Guest Post: The Battle For Religious Liberty for All of Us
Editor’s Note: This guest post was written by Republican State Senator Marty Harbin of Tyrone. Sen. Harbin was elected in 2014. He represents District 16, which includes Lamar, Spalding and Pike counties and most of Fayette County.
We have been involved in a very long and difficult struggle to defend religious liberty in the state of Georgia. Let’s take a look back at what has happened.
In the first year of the 2015-2016 Biennium, my colleague, Senator Josh McKoon, introduced a bill that was essentially the same as a piece of legislation that had passed at the Federal level in 1993. It would have prohibited the government of the state of Georgia from compelling someone to do something against their religious beliefs unless there was a very strong, compelling reason. This bill was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.
While some said that no such bill was needed in Georgia because of the Federal RFRA, they are incorrect. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the Federal RFRA does not apply to the states, and that, in fact, states do need their own version. In large part because of this ruling, thirty-one other states, besides Georgia, have already passed laws identical to or very much like the 1993 Federal RFRA. All of the states surrounding Georgia have State RFRA’s in place.
Some have claimed that RFRA is a radically far-right and discriminatory bill, despite passing at the Federal level with overwhelming support by Congress, including Georgia’s current Governor and then Congressman Nathan Deal, as well as with the support of then President Bill Clinton, who signed the Federal RFRA into law. There have been no incidents of discrimination in regard to this law since its passage in 1993.
Senator McKoon’s bill, after passing overwhelmingly in the Georgia Senate, languished in a House committee for an entire year. As a result, several versions of RFRA were offered by various representatives at the beginning of the 2016 session. But only one bill was introduced in the House, commonly called the “Pastor Protection Act,” or PPA, which would have simply provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not compel a pastor to officiate over a same sex wedding if doing so violated his deeply held religious conviction that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman.
After passing unanimously in the House, the PPA, legally numbered House Bill 757, came to the Senate, where my colleague, Senator Greg Kirk, amended it in committee to include the “First Amendment Protection Act”, or FADA. This would have provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not take adverse action against an individual or business for having a deeply held religious belief that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman. Thus, protection for all Georgians.
Having passed out of committee, HB 757, with FADA added to it, passed the Senate by a strong majority and went back to the House, where it was amended again to add what was, essentially, Senator McKoon’s long lost RFRA bill. The result was that both Houses agreed overwhelmingly to this version of HB 757, that in summary, combined PPA, FADA, and RFRA together.
The objection came from Governor Deal who demanded that the bill be stripped of the language which provided religious freedom protection for individuals and businesses, leaving protection only for pastors/clergy and non-profits. Meeting this requirement which was necessary for his support, this bill then passed out of the Georgia General Assembly on March 16th and went to the governor’s desk. But, despite the fact that all of his demands were met, Governor Deal vetoed HB 757 – the law titled “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom” on March 28th.
Some have claimed that the bill is radical, and thus Governor Deal vetoed it. But is it really? It says that the state cannot force a business to be open on Sunday. Is that radical? It says that the state cannot make someone attend a wedding they don’t want to attend. Is that radical? The majority of Georgians do not think so and have expressed their strong support of this legislation.
But do you know what is radical? It is radical for Big Business and the Atlanta Chamber to succumb to the pressure of special interest groups and help push their agenda. The businesses that are making these threats are located all over this nation and in other parts of the world. They haven’t pulled out of those places so why threaten Georgia?
Why doesn’t the media present this story as businesses intimidating Georgia rather than legislator’s threatening the economy? Why does something that is “for” protecting something get reported as “against” something else? Why has there been so much negative press about this issue? The real reason is because there is and has been an agenda to destroy religious freedom which is the basis of all of our other freedoms.
The simple truth is that there is nothing discriminatory about this bill. I repeat, there is no discrimination in it. A lot of diligent work has gone into this bill. There was concerted effort by those in both chambers working with the speaker and the lieutenant governor and the governor’s office to ensure protection against discrimination.
