Georgia Religious Freedom Bill

striker42

striker42

Well-known member
I didn't see a thread on this but it's actually pretty interesting and sort of Braves related as the team has come out in opposition to the bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/georgia-religious-freedom-bill-passed/

To me this is the most overblown thing I've seen in politics in quite a while. It's a tempest in a teapot for a host of reasons.

1. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in the vast majority of places in Georgia. There are a couple of local regulations that may be affected by this bill but in the majority of the state you can discriminate against gays and lesbians all you want.

2. You don't currently see a huge discrimination problem. The main argument against this bill has been that it would open the door to rampant discrimination against gays and lesbians in Georgia. The truth is that the door is already open most places so you're not going to see a huge increase in discrimination.

3. The bill isn't nearly as broad as people are acting like it is. First off, it adopts the language of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which is already in place federally and has been adopted by a bunch of states. It incorporates the pastor protection bill which prevents any action from being taken against clergy who refuses to officiate at a ceremony. It prevents faith-based organizations (houses of worship, religious schools, and social organizations) from having to allow their facility to be used or rented for any event they find objectionable. The final part is that no individual can be forced to attend ceremony they do not wish to. This seems to be the biggest issue as it would prevent local governments from fining sole proprietors who refuse to provide services at a gay wedding. But that's pretty narrow.

Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. First, the First Amendment should cover any situation that would arise under this bill. Only the courts' reluctance to put any teeth into the free exercise clause has kept this an issue. If I'm a sole proprietor and you're trying to hire me to do something I believe violates my religious beliefs, the first amendment should protect me. Corporations get into murkier waters but that doesn't seem to be an issue with the current bill as it stands.

Second, I've never understood why it's so important that the government interfere in private citizens contracting with one another. If I want to be a bigoted moron and discriminate, why is it the government's job to stop me? Shouldn't other people just be allowed to discriminate against me for being a bigoted moron? And if the vendor of the services can't discriminate, why can the consumer? If an atheist couple decides not to use the "I Love Jesus Bakery" because of the bakery's religious views, why is that allowed?

People just need to chill and stop trying to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't do. Let someone else do what they want as long as it doesn't harm you. And I don't consider hurt feelings to be a harm.
 
Didn't SCOTUS declare the RFRA of 1993 unconstitutional way back then? Wasn't that the one where they were going to use government funds to rebuild that church down in San Antonio that had been damaged by a storm and since it was a inner city type church that helped a lot of poor people it was deemed a good idea by Congress and shot down by SCOTUS? Sorry, I"m working from memory and don't have time to look it up this morning.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Didn't SCOTUS declare the RFRA of 1993 unconstitutional way back then? Wasn't that the one where they were going to use government funds to rebuild that church down in San Antonio that had been damaged by a storm and since it was a inner city type church that helped a lot of poor people it was deemed a good idea by Congress and shot down by SCOTUS? Sorry, I"m working from memory and don't have time to look it up this morning.
Click to expand...

No, the RFRA of 1993 legislatively set the standard of review courts use for federal laws which might infringe on free exercise of religions to strict scrutiny (must further a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest).
 
striker42 said:
No, the RFRA of 1993 legislatively set the standard of review courts use for federal laws which might infringe on free exercise of religions to strict scrutiny (must further a compelling government interest and be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest).
Click to expand...

Hmm, I was thinking that the case right before that (Allwright, maybe, I forget) took out the "compelling government interest" part. They then just had to not discriminate against religious practices for religious reasons, or maybe a better way to put it was that the burden of proof was put onto those who may have been discriminated against. Then Ted Kennedy AND Orrin Hatch got together to try and put together some legislation that would go around the reasons why SCOTUS didn't like the RFRA. Anyway, again I'm working from memory and don't have time to look it up. Enlighten me on what I do/don't remember properly.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Hmm, I was thinking that the case right before that (Allwright, maybe, I forget) took out the "compelling government interest" part. They then just had to not discriminate against religious practices for religious reasons, or maybe a better way to put it was that the burden of proof was put onto those who may have been discriminated against. Then Ted Kennedy AND Orrin Hatch got together to try and put together some legislation that would go around the reasons why SCOTUS didn't like the RFRA. Anyway, again I'm working from memory and don't have time to look it up. Enlighten me on what I do/don't remember properly.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Employment Division v. Smith was the main case that set this up. The establishment clause had been eroded for over a decade leading up to this case. In it, the SCOTUS upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to two people who tested positive for Peyote that they had used in a religious ceremony. There was outrage at how little protection religion was getting at the hands of the court so the RFRA was passed. It makes every federal law and regulation have to pass strict scrutiny to be applied.

