By Mark Abadi, Business Insider

The Georgia state Senate has passed a religious freedom bill that critics fear could lead to anti-gay discrimination, boycotts and billions of dollars of lost revenue.

The Republican-backed legislation — passed Friday by a 38-14 margin that fell along party lines — is a hybrid of two bills.

The First Amendment Defense Act has received the most criticism of the two. It allows religious organizations to deny services if they cite “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction” against same-sex marriage.

The bill would apply to locally funded and state-funded nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, homeless shelters and adoption centers.

“This bill protects the constitutional rights of individuals and faith-based organizations,” said Republican state Sen. Greg Kirk, chief sponsor of the legislation. “It takes nothing away from same-sex couples or members of the LGBT community.

“It is a live-and-let-live bill.”

However, critics argued the broad language of the bill opens the door for same-sex discrimination, as well as discrimination against people of any orientation who have sex out of wedlock.

“Kirk really thinks that allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone makes the bill fair,” Robbie Medwed, a local gay-rights activist, wrote in a column for Atlanta magazine, Creative Loafing.

Georgia business leaders also criticized the bill, fearing it could lead to costly tourism boycotts and negative publicity. Some also expressed a desire to avoid the type of negative publicity the state of Indiana received when it passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act last year.

“We believe that treating all Georgians and visitors fairly is essential to maintaining Georgia’s strong brand as the premier home for talented workers, growing businesses, entrepreneurial innovation, and a thriving travel and tourism industry,” the Metro Atlanta Chamber said in a statement.

In response to the bill, a number of major Georgia-based businesses, including Coca-Cola, Delta, Home Depot, UPS and Arby’s, joined the Georgia Prospers coalition earlier this year, promising to promote diversity in their workforces.

The other half of the bill is the so-called “Pastor Protection Act,” which ensures that clergy will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. The act was met with little objection.

The combined bill will now go the House of Representatives for approval.

On the Senate floor, Democratic state Sen. Nan Orrock urged her colleagues to consider the impact the legislation would have on their constituents.

“Untold numbers of gay, lesbian and transgender people are holding their breath in fear that we will pass this legislation,” she said. “It says to them you’re vulnerable, you’re on your own.”

“I would ask us to search our souls and do the right thing. Be able to tell your grandchildren that you didn’t vote for state-sanctioned discrimination.”

CLICK HERE to read the original article on AJC.

By Ronnie Chance, Director Georgia Prospers

The United States is the world’s greatest experiment in democracy. Americans have shown for more than 200 years that religious pluralism, freedom of speech and respect for diversity can not only coexist with economic prosperity but can also actively aid in its expansion.

Georgia figured out the formula well before its Deep South neighbors. Atlanta’s reputation as “The City Too Busy to Hate” spurred economic and population growth that left our neighbors behind. In time, Georgia became “The State Too Busy to Hate.” It has boomed into the eighth-largest state and is now home to 20 Fortune 500 and 33 Fortune 1000 companies and thousands more job creators, big and small.

Georgia Prospers, a coalition of more than 300 businesses dedicated to promoting non-discrimination policies and equal treatment for all, follows in that tradition. We believe that treating all Georgians and visitors fairly is essential to maintaining Georgia’s strong brand as the premier home for talented workers, growing businesses, entrepreneurial innovation, and a thriving travel and tourism industry (Editors Note: Cox Enterprises Inc., owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is a Georgia Prospers member.)

The importance of an inclusive climate goes far beyond corporate boardrooms. Our economic growth is crucial to all Georgia families, our neighborhoods, our schools, our roads and our houses of worship. We’ve gotten ahead by presenting a welcome mat to the world – and the world has responded well to that Southern hospitality.

That graciousness is what you’d expect from Georgians, who by a significant majority are people of faith. We hold our faith traditions dear and they shape our values, which in turn shape our communities. As Americans we enjoy the highest protections possible when it comes to practicing our religion and speaking our views in the public domain. Those are our founding principles. They are sacred. Each generation of Americans has worked through the gray areas of how to balance the will of the majority with protections for the minority.

