CLICK HERE to read the original article on GeorgiaPol.

By Jon Richards

We often hear about how good legislation is crafted. A legislator comes up with an idea, writes a bill, gets suggestions for improvements in committee, and passes it in one chamber, only to send it to the other side where the process repeats itself. Eventually, one hopes, a bill is perfected and becomes law.

Such was the hoped-for path of the First Amendment Defense Act. When Sen. Greg Kirk of Americus introduced the bill at a January press conference, many found reasons to fault it. There were charges of viewpoint discrimination, and that the bill would allow companies to discriminate against gays and lesbians. And so, the bill was assigned to the Senate Rules Committee.

The effort to pass any sort of religious liberty legislation has been to fashion legislation that religious conservatives, the business community, and the LGBT community could come together on. And, as Sen. Kirk went to improve his bill, he listened to the business community, which wanted a more restrictive definition of ‘person’ than the one used in most legislation. That desire resulted in one of the two major changes in the bill, defining a person as a natural person, and creating a definition of a faith-based organization. The net result was that secular companies were not offered any relief under FADA.

As he presented the substitute bill to the Rules committee on Tuesday, Sen. Kirk made a point of saying the legislation had the endorsement of the business community, specifically the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber. In saying that, he stepped out a bit too far, causing this joint statement to be released by David Raynor at the Georgia Chamber and Katie Kirkpatrick at the Metro Atlanta Chamber:

The Georgia Chamber and the Metro Atlanta Chamber offered language to help improve the bill. We appreciate the author and Senate leadership for considering and including our suggested language. There are still unresolved issues that must be addressed in this bill in addition to the underlying concerns that remain about the potential adverse ramifications for Georgia’s economy, however these changes help move the bill in the right direction.

If the First Amendment Defense Act had gone through the normal process of passing through one chamber and moving to the next, the concerns of the chambers of commerce might have had a chance to be addressed. However, that was not to be the case. The Rules Committee, to which the bill was assigned, merged the revised FADA language with that of the Pastor Protection Act which had already passed the House.

The merged bill will most likely be debated and voted on Friday in the Senate. Multiple sources have said off the record that the bill will be engrossed, making any further debate or improvement impossible. Assuming the bill passes, it gets sent back to the House. Because the bill was passed under a structured rule, the default action, which could be taken without a vote of House members, would be to disagree with the amended bill, sending it back to the Senate. It’s also possible that the bill’s author, Kevin Tanner of Dawsonville, and Speaker David Ralston could agree with the Senate’s changes, and decide to give House members an up or down vote on accepting the measure as sent by the Senate.

If the House accepts the Senate changes, the bill goes to Governor Deal for his signature. If it disagrees, the bill goes to the Senate, which could insist on its version. That would lead to a conference committee which would produce a final version of the bill.

The business community believes there are unresolved issues with the bill. Feedback from the LGBT community over the merged bill has also been negative. Yet, legislators are spending a third year dealing with religious liberty bills, and are growing weary of the amount of time spent on them, and the constant pressure they are under to pass a bill protecting religious beliefs. Rather than facing headlines that the House refused to accept an amended version of its own bill, championed by its Speaker who made a rare appearance the well to support its passage, they could accept the Senate version, perceived warts and all. It’s a gamble, especially because with a short timetable, no one is exactly sure whether the effects of the bill will be benign, or whether there will be a repeat of the turmoil that affected Indiana last year, and Arizona the year before.

What the House will decide to do about the merged bill once it returns is unknown, but it will likely move quickly once it gets the message from the Senate. If there are those who feel that the current version of the bill is unacceptable, now is the time to let House leadership know that the bill should go to conference.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on WABE 90.1FM

By JOHNNY KAUFFMAN

Two high profile bills meant to expand religious freedom in Georgia have been combined in the state legislature: the “Pastor Protection Act” meant to reassure clergy they won’t be required to marry same-sex couples, and the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which allows religious organizations to deny services to same-sex couples.

Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus, the sponsor of the FADA, proposed in the Senate Rules Committee Tuesday a new version of the “Pastor Protection Act” that includes slightly revised language from his bill.

Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, the sponsor of the “Pastor Protection Act,” was also at the meeting, and did not say whether he approved of the changes, but he left before discussion was completed to attend votes in the House on different issues.

The “Pastor Protection Act” with the support of the powerful Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, passed the House 161-0, but many in the business and LGBT communities have more concerns about FADA.

“I’ve listened to the concerns from the faith community, the business community and the LGBT community and I truly believe this legislation represents all individuals and protects the First Amendment rights of both the state and the nation we hold dear,” said Kirk.

According to the Associated Press, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce said in a joint statement that they “helped to improve the bill,” along with senators.

But the statement said: “There are still unresolved issues that must be addressed in this bill in addition to the underlying concerns that remain about the potential adverse ramifications for Georgia’s economy, however these changes help move the bill in the right direction.”

Combining bills is fairly common in the Georgia legislature, but it can create complications.

For instance, while LGBT advocates were mostly quiet regarding the “Pastor Protection Act,” the FADA bill is farther reaching in the exemptions it would provide, and multiple LGBT advocates voiced concerns about potential discrimination Tuesday.

The hybrid bill could come up for a vote in the Senate as soon as this week.

If it passes that chamber, it would still need approval in House.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on AJC.

By Kristina Torres

The Georgia Senate on Tuesday upped the volume on a contentious debate over religious freedom and gay rights when its most powerful committee merged two high-profile “religious liberty” bills into a single piece of legislation.

