The right of churches and religious organizations to seek "housekeeping amendments" to the hastily enacted civil unions statute of last year (Act 1) should be given no less support than the right of advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyle.

A recent Star-Advertiser editorial chastised churches for seeking amendments to Act 1 to clarify that the "free exercise" contours of the law also require exemption of their facilities and premises for use by civil union celebrants ("Don’t allow anti-civil union actions," Star-Advertiser, Our View, April 4).

On the contrary, positions important to those on the other side of this issue must, indeed, be considered, for at least three important reasons:

» First, without the facilities exception, application of the civil unions law to Hawaii churches and religious organizations will most likely be held unconstitutional under principles emphasized in the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent religious liberty decision, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.

Decided in January of this year, the Supreme Court weighed the claim of a school teacher (who had both secular and religious responsibilities) for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act against the religiously affiliated-school’s First Amendment right to hire and terminate whomsoever it pleased at the school. The court upheld Hosanna-Tabor’s right to terminate the teacher under the school’s fundamental right to freedom of worship and religious association, even though the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found the termination to be discrimination under ADA regulations.

Hailed by First Amendment commentators as the most significant religious liberty decision in the last half-century, a unanimous court could not make clearer the deference legislative bodies must give to religious organizations with respect to freedom of worship and assembly in enacting legislation which potentially violates those interests. Act 1‘s failure to protect Hawaii’s religious organizations from use of their facilities for civil union celebrations will leave the law vulnerable to constitutional attack.

» Second, churches and religious organizations are not "public accommodations" — by definition. They naturally discriminate in favor of their adherents; this is why they are exempted under federal public accommodations law. The First Amendment protects them. Your editorial seems to express support for classifying churches and religious organizations as public accommodations by default, to be accorded by Act 1 only the slenderest of exceptions to their ministers and clerics from being compelled to perform such civil union ceremonies if against their religious tenets.

» Third, failure to provide an unambiguous exception to religious organizations and their affiliates in the use of their premises and facilities will result in additional litigation. It should come as no surprise that a Hawaii civil rights claim already has been brought by a couple seeking to celebrate a civil union on Catholic church premises in Hawaii. Does the Legislature expect that the Church will not defend itself under such circumstances? Surely it will, and probably expend significant financial resources in the process.

But what of a small Hawaiian church on Molokai, for example, without financial resources to hire lawyers and defend against such a claim? Wouldn’t it make for better public policy to insert an additional measure in the "housekeeping amendments" to protect such churches from ill-founded claims, which could result in financial calamity to organization, which otherwise perform so many varied and important social services within our community?

Far from diminishing the civil unions legislation, churches and religious organizations are attempting to ensure that lawmakers get it right this time around. By integrating the fundamental principle of freedom of religion, the Legislature can effect its "housekeeping amendments" while at the same time dialing back the rancor that has been associated with this controversial issue.