Georgia now faces such a debate as the General Assembly considers the First Amendment Defense Act, which would allow some businesses and nonprofits to ignore any law that conflicts with its religious beliefs about marriage.

While proponents see it as reaffirming the First Amendment, many others see it as a license to discriminate against certain groups of Americans.

In other states, similar laws cloaked in the rhetoric of religious freedom caused immediate and severe backlash. Last year, Indiana suffered weeks of negative national media coverage that led to major industry groups canceling conventions in Indianapolis and businesses stating they would not add jobs in the state, damaging the Hoosier brand the people of Indiana take so seriously.

Indiana quickly backtracked and amended the law with nondiscrimination language to make clear the new law could not be used to discriminate against certain classes of people. The national umbrage ended, but the bruise on the Hoosier State’s image still lingers.

No one in Georgia wants to go through what Indiana experienced. It is a little-known fact that Georgia state law offers no nondiscrimination protections for the LGBT community. In other words, this bill will take Georgia law from a “see-no-evil” approach to discrimination to tacit approval. That could prove devastating for our reputation as a great place to do business.

We can renew our image as the gateway to the Southeast, the leader that’s still “The State Too Busy to Hate.” We don’t have to choose between our faiths and economic growth that benefits us all. We can have our peach and eat it too.

CLICK HERE to read the original opinion piece on AJC.

By Andre Jackson

Put on the brakes! That is our urgent advice to a Georgia General Assembly that finds itself in the rare position of flooring the accelerator on religious liberty legislation that has potential to both batter this state’s economy and lead to unlawful discrimination.

Why the rush, we ask? We can think of no reasons other than election-year showboating or a misguided, potentially venal, attempt to protect a freedom that’s already been guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for more than 225 years.

We urge lawmakers to, instead, set a deliberate pace in considering what’s now known as House Bill 757. It’s the result of a week of legislative action in a House and Senate that seemed determined to push through law with as few opportunities to impact the outcome as possible. That’s bad policymaking at best; and terrible lawmaking when it concerns a matter that the state’s business community and civil liberties activists alike broadly see as potentially damaging to the state’s economic and human rights interests.

HB757 hurriedly combined the so-called “Pastor Protection Act” with a Senate bill known as the “Georgia First Amendment Defense Act.” Passed Friday by the Senate, the bill is headed back to the House. As early as Monday, the House could simply “agree” with the Senate’s work, which would send the bill to Gov. Nathan Deal’s desk.

That’s no way to forthrightly handle a topic as volatile as religious liberty, given strong, sincerely held views on both sides.

The central issue is whether religious beliefs should be sufficient to allow actions that might otherwise be considered illegal discrimination.

The pastor protection bill championed by House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, seemed the most tightly tailored and reasonable of the broad lot of religious liberty bills offered up by legislators. It reiterates that no “religious practitioner” could be forced to perform marriage ceremonies violating their beliefs. Gay marriage is the target here.

HB 757, though, piles on additional, problematic layers. It reads in part that, “Government shall not take any adverse action against a person or faith-based organization wholly or partially on the basis that such person or faith-based organization believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people, including the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union.”

It’s easy to see why many believe this broad language could fuel discriminatory conduct by individuals or groups. That’s not unreasonable — or unlikely — in this spectacularly contentious, judgmental age.

In a letter Thursday, Maggie Garrett, legislative director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, wrote that, “In short, this bill allows any person, business, non-profit entity, and taxpayer-funded organization to ignore any law that conflicts with their religious beliefs about marriage. This bill would cause real harm to real people … .” Ironically, she wrote, it likely violates the First and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The state’s business leaders were quick to weigh in last week with their own concerns. The Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce are among those urging caution and due deliberation. International hotel chains beseeched the Legislature last week to not create a reason for business and people to avoid this state. That’s not a far-fetched worry, given the economic damage reported in Indiana, after that state adopted religious liberty legislation.