Now there was a case about a historic church being torn down where the RFRA was determined to not apply to states. The Catholic Church argued that the state historic landmark status of the church burdened their religious freedom. Since it was state law the RFRA didn't apply. Since then lots of states have adopted the RFRA.
 
striker42 said:
Now there was a case about a historic church being torn down where the RFRA was determined to not apply to states. The Catholic Church argued that the state historic landmark status of the church burdened their religious freedom. Since it was state law the RFRA didn't apply. Since then lots of states have adopted the RFRA.
Click to expand...

You're right about the case it was the Smith case not Allwright, those cases get mixed up in my memory (along with everything else I suppose), but the way you're describing the RFRA it sounds much more like what I was saying than what you were saying. And that whole the states can adopt it really won't mean crap if it's taken to SCOTUS, you know that way better than I do.

Oh and I agree with you on the concept of the establishment clause but you're going to have trouble getting SCOTUS or anyone else to take that overly seriously if the reason behind it is to not allow the same freedoms to every group in the country (LGBT in this case) since running other peoples' lives isn't what religion is supposed to be about, it's supposed to be about me looking in the mirror so that I am living the best possible Christian life I can live.

Of course that's just me.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
You're right about the case it was the Smith case not Allwright, those cases get mixed up in my memory (along with everything else I suppose), but the way you're describing the RFRA it sounds much more like what I was saying than what you were saying. And that whole the states can adopt it really won't mean crap if it's taken to SCOTUS, you know that way better than I do.

Oh and I agree with you on the concept of the establishment clause but you're going to have trouble getting SCOTUS or anyone else to take that overly seriously if the reason behind it is to not allow the same freedoms to every group in the country (LGBT in this case) since running other peoples' lives isn't what religion is supposed to be about, it's supposed to be about me looking in the mirror so that I am living the best possible Christian life I can live.

Of course that's just me.
Click to expand...

A state that adopts the RFRA would have their state laws judged based on strict scrutiny when they potentially burden religion. The federal RFRA cant affect state laws and state RFRAs can't affect federal laws. And a state adopting the RFRA would actually mean quite a bit. Contrary to popular belief, most of the laws that would potentially burden your religious practices are state or local laws, not federal. If your state has said its laws will be judged based on strict scrutiny when they potentially burden religion, even the SCOTUS would have to apply strict scrutiny in judging those laws.

Here's the thing about freedoms in the US. There is only one constitutional provision that binds individuals, the 13th amendment banning involuntary servitude. Every other part of the Constitution is either a grant of power to the government or a restriction on the government's power. This is why you see the words "Congress shall make no law...". So your freedoms that you are guaranteed by the Constitution are freedoms from the government, not freedoms from other people.

Protections from discrimination by private citizens or entities are entirely statutory creations. So this is the government passing a statute telling you what you can and cannot do. So absent those statutes, any and all discrimination is 100% legal. The question is whether the application of an anti-discrimination statute is an unconstitutional burden on free exercise when it punishes someone for refusing to render a service based on a religious objection. If it is then the statute is invalid as applied and the default allowance of discrimination is in place.

Where I have issue is not where people aren't able to use government to enforce their religious views on others, it's where people are being punished for trying to run their own lives according to their own religious views. You have cases where someone doesn't want to personally be involved with a gay wedding because they believe it would violate their religious beliefs. They're not trying to stop the gay couple from having their ceremony or force their religious views upon the gay couple, they're just not personally wanting to be a part of it. Then some law is used to fine these people for their refusal. I think that's inconsistent with the first amendment.

Ultimately, I think we're all better off with more freedom and it always scares me how quickly people are ready to throw a freedom away.
 
