Jump to content

Georgia Governor kills Religious Freedom Bill


aujeff11

Recommended Posts

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2016/03/28/gov-nathan-deal-kills-religious-freedom-bill.html

Due to much criticism from businesses throughout the nation such as the NFL and Silicon Valley corporations, the bill was killed despite strong support( 66%) from the state's voters.

While the governor got it right, I'm afraid the coercion from corporations and national businesses to Georgia is dangerous territory. Do we really want billion dollar corporations from Silicon Valley determining the state of Georgia's rights? If that's not a sign of an oligarchy, what is? I say this because even though I know the corporations got it right this time, who is to say they won't later on down the road?

I would love to have some feedback from reasonable posters if they feel this way or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm uncomfortable with this as well. It's obviously something that can be used to put the right kind of pressure on a state, but the business community is hardly infallible or impartial. It could set a dangerous precedent. Plus, I am of the opinion that regardless of the particulars of this specific bill, people of faith do need some explicit protections from coercion in this time of upheaval and casting off of traditional mores on sexuality. It seems at times that Christians business owners are being targeted and forced into situations where they have to choose between their faith and their livelihood.

I realize that's not the case for every business out there, but some do require a level of personal involvement that genuinely puts people in no-win situations. And for all the cries of tolerance and 'being left alone' over the years, it sure seems sometimes that an active segment of the population has become among the most intolerant and least likely to leave others alone of any groups out there. And it's as if our government has decided that virtually every right, even ones not explicitly in the Constitution, are superior and take precedence over a person's First Amendment rights with regard to the free exercise of their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that I do not qualify as reasonable, but I would still love to reply. First, the real question is what does the bill actually say. My hunch is that the bill primarily tries to keep people from being forced to violate their religious views. Further, my guess is that the governor caved to pressure and AUJeff mentioned. I hope it costs him re-election if the bill is not actually discriminatory.

I have a real problem with one of the quotes that says something like "Georgia has no place for legislation that is perceived as allowing for discrimination." It is a HUGE mistake for people and governments to be more concerned with how things can be perceived versus how they actually ARE.

It is important to remember that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of living out their religious convictions. Americans DO NOT have a constitutionally protected right not to be offended or not to be able to PERCEIVE an injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is going to use economic power in the effort to influence government policy or society, I would rather it be done in this manner as opposed to the outright buying of politicians.

Is this am unacceptable undermining of democracy and the electorate or, an acceptable admonishment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is going to use economic power in the effort to influence government policy or society, I would rather it be done in this manner as opposed to the outright buying of politicians.

Is this am unacceptable undermining of democracy and the electorate or, an acceptable admonishment?

Well, that largely depends on the specifics of each issue, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with this as well. It's obviously something that can be used to put the right kind of pressure on a state, but the business community is hardly infallible or impartial. It could set a dangerous precedent. Plus, I am of the opinion that regardless of the particulars of this specific bill, people of faith do need some explicit protections from coercion in this time of upheaval and casting off of traditional mores on sexuality. It seems at times that Christians business owners are being targeted and forced into situations where they have to choose between their faith and their livelihood.

I realize that's not the case for every business out there, but some do require a level of personal involvement that genuinely puts people in no-win situations. And for all the cries of tolerance and 'being left alone' over the years, it sure seems sometimes that an active segment of the population has become among the most intolerant and least likely to leave others alone of any groups out there. And it's as if our government has decided that virtually every right, even ones not explicitly in the Constitution, are superior and take precedence over a person's First Amendment rights with regard to the free exercise of their religion.

"It seems at times that Christians business owners are being targeted and forced into situations where they have to choose between their faith and their livelihood."

Not only are Christian businesses being forced to choose between business or faith, lawyers and judges are too as well. How would one become a judge if he doesn't affirm homosexuality as a lawyer? It's career suicide to not affirm a homosexual his rights. According to the following article, some law firms will not hire lawyers that previously tried to defend traditional marriage. This type of religious test among such public officials could change the legal culture if the majority of Christians choose faith over career.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-test-for-public-office/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is going to use economic power in the effort to influence government policy or society, I would rather it be done in this manner as opposed to the outright buying of politicians.

Is this am unacceptable undermining of democracy and the electorate or, an acceptable admonishment?

I was thinking the same thing since my last post. At least the economic powers were transparent in their coercion of Georgia's government. It is truly fascinating and also scary that the governor would reject the wishes of the people of his state to pacify the people who control the money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

Can you point to the section of this bill that does what you claim in bold?

http://politics.blog...s-liberty-bill/

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/161054.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing since my last post. At least the economic powers were transparent in their coercion of Georgia's government. It is truly fascinating and also scary that the governor would reject the wishes of the people of his state to pacify the people who control the money.

He's right not to kowtow to the mob. Georgia citizens are cutting off their nose to spite their face. When the bill is struck down in court, as it inevitably would have been, who do you think is going to have to foot the bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is going to use economic power in the effort to influence government policy or society, I would rather it be done in this manner as opposed to the outright buying of politicians.

Is this am unacceptable undermining of democracy and the electorate or, an acceptable admonishment?

I fully believe the economic power that was exerted on Gerogia could have been a blessing or a curse. In this case, it ended up being a blessing... for the lack of better words.