And, in a world increasingly inclined to see things along harsh, yea-or-nay lines, our intent is not to undermine the importance — sacredness, even — of people being free to practice their religion. The First Amendment exists for good reason. Religious views should be respected and honored – as long as they don’t cause unlawful harm to others holding different views.

The Christian apostle Paul, a religious zealot for the ages, himself offered a guideline for our interactions one with another. He advised in the book of Romans that, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

That religious concept also holds secular wisdom, we believe. The General Assembly, given its stubborn refusal to let this non-productive matter drop, should keep St. Paul’s counsel in mind and allow adequate time for this divisive legislation to be fully discussed via the normal legislative process.

By Tom Boggioni

Prior to the Georgia State Senate passing a “religious freedom” bill designed to offer protections to people who oppose same-sex marriage, a black lawmaker was stunned when one of the authors behind the bill blithely dismissed the fact that it would also protect the Ku Klux Klan.

The Georgia First Amendment Defense Act was sponsored by GOP Sen. Greg Kirk, who was asked on the floor of the senate by black State Senator Emanuel Jones, if he understood the implications of the bill he authored.

“We’re all familiar with the terms KKK, meaning the hate organization Ku Klux Klan,” Jones asked Kirk.

“I’ve read about them, yes,” Kirk responded.

“Some of my heritage have done a lot more than just read about them,” Jones bluntly stated. “My concern is, couldn’t that organization — if they chose to do — so identify themselves as ‘faith based’?,” Jones asked, referring to the hate group which has a history of calling itself faith-based.

Stating that he was “not an attorney,” Kirk conceded, “I guess they could, Senator,” before adding, “I’m not sure.”

“So there’s nothing in your legislation that would stop them, is that correct?” Jones pressed.

“That’s right,” Kirk said.

“Does that present a problem for you, Senator?,” Jones continued.

Kirk paused before conceding, “No.”

The white senator then added “I’ve read about those groups [but the bill] certainly isn’t directed towards them, it’s directed towards churches, towards ministers, and towards organizations that provide adoptions and organizations that provide help to the homeless, and so forth. It’s for equal protection as well.”

Continuing to ramble, Kirk bizarrely used the dancers accompanying singer Beyonce at the Super Bowl to point out that the Black Panthers would also be protected.

“I guess that’d be kind of a similar group that we’re talking about, and I guess they could fall under this as well,” he explained.

By Steve Almasy and Dave Alsup, CNN

(CNN)After lengthy debate, Georgia’s state Senate passed an amended version of a religious freedom bill Friday, sending it back to the House and infuriating critics who slam the revised measure as anti-gay and lesbian.

If the Republican-led House agrees with the Senate version, it will go to Gov. Nathan Deal to sign. If not, it could end up being changed again.

House Bill 757 passed the Senate 38-14 after three hours of debate that was, at times, heated. Last week it passed the House 161-0 — but the Senate version combined it with another more controversial bill.

Now the bill blends the Pastor Protection Act, which would enable religious leaders to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and the First Amendment Defense Act, which critics have said would allow tax-funded groups to deny services to gays and lesbians.

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Greg Kirk, a Republican, said the revised bill is about equal protection and not discrimination, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“It only impacts the government’s interaction with faith-based organizations or a person who holds faith-based, sincerely held beliefs as it relates to marriage,” he said.

Georgia Unites Against Discrimination called the bill “state-sanctioned discrimination.” On its Facebook page, the organization said the proposed legislation would “allow tax-payer funded organizations to legally discriminate against LGBT Georgians.”

The group has previously said the bill would also hurt single or unmarried parents and people of different religions.

Speaker’s office: This is unusual path for bill

Kaleb McMichen, a spokesman for House Speaker David Ralston, said it is unusual to mesh measures this early in the legislative session.

“This is traveling a little off an unusual route,” McMichen said.

HB 757 was introduced in July and had three purposes:

— It cleared ministers from having to perform marriages that violated their religious beliefs;

— Business owners could remain closed on Saturday or Sunday if working conflicted with their religious beliefs; and

— Religious institutions did not have to rent facilities for ceremonies that violated their beliefs.