The move by the Senate Rules Committee to combine House Bill 757, known as the Pastor Protection Act, with Senate Bill 284, dubbed the First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia, came as the Senate’s Republican leaders trumpeted what they called a compromise over religious liberty efforts that have roiled the Capitol for more than two years.

Conservatives cheered the move, which they said recognized their faith-based objections to same-sex marriage. “Our faith is not a hobby,” said Jane Robbins, with the American Principles Project. “This is simply a tolerance bill. You live your life by your faith or lack of faith. I live my life based on my faith.”

But despite insistence by Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, R-Duluth, and others that the state’s business leaders backed the move and would support what’s now a new version of HB 757, but business leaders were among those who raised new questions about the effect of the combined bill. Advocates against domestic violence also said the new bill could endanger grants funded by federal agencies that prohibit denial of service based on sexual orientation.

Other experts said it was so broadly written, it could lead to the voiding of nondiscrimination policies of the state’s major corporations.

Said constitutional attorney Gerry Weber, “Large companies that have nondiscrimination policies in the state of Georgia will not be able to enforce those nondiscrimination policies when an employee asserts that their sincerely held religious belief allows them to discriminate based on marriage status, based on sexual orientation, based on whether somebody is single or divorced.”

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

The bill would bar state and local governments from taking any “discriminatory action” to punish those beliefs, specifically over convictions that marriage should be between a man and a woman or that sexual relations between two people are properly reserved to such a marriage.

It would protect government grants and contracts, among other things, held by faith-based organizations such as those that receive money to aid in adoption. Those organizations would also not be required to register as a nonprofit, although they would have to state a religious belief or purpose in their governing documents or mission statements.

Additionally, the bill states clergy could not be forced to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

The bill would not, however, allow public employees or elected officials such as Georgia probate court employees to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses if that offends their faith.

Corporate interests at the Capitol acknowledged Tuesday that they had offered language to try to improve the bill, with changes made to the bill that helped “move it in the right direction,” according to representatives of both the Georgia Chamber and the Metro Atlanta Chamber.

However, both groups stopped notably short of endorsement.

“There are still unresolved issues that must be addressed in this bill, in addition to the underlying concerns that remain about the potential adverse ramifications for Georgia’s economy,” the Georgia Chamber’s David Raynor and Metro Atlanta Chamber’s Katie Kirkpatrick said in a joint statement.

Those ramifications, according to studies by the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau, could mean a negative economic impact of $1 billion to $2 billion if national groups began boycotting Georgia or canceling conventions and events based on perceived discriminatory efforts by the state.

Other business groups said they had similar concerns. “Despite the best efforts of a coalition of business groups, the latest version of this bill has unintended consequences that are harmful to our employees as well as our business,” said Jim Sprouse, the executive director of the Georgia Hotel & Lodging Association. “We can do better.”

The Rules Committee now has the power to place the bill on the Senate floor for a vote, something that could happen by week’s end if members decide to act quickly.

Atlanta – Lawmakers on the Senate Rules Committee amended SB 284, Greg Kirk’s so-called “First Amendment Defense Act,” and in the process blatantly stepped over the line separating Church and State. The bill is now on a fast-track for the Senate floor.

The amended version of the legislation now includes language that explicitly allows both individuals and faith-based organizations the right to deny services to LGBT people and their families. The amended bill is an unprecedented assault on the separation of Church and State, allowing faith-based organizations that receive taxpayers funding to now legally discriminate against some of those very same taxpayers.

Jeff Graham released the following statement through the Georgia Unites coalition:

“This is a malicious bill that stands to harm not just gay and transgender Georgians, but so many others – including single mothers, unwed parents, people of other faiths and more. The freedom of religion is solidly protected under Georgia law and under the First Amendment of the Constitution, and no one is trying to change that. Let’s be very clear: the intention of this bill is to single out certain Georgians for discrimination.

“There’s a growing chorus of voices in our state for legislation that protects all Georgians, no matter who they are. Businesses big and small, Republicans, civil rights leaders and people of faith are all sending a clear message to lawmakers about the direction they want our state to move in. Unfortunately, some lawmakers today demonstrated their commitment to discriminatory legislation – even with our state’s reputation on the line. We urge lawmakers to think of the image this sends about Georgia to the rest of the nation, and to defeat this legislation.”

CLICK HERE to read the original piece on Charlton County Herald.

By Tom Crawford

Whatever happened to faith, hope, and love?

I was taught those Christian virtues at a very young age, but they were scarcely in evidence last week as members of the Georgia House of Representatives debated one of the “religious freedom” bills that has been introduced this session.

Instead, I heard a lot of anger, fear, and hostility.

Of the eight religious freedom bills that are pending, the House was considering one of the milder versions, the “Pastor protection” bill that keeps preachers from being sued if they don’t want to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Legislative leaders like Speaker David Ralston supported the measure because they hoped it would satisfy the wishes of conservative legislators who are determined to pass a religious freedom bill this year.

“We can draw lines in the sand, we can lash out at those who oppose us and remain intractable, or we can seek out common ground and move forward together,” Ralston said. “What the bill does is address real concerns from constituents all over the state of Georgia.”

Several lawmakers, however, made it clear they want to vote on other religious freedom bills that would be more far-reaching in their effects.

“This bill doesn’t cover Georgians like me, in my opinion,” said Rep. Kevin Cooke (R-Carrollton). “I believe it is our responsibility to protect all Georgians and I don’t think this bill goes far enough.”

