Senate advances bill to protect Oklahoma religious services from protests
State Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Kellyville, attends a Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on Oct. 3, 2023. (Photo by Kyle Phillips/For Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Senate on Thursday advanced a bill that could imprison protesters who interrupt a religious service.
Critics said the prohibition, which extends to one mile of the religious service, violates free speech rights.
Senate Bill 743 makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 and or one year in prison to willfully disturb a worship service within one mile of a church.
A second offense would be a felony and carry a fine of $1,000 and or two years in prison.
It would apply to those who protest or demonstrate without a license by the proper authority.
Sen. Todd Gollihare, R-Kellyville, said the protest would have to be directed at the worship facility. He is the author of Senate Bill 743.
The nation's Founding Fathers and Pilgrims crossed oceans to get here so they could worship without prosecution and do so in peace and tranquility, Gollihare said.
He said the measure strengthens existing law.
Sen. Mark Mann, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill seeks to stop disruptive, threatening behavior around houses of worship. It does not apply to peaceful protests, he said.
But Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said he's concerned that it would impact those protesting or sharing the Gospel outside Planned Parenthood clinics located within a mile of a church.
Deevers said he remembered when the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church tried to picket at his church.
'We asked them to move to a public easement and would not suppress their First Amendment rights,' Deevers said.
The Westboro Baptist Church, which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has held controversial protests across the country, including at the funerals of deceased military personnel.
Deevers said the bill is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said the bill gives the government a tool to erode or diminish the right to free speech, to assemble and to protest.
'I don't like anyone disrupting a church, a mosque or a synagogue for any reason,' Jett said. 'It is inappropriate. I may not like what people have to say, but they have a right to say what they want.'
The bill passed by a vote of 43-4 and is available for consideration in the House.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Footage Shows China Firing Water Cannon at US Ally Near Disputed Territory
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Philippines has released footage showing the Chinese coast guard deploying water cannons to drive away a fisheries bureau vessel operating within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry via email for comment. Why It Matters China claims the South China Sea as its territory, citing vague historic rights. Beijing has dismissed as invalid a 2016 decision by a Hague-based arbitral court that rejected these claims. Since 2023, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has pushed back against the growing presence of Chinese maritime forces within the country's exclusive economic zone. This challenge has been met with Chinese blockades at disputed features and increasingly forceful measures, raising concerns that a miscalculation could trigger Manila's Mutual Defense Treaty with Washington and draw the United States into a conflict with China. What To Know On Friday morning, four vessels from the Philippine Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources arrived at Scarborough Shoal—a rich fishing ground—to distribute fuel subsidies to more than 20 local fishing boats, Philippine coast guard spokesperson Jay Tarriela wrote on X (formerly Twitter). At around 10 a.m., Chinese coast guard ships moved in and began conducting "aggressive maneuvers," Tarriela said. One Chinese vessel came within 16 yards of the Philippine ship BRP Datu Taradapit, about 18 miles southwest of Scarborough Shoal, carrying out blocking maneuvers and firing its water cannon, at one point striking the port quarter of the Philippine vessel, according to Tarriela. A Chinese coast guard ship fires its water cannon as it seeks to obstruct a Philippine fisheries bureau mission near Scarborough Shoal, a traditional fishing ground within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. A Chinese coast guard ship fires its water cannon as it seeks to obstruct a Philippine fisheries bureau mission near Scarborough Shoal, a traditional fishing ground within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone. Philippine Coast Guard Another Chinese coast guard cutter fired its water cannon at the BRP Datu Tamblot, another fisheries bureau vessel, about 20 miles southeast of the shoal, but did not strike the boat directly. Tarriela said the Chinese ships monitored in the area included six coast guard vessels, two navy warships, and a number of ships belonging to the so-called Maritime Militia—paramilitary vessels that China describes as patriotic fishermen. "Despite the unprofessional and illegal actions of the Chinese Coast Guard, which endangered Filipino crew members and fishermen, BFAR vessels remained resolute in their mission to protect local fishing boats," Tarriela said. Chinese coast guard spokesperson Liu Dejun, in a statement, accused the Datu Taradapit of "approaching and intruding" into the waters around Scarborough Shoal and said the coast guard had taken "necessary measures" to drive it away. "The Philippine side's actions have seriously violated China's sovereignty and violated international law and relevant provisions of Chinese law. The frequent provocations and nuisances by the Philippine side cannot change the fact that Scarborough Shoal belongs to China," he added. Scarborough Shoal sits about 140 miles west of the Philippines' Luzon Island and nearly 700 miles from China's southernmost province of Hainan. The area is well within the Southeast Asian country's exclusive economic zone, which extends 230 miles from its coastal baselines. What People Are Saying The National Maritime Council, which operates under the Philippines' presidential office, in a statement: "These actions violate international law, specifically UNCLOS [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea] and the 2016 arbitral ruling and jeopardize the safety of Philippine personnel and local fishing communities." Bao Yinan, a maritime policy analyst, wrote for Chinese think tank the South China Sea Probing Initiative in an June 21 article: "Given that disputes between China and the Philippines in certain parts of the South China Sea in recent years have not been properly resolved, with periodic escalations occurring over the past two years, the likelihood of the two countries resolving their disputes through negotiation or judicial means in the short term appears minimal." What Happens Next Neither China nor the Philippines has signaled any willingness to back down. Tensions remain high, though the intensity of confrontations has eased somewhat since a June 2024 clash that left one sailor injured.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Housing plan could "redline" Des Moines, former Sen. Jack Hatch says
Des Moines' proposed citywide housing strategy faces criticism from several influential affordable-housing advocates. Why it matters: Housing affordability is an increasing concern throughout Iowa. Des Moines' strategy could influence regional development and decide whether low-income families can find homes in the state's largest city or will be pushed out. Catch up quick: Last year, the City Council hired the Maine-based urban planning firm CZB to develop DSM's first citywide housing strategy. The study addresses long-term goals of enhancing neighborhoods and maximizing the millions of dollars the city allocates annually for revitalization. Driving the news: Housing developer Jack Hatch, a former state senator, criticized the plan in a June 2 letter to the council, saying it misrepresents how affordable housing works and could "redline" the city by halting low-income housing projects. He warns that the report misrepresents the city as being overwhelmed with low-income housing and ignores the economic advantages that such projects provide. Zoom in: The recommendations involve redeveloping about 300 blocks of the city through a combination of voluntary acquisitions and demolitions, reducing the areas from being 100% low- and very-low-income to roughly 30-35%. A pause on most low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects — one of the country's most common tools for creating affordable housing — could also lead to a more even distribution of housing options across the metro by shifting more low-income projects to suburbs, according to a CZB presentation last month. The intrigue: City Councilperson Josh Mandelbaum also expressed concern in a June 4 op-ed published by Bleeding Heartland, a community blog, saying affordable-housing options would worsen if the report were fully adopted. Councilperson and real estate agent Linda Westergaard accused the report of using "scare tactics" during a February meeting when she questioned the proposal to level a wide swath of the city's older housing. What's next: Public feedback about the proposal is being reviewed, and council members are expected to discuss it during a July 14 work session.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites and more
CNN — From digging into President Donald Trump 's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: Birthright citizenship The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. LGBTQ books in school The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. Preventive health care and government power The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. Related article Supreme Court allows second majority-Black district in Louisiana over liberal dissents During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. Race and redistricting For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. Planned Parenthood funding The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