This kind of ventured far from where I was originally going. My original point is how utterly ridiculous all the fervor over this is. You have the NFL threatening to pull the Super Bowl from Atlanta if the bill is passed. You have people calling for movie companies to move operations out of Georgia. All sorts of stuff over a bill that in reality does very little and that's actually very narrow.
 
My problem with the bill (and the one in nc) comes down to public restrooms.



If a grown male thinks and classifies himself as a women should be be allowed to use a women's public restroom? After all, you're discriminating against him if you make him use a male restroom. You'd be a fool if you think predators won't take advantage of this.
 
Krgrecw said:
My problem with the bill (and the one in nc) comes down to public restrooms.


If a grown male thinks and classifies himself as a women should be be allowed to use a women's public restroom? After all, you're discriminating against him if you make him use a male restroom. You'd be a fool if you think predators won't take advantage of this.
Click to expand...
You're the fool if you think an actual predator would care about that law, or any other.

The defendant is hereby charged with 4 counts of rape, 2 of aggravated sexual assault, and at least 10 counts of illegally entering a public female restroom.
 
Krgrecw said:
My problem with the bill (and the one in nc) comes down to public restrooms.


If a grown male thinks and classifies himself as a women should be be allowed to use a women's public restroom? After all, you're discriminating against him if you make him use a male restroom. You'd be a fool if you think predators won't take advantage of this.
Click to expand...

you'd be a fool if you think predators won't take advantage of the internet
 
striker42 said:
I didn't see a thread on this but it's actually pretty interesting and sort of Braves related as the team has come out in opposition to the bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/georgia-religious-freedom-bill-passed/

To me this is the most overblown thing I've seen in politics in quite a while. It's a tempest in a teapot for a host of reasons.

1. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in the vast majority of places in Georgia. There are a couple of local regulations that may be affected by this bill but in the majority of the state you can discriminate against gays and lesbians all you want.

2. You don't currently see a huge discrimination problem. The main argument against this bill has been that it would open the door to rampant discrimination against gays and lesbians in Georgia. The truth is that the door is already open most places so you're not going to see a huge increase in discrimination.

3. The bill isn't nearly as broad as people are acting like it is. First off, it adopts the language of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which is already in place federally and has been adopted by a bunch of states. It incorporates the pastor protection bill which prevents any action from being taken against clergy who refuses to officiate at a ceremony. It prevents faith-based organizations (houses of worship, religious schools, and social organizations) from having to allow their facility to be used or rented for any event they find objectionable. The final part is that no individual can be forced to attend ceremony they do not wish to. This seems to be the biggest issue as it would prevent local governments from fining sole proprietors who refuse to provide services at a gay wedding. But that's pretty narrow.

Honestly, this shouldn't even be an issue. First, the First Amendment should cover any situation that would arise under this bill. Only the courts' reluctance to put any teeth into the free exercise clause has kept this an issue. If I'm a sole proprietor and you're trying to hire me to do something I believe violates my religious beliefs, the first amendment should protect me. Corporations get into murkier waters but that doesn't seem to be an issue with the current bill as it stands.

Second, I've never understood why it's so important that the government interfere in private citizens contracting with one another. If I want to be a bigoted moron and discriminate, why is it the government's job to stop me? Shouldn't other people just be allowed to discriminate against me for being a bigoted moron? And if the vendor of the services can't discriminate, why can the consumer? If an atheist couple decides not to use the "I Love Jesus Bakery" because of the bakery's religious views, why is that allowed?

People just need to chill and stop trying to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't do. Let someone else do what they want as long as it doesn't harm you. And I don't consider hurt feelings to be a harm.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with a lot of your analysis and I am very sympathetic to arguments of discrimination not only for gays, but for a lot of other groups. My question is if this bill doesn't substantively change the current situation in Georgia, why pass it at all. I think there are two answers: (1) it's an election year and the campaign literature writes itself with bills like this one, and (2) precedent for further exemptions from laws based on religious conviction.