“This bill only starts it,” insisted Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth). “This is an important protection, but friends, we have to do more. If we stop here and don’t go further, we have not done our duty.”

As the debate moved along, some lawmakers seemed downright angry that they should even have to talk about gay marriages being legal.

“The religious community is being persecuted . . . the religious community is being attacked,” Rep. Paul Battles (R-Cartersville) declared. “It may be the last time the people of God can stand up and say, ‘enough is enough.’ Enough is enough, and we speak today when we vote yes to this legislation.”

All of these proposed bills that would protect the religious liberties of besieged Christians are yet the latest example of legislators searching for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

If you want to talk about genuine religious persecution, take a few moments and read about the extermination of six million Jews during World War II. Nothing even close to that is happening in Georgia.

There are no recorded incidents of any Baptist preacher or Methodist minister being jailed because they would not perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. The First Amendment has protected the clergy for more than two centuries.

People aren’t being arrested because they choose to go to services at a particular place of worship, nor is anyone putting a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to attend a church they don’t believe in.

If Christians are being persecuted so strenuously, as lawmakers contended during last week’s debate, then how do you account for the fact that more than 70 percent of the American population in public surveys identifies its religious affiliation as Christian?

There are evidently a substantial number of people who never took the time to study the U.S. Constitution and don’t have a very deep knowledge of American government. They believe they’re going to be overrun by hordes of vengeful gays with marriage licenses.

“I started getting a lot of phone calls from pastors I knew in my district and other districts who were concerned and afraid about it (the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling),” said Rep. Kevin Tanner (R-Dawsonville).

“I got a call from a woman who was crying because she was sure her husband would go to jail for refusing to violate his faith (and perform a same-sex wedding),” Tanner recounted. “I felt we needed to do something other than words to reassure our faith community.”

State government isn’t going to force anyone to attend a gay wedding if they don’t want to. It’s silly to think that.

On the other hand, it’s obvious that some folks still need some reassurances. That’s why we’re destined to hear a lot more debate over these religious bills in the last few weeks of the General Assembly session.

CLICK HERE to read the original article on AJC.

By Aaron Gould Sheinin

Clergy could not be forced to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony under legislation unanimously approved Thursday in the Georgia House.

House Bill 757, known as the Pastor Protection Act, sponsored by state Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, passed 161-0 and now goes to the Senate. The bill, supported by House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, passed easily despite several Scripture-tinged speeches by lawmakers hoping it would do more.

“It’s a protection that we need,” said state Rep. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth. “I want to ask as a body, aren’t we all committed to passing this bill with a strong unanimous vote and going forward and doing more?”

Setzler has sponsored House Bill 837, one of at least seven “religious liberty” bills pending before the General Assembly.

State Rep. Kevin Cooke, R-Carrollton, said HB 757 doesn’t go far enough. The bill, he said, “doesn’t protect all Georgians from their own government with regard to their religious beliefs.

“We have multiple bills that will accomplish this end,” Cooke said, “and I would encourage this body to take action on those measures.”

Cooke later did not vote one way or another on the bill. But he said, as an example, while the bill would protect a preacher from having to perform a same-sex ceremony, he has a friend who has a pastor who also owns a private business that hosts wedding ceremonies. That friend, Cooke said, could still be forced to rent his space to a same-sex couple.

A full religious liberty bill would prevent that, he said.

“He is still left vulnerable, and this bill doesn’t address that,” Cooke said. “Through the bills we have out there, to include (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), that would protect many others in all aspects of life.”

Opponents of religious liberty bills could see Cooke’s statement as justification for their concern that such legislation is really an effort to allow private businesses to discriminate against gay Georgians. Sponsors of several of the bills, however, have said they are merely attempts to stop government from infringing on religious Georgians’ practice of their fath.

Efforts to reach Cooke later were not successful. He likely was referring to Senate Bill 284, by state Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus, which would allow religious nonprofits to refuse service to anyone they disagree with.

Ralston pushed back on criticisms from fellow Republicans that HB 757 does not go far enough. Other lawmakers are proposing more extensive religious liberty bills. The House speaker said he wanted to find common ground.

“I sometimes find myself worrying that the idea of focusing on that which unites us instead of that which divides us is becoming old-fashioned and dated,” Ralston said. “And I think that’s regrettable.”

The bill, he said, addresses real concerns of voters who worried that the legalization of same-sex marriage would have adverse effects.

“This bill shows that starting where there is agreement and mutual trust can be much more productive rather than spinning into what seems to be a bottomless chasm,” he said.

Ralston mentioned no one by name, but he could have been referring to state Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, who has sponsored Senate Bill 129, which is the religious liberty bill that has received the most attention. McKoon on Thursday railed against HB 757 on the floor of the Senate and called it the “politician protection act” because it would have no effect.

Updated by Victoria M. Massie

Same-sex couples in Georgia may now have the freedom to marry, but a pair of proposed religious exemption laws has many Georgians from all walks of life up in arms.

About 150 people, with a coalition of organizations known as Georgia Unites Against Discrimination, rallied at the Georgia State Capitol Tuesday against religious exemptions bills up for debate.

The problem, protesters argue, isn’t so much that these laws are denying LGBTQ couples’ marriage rights, but that the bills are too broad to protect them.

Last Thursday, HB 757, or the “Pastor Protection Act,” passed through the Georgia House Judiciary subcommittee. The bill, if it becomes law, will let pastors opt out of marrying same-sex couples without legal consequences.

