Would federal hate-crime law threaten religious freedom?

May 3, 2007, will go down in history as either a civil rights milestone or a day of infamy – depending on which side of the culture war you’re on. That’s the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted 236 to 180 to pass HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. Among other things, the bill extends the definition of “hate crimes” to include violent attacks on people because of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

After the vote, a coalition of about 200 gay and other civil rights organizations celebrated what one gay newspaper hailed as the first “free-standing gay and transgender civil rights bill” to pass either house of Congress.

Christian conservative groups condemn the legislation with an outrage ranging from apoplectic to apocalyptic.

Evangelical leader Chuck Colson warns that the bill’s intent is “to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.”

The civil rights coalition and Christian Right organizations could not have more divergent views on the meaning of HR 1592.

Proponents say violent attacks based on sexual orientation or gender identity are a widespread problem affecting not only victims but an entire community of people and their families – urgently requiring federal intervention.

Opponents counter that adding hate-crime laws to existing criminal laws is an unnecessary and unconstitutional expansion of federal control, and will do nothing to deter attacks.

But the biggest divide, and the source of the hottest debate, is the issue Colson raised: Will this law lead to restrictions on the religious freedom and free speech of religious people who oppose homosexuality?

To the bill’s supporters, the answer is an emphatic no. HR 1592 applies only to violent acts, not to speech. To underscore this point, the authors amended the bill to make clear that it wouldn’t prohibit what the First Amendment protects.

The First Amendment protects all kinds of controversial speech for and against homosexuality – religious and otherwise.

The danger of hate-crime laws to free expression isn’t supported by our experience of living under such laws. Under the present federal hate-crime law (which covers attacks based on race, ethnicity, national origin and religion) and the 45 state hate-crime laws (32 of which include sexual orientation), nobody has been convicted of a hate crime solely on the basis of thought, belief or speech.

There is one American case some religious conservatives frequently invoke. In 2004, Christian activists protesting a Philadelphia gay-pride event were charged with offenses including ethnic intimidation under Pennsylvania’s hate-crime law. A state court eventually dismissed all charges, ruling that protesters were exercising First Amendment rights – and had not violated the hate-crime law.

For all the First Amendment debate, the real concern among conservative Christians may be more symbolic than legal. After all, even if the bill passes the Senate, a likely presidential veto will keep it from becoming law.

But the larger message of the House vote is that a majority of representatives may now be ready to enact other laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. More than threats to free speech, it is the mainstream acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people that many Christian conservative groups most fear.

That’s why victory bells on one side are answered by alarm bells on the other.