue in court that local nondiscrimination ordinances, among other laws, shouldn't apply to them, civil rights advocates warn the bill could lead to discrimination against LGBT individuals, as well as other historically discriminated against groups.
Shott's amendment removed language that would have allowed claimants to sue for compensatory damages, and limited relief to injunctive or declaratory relief and reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorney fees. It passed on a voice vote.
Another amendment resulted in a debate, with Republicans opposing more power for local governments -- an argument that Delegate Isaac Sponaugle, D- Pendleton, called hypocritical.
The amendment would have removed "and local" from the section of the bill that states "this article applies to all state and local laws," in an effort to protect the seven cities and towns in West Virginia with nondiscrimination ordinances that extend to the LGBT community from lawsuits.
Sponaugle said that many in the Legislature "beat their desks" and say "darn that federal government."
"Well, we come down here and act like hypocrites," he said. "We look down our nose at these municipalities... Let's try to be consistent in our opposition to things."
The amendment was rejected.
Another amendment, as Delegate Stephen Skinner, D- Jefferson, explained, would have specified that the bill would not allow for discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Speaker of the House Tim Armstead, R-Kanawha, stated that no part of the bill mentions sexual orientation or gender identity and ruled the amendment not germane. He said he could not rule the amendment was germane just because someone might try to "stretch" the bill to discriminate at a later time. He said the bill simply sets up a legal process for determining in court whether a person's religious beliefs are being violated.
"Those that want to stretch it will try to stretch it," he said. "It is a very simple bill."
Last week, Delegate Rupie Phillips, D- Logan, said that support for RFRA stemmed from opposition to same-sex marriage. And in an interview about the bill with CBN News published Tuesday, House Majority Whip John O'Neal said the free exercise of religion "has been severely curtailed in recent years with the growth of gay rights and mandated contraception coverage under Obamacare, among other things."
Armstead's decision was appealed, but sustained by the majority of the body.
Delegate Mike Pushkin, D- Kanawha, offered an amendment that would have required businesses to post signs warning customers that they will refuse service based on religious beliefs. Armstead ruled it not germane to the bill.
Reach Erin Beck at erin.beck@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5163, Facebook.com/erinbeckwv, or follow @erinbeckwv on Twitter.