It may seem this goes against the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. Technically, it doesn’t. Couples still have the right to wed. It just means this bill would let clergy personally ignore this right.

Another bill testing the limits of religious freedom is SB 129, also called the state’s “First Amendment Defense Act,” which was approved for review in January.

The language of the bill is tricky because it is open to broad interpretations. The American Civil Liberties Union warns that the bill lets people and businesses use religion as “a free pass to discriminate.”

The Family Research Council — a leading conservative think tank — trusts that the bill is a more sincere move to align Georgia laws with federal laws to better protect people of all faiths from doing anything that sincerely compromises their spiritual practice.

Could this lead to “Kim Davis” scenarios, where state employees use their religion to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, now with protection by Georgia law? Can landlords in the state use religion to evict LGBTQ tenants? Will businesses be held accountable to hostile work environments for LGBTQ employees?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The bill is just broad enough that it looks and sounds constitutional even if it really isn’t, and there’s no evidence to prove it isn’t.

“Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, this legislation seeks to harm the most vulnerable members of our society — citizens without protections under a state constitution and without legal recourse against discrimination,” Rabbi Pamela Gottfried said at Tuesday’s rally, according to the Georgia Voice.

The real problem: LGBTQ couples have the right to marry without adequate anti-discrimination protections

There are a number of reasons to celebrate the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision. At a basic level, why should sexual orientation be the grounds for denying someone the option to put a ring on it with the legal benefits that come along with marriage?

But the decision also has its own legal limits: While same-sex couples can marry in any state they choose — even in states that still try to deny them that right — states can choose to protect these couples from discriminatory attitudes and the repercussions that may follow.

A marriage license doesn’t shield someone from being harassed, denied a job, fired, or turned away from public accommodations or equal access to housing — SB 129 makes that abundantly clear.

Here’s the national breakdown of anti-discrimination protections in the workplace according to the Human Rights Campaign:

Twenty states prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Two states only prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Six states only prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity for public workers.
Four states only protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation if you work in the public sector.
So it’s not just Georgia. More than half the states in the US offer little to no form of legal protection against discrimination for LGBTQ residents. Even with President Barack Obama’s executive order to bar discrimination against LGBTQ federal workers and contractors, a national law to offer those protections has consistently failed to reach a president’s desk for the last several decades.

Until then, Georgia’s LGBTQ community — and several other states’ communities — are at risk for having their freedoms overridden by laws that protect their opponents’ freedom to do so.

Posted By Adriane Quinlan

In 1983, two Native American men working in Oregon as drug counselors were fired and denied unemployment benefits because they had used peyote, a substance common in the rituals of their religion. Their case made headlines, and in 1993, Congress passed federal legislation intended to keep government meddling out of the rituals of religious minority groups.

That legislation, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was cited in a 2014 Supreme Court decision in favor of the Christian owners of the Hobby Lobby craft store, who said their beliefs did not correspond with covering contraceptives for female employees, as required by the Affordable Care Act. The court sided with the company and, in a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the justices may have opened a “minefield.”

Welcome to the Georgia General Assembly, where that “minefield” is now being oh-so-tenderly tiptoed through by legislators who have put forward eight or nine or 10 — depending on how you count them — pieces of legislation that extend or spring off of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

To navigate the murky waters, we spoke to LGBT activists, pastors, rabbis, lawyers, and professors who are universally concerned about a Georgia where one individual’s “religious freedom” becomes code for making another feel unwelcome, bullied, deprived, disenfranchised, or simply discriminated against.

Senate Bill 129 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”
Sponsor: Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus

Individuals and businesses who broke local laws in the name of a religious conviction could use this law as their defense. Boundaries between a religious interest and a local law, including local non-discrimination laws, would wiggle out in the court system, under a rubric put forward in this bill that would require the state to show its “compelling” interest, which legal scholars say would likely open up religious-based challenges to non-discrimination laws. “That’s the general consensus in the legal community, the academic community,” said University of Georgia legal scholar Anthony Kreis.

The law could not apply to prisoners, whose claims of burden are quite obvious, but makes no other exceptions, despite opponents’ worries over how claims of religious conviction could give firefighters, police officers, and other public safety employees an excuse to not save lives and protect citizens.

A report “Striking a Balance: Advancing Civil and Human Rights While Preserving Religious Liberty” by the Leadership Conference Education Fund found that, in other states that had passed or mulled over similar legislation, the “extremely broad language of some RFRA proposals” had raised “concern among child welfare advocates and law enforcement officials that religious beliefs about disciplining children or the submission of women could be invoked in child abuse or domestic violence cases.” The study also noted that defense along religious grounds could go much further, as some believe that “the Bible opposes minimum wage laws, collective bargaining…and progressive taxation.”

Georgia Unites Against Discrimination, a project of Georgia Equality and the Human Rights Campaign, interpreted the law as opening up an “excuse to discriminate…especially as it relates to the LGBT community,” according to its breakdown of legislation that it is actively watching.

“All of this legislation has been motivated by animus toward the LGBT community,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign. Warbelow said that though the Federal RFRA was in place since 1993, it has become much more popular in the wake of the Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision.

While the bill’s sponsor, McKoon, has said the bill is not motivated to counter LGBT rights efforts, its backers have consistently connected it to same-sex marriage.