In some hypothetical world with no moral and biblical foundations or shared values, where whims can be hastily passed into law, I could be on the opposing side of the corporations. And I would be fighting a futile fight at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

Can you point to the section of this bill that does what you claim in bold?

http://politics.blog...s-liberty-bill/

http://www.legis.ga....2016/161054.pdf

SECTION 3.38 Said chapter is further amended by adding a new article to read as follows:39

"ARTICLE 3540

10-1-1000.41 (a) As used in this Code section, the term 'religious organization' means a church, a42 religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency,43 or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such44 entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501©(3) of the45 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.46 ( B) No religious organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant permission47 for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such48 religious organization.49 © A refusal by a religious organization pursuant to subsection ( B) of this Code section50 shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such religious organization or51 an employee thereof or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or52 discriminate against the religious organization or employee based on such refusal."53

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be refreshing is if people would start using some common sense. There is a big difference between a pastor performing a wedding for a same sex couple and a pastor allowing a homosexual to eat at his/her church's soup kitchen. Why not make the law specific enough so that no one's right get violated?

FOGET THE REST. THANKS FOR POSTING IT TITAN. I do not have access to the actual bill at my current location. If anyone has the time/desire/ability to post the specifics of the bill it might help us know if the bill was actually discriminatory or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

Can you point to the section of this bill that does what you claim in bold?

http://politics.blog...s-liberty-bill/

http://www.legis.ga....2016/161054.pdf

SECTION 3.38 Said chapter is further amended by adding a new article to read as follows:39

"ARTICLE 3540

10-1-1000.41 (a) As used in this Code section, the term 'religious organization' means a church, a42 religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency,43 or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such44 entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501©(3) of the45 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.46 ( B) No religious organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant permission47 for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such48 religious organization.49 © A refusal by a religious organization pursuant to subsection ( B) of this Code section50 shall not give rise to a civil claim or cause of action against such religious organization or51 an employee thereof or result in any state action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or52 discriminate against the religious organization or employee based on such refusal."53

I'm not seeing it. It specifically says that the property owned by this religious association, church, whatever cannot be forced into allowing it to be used for "an event" that is objectionable to the religious organization. An event would constitute something such as a gay wedding. Merely having a homosexual person stay in a homeless shelter is an "event."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing since my last post. At least the economic powers were transparent in their coercion of Georgia's government. It is truly fascinating and also scary that the governor would reject the wishes of the people of his state to pacify the people who control the money.

He's right not to kowtow to the mob. Georgia citizens are cutting off their nose to spite their face. When the bill is struck down in court, as it inevitably would have been, who do you think is going to have to foot the bill?

He did kowtow to a mob, just not the mob that is the voters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

"This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone."

Where does the bill say this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? This bill certainly gives the right for business owners that receive government support in the way of fire/police protection from ALL tax payers to be allowed to deny services to anyone. So if my religion follows the new testament teachings literally and not with selective interpretation that benefits my beliefs, then as in Leviticus I can deny serving a woman with braided hair or a women that wears a hat or gold jewelry? ...smh.

You seem aggravated. At a previous post or what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the same thing since my last post. At least the economic powers were transparent in their coercion of Georgia's government. It is truly fascinating and also scary that the governor would reject the wishes of the people of his state to pacify the people who control the money.

He's right not to kowtow to the mob. Georgia citizens are cutting off their nose to spite their face. When the bill is struck down in court, as it inevitably would have been, who do you think is going to have to foot the bill?

He did kowtow to a mob, just not the mob that is the voters.

Maybe, but he didn't kowtow to the one that doesn't realize that the very mentality they have is just the one the constitution is meant to protect us from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person

  • 134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based

  • 135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or

  • 136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."


  • So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing it. It specifically says that the property owned by this religious association, church, whatever cannot be forced into allowing it to be used for "an event" that is objectionable to the religious organization. An event would constitute something such as a gay wedding. Merely having a homosexual person stay in a homeless shelter is an "event."

Could be considered one. The vagueness is easily twisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person

  • 134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based

  • 135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, exp<b></b>ression, or

  • 136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."


  • So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.

So a convent can be forced to hire a Satan-worshipping convicted rapist. Got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • "33 no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person

  • 134 whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based

  • 135 organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or

  • 136 clearly articulated tenet of faith."


  • So as a business owner that receives tax payer government support, as the bill reads, I can fire or hire based on Leviticus' beliefs that include women with braided hair, gold jewelry, tattoos, that are divorced or have ever touched a pigskin or eaten shellfish. Got it.

Yes. Thus, an orthodox Jewish religious organization has the right to hire people who adhere to their religious practices. A Muslim religious organization has the right to require its employees not to drink alcohol or eat non halal foods.

What exactly do you think the free exercise religion means - only things that you do sitting in a pew on Sundays or Saturdays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing it. It specifically says that the property owned by this religious association, church, whatever cannot be forced into allowing it to be used for "an event" that is objectionable to the religious organization. An event would constitute something such as a gay wedding. Merely having a homosexual person stay in a homeless shelter is an "event."

Could be considered one. The vagueness is easily twisted.

Eh. No sane person thinks such an thing would constitute an "event." It's not vague, it's being twisted into something it's not to foment opposition to it.

I don't think you'd let a Christian group claiming potential discrimination against them get away with hysteria on such flimsy grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not aggravated aujeff, just thankful to our Georgia Governor that along with the SEC, NCAA, NFL, NBA, MLB, might just be accepting, non-judgmental citizens who reject any kind of discrimination. All good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...