For the record, I don't know why a gay couple would frequent a business where the owners are clearly against gay marriage. Why put money in the pockets of businesses you don't agree with when there are other options available? I'm curious to think what African-Americans think about this. Not the gay marriage angle, but how they approached businesses that were not particularly friendly to their plight during the Civil Rights movement.
 
Honestly, bills like the one Deal vetoed shouldn't even be necessary. We have a first amendment guaranteeing the government wont prohibit the free exercise of religion. The problem is the courts have shown no inclination of actually interpreting that language to mean anything. So long as you're not coming out and overtly outlawing a religion, you're probably going to pass constitutional muster.

Right now, if the Federal RFRA doesn't apply (and it doesn't apply to states), so long as the law is generally applicable and advances a government purpose, free exercise won't prevent it.

You could outlaw Catholic confession through mental healthcare licensing requirements.

You could outlaw prayer candles with building codes dealing with open flames.

You could outlaw the eucharist with laws governing food service.

You could restrict Islamic calls to prayer with noise ordinances.

You could make it difficult for Jews to get to their synagogue on the Sabbath by changing zoning regarding sidewalks and tearing them up.

There are countless other examples you could come up with. Give an attorney enough time to come up with the law and craft it and you could effectively outlaw the practice of a religion with laws that are completely neutral and generally applicable on their face. So the only thing standing between us and the government prohibiting free exercise is legislative grace.

I'm a Georgia attorney. I took a class in law school that focused on nothing but the first amendment. In the process I gained a tremendous reverence for it. It pains me to see people so ready to cast aside it's protections. People get too focused on the evil one person might do if they have the protection and so want to cast it aside without the first thought as to the evil the government could do once the protection is removed.
 
50PoundHead said:
I tend to agree with a lot of your analysis and I am very sympathetic to arguments of discrimination not only for gays, but for a lot of other groups. My question is if this bill doesn't substantively change the current situation in Georgia, why pass it at all. I think there are two answers: (1) it's an election year and the campaign literature writes itself with bills like this one, and (2) precedent for further exemptions from laws based on religious conviction.

For the record, I don't know why a gay couple would frequent a business where the owners are clearly against gay marriage. Why put money in the pockets of businesses you don't agree with when there are other options available? I'm curious to think what African-Americans think about this. Not the gay marriage angle, but how they approached businesses that were not particularly friendly to their plight during the Civil Rights movement.
Click to expand...

There have been very public examples in other states. You have the bakery in I believe Oregon that was fined a tremendous sum of money for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. You have a couple in Iowa who ran a small wedding chapel but refused to allow gay weddings. They were fined $5,000 when a gay couple complained and so they had to close the business to keep a line of people trying to book the venue for a gay wedding then running and reporting them. The fear is that local ordinances in places like Atlanta could be used in similar ways.

Honestly, there has been tremendous hyperbole on both sides. The failure of this bill does not mean it's open season on Christians and if the bill had become law it wouldn't have meant immediate widespread discrimination. This is political discourse at its absolute worst.
 
I'm not convinced that as a society it's best that we give into the delusion held by those with a sigificant mental disorder. I'm not sure it's good for the poor person who has the mental disorder who really needs to be treated, but not by giving into their disorder. You don't treat social anxiety disorder by telling the patient to lock himself in a room for the rest of his life. I think it's especially dangerous encouraging kids to give into the disorder. With adults it's probably harder to treat, but for kids I think it sometimes constitutes child abuse to give into the disorder.
 
Good posts striker.

I am a purist on the separation of church and state in the formal sense because I think when either side starts to exert too much control over the system as a whole, it cheapens both the secular and religious realms. I fully realize that it's not that simple and that there will be gray areas that legislatures and courts will have to figure out and those things will be weighed a case-by-case basis.

My comments about being dumbfounded by gay couples who frequent establishments where they will make the owner uncomfortable stand. As much as I don't have a problem with folks being gay, I think these couples are trolling to some extent.

kr, if you don't think there's predatory behavior going on in public restrooms now, you have lived a fairly charmed life. Maybe it's because I was so cute (insert laugh track) when I was young and drunk most of the time, but I used to get all kinds of offers and come hither looks in the men's restroom way back when (and these were straight bars). There seems to be this hypersexualization of the gay and transgender population that likely isn't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top