That is why I am very disappointed that a man who, not only once, but twice, won the trust of a majority of the voters in this state, so blatantly violated that trust by refusing to sign a law that will protect them – the ordinary people who live and work in our state – those who are producers and consumers – those who contribute to making our economy strong as well. Their voices have been ignored by our governor.
However, this battle is not over. There are several options for the true, freedom loving, God-fearing members of the legislature to take. Our Founding Fathers have given us a form of government that includes a balance of powers with checks and balances. They have given us the incredible gift of a representative form of government – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The voice of the people has spoken through their elected representatives. They want HB 757 – “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom.”
The Constitution of Georgia allows for a special session of the General Assembly to be called in order to overturn the governor’s veto. For that, we would need the support of 34 Senators and 108 Representatives. This is certainly possible, as overwhelming majorities in both Houses voted for the passage of HB 757.
But it will take courage. Freedom is not free; it is costly and has come to us because of the great sacrifice of so many. Are we now willing to protect it for those who come behind us? I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms that I have had in my life – freedoms for which my father fought. Others are fighting in the states around us. Others are taking a stand. Not taking action now on this issue will only result in more battles in the future.
Religious liberty created our great nation. Religious liberty is the foundation of all of our other freedoms, and it must be protected. Join me as I make every effort to call a special session to overturn the governor’s veto. This is the right thing to do, whatever the cost!
I urge my fellow senators and representatives to rise up. I urge the citizens of Georgia to rise up as well. Let your senator and representative know how important this issue is to you. Watch to see how they respond and hold them accountable for their action or inaction. I pray, and I ask that you join me in praying that enough will be willing.
However, if there is not enough support for a special session to be called, know that we will not give up. My colleagues and I will return next year at the start of the new 2017-2018 Biennium, and we will continue this battle for the religious liberties of all Georgians.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you truly believed the bill didn’t allow for discrimination, why not make that explicit? Why not ensure that ALL non-discrimination laws, including local non-discrimination ordinances, were respected in the text of the law?
Until you’re all willing to sit down with everyone – with all communities represented, including the LGBT community – and ensure that everyone’s needs and concerns are met, the end result won’t be fair for all. As long as you’re trying to pass a bill that “protects” people from having to honor constitutionally-guaranteed legal rights, you’ll always be fighting for some kind of discrimination.
Could anyone imagine this kind of response to anti-racial segregation laws being honored today? “My Bible says the races shouldn’t mix! I need a special exemption to this law to protect my religious freedom!”
The pastor’s right to refuse to perform a marriage is already protected and anyone who says it’s not is simply fear mongering. Religious freedom is already well protected. All of the examples that Senator McKoon has used over the past 3 years to show a “need” for this law in Georgia were settled using already existing laws. No one has shown a single case that would have been directly changed by the existence of this law.
Of course, the rights of LGBT people to have full legal equality in Georgia aren’t protected, so, who’s actually in danger here? For that matter, there are NO civil rights laws in Georgia of any kind, so what do you need that you don’t already have?
“The businesses that are making these threats are located all over this nation and in other parts of the world.”
It’s ironic that the people that fought to give first amendment rights to businesses get made when businesses form opinions.
Congratulations on hitting every note on the conservative dog whistle. I’m glad for all the bakers in Tyrone you have their back to keep them from having to dish out cupcakes to cupcakes. And good luck with continuing this fight…I’m sure that it’s really going to get your democratic rivals thinking.
“cupcakes to cupcakes”? Really? Just damn…
I’m surprised he didn’t have this song playing in the background as you read it.
https://youtu.be/BVkTmnJkAN8
Jon,
……..Why doesn’t the media present this story as businesses intimidating Georgia rather than legislator’s threatening the economy? Why does something that is “for” protecting something get reported as “against” something else? Why has there been so much negative press about this issue? The real reason is because there is and has been an agenda to destroy religious freedom which is the basis of all of our other freedoms………..