“Sen. McKoon has some strange bedfellows there if he thinks these people are not anti-LGBT,” said Allen Fox, spokesperson for Georgia Republicans for the Future, a group of conservatives who oppose the legislation and see it as a poor reflection of Republican voters’ real concerns. “My group is more concerned about this agenda hijacking, I think, the good will of what the Republican Party stands for – which is free markets, expanding economic opportunity, and smaller government. And all these bills essentially do is create this space to discriminate.”

To answer the financial question: a study financed by the Metro Atlanta Chamber found that adoption of RFRA could result, as it did when passed in Indiana, in boycotts of Georgia companies; relocation of conventions and sporting events away from Georgia; and more difficulty for companies that seek to recruit snake person workers. McKoon, a tireless defender of the bill on Twitter and panel discussions, has pointed to other cities hosting large sporting events that already have RFRA legislation on the books.

Josh Noblitt, a gay pastor of St. Mark United Methodist Church who is running for a seat in the state House of Representatives, said the bill simply doesn’t reflect the Southern hospitality at the core of Georgia, and at the core of American values.

“We live in a diverse pluralistic society,” Noblitt said. “All this legislation we are seeing coming before the Georgia legislature seems to miss the point of all of that. It singles out people of faith to get an exemption that other people, for whatever reason, don’t get.”

And that worried rabbi Joshua Lesser, who leads Congregation Bet Haverim: “There’s a long-standing xenophobia in lots of different parts of this country, a cultural sense of defending the mainstream. But when we look at the scariest moments of history it’s bills like this that begin paving the way… We see this issue as much larger than just an LGBT civil rights issue.”

House Bill 837 – “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”
Sponsor: Rep. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth

The language of this bill would seem to be non-threatening; it is less specific than its Senate counterpart, as it simply extends the 1993 federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to apply to the state of Georgia.

But “even if you’re just applying the exact same language you’re applying something that is no longer working,” said Warbelow, of the Human Rights Campaign, noting the problematic Hobby Lobby decision, and a 2008 Supreme Court decision that specifically limited the federal law’s scope.

And if you thought it seemed harmless to “extend” the provisions of a federal law to the state level, think again. As a federal law, RFRA only applies to situations where the government reaches into religious life. As a state law, RFRA would apply to situations between individuals.

Here’s how: Georgia has no civil rights public accommodation protections, which means that if John Doe claims that he was discriminated against by his employer, Acme Inc., Doe cannot sue Acme. Rather, a local government with a local anti-discrimination statute must enforce Doe’s claim against Acme. Therefore, even in seemingly private situations between an employee and an employer, the local government is an actor — meaning that RFRA would apply to more diverse, varied, and personal situations on the state-level in Georgia.

“The language might be the same, but the enforcement mechanisms will be different,” said Kreis.

And on top of these concerns, Georgia Unites Against Discrimination and other watchdogs are concerned that this bill could be a Trojan Horse, which could come up for a friendly floor vote and be modified and amended quickly to include troubling provisions.

House Bill 218 – “Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act”
Sponsor: Rep. Sam Teasley, R-Marietta

Last year’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is still preserved in the cryogenic chamber of this lingering house bill, whose sponsor says it will not come up for a vote. But the legislation is still being monitored by Georgia Unites Against Discrimination.

Senate Bill 284 – “First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia”
Sponsor: Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus

This is the bill for LGBT rights activists to be afraid of, a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that has broader protections for those who claim religious exemptions — including court damages with lottery-winning-level payouts — and specifically targets issues of sexual orientation, gender, and marriage. Opponents have called it “RFRA on steroids.” And Democratic Party of Georgia spokesman Michael Smith said that it highlighted an “anti-LGBTQ agenda…so transparent” it could have been written “on cellophane.”

The bill would allow people or businesses who believe “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage” to not provide a service to anyone who does not align with their beliefs. The bill doesn’t require government involvement or religious protections, is not grounded in religious protections, but rather would protect an individual who discriminated against another individual, even if their beliefs are not religious but simply in “accordance with a…moral conviction.”
The law appears to “almost be creating a protected class of people who disagree with the marriage decision,” said Allen Fox, of Georgia Republicans for the Future.

The ramifications of protecting that class are frightening. The law could potentially be cited by a landlord who refused to rent to an unmarried couple; a clerk who refused to help a single, pregnant woman; or a hospice nurse who refused to tend to a gay man. A construction contractor who refuses to build a road named for an unmarried woman could, under this law, not only be allowed to not build the road, but could not be punished for not fulfilling its duties if the firm bids on another project. Think that’s a crazy idea? What about if it becomes legally easier to fire employees who fulfill their duty without objection, than to fire employees who protest, and the state heads into a drastic staff cut? Would anyone be left to carry out government work?

The Human Rights Campaign envisioned this law as a form of “taxpayer-funded discrimination” that threatened to “create a breakdown of state government services,” according to a statement.

“Georgians could legally face discrimination from organizations that their own tax dollars fund,” said Jeff Graham, director of Georgia Equality, in a statement.

The law could also be unconstitutional, as it protects only one viewpoint: people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as Cathy Woolard, a lobbyist for Georgia Equality and Atlanta mayoral candidate, told the Senate Rules Committee. That means that at least one result of the legislation could be expensive, drawn-out legal challenges that reach the highest court levels.

House Bill 756 – the “Discrimination Protection Act”
Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville

Like the First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia, above, the Discrimination Protection Act would give people and businesses the right to deny services. But this bill would expand those denials past issues over sexual relations, to issues related more broadly to “a religious organization or for a religious or matrimonial ceremony, in violation of such a seller’s right to free exercise of religion.”

