OpinionsHonest EngagementsReading the SOGIE Bill

Reading the SOGIE Bill

-

- Advertisment -spot_img

(Part 3 of 3)

Masterpiece Cakeshop is a bakery in Colorado owned by Jack Phillips, a devout Christian. In 2012, a same-sex couple ordered a cake for their wedding, and Phillips refused on religious grounds.

The couple filed charges against him with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act which prohibits “discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services to the public”. Phillips was found to have violated the law. But upon appeal to the US Supreme Court, seven out of nine justices reversed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and ruled in favor of Phillips.

It should be noted that under the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity & Expression (SOGIE) Bill, a similar situation would be adjudged in like manner as under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, with no quarter given to other rights incompatible with the feelings of “devaluation and dehumanization” described in the SOGIE Bill.

Hence, the reasoning of the US Supreme Court is particularly instructive. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, “The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances, must protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances, protected forms of expression.”

The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion when he was prosecuted for obeying his religion in declining to bake a wedding cake for the same-sex couple. Their treatment of Phillips “violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint,” the Court declared.

I think it’s safe to say that no one in his right mind would be in favor of any form of maltreatment and abuse towards the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT), or anyone for that matter. If the SOGIE Bill had just been about that, in clearly defined and unambiguous terms, there really would not be any reason to oppose it.

However, as discussed in my previous article, the SOGIE Bill goes beyond protection, allowing the prosecution of people who might on religious or intellectual grounds merely disagree with the LGBT movement, characterizing it as stigma and discrimination worthy of a criminal suit.

Without any qualifications or limitations, the Bill’s language and scope are so sweeping and broad so as to be hostile to any exercise of free speech or religious freedom that would offend the feelings of someone who identifies within the LGBT, and constitute a crime under the SOGIE Bill.

Hence, I offer the following changes to the Bill to achieve its goal on one hand, and to survive constitutional scrutiny on the other.

“Stigma” and “discrimination” must be clearly defined.

Criminal and penal statutes in the Philippines are required be spelled out in clear detail to afford anyone charged of a crime the best opportunity to defend his innocence by merely looking at the contents of the law. This is part of our constitutional right to be duly informed of the allegations leveled against us when undergoing criminal prosecution.

“Promoting and encouraging stigma” under Section 5(a) of the SOGIE Bill is one such provision desperately needing tangibly fleshed out elements. Even the intended definition of “stigma” under the Bill needs help itself beyond saying “dynamic devaluation and dehumanization of an individual in the eyes of others”. How would one measure and demonstrate that in a court of law?

Does disagreeing on homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds already mean stigma and discrimination? Whether by accident or by design, the Bill is far too unclear to say for certain.

The Bill must specifically cite other rights and explain its relation thereto.

As the cliché goes, the rights of one end when the rights of another begin. There are recognized rights in the Philippine legal regime that the SOGIE Bill will have to take into account. If the Bill fails to weave itself well with these other rights, harmonizing instead of antagonizing them, then the Bill will not pass both houses of Congress. Otherwise, if it becomes law, in its present form it will inevitably be struck down as unconstitutional before the Supreme Court.

______________________________________

Author’s email: [email protected]

br />

(Back to MetroPost HOME PAGE)


 

 

Latest news

City’s 2025 budget still hanging

    “It will not happen again. We made the mistake before. We will not make the same mistake again.” This was...

Chinese spy nabbed in Dumaguete

    The National Bureau of Investigation and the Armed Forces of the Philippines presented in Manila Thursday an alleged Chinese...

Cause for concern

    The capture of a suspected Chinese spy last week right here in Dumaguete City continues to be the talk...

5 dolphins die in stranding

    Five dolphins died in Bais City, following a mass stranding in Bais Bay, Negros Oriental. Authorities suspect the dolphins died...
- Advertisement -spot_imgspot_img

2000 Canlaon evacuees to get TUPAD aid

    More than 2,000 displaced residents from Canlaon City, Negros Oriental, have been identified as beneficiaries of the government’s Tulong...

Comelec to hold candidates’ fora

    The Commission on Elections is organizing a forum for Negros Oriental candidates in the May 12 national and local...

Must read

City’s 2025 budget still hanging

    “It will not happen again. We made the mistake...

Chinese spy nabbed in Dumaguete

    The National Bureau of Investigation and the Armed Forces...
- Advertisement -spot_imgspot_img

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you