For the second year in a row, Senate Republicans in Olympia have turned to parliamentary maneuvering rather than face a vote on whether the state should ban discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Last year when it appeared that a floor vote was in the works, Republicans bolted from the chamber, shutting down activities on the final day to move legislation out of the Senate. Rather than cast a vote on the anti-discrimination bill, they let several unrelated bills die.

This year, Senate Republicans, with the help of two conservative Democrats, again ducked a floor vote by moving the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The bill had already been funneled through the Senate Financial Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee. The House of Representatives adopted the bill with a resounding 61-37 vote.

Senate Republican leaders say they just wanted to make sure the bill got to the proper committee. Baloney. The Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t going to unearth new angles to debate. This type of legislation has been around for 30 years. All of the pros and cons have been aired. A floor vote is long overdue, and many Republicans and some Democrats are clearly frightened by the prospect.

Senate Minority Leader Bill Finkbeiner is from the Seattle suburb of Kirkland, where a ban on discrimination has a lot of appeal. He’s just one of many Republicans who want this issue to go away. They do not want to be on the record as supporting discrimination, but they also don’t want to buck the social conservatives in their caucus.

Two Democrats from small towns – Jim Hargrove and Tim Sheldon – provided the votes needed to reroute the bill to the committee headed by Hargrove. Neither offered his personal views on the legislation, but both said their constituents were against it. Hargrove has declined to say whether he will release the bill.

It’s the tight-lipped nature of the opposition that is infuriating. If lawmakers see value in allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians by bankers, insurers, employers and landlords, they should forthrightly state that case and cast a vote.

After Tuesday’s maneuvering, the Senate Republican caucus issued talking points, one of which stated: “This bill establishes minority status for individuals based on sexual behaviors many believe they choose to engage in.”

The notion of sexual orientation as a choice is a perennial sticking point. Whether that’s true is debatable, but religion is also a choice, and the state bans discrimination based on creed. Does that mean the state has established minority status for people of faith? Of course not.

The truth is that while the state bans religion-based discrimination it does allow discrimination based upon religious beliefs. It’s time for skittish senators to face that fact and put this bill to a vote.