Douglas NeJaime is a professor of Law and the director of The Williams Institute. This think tank conducts research on gender identity and sexual orientation law. He stated that these laws were created to protect a limited set of religious principles — those held by religious groups opposing gay marriage. NeJaime testified that they believe those who ask for an exemption (from providing services gay and lesbian couples wishing marriage) are being discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs. House Bill 1523 was signed by Gov. Governor Phil Bryant signed House Bill 1523 in April. It singles out three “sincerely held” religious beliefs that are worthy of protection. These include that marriage is between one woman and one man; that there should be no sex outside marriages; that gender is determined at birth. Anyone who rejects the services of gays, lesbians, and transgender people because they believe in these beliefs is protected from lawsuit. Barber et al. vs Bryant et al. Campaign for Southern Equality et al. vs Bryant et al. Ask U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves for a preliminary injunction to stop the law’s implementation, which took effect July 1. They claim that allowing only certain religious beliefs to be supported while disregarding others is a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This prohibits government from favouring any religion over the other. Tommy Goodwin, a defense attorney, argued for the governor. John Davis, the executive director of the state’s Department of Human Services stated that House Bill 1523 aims to “level the playing fields” and ensure that LGBT people’s rights don’t conflict with the religious rights of Mississippians. Goodwin stated that the bill’s supporters made it clear they didn’t want to deny anyone their rights. They only wanted to protect the rights and interests of religious Mississippians. He cited Sen. Jenifer Brannning, R-Philadelphia as one of the bill’s supporters, in a transcript from that night. Goodwin stated that “based on the testimony of co-sponsor Jenifer Brannning, she’s stating hier that the intent this bill isn’t to discriminate but level the playing fields.” Four lawsuits have been filed so far to challenge House Bill 1523. All are being assigned to Judge Reeves. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the first lawsuit seeking a temporary injunction. This request was denied by Reeves earlier in the week. The Campaign for Southern Equality also filed the second request. It asked Reeves for permission to reopen the 2014 state lawsuit that invalidated the gay marriage ban. He will then use his ruling to invalidate House Bill 15.23. Reeves heard arguments Monday, but he has yet to make a decision. The plaintiffs at Thursday’s hearings claim that the Mississippi Constitution and Establishment Clause of Section 1 Amendments are infringed by granting special legal status to a few religious beliefs, while disregarding others. NeJaine says that House Bill 1523, a “religious freedom law”, was first drafted in response to a Supreme Court decision of 1990 that many felt removed too many religious protections from Americans. Nearly unanimous Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. It stated that “Government shall never substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” The legislation was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union on the left and Christian and Catholic organisations on the right. Both sides tried to pass similar laws at state level after the Supreme Court in 1997 ruled that Congress had exceeded its bounds. NeJaine explained that as federal courts became more involved in the granting rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts began to be passed. This was in response to these laws, and groups like the ACLU began withdrawing their support. More than 50 bills addressing religious freedom were introduced in the state legislatures after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor v. United States ruling in 2013 overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. Nearly 100 bills dealing with religious rights were introduced in over 20 states after the Obergefell-v. Hodges Supreme Court decision last year. NeJaine stated that all these laws were either from religious groups or religious-affiliated organizations that oppose gay marriage. NeJaine stated that he was not aware of any secular groups engaging in such efforts, and that none of them have the potential to be financially and politically influential. Six more witnesses were presented by the plaintiffs as the hearing went on. The attorneys say that they expect Reeves to issue his ruling on the preliminary order before July 1.