“The section (the Senate) added is much broader than the bill we passed,” McMichen said.

The revised legislation now includes Senate Bill 284, which says it would “prohibit discriminatory action against a person who believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage.”

McMichen said he expects the bill to come back to the House on Monday or Tuesday, but noted that Ralston can call for a vote at any time during the session — which is scheduled to end March 24 — or not at all.

He said the speaker was focused on Georgia’s budget on Friday.

If the House votes to disagree with the changes, the bill will go back to the Senate, which has the option of rescinding the changes or not and passing it on to a committee comprising members of both houses.

Other laws and bills

Religious freedom bills across the country have been controversial. Indiana passed legislation last year but after backlash overhauled the law with a follow-up measure intended to ease concerns driven by businesses that it could lead to discrimination.

Pence signs ‘fix’ for religious freedom law

The Indiana law had drawn criticism from major companies like Apple, Walmart and Salesforce, as well as sports associations like the NCAA, NBA and NFL.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed a religious freedom measure into law that same week after state lawmakers overhauled their proposal so that it mirrored federal law.

The first-term Republican governor had rejected the first version Arkansas lawmakers had sent to his desk, instead asking for two tweaks so there would be no daylight between his state’s law and the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

There is some form of religious freedom acts in 21 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Another 15 states debated religious freedom bills during 2015 — Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on AJC.

By Kristina Torres

Opponents of same-sex marriage won a major victory Friday when the Georgia Senate approved a measure allowing them to cite religious beliefs in denying service to gay couples.

“I want you to understand, this legislation is about equal protection and not discrimination,” said it’s sponsor, state Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus. “It only impacts the government’s interaction with faith-based organizations or a person who holds faith-based, sincerely held beliefs as it relates to marriage.”

Passage of House Bill 757 came against the wishes of the powerful Metro Atlanta Chamber, which went on record Friday opposing the vote. So did the Georgia Hotel & Lodging Association, Hilton Worldwide, Marriott and InterContinental Hotels Group, which all said the bill would have a chilling effect on Georgia’s reputation for both business and tourism.

“The current version of HB 757 may allow discrimination against our guests and employees and is in direct contradiction to our company’s anti-discrimination policy and culture of hospitality,” IHG’s Paul Snyder said. “If passed, it will send a message to our customers, employees and visitors from across the nation that Georgia is closed for business to a specific class of people.”

HB 757 would enable faith-based organizations and individuals to opt out of serving couples — gay, straight or unmarried — or following anti-discrimination requirements if they cite a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction regarding marriage.

Religious conservatives have cheered the measure as a compromise that recognizes their faith-based objections to gay marriage. Many in Georgia’s business community, however, have expressed concerns over the bill and the potential harm it may cause if it causes groups to boycott the state. LGBT advocates said the bill legalizes discrimination.

Friday’s vote was not final passage. Although HB 757 passed the House earlier this month, the Senate made major changes to the bill in committee. It must now go back to the House for another look. That chamber is expected to take the bill up as soon as next week.

To read more about what’s allowed under the bill and why it concerns Georgia’s corporate leaders and others, see our expanded myajc.com story about the legislation as the Senate work on it this week.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on Online Athens.

By KATHLEEN FOODY

ATLANTA | Georgia’s state Senate is set to vote Friday on a bill allowing faith-based organizations to refuse services to same-sex couples without government penalties, including loss of taxpayer funding.

House Bill 757 is included on the full Senate’s agenda for the day, determined by the chamber’s powerful Rules committee. The panel, controlled by majority Republicans, approved the measure this week.

The bill combines a Senate proposal shielding adoption agencies, schools and other organizations from penalty for opposing same-sex marriage and a bill unanimously approved by the House allowing religious officials to decline performing the unions.
State Sen. Greg Kirk, a Republican from Americus, initially proposed the exemption for faith-based organizations as a separate bill titled the “First Amendment Defense Act.” Adding Kirk’s measure to the House proposal speeds up the legislative process.
Senate Republicans this week said their changes would protect any view of legal marriage, including same-sex marriage. They also said that adoption and other social service agencies run by faith-based organizations shouldn’t lose access to state funding because they disagree with the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

If the Senate passes the bill Friday, it will return to the House for a response.