The legislation would appear to reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which required for-profit businesses engaged in commercial transactions to not discriminate against protected classes, said Kreis, the legal scholar. “I’m terribly unpersuaded that this legislation is about anti-discrimination principles,” Kreis said. “Because I certainly believe it would enshrine discrimination and not deter it.”

“If you had a shop owner that didn’t want to serve people who were Jewish or Muslim they could make a claim,” said Sarah Warbelow, of Human Rights Campaign.

So, on a hot day, when the air-conditioning snapped at the synagogue led by Rabbi Joshua Lesser, would HVAC contractors refuse to serve him?

“I don’t want them to refuse services if our air conditioning, if our water goes out,” said Lesser. “There is such a narrow understanding expressed by a more conservative Christian perspective about how they are affected that completely eclipses an understanding of the common good and the understanding we have to each other as citizens.”

“The problem is these bills are so vague and so wide open that you may end up with collateral damage to minorities and others far beyond any benefit,” said Heller. “They might cause much more harm than they might possibly heal.”

House Bill 816 – “Student Religious Freedom Act”
Rep. Billy Mitchell, D-Stone Mountain

Voluntary prayer could be allowed in Georgia public schools under this law, which opponents worry could lead students who practice minority faiths to feel singled out or worse — to be actively bullied for their different convictions.

In schools, a student is already allowed to pray on his or her own. And the Supreme
Court has been clear that prayer cannot be performed in schools “when you have a captive audience,” said Kreis. So the law walks a line that in many ways, has already been defined by the courts.

Noblitt worried that the law could be loosely interpreted by those who misunderstand it to allow for evangelizing in school, if a student argued that the ability to evangelize was a tenet of the prayer of his or her religion.

Sarah Warbelow worried that the law would open up prayer groups in schools that don’t provide the opportunity for non-religious groups, such as a LGBT rights group, as many schools have restricted clubs to those related to school curriculums, Warbelow said. “It’s not about opposing student prayer groups from meting at all, providing that it’s optional. The concern is that it’s not treating all groups equivalently.”

House Bill 870 and Senate Bill 309 – Student Athletic Uniforms and Play
Sponsor: Rep. Brian Strickland, R-McDonough; Sen. Burt Jones R- Jackson

Can a student athlete wear religious statements on his or her uniform, and can a public school team play against a private school team that may or may not be a religious school? These pieces of linked legislation would like to open the floor to those possibilities.

But there’s a big problem: student athletes can’t modify their uniforms under national guidelines that have nothing to do with religious expression, said Gary Phillips, the executive director of the Georgia High School Association, who spoke at a hearing on the legislation. “Adornments” on uniforms run against a national policy designed to keep order on the fields. And the idea that public schools can play private, religious schools? That will change only when the national association allows it.

In either case, the Human Rights Campaign raised a concern that the legislation could at some point allow an athlete to wear something that said something that offended other students. “Those statements could, in that context, end up feeling like bullying to other students,” Warbelow of the HRC said.

House Bill 757 – the “Pastor Protection Act”
Sponsor: Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville

Finally, a religious freedom bill with broad bipartisan support. And here’s why: it’s a redundant and completely unnecessary legal instrument, whose sole utility appears to be in public relations. This is a calming, happy bill for any politician to bring to a flock worried over the impact of same-sex marriage: it would simply put into writing that a religious leader cannot be forced to preside over a marriage ceremony that doesn’t accord with his or her beliefs.

That’s a right that is already protected by the First Amendment. Think of rabbis who refuse to preside over inter-faith marriages, of pastors who require couples to participate in faith counseling before a ceremony. Noblitt, who already has refused to marry couples simply on his own judgment call that they are not ready to go through with the rite, called it “redundant.” Lesser called it “gratuitous.”

“This is just a law to appease their fears,” he said.

The bill, which enjoys the support of House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, also includes one troubling provision, though it could be amended in the coming weeks. It would allow religious organizations to refuse to “rent, lease or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for purposes which are objectionable to such religious organization.” Most states already would not require a religious institution to rent out its main facility against its will, Kreis said. But if a religious institution owned property, such as homes on church grounds that it was renting out, such a law could allow an institution to “engage in housing discrimination,” Kreis said. “This would open the door to that.”

Senate Resolution 388 – Georgia State Constitutional Amendment to Fund Religious Organizations
Sen Bill Heath, R-Bremen

Under the Georgia Constitution, “No money shall ever be taken fro the public treasury… in aid of any church, sect, cult or religious denomination, or any sectarian institution.” A constitutional amendment currently being discussed in the Senate would reverse that, allowing “religious or faith based organizations to receive public aid.” But first, the idea would have to be put to Georgia voters. And it’s not even coming to the Senate for a floor vote — yet.

The idea stalled after the Georgia Anti-Defamation league and state Sen. Elena Parent, D-Atlanta, put forward the idea of adding an amendment to the resolution, which would require religious organizations that want to receive such aid to open their financial books, filing the same paperwork for 501(c)(3) tax status that nonprofits that do receive such aid.

Noblitt said the idea seemed, like other “religious freedom” legislation to counter a long-held belief in this country. “We need to keep state and church separate; state and religions separate. That’s just established precedent in our country.”

CLICK HERE to read the full article on Think Progress.

