On Feb. 17, a modified version of the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage known as House Joint Resolution 3 (HJR-3) passed the Indiana Senate. The Senate chose to keep the first sentence, which defines marriage in Indiana as between one man and one woman, but failed to restore a provision dropped in the Indiana House of Representatives that would prohibit civil unions; as a result, HJR-3 will not come before a popular vote this November or any time before the fall of 2016, and, according to some political experts, it may never.

“At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won’t be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black,” actor George Clooney said to E! Online in 2008.

But a recent trend runs counter to growing societal acceptance of homosexuality: In Kansas, House Bill 2453 passed the Kansas House of Representatives on Feb. 12 only to die in the Senate on Feb. 18, while Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed Senate Bill 1062, which had passed both chambers of the state legislature, on Feb. 26. Similar legislation has arisen in several other states, including Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma. While the proposed bills differ in scope, their common stated purpose is to protect religious liberty of individuals and businesses by granting them the right to refuse service to anybody if doing so constitutes a violation of their religious beliefs.

On the surface, these bills appear to prevent situations like the one in which the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a couple that was sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony in Albuquerque in 2006. Many Americans sympathized with Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, owners of Elane Photography, who refrained from photographing the ceremony on the grounds of their opposition to same-sex unions, a decision that is understandable if not commendable. But once states recognize a right of individuals and business owners to discriminate, it is impossible to draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, as demonstrated by loose, broad language employed in so-called “discrimination bills” around the country.

For example, Kansas’s House Bill 2453 would indeed provide protection for businesses such as Elane Photography that are morally opposed to homosexuality. Christian bakers would not be required to bake cakes for celebrations of same-sex unions, and reception hall owners would not have to rent space to parties seeking a venue for same-sex commitment celebrations. At the same time, private employers would be able to fire gay employees due to their sexuality; hotels would be able to deny same-sex couples entry; businesses such as movie theaters, restaurants and grocery stores would be able to refuse goods and services to same-sex couples. Worse, government employees—a broad spectrum of people ranging from country clerks to those who work at public parks and pools—would be able to discriminate against homosexual couples. An article in Slate suggests that even police officers and hospital employees would be able to decline service if doing so were to involve a violation of their religious beliefs.

America is a nation founded on the tenet of liberties of all kinds. We enjoy the freedom to speak our minds, the freedom to maintain a certain level of privacy and, of course, the freedom to practice our own religions without fear of persecution. However, we forget too often that with rights come responsibilities. From the time the Bill of Rights was written, Americans’ right to practice religion as they see fit has been cemented into the government as an enduring layer of liberty. But it is time to use this freedom more sensibly, in a way that will not hurt others. It is time to stop using the guise of religious liberty as a thin veil for laws that return American society back to the Jim Crow era. We have a job even as teenagers to uphold the personal duties we take on as citizens and as people with the rights our nation grants us, and in the meantime, legislators have a job too: to make laws that reflect our heritage of recognizing the rights of all Americans, not just the ones whose identities and choices we like.

The views in this column do not necessarily reflect the views of the HiLite staff. Reach Kyle at [email protected].