Supporters of the original House bill protecting clergy acknowledged that religious officials already could refuse to perform marriages outside their faith under the U.S. Constitution but argued it would reassure people following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling effectively legalizing gay marriage. As a result, the House bill received little resistance from gay-rights advocates or the state’s business community on its way to unanimous approval, aided by support from the chamber’s top Republican Speaker David Ralston who said it offered the first chance for “productive discussion” on a charged issue.

But gay-rights supporters say the Senate changes give state approval to discrimination against same-sex couples. Gerry Weber, an attorney who handles constitutional cases, also warned at a hearing on the bill that employees of private companies could use such a law to defend actions based on religious belief, even if the employer has its own nondiscrimination policy.

Officials with the Georgia and Metro Atlanta chambers of commerce, intent on avoiding the boycott threats Indiana companies received after passage of a broad religious freedom law there in 2015, said this week that they’re concerned about “adverse ramifications for Georgia’s economy.” Officials with both organizations had worked with senators to improve the bill but ultimately didn’t endorse it.

By Sam Whitehead

ATLANTA — Sen. Burt Jones (R-Jackson) is the bill’s sponsor.
“We’re asking Georgia High School Association to establish the rules where a student athlete can express their beliefs within the framework of the rules that they establish,” Jones said from the Senate floor Thursday.

The bill would prevent state schools from participating in sports associations that bar athletes from wearing religious images. That’s the current policy of the Georgia High School Association, the group that runs the state’s high school athletics programs.

The House passed a similar bill last week, which currently sits with the Senate Education and Youth Committee.

By Bob Allen

For the second year in a row, religious leaders are lining up on both sides of controversies over bills labeled “religious liberty” measures that critics say mask a hidden agenda of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

A Cooperative Baptist Fellowship pastor joined other Georgia clergy in a Feb. 17 press conference opposing “religious liberty” legislation they say could allow adoption agencies to put personal prejudice ahead of the best interests of children in state foster care.

“Scripture commands us to care for the orphans in our midst,” Trey Lyon, pastor of communication and engagement at Park Avenue Baptist Church in Atlanta, told media gathered outside the Georgia Capitol. “Georgia has 16,000 children in state foster care, and the so called First Amendment Defense Act would give nonprofit adoption agencies that receive state funds the ability to discriminate against LGBT couples who are looking to adopt, as well as non-celibate singles.”

“I find it unacceptable at every level — as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father,” said Lyon, who is employed as global mission field personnel by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

On Tuesday the Senate Rules Committee combined the First Amendment Defense Act, which would “prohibit discriminatory action against a person who believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage,” with a “pastor protection act” ensuring that religious officials cannot be required to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their conscience.

The group of 15 faith leaders from Clergy United Against Discrimination and Faith in Public Life at Wednesday’s press conference represents a larger movement of more than 280 Georgia clergy who have spoken out against the religious exemption bills that have moved through the legislature.

The Georgia Baptist Convention, statewide affiliate of the Southern Baptist Convention, supports legislation strengthening religious liberty protections to end what leaders describe as discrimination against people of faith. The Georgia Baptist Mission Board website urges specific support for HB-837, a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that supporters say is needed to ensure that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion receives the same level of protection as other First Amendment rights of speech, press and assembly.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on the Georgia Voice.

By Patrick Saunders

Local and national LGBT activists are up in arms about a move by Georgia lawmakers to combine the controversial First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) with the Pastor Protection Act (PPA). The move happened during a Senate Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday afternoon and now moves to the full Senate for a vote.

Rep. Kevin Tanner’s (R-Dawsonville) Pastor Protection Act unanimously passed the House last week and LGBT activists have put it lower on the list of the numerous other so-called “religious freedom” bills under consideration, since it just codifies into state law that faith leaders cannot be forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies—a protection already granted under the First Amendment.

