Editorial: It’s not complicated — pass LGBT rights

State legislators have made the effort to extend Indiana’s civil rights protections to LGBT citizens far more complicated than it needs to be.

This past week, a Senate committee narrowly passed Senate Bill 344, which, although deeply flawed, would for the first time provide statewide protections against discrimination in employment, housing and public services for gay, lesbian and bisexual Hoosiers. The full Senate is expected to take up the legislation in the next week.

On the positive side, in addition to expanding basic civil rights, SB 344, as amended, would no longer override existing local human rights ordinances. That means LGBT rights laws in Indy, Carmel, Zionsville and other communities — in total covering about 40 percent of the state’s population — would remain in place.

Now for the negatives of SB 344, and they’re considerable.

The proposed legislation would unnecessarily exclude transgender citizens from civil rights protections. As a result, those Hoosiers could continue to be legally fired from jobs, denied housing and refused services open to other members of the public simply because of their sexual identification.

SB 344 would delegate to a summer study committee the question of whether and how to provide civil rights protections to transgender individuals. Such a move would be an unnecessary delay and diversion, especially considering that Indianapolis since 2005 has provided a model for how to provide such protections without creating unintended consequences or even lasting controversy.

The legislation also would block local governments from adding protections for transgender citizens if such ordinances are not already in place. That’s an unacceptable intrusion by the General Assembly on Hoosiers’ ability to make local decisions for themselves.

And the bill would exclude small wedding service providers from having to abide by the civil rights law if those business owners raise religious objections to assisting with same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Religious liberty is an essential right, protected by the state and U.S. constitutions. But protecting against discrimination in public accommodation also is an important principle.

Deeply held beliefs matter. But when a business opens its doors to the public, it opens those doors to everyone. The owner should not have the right to discriminate. Baking a cake for a ceremony is not equal to being asked to perform a same-sex marriage as an officiant.

All of these complexities are unnecessary. Lawmakers should focus on ensuring equal treatment under the law, not on writing laws that would empower some level of discrimination.

Providing civil rights for all is not complicated. It’s simply a question of finally deciding to do the right thing.