Religious Exemption Efforts

Several states have proposed and enacted legislation to allow various entities to refuse services to certain individuals based on the owner or operator’s purported moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. For LGBTQ+ populations, these so-called “religious exemption” laws (or “conscience clauses” in cases pertaining to psychological services) invite discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity under the guise of religious freedom (Clay, 2015).

The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2020 that an employer who fires an employee due to the employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the Court did not address the issue of whether an employer can claim an exemption from this general rule under federal or state law based on the employer’s claimed religious beliefs. Accordingly, several states are expected to try to strengthen these types of laws over the next several years.

APA has historically and contemporarily opposed these laws on the grounds that, in addition to being prohibited from discriminating, psychology practitioners must center the welfare of their clients/patients (APA, 2020; APA, n.d.). Additionally, psychology practitioners are required to develop competence for working with diverse populations (APA, 2017), which may be achieved through engaging in critical self-reflection, training, supervision, and consultation (APA, n.d.).

• It is often unclear whether, how, why, or to what extent accommodating sexual orientation or gender diversity in a private place of business would infringe the owners’ religious liberties in any way. On the other hand, in practice so-called “religious freedom” exemptions purported to protect business owners’ beliefs perpetuate stigma, which can cause serious psychological harm for sexual orientation and gender minority people (Hatzenbuehler, 2010; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010).

• There can be negative psychological and emotional effects on individuals when they do not have access to rights that others have. A study found that advertisements arguing against marriage rights for sexual orientation and gender minority people evoked sadness in these populations, while heterosexual cisgender people were not affected either positively or negatively by the advertisements (Flores, et al., 2018).

• Another study of a “religious freedom” law in Indiana found that while sexual orientation and gender diverse individuals reported higher rates of “unhealthy days” the year the law was passed, the rates amongst heterosexual cisgender people remained flat (Blosnich et al., 2019).

• These laws can have an especially dire impact in the child welfare context, as sexual orientation and gender minority youth are more likely to be homeless, in foster care, live outside the home, or placed in the child welfare system (Fish et al., 2019). Allowing foster agencies to discriminate against sexual and gender minority youth will only exacerbate the mental health of foster care children who already experience higher levels of depression, substance use, emotional distress, thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts, anxiety, and gender identity concerns (Dettlaff et al., 2018; Scannapieco et al., 2018; Wilson, & Kastanis, 2015).

• For these reasons and many others, we are asking you to oppose; [bill number and name]. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, and we look forward to working with your office on this.

• Ohio Psychological Organization Conscience Clause Resolution (PDF, 147KB)opens in new window
  March 14, 2016

APA thanks and acknowledges Brian Davis PhD, Michèle M. Schlehofer, PhD, Alexander Shappie PhD, and Kim Skerven PhD, for their contributions to this content.