But it was Sen. Greg Kirk’s (R-Americus) First Amendment Defense Act that drew the most ire from activists as it would allow faith-based nonprofits that receive tax dollars to discriminate LGBT people.

Georgia Voice was in production on our next issue all day Tuesday but Project Q Atlanta was at the hearing, where Georgia Equality executive director Jeff Graham gave a statement to the committee:

“It is worse than RFRA,” said Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, referring to the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act from state Sen. Josh McKoon that has roiled the State Capitol for three years.

“It allows faith-based organizations to withhold services if they choose to do so,” Graham told the Senate Rules Committee. “The language in this combined bill is still unacceptable and codifies into law discrimination. I am especially concerned that this bill will have a chilling effect on the state’s LGBT families.”

SOJOURN’s Robbie Medwed wrote an editorial for Creative Loafing on Wednesday that spells out some of the concerns now that the bills have been combined:

So what’s this mean in reality? Consider the religiously affiliated adoption agency, homeless shelter, or disability assistance program. Many of these agencies receive state or federal grants because they serve the general population as an agent of the government, in whose stead they provide services. Under the PPA/FADA hybrid, these agencies would be able to completely ignore the few non-discrimination ordinances that do exist in Georgia and those on the federal level to deny services to LGBT families. Same-sex couples could be prohibited from adopting children. A disabled person who supports same-sex marriage could be denied medical care in a private hospital or even a ride from a private transportation agency. Transgender people, LGBT youth, or married couples could be denied space in a homeless shelter. In a city where 40 percent of the homeless youth are LGBT, it’s downright scary to think how many kids could be affected.

Many of these agencies sign contracts requiring them to operate according to federal or local non-discrimination ordinances (there are no state-level non-discrimination laws in Georgia). If they violate these ordinances, as they’d be allowed to do under FADA, they would be in breach of contract and at risk of losing their grant money. Or worse yet, if they chose to fight, they could start a legal firestorm where Georgia sues local municipalities, national organizations, or even the federal government. The costs to taxpayers as the state engages in litigation could be astronomical.

Georgia Unites Against Discrimination sent an email to supporters after the hearing, calling FADA “downright shameful,” saying, “And while you can rest assured LGBT Georgians are the target of this reckless bill, they certainly won’t be the only victims. FADA opens the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against single mothers, unwed parents, people of other faiths and more—all under the guise of so-called ‘religious freedom.’”

And it wasn’t just local LGBT groups jumping into the fight against FADA. The Human Rights Campaign issued a statement Wednesday, with the group’s legal director Sarah Warbelow saying, “The freedom to practice one’s religion is of crucial importance, that’s why it is firmly protected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This extreme legislation however goes far beyond that fundamental right. This misleadingly named bill would create broad loopholes that would endanger LGBT Georgians and their families. It would have far-reaching consequences and must be rejected by the Senate.”

National LGBT group Freedom For All Americans issued a statement following the hearing as well, with the group’s executive director Matt McTighe criticizing the Georgia bill and another anti-gay one in Virginia, saying, “Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value, and no one is trying to change that. The bills in Virginia and Georgia are narrowly written and single out specific people for harm – gay and transgender people, single mothers, religious minorities and others. The further lawmakers allow these bills to advance, the more damage they do to the brands of their respective states. We’ve heard from business leaders time and again, hostile bills like this are bad for business. Lawmakers should strive to pass bills that strengthen their states and lift up their residents, not single out people for discrimination.”

Anti-LGBT groups like the Faith & Freedom Coalition, American Principles Project and the Georgia Baptist Mission Board applauded the new combo-pack legislation.

Business groups reportedly offered language to the bill to help improve it before Tuesday’s hearing, but they remain shaky about what came out of the hearing as a result and have stopped short of endorsing it.

The bill could reach the Senate floor as soon as this week, and if it passes it would then go over to the House for consideration.

By Robbie Medwed

Yesterday, a state Senate committee recommended the First Amendment Defense Act, a controversial piece of legislation, move forward for a vote. In an opinion column, Robbie Medwed, an Atlanta native and LGBT activist, argues the measure’s potential impacts.

State Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus, would be the first person to tell you his Senate Bill 284, the so-called “First Amendment Defense Act” that’s working its way through the Georgia General Assembly, does not allow discrimination against LGBT people. He’s wrong.

In fact, the bill, now combined with the Pastor Protection Act, does allow discrimination against LGBT people. It also allows discrimination against anyone who has sex outside of marriage (single mothers and anyone else’s who’s even a little bit sexually active without a ring), anyone who disagrees that same-sex marriage should be OK, and, in a stunningly shallow attempt to hold everyone to the same standards, anyone who is against same-sex marriage. Kirk really thinks that allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone makes the bill fair. Apparently he hasn’t thought that maybe he should just not endorse discrimination, which would be far easier.

As it stands now — and things change every day — FADA and PPA have been combined into one super bill that guarantees religious clergy the right to not be forced to perform a same-sex wedding if they don’t want to — already a right guaranteed by the First Amendment — and allows any religious nonprofit to use tax dollars to discriminate against couples it doesn’t like.

So what’s this mean in reality? Consider the religiously affiliated adoption agency, homeless shelter, or disability assistance program. Many of these agencies receive state or federal grants because they serve the general population as an agent of the government, in whose stead they provide services. Under the PPA/FADA hybrid, these agencies would be able to completely ignore the few non-discrimination ordinances that do exist in Georgia and those on the federal level to deny services to LGBT families. Same-sex couples could be prohibited from adopting children. A disabled person who supports same-sex marriage could be denied medical care in a private hospital or even a ride from a private transportation agency. Transgender people, LGBT youth, or married couples could be denied space in a homeless shelter. In a city where 40 percent of the homeless youth are LGBT, it’s downright scary to think how many kids could be affected.

Many of these agencies sign contracts requiring them to operate according to federal or local non-discrimination ordinances (there are no state-level non-discrimination laws in Georgia). If they violate these ordinances, as they’d be allowed to do under FADA, they would be in breach of contract and at risk of losing their grant money. Or worse yet, if they chose to fight, they could start a legal firestorm where Georgia sues local municipalities, national organizations, or even the federal government. The costs to taxpayers as the state engages in litigation could be astronomical.

These situations are bad enough, but it gets worse. Supporters of the bill this week referenced the case of an Augusta State University student who was kicked out of her counseling program because she refused to conform to the American Counseling Association’s standards of practice. Rather than meet professional standards matched by the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association that declare so-called “reparative therapy” off limits to its members, the student insisted she had the right to engage in the dangerous practice. Thankfully, a judge disagreed with her and she changed her course study and job training. If this bill passes, ASU would be forced to allow the student to continue, earn her degree, and begin her practice as an independent counselor.

Victims of domestic violence are also at risk. As of this moment there are 46 state-certified domestic violence centers in Georgia that must abide by non-discrimination ordinances. Under FADA, those ordinances would be obliterated and victims of domestic violence could be denied safety and access to adequate medical care. A single mother could be denied treatment at a private hospital if her doctor believes that she is a sinner, and anyone could be denied HIV or other STI treatment at certain medical facilities if the doctors or nurses believe their religion tells them their patients earned their punishment by abandoning God.

Even closer to home, a lawfully married couple could be denied a family plan at the local cell phone store if the clerk decided they had a “sincerely held religious belief” that there was something wrong with their marriage. (Interracial marriage, we see you.) Sure, all of the national cell phone providers have internal non-discrimination policies, as do many private companies. But in Georgia? If an employee disagreed with that policy and FADA became law, they could sue the company for having a non-discrimination policy and they would win. Company-wide non-discrimination policies would become useless.

I want to be clear: I strongly believe a religious agency should have the right to serve whoever and however they want. However, to use taxpayer funds — state, local, or federal tax dollars — to push their own religious beliefs onto others is absolutely unacceptable. It would be no less than state-sponsored discrimination. Georgia’s been on the losing end of that battle for decades. That’s never been a fight we’ve won and it won’t be one we’d win now. Religious freedom is one of the most well-protected rights we have. It’s guaranteed in both the US and Georgia State Constitution and it is alive and well, despite the scare tactics of the Fundamentalist Right.