Sen. McKoon has publically promoted the bill with NAZI style religious groups, you really do not think this is a PR nightmare for our state beyond being morally wrong? You really do not understand how working with hate groups calling for the genocide of gays, and Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, was done in the name of Christianity, because they would not convert to Christianity, is not hate speech? I like you Jon, but it is rather upsetting you keep avoiding this in the debate about RFRA bill, God is about promoting love, and RFRA is being pushed by hate groups with Sen McKoon. HUH?
One for the “Best one liners since PeachPundit”:
…dishing out cupcakes for cupcakes.
Peace unto to you Sen. Harbin, your intentions were poorly expressed by the lack of craftmanship in this failed effort.
John, you do realize that I did not write the post, don’t you? The opinions in it are Sen. Harbin’s. He reached out to us asking if he could do a guest post, and we gave him that opportunity, unedited except for my brief intro at the top.
Jon,
I do understand, but I am disappointed about your silence about Sen. McKoon promoting his RFRA bill with NAZI groups, parading hate as the word of God. Bottom line, Sen McKoon wants to give more rights to NAZI groups to discriminate openly, and you have no opinion?
John, the debate over religious liberty is a much broader one than what Josh says or does. Religious liberty bills have also been introduced by Reps. Teasley, Tanner and Setzler, and Sen. Kirk. This guest post was written by Sen. Harbin, and I believe reflects the beliefs of other senators and representatives on this issue.
While Sen. McKoon has been perhaps the most vocal advocate on the issue, it’s not his alone. If he were to resign the Senate tomorrow, the issue would still be here, and it is likely to be an issue through the 2018 statewide elections and beyond. My goal has been to report on the debate and the positions of all sides of the debate (and there are multiple sides) fairly, in large part because I believe that reasoned discussion of the issues all aides have with regard to religious liberty and civil rights will lead to a better outcome than the bomb throwing we’ve seen plenty of, including from you.
Did Josh at one time speak to a group of Nazi sympathizers? Maybe,. I also heard this week (with evidence of news stories backing it up) that Ted and Heidi Cruz are actually part of the Illuminati and want to become elected so that they can create a North American Union. And frankly, invoking Godwin’s Law is not going to resolve this issue one way or the other.
Jon,
…Did Josh at one time speak to a group of Nazi sympathizers?…..
You know Josh was on a speaking tour promoting the bill with the International House of Prayer which has been promoting for years that Hitler murdered 6 million Jews in the name of Christianity because they would not convert to Christianity. You requuested I stop posting the youtube video on this topic. You also now he has been part of the Cruz campaign that has been promoting RFRA, and clearly they are call for the genocide of gay via Christianity. I like you Jon, but this is a dangerous and perverse view of religion that Sen. McKoon is helping to promote through his RFRA bill.
…..National Religious Liberties Conference. Pastor Kevin Swanson has said in the past that Christians should attend gay weddings and hold up signs telling the newly married gay and lesbian couples that they “should be put to death.” He was an advocate of Uganda’s infamous “Kill the Gays” bill, which he saw as a model.
At the confab over the weekend, where he introduced Huckabee, Jindal and Cruz to the audience — and where Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, an anti-gay Tea Party crusader, was a star speaker — he reiterated his death penalty call, adding that homosexuals should first be given some time to repent before the executions begin. There’s nothing subtle about what he said, and you can watch it for yourself, including his statements about what he would do if he were one of those parents of a gay person:…..
Jon,
You can clearly see here Sen. McKoon was holding rallies with the International House of Prayer supporting the RFRA bill.
http://www.cwfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GA-ReligiousFreedomRallyPrayer.pdf
From the leader of International House of Prayer:
…….The Lord says, “I’m going to offer two strategies to Israel, to these 20 million.” He says, “First, I am going to offer them grace, I am going to send the fisherman.” Do you know how a fisherman lures? I mean do you know how a fisherman does their thing? They have the bait in front, luring the fish. It’s a picture of grace.
