Lawmakers in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a series of three bills on Tuesday meant to intensify the commonwealth’s treatment of hate crimes, an effort which many conservatives and Christians assert would have a chilling effect on religious speech.
Pennsylvania Democratic State Representatives Dan Frankel and Napoleon Nelson introduced a bill to swap the phrase “ethnic intimidation” with “hate-based intimidation” in the criminal code, as well as expand the category to include “gender identity,” “gender expression,” and “sexual orientation” in addition to race, color, religion, and national origin. Another bill would increase hate crime prevention training for police officers, while a third bill would incorporate “hate-based intimidation” into the state’s program to report youth violence in government schools.
Each of the bills were approved by substantial majorities of the Pennsylvania House, including several Republican lawmakers. While the legislation included language clarifying that the bills could not be used to “limit or punish religiously motivated speech or conduct that is otherwise protected by the Constitution of the United States,” the bills would also create a private cause of action to allow individuals who are offended by religious beliefs to file civil lawsuits.
Davis Younts, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and an attorney based in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, said in remarks provided to The Sentinel that the bills are intended to advance “radical gender ideology” and mount a “targeted attack on traditional or conservative Christian beliefs regarding human sexuality, marriage, and what it means to be male and female.”
“By amending the law to replace ‘ethnic intimidation’ with ‘hate-based intimidation,’ the legislation equates fluid concepts such as gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation with race and ethnicity,” Younts commented. “Ultimately, it will have a chilling effect on religious speech and is part of an effort to marginalize religious belief.”
Younts referenced a list of scenarios published by the Pennsylvania Family Council that could induce civil actions against Pennsylvanians should the bills become law. An individual could claim that he or she was made to feel unsafe by a shirt which says “there are only two genders” or by a parent who speaks at a school board meeting against sexually explicit curriculum.
Officials in other states have introduced similar legislative proposals in recent months: lawmakers in Michigan advanced a bill that could fine and imprison those who “intimidate” others and make them “feel” threatened, as previously reported by The Sentinel.
Opponents of efforts to criminalize purported hate speech have noted that the category infringes on speech protected in the First Amendment, including speech from religious conservatives who reject the ideologies undergirding the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity.