The combined PPA/FADA super bill will most likely come up for a vote in the Georgia Senate this week. After that, it’s almost certainly smooth sailing through the House unless we all speak up and make sure our elected officials understand just how dangerous this proposal is.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on Think Progress.

By ZACK FORD

It has become common practice for conservatives to defend legislation that enables anti-LGBT discrimination as supporting the cause of “religious liberty.” Considering most religious people actually support protections for LGBT people, this framing is misleading, and as several current state legislative fights demonstrate, unconvincing as well.

This week, for example, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 56-41 to pass something called the Government Nondiscrimination Act (HB 773), which is essentially a state version of the First Amendment Defense Act proposed in Congress. The bill claims to offer “protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions,” but it actually exclusively protects anti-LGBT beliefs.

The bill states that the government can not alter the tax status or deny any grant or contract if an individual or organization holds one of the following “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions”:

• that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman,
• that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage,
• that the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

The bill would give special privileges to people who don’t wish to give any recognition to same-sex marriages, transgender people, or anybody who has any sex out of marriage, requiring the state government to continue subsidizing any person or organization that discriminates as such. It doesn’t protect “religious liberty” across the board — only for those inclined against LGBT people.

Georgia lawmakers are considering a similar pair of bills, among others. SB 284 doesn’t include Virginia’s anti-transgender provision, but does similarly offer exclusive protection to those with “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage.”

A Senate committee advanced the bill on Tuesday. Sponsor Sen. Greg Kirk (R) explained that he “listened to the concerns of the faith community, the business community, and the LGBT community, and I truly believe this legislation protects all individuals.” Conservative groups praised it as a “live and let live bill” and “simply a tolerance bill.”

Likewise, Georgia bill HB 756 similarly would extend special protections to individuals and businesses, ensuring that they do not have to sell goods or services “directly to a religious organization or for a religious or matrimonial ceremony in violation of such seller’s right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” The legislation is designed to allow wedding vendors to justify refusing service to same-sex couples in the name of religion.

“Religious liberty” has also apparently become an urgent concern in Nebraska. Lawmakers there are considering LB 975, the Child Welfare Services Preservation Act. “In order to preserve the support that child-placing agencies offer children and families,” the bill states, “the government should not take adverse action against child-placing agencies based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Like other states’ legislation, the Nebraska bill would prevent the government from taking any “adverse action” — such as cutting funding or denying a license — against an adoption agency that refuses to serve families in ways that violate its “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

State Sen. Mark Kolterman (R), the bill’s sponsor, claims it isn’t meant to encourage discrimination against same-sex adoptive or foster parents — it’s just designed to protect agencies’ religious beliefs and thus Nebraska’s children.

But why now? It was only in August that a state judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex couples providing foster care or adopting state wards. The law had not been enforced for several years, but still gave cover for the agencies inclined to discriminate. Now, those organizations stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in state and federal funding if they use their religious beliefs to limit what kinds of families they’re willing to consider as caregivers for the state’s children.

Though their proponents have made it clear that LGBT people are the target of these bills, there are others who could also get caught in the crossfire:

• Virginia’s legislation could allow for discrimination against an unmarried pregnant woman, because an organization might believe she shouldn’t have had sex outside of marriage.
• Georgia’s bill would also allow businesses to refuse service to religious groups; Rabbi Joshua Lesser of Congregation Bet Haverim in Atlanta worries that an HVAC contractor would refuse to fix their air conditioning on a hot day.
• Nebraska’s bill might allow a child-placement agency to refuse to place a child with a biological relative if that relative doesn’t share the agency’s religious beliefs.

Indeed, the latest “religious liberty” bills upend actual religious freedoms by privileging one set of beliefs over others. Such an approach arguably has little to do with liberty whatsoever.