By ZACK FORD

With dozens of anti-LGBT bills popping up in state legislatures across the country, there are at least a few attempts underway to actually create protections for the LGBT community. This week, two such bills faltered.

In Georgia, there is no state law establishing public accommodation protections for any protected class. Lawmakers are considering HB 849, a bill that would create the same protections that exist on the federal level. Though there are limitations in the bill’s definition of public accommodations, it would protect against discrimination by any place of lodging (inn, hotel, motel, etc.), any restaurant (food-serving place), any gas station, and any event space (movie theatre, concert hall, stadium, etc.).

The bill currently only offers protections based on race, color, nationality, and religion, but on Tuesday, Democrats tried to add sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability with an amendment. Rep. Tom Weldon (R) opposed the change, claiming, “Those who get bullied usually are the ones that end up doing well on down the road in life.”

The House subcommittee considering the measure rejected the amendment 6-4 vote, and the bill advanced to the House Judiciary Committee without any LGBT protections. Last week, the same subcommittee also advanced a Pastor Protection Act (HB 757), which protects religious officials from having to officiate same-sex marriages. As currently written, it would allow religious organizations to refuse to let their property to be used for purposes it objects to, but an amendment added prevents such discrimination in housing and shelter. Other “religious freedom” bills that could enable anti-LGBT discrimination are also still pending.

There are currently 28 states that offer no protections to LGBT workers, 28 states that offer no protections to LGBT tenants, and 29 states that offer no protections to LGBT patrons.

By Patrick Saunders

Roughly 150 opponents of the numerous so-called “religious exemptions” bills under consideration in the Georgia legislature braved the cold and descended on the State Capitol on Tuesday afternoon to voice their opposition.

The rally, organized by LGBT rights coalition Georgia Unites Against Discrimination, took place in Liberty Plaza roughly a year after a similar rally. While that event featured mostly faith leaders on the speaker list, this year’s rally included speakers from a broader coalition, including Lambda Legal, Georgia Republicans for the Future, Women Engaged and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, as well as several faith leaders.

Georgia Equality executive director Jeff Graham hit back against the bills’ supporters who say that they will do no harm, citing a lawsuit filed by conservative groups in Indiana (where similar legislation passed last year) to strike down municipal ordinances protecting LGBT people from discrimination.

“So yes, when we say that these bills are vehicles to discriminate against various communities, that is our proof,” Graham said. “The words and actions of local supporters of those bills here in Georgia as well as the words and actions of supporters of similar bills around the country.”

Rabbi Pamela Gottfried made a biblical reference to the bills, saying, “Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, this legislation seeks to harm the most vulnerable members of our society—citizens without protections under a state constitution and without legal recourse against discrimination.”

And Rev. William Flippin, a regular at rallies and press conference in opposition to such bills, said, “We have noticed legislators of our great state walking around like Lady Macbeth with their hands still figuratively dripping with evidence of harm to humankind. As found in the book of the prophet Isaiah chapter one, the bloody hands I am referring to are stained by injustice and indifference. We are here today, not to storm the Capitol…but to give warning that the stain of injustice will not stand for those who oppress because the moral arc of the universe bends and will continue to bend toward justice.”

Over half-dozen religious exemptions bills under consideration, Franklin Graham rally next

Among the bills that many are concerned would lead to LGBT discrimination are Senate Bill 129, state Sen. Josh McKoon’s (R-Columbus) state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

In addition to McKoon’s, there’s Rep. Kevin Tanner’s (R-Dawsonville) Pastor Protection Act, which solidifies something that’s already part of the law although some see parts of it as being too broad. House Bill 757 sailed through a House subcommittee last week and will go before the full House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday afternoon. Tanner’s also responsible for a bill that would allow businesses to cite religious beliefs in refusing services for same-sex weddings.

State Sen. Greg Kirk (R-Americus) has his First Amendment Defense Act, which would protect individuals, churches and businesses from same-sex marriage by prohibiting them from facing legal penalties and gutting LGBT non-discrimination ordinances across the state. However, Kirk says his bill will not allow court clerks to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

State Rep. Ed Setzler (R-Acworth) has introduced a House version of RFRA as well, and LGBT activists are expressing concern about another bill, the Georgia Student Religious Liberties Act, a bill introduced by state Rep. Billy Mitchell (D-Stone Mountain) that focuses on prayer in public schools. Constitutional scholar Anthony Kreis tells Georgia Voice that Mitchell’s bill raises “serious concerns about the ability of school administrators to enforce anti-bullying provisions.”

And an attempt to insert LGBT protections into a civil rights bill that would protect against discrimination in public accommodations failed in a House subcommittee Monday afternoon. House Bill 849 will now go before the full House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday afternoon, when conversation about such protections is expected to return.

Anti-gay preacher Franklin Graham will be leading a “prayer rally” in Liberty Plaza on Wednesday afternoon following a breakfast with speakers including the Benham Brothers, former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, Dr. Alveda King, Pastor Kevin Williams and Pastor Rafael Cruz (father of GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz).

By KEVIN MADIGAN

A cold wind and flurries did not deter several hundred people from rallying midday Tuesday, Feb. 9, at the state Capitol’s Liberty Plaza against religious liberty legislation they say could legalize discrimination.

Speakers from various faiths led the protest of eight bills in the General Assembly that could allow certain discriminatory practices, especially against the LGBT community, under the veil of religious freedom.