And he says, “And if they don’t respond to grace, I’m going to raise up the hunters.” And the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler. He drove them from the hiding places, he drove them out of the land.
Mike Bickle is not just any radical pastor preaching End Times scripture. He was a key organizer of Perry’s The Response rally this summer, lending a number of staff members of his International House of Prayer (yes, IHOP) to the event and emceeing the proceedings himself………
Sen. Harbin R-Tyrone receives ~golf clap~ for his hauntingly Nixonian defense of the indefensible today in Georgia.
Stick a fork in it, Sir, it’s DONE, before you bring us all down in a smouldering pile of misplaced piety.
That is all.
Senator Harbin, you make the usual error of failing to recognize that those who oppose you can be “true, freedom loving, God-fearing members of the legislature” too. What is so off-putting about you and other Christianists is your eagerness to cloak yourself in righteousness. Why don’t you concentrate on the state’s business when you’re on the state’s dime?
In the event Sen. Harbin drops by the comment section, I have an off-topic question I’m hoping he might answer:
The Pursuing Justice for Rape Victims Act (aka the Rape Kit Bill) was passed unanimously by the Georgia House three times this year, and in the Senate it was passed by a vote of 55-1. And that lone dissenter between both houses wasn’t even Renee Unterman (who briefly blocked the bill); it was Marty Harbin.
And so, since I don’t believe he’s commented on this particular vote elsewhere, I was hoping Sen. Harbin might like to explain why he was the only member of the entire General Assembly to vote against the Pursuing Justice for Rape Victims Act.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/vote.aspx?VoteID=14589
I’d like to know the answer to this as well but I fear it would make me violently ill.
AP BREAKING: PayPal cancels $3.6 million investment in North Carolina over discrimination law.
NC LGBT law prompts Lionsgate to pull production of new Hulu show from Charlotte
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article69837702.html#storylink=cpy
Does “transgender” mean they’ve had actual surgery to change sexes? Or does that mean anyone who feels like they are the opposite sex to that they were born with? If so, the raging Casanova, heterosexual who humorously claims to be a “lesbian trapped in a man’s body” may follow your eight year old daughter into the bathroom to get a peek? Please tell me that example could not occur If so, praise be to NC! If, on the other hand, that example could be the case our society is truly, totally screwed up…
About 70% of transgender people do not have any kind of surgery. Transgender just means that you are not the gender the doctor assigned you at birth.
It’s important to note, also, that most transgender people live every single day as the gender they know themselves to be. Some take hormones, some have surgery, some just dress in a way that matches their gender. None of them are pretending and it’s very clear that they are consistent in their gender identity and presentation, and it’s never about fooling anybody. With all of the violence against trans people and the legal discrimination against them, folks don’t pretend to be transgender just for the fun of it. It just doesn’t happen.
It has been and continues to remain illegal for anyone to go into a bathroom and do anything inappropriate, no matter who they are or claim to be. Bathrooms have an express purpose and to go outside of that carries a punishment, and that’s recognized no matter the law. But allowing transgender people to use the proper bathroom doesn’t change what predators will or won’t do. Predators are going to do disgusting things no matter what, which is why those laws have already existed.
17 states and over 200 municipalities have had the exact same law that Charlotte enacted (including Atlanta) for years and there has yet to be a single case of an actual transgender person going into a bathroom and acting as a predator.
Answer this: Are you comfortable with a male following your ten year old daughter into the restroom?
Ok. I am going to use a 2nd Amendment argument here….
What prevents a bad guy with a gun from going into a building with no security, but “No Guns Allowed” signs?
Right-wing: NOTHING!!!!
Left-wing: They are breaking the law though!!!!
What prevents a bad guy with a b****r from going into a designated women’s restroom with no security?
