Dana Ferguson

dferguson@argusleader.com

The South Dakota House of Representatives advanced a measure on a 46-10 vote Monday that would allow people or organizations to discriminate against same-sex couples, unmarried pregnant women or transgender people without jeopardizing state contracts or employment.

The bill's sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said the proposal is about protecting freedom of speech for those with conservative views, but opponents warned the legislation, if approved, would endorse discrimination and could put the state in violation of federal law.

"The real victims of intolerance and discrimination in our day are those who conduct their lives according to a belief regarding marriage and human sexuality," Craig said. "Our founding fathers never intended erotic freedom to trump religious freedom."

The measure would prohibit the state from retaliating against people who voice beliefs that marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman, that sexual intercourse should only occur between married couples and that gender is determined by biological sex at birth.

People who express those views would be protected from termination of employment or enrollment, loss of funding, accreditation or tax exemption in some cases, or termination of state contracts.

For example, the state would not be able to revoke funds from or deny tax breaks to a religion-based adoption agency that chose to require that couples who adopt from the group be be married and heterosexual. Cases like that have arisen in other states, the measure's proponents said, and the bill could preempt similar instances in South Dakota.

Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, said the measure would provide good defense for heterosexual people who don't want to acknowledge that homosexual marriage is valid. The gay and lesbian community "wants to punish those who don't agree with their lifestyle," Hunt said.

“This bill becomes not a means of discriminating but a means of recognizing … that we need to have some defense,” Hunt said

Opponents said the measure is unconstitutional and would allow for discrimination against some minority groups.

Rep. Peggy Gibson, D-Huron, said the would cause legal problems for the state and South Dakota taxpayers would be hit with the resulting fees.

"When I start acting in an indiscriminate manner against others then I am in violation and this bill is in violation. It is a discriminatory bill," Gibson said.

The measure now moves to the Senate.

Follow Dana Ferguson on Twitter @bydanaferguson

Bill aims to protect conservative views on sex, marriage