“We are here to turn up the heat on this very chilly day,” said Jeff Graham, the executive director of Georgia Equality. “Our focus is that these religious exemption bills are bad not just for Georgia, but dangerous for so many of us. Bills created in this session would create exemptions so that some would not have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. That is dangerous territory.”

The rally was part of the revived fight over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA was shelved last year after Rep. Mike Jacobs added nondiscrimination language in the House Judiciary Committee, but that bill now is joined by several written in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage in June.

On Feb. 2, rabbis joined an impromptu news conference organized at the Capitol by Faith in Public Life to respond to a Georgia Baptist Convention event supporting the bills.

Georgia and Mississippi are the only states without civil rights protections, and Georgia is one of five with no legislation covering rights in public accommodations, Graham said.

Calling it “moral ineptitude,” Simone Bell of Lambda Legal said Tuesday: “Too many of our state senators and representatives are spending our tax dollars in the name of their distorted and ideological views of Christianity.”

She called it a travesty that so many people who revere the Constitution “only do so until such time as it does not fit their old and tired narratives of who is worthy of protection.”

Rebecca Stapel-Wax, the executive director of SOJOURN, told the AJT that Georgians and their legislators need to know discrimination is not tolerated. “If you discriminate against one group of people, then everyone is at risk, and it’s critical that we are all very strong about that.”

Rabbi Pamela Gottfried, a teacher at the Weber School, said Jews have an obligation to protect everyone.

“These bills use words like freedom and protection to misdirect our attention away from their true purpose, which is to allow discrimination under the guise of religion. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, these bills seek to harm the most vulnerable in our society. I cannot sit idly by while my neighbors are threatened. We must intervene,” she told the crowd.

“People have to speak about discrimination and what compassion looks like, and this is not what it looks like,” SOJOURN Chair Leanne Rubenstein said. “We need to treat each other fairly, and we have to tell our lawmakers that this is mistake. If we don’t show up, nobody knows what we’re thinking. I’m tired of wasting time on legislation on discrimination when we have so many other things to deal with. When we don’t have a hungry child, when we don’t have a homeless person in Georgia, when all kids have a fair education, then we’re making progress.”

Hijacking religion for discrimination, Rabbi Ruth Abusch-Magder said, “is a terrible thing. I believe in the sanctity of all humans, and that includes LGBTQ members of the community.”

Rabbi Malka Packer, the director of InterfaithFamily/Atlanta, said: “I’m here for basic human rights. Religion for me isn’t about exclusion; it’s about inclusion and how we can support everyone in our world.”

Congregation Bet Haverim member McKenzie Wren said understanding and tolerance are fundamental to Judaism. “If we’re going to bring people together, we have to come from a place of love. If we exclude people, we’re never going to build understanding. Showing support for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and those who are excluded, is really important to me.”

Today, a House subcommittee considered amendments to HB 849, legislation which would extend public accommodations nondiscrimination protections to some Georgians. Currently, Georgia is one of three states without a public accommodation law, leaving thousands of people across the state vulnerable to discrimination in public spaces like parks, hotels, restaurants and medical offices.

HB 849 seeks to address that disparity, but fails to specifically enumerate “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes. While the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), has said he would like to add protected classes to the bill and sees its current form as a starting point only, the subcommittee today rejected the addition of an amendment that would extend protections to gay and transgender people. The good news though? The amendment may resurface when the bill is considered by the full committee—and we’ll be there pushing every step of the way.

Jeff Graham of Georgia Unites released the following statement after today’s hearing and vote in the subcommittee:

“While we’re disappointed that the subcommittee rejected an amendment that would make HB 849 a stronger bill, we’re continuing to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the bill is as comprehensive as possible when it emerges from full committee. We agree with Rep. Golick that this bill should grow to protect more Georgians – including hardworking LGBT Georgians and their families.

“We’re committed to producing a bill that reflects Georgia’s values and makes our state the best possible place to do business and raise a family. That means passing legislation that protects all Georgians from discrimination, not just some.”

As some fringe lawmakers double down on their discriminatory attacks on LGBT Georgians—as evidenced by the 8 anti-LGBT bills currently pending—it’s certainly refreshing to see other lawmakers proactively work to update our state law to ensure more Georgians are protected. And we are committed to working with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers to ensure that HB 849 affords these necessary and long overdue protections to LGBT Georgians.

You can help keep the momentum going by rallying with us near the Capitol tomorrow! Join hundreds of Georgians at noon at Liberty Plaza and let’s tell lawmakers: It’s time to protect—not attack—LGBT Georgians.

ATLANTA – A House subcommittee considered amendments to HB 849 today, legislation which would extend public accommodations nondiscrimination protections to some Georgians. In its current form, the bill does not cover a wide swath of Georgians – including those who are gay and transgender. While the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rich Golick (R-Smyrna), has said he would like to add protected classes to the bill and sees its current form as a starting point only, the subcommittee today rejected the addition of an amendment that would extend protections to gay and transgender people. The amendment may resurface when the bill is considered by the full committee.

Jeff Graham of Georgia Unites released the following statement:

“While we’re disappointed that the subcommittee rejected an amendment that would make HB 849 a stronger bill, we’re continuing to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the bill is as comprehensive as possible when it emerges from full committee. We agree with Rep. Golick that this bill should grow to protect more Georgians – including hardworking LGBT Georgians and their families.

“We’re committed to producing a bill that reflects Georgia’s values and makes our state the best possible place to do business and raise a family. That means passing legislation that protects all Georgians from discrimination, not just some.”