Please note that this Section is not included in the Senate bill S 1105. Critical definitions of key words in the proposed bill have intentionally been avoided.  This will help insure that the bill would pass.  The next move of those who want to censor Christians would be to sue and get the case before an activist liberal judge who would interpret the bill the way they want it interpreted.  Here is an explanation of Section 8 prepared by the Alliance Defense Fund.

                                                       -------------

Section 8 of the House Bill does not add any protection for religious speech and exercise than otherwise exists.  Section 8 reads:

"Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

This "Rule of Construction" found in Section 8 is window dressing.  It does nothing other than announce the well-established judicial rule of interpretation (that would already be used by a court interpreting this Act) that a statute is to be given an interpretation, wherever possible, that allows the statute to comply with the Constitution.  Accordingly, no speech protection is added by the inclusion of Section 8.  Instead it is merely Congress announcing that it is not intending to criminalize what the Constitution disallows it to criminalize.  Again, this is exactly the presumption a court would use when interpretation this Act in any event, with or without Section 8's presence.  

If the Act truly aimed to provide protection for religious speech and exercise, it would need to do more than announce an abstract adherence to the First Amendment.  Instead, it should announce specifically those activities which are outside the reach of the law.  Conspicuously, this is missing from the Act.  If particular speech or religious exercise is exempt from this law, the Act should say so, specifically.  The mere announcement (in Section 8) of an interpretive methodology does not create any area of protection for religious speech.

The absence of protection in Section 8 for a pastor preaching a sermon promoting biblical sexual ethics was a question raised by Representative Gohmert in the House Judiciary Committee hearings, directed to Representative Davis (the sponsor of Section 8).  Representative Davis confirmed that Section 8 would not immunize this form of speech.  (Click Here to read the relevant page of the Judiciary Committee transcript.) 

Moreover, and more importantly, the worries about this "Hate Crimes" Act by pastors and other religious speakers extend beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment.  After all, it is entirely constitutional for a person's speech to be used to prove a crime was committed.  And one's speech (including reading materials, websites visited, sermons heard and preached) is particularly relevant when a component of the crime itself is politically incorrect motive.  The chilling of speech that may result from such a regime is self-evident, whether the First Amendment is implicated or not.