Left-wing: NOTHING!!!!
Right-wing: They are breaking the law though!!!!
Does that about sum it up?
Neither you or Robbie have the guts to answer my question. Deflect….
Sorry, I wasn’t around this afternoon. I’ll answer the question. No, I wouldn’t be comfortable with a grown man following my 10 year old daughter into the bathroom. But that’s not what’s happening, and that’s not what’s allowed by having an inclusive civil rights law.
Men are still not allowed in women’s restrooms. Women are still not allowed in men’s restrooms. People doing bad things in restrooms are still breaking the law and can be prosecuted as such.
Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. Full stop.
Noway201– you asked:
Answer this: Are you comfortable with a male following your ten year old daughter into the restroom?
I’m female. I wouldn’t hesitate to have a transgender woman in the bathroom with me – regardless of her genitals.
I would do a double-take at someone presenting as a man entering the woman’s bathroom – whether that person was a transgender man (with female birth genitals) or a cisgender man (with male birth genitals).
Regardless, it’s only a problem if someone starts peeking under the stall door or starts touching me — then the cops get called 🙂
Why do you think we ever had separate restrooms in the first place? Hmm?
So, as long as they have a wig, lipstick and a dress, (presenting…as a woman…) you have no prob with a guy following your pre-teen or teenage daughter into the john? Really?!
Don’t you think your daughter might be a bit uncomfortable with that? Or are we past the feelings of the little girls being creeped out by it in order to be PC?
I suspect the little girls are less creeped-out about it than you are.
Be sure and send that answer to all of the females in your life, B. They’ll love you for it!
You need to stop thinking that transgender people are just playing dress up and pretending to be something they’re not. That’s disgusting and offensive, not to mention factually wrong.
Transgender men are men. Transgender women are women.
Ok, Rob, I’m obviously missing something. Does this legislation allow anyone who might identify with the sex they aren’t , to use the bathroom they aren’t? If that isn’t allowed to happen, I have misunderstood the dust up.
Transgender men are men. Transgender women are women.
You’re damn right about that, Drew. To finish this, I’ll stick with my original 3:34 pm post and say people, who are not legitimately Trans Gendered, might use the ability to go freely into any restroom they please may lead to bad things happening.
Will you be doing the genital checks on everyone as they enter the bathroom to make sure they have the genitals you assume they should? That’s what you’re getting at, right?
You genuinely cannot be that obtuse. I’m worried about some pervert using this law to go into the female restroom to leer at our daughters and wives!
Noway2016 – That’s already against the law and will continue to be against the law. Stop trying to demonize transgender people.
Annnnnd this gets to my tongue in cheek point on the 2nd Amendment. Glad you have finally caught up Noway2016.
You’re right, Drew. In fact, now, even less so. I now channel my inner woman identity on any given day and barge right on in! Thanks for making my point! What a dope.
Noway2016. I am now just really curious.
How do you feel about signs prohibiting guns in buildings? Do you think those signs are effective? Please explain either way.
I think a key point that gets left out of this discussion is how cis men or women would feel about someone who appears to be or presents themselves as a member of the opposite gender walking into a place of privacy, like a bathroom. Even assuming the transperson isn’t a creeper (as most aren’t) or that they would do something objectively alarming to other people (as most don’t), many men and women would feel their privacy is being violated when they step out of the stall and see someone they perceive as the opposite gender washing their hands in a space where they expected some privacy and separation from the opposite gender.
Not accusing anyone of being a creeper based on their appearance or what bathroom they choose to use. Just wondering how you reconcile others’ right to and sense of privacy with having inclusive, yet gendered bathrooms. Gender neutral bathrooms aren’t at issue here, those are usually single occupancy.
You need privacy to wash your hands? Seriously, you can’t wash your hands next to someone who looks different from you? What if the toilets are inside but the sinks are outside of the main bathroom? Are you uncomfortable to wash your hