51黑料

JEFFERSON CITY 鈥� Religious groups and other campus organizations could refuse membership to certain students under legislation advancing in the Missouri Capitol.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brad Hudson, R-Cape Fair, is raising concerns that it could open the door to discrimination on Missouri鈥檚 public university and college campuses.

Under the plan, which advanced to the Senate Thursday, public universities would be barred from denying funding to 鈥渂elief-based鈥� groups based on their viewpoint or membership requirements.

鈥淏y ensuring fair access to resources and benefits, we ensure that universities cannot discriminate against Christian students or students of any religious affiliation,鈥� Hudson said following the bill鈥檚 passage in the House Thursday on a 100-46 vote.

During floor debate, Hudson offered examples of what he is attempting to target.

鈥淎 pro-choice club should not be required to let a pro-life student serve as its president, and a Baptist student club should not be required to let an atheist teach their Bible studies,鈥� Hudson said.

The measure is among a number of Republican culture war issues that have garnered attention in the Republican-controlled Missouri Legislature, ranging from attempting to ban drag shows to removing books from school libraries.

According to his biography, Hudson received a degree in Biblical Studies from the Midwest College of Theology in 2011. He is a pastor at Blessing Heights Worship Center in southwest Missouri and served for several years as the coordinator for the Stone County National Day of Prayer.

The measure has the backing of embattled House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, who is being investigated for alleged ethics violations.

鈥淏y clarifying terms and preventing discrimination, we uphold the principles of fairness and religious liberty essential to our students attending educational institutions,鈥� Plocher said.

Opponents of the legislation say the proposal could allow groups to discriminate in who they allow as members.

Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, said the proposal could protect irresponsible views held by 鈥渇ringe groups鈥� who say hateful things that could pose danger to others.

鈥淭he problem is it reinforces the ability to protect people who have despicable views,鈥� Smith said. 鈥淚t gives universities another layer of protection to protect those with despicable views.鈥�

During a committee hearing on the measure earlier this year, Rep. Kevin Windham, D-Hillsdale, warned that the proposed law could allow hate groups to flourish on campuses.

鈥淚 read it as 鈥榅鈥� university cannot stop the Ku Klux Klan from being on campus,鈥� Windham said.

In response to the passage of the measure in the House, the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy group, said the legislation could open the door to discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.

鈥淩eligious freedom should not be distorted to advance discriminatory measures. The Human Rights Campaign urges the Missouri Senate to reject this harmful legislation because no student should be turned away from an organization because of who they are or who they love,鈥� said HRC vice president Sarah Warbelow.

Among opponents who submitted testimony on the measure was the Rev. Kathleen Adams-Shepherd, dean of Christ Church Cathedral in 51黑料.

鈥淎ll uses of public funds to discriminate based on political, ideological or religious beliefs are wrong and violate the separation of religion and state that is so strongly protected in Missouri鈥檚 Constitution,鈥� Adams-Shepherd wrote. 鈥淜eep our public universities and colleges public. Use taxpayers money for public education, not private discrimination.鈥�

The American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the measure.

鈥淪chools have a responsibility to promote a safe environment for all students and should not be forced to recognize discriminatory organizations that harm students,鈥� ACLU lobbyist Jeff Smith told members of the Special Committee on Government Accountability.

The proposal also has raised concerns in Republican Gov. Mike Parson鈥檚 administration. According to a fiscal note, the change in law 鈥渉as the potential to increase costs鈥� to the state鈥檚 legal expense fund, which covers the costs of lawsuits against state institutions.

The analysis said those added legal costs could exceed $250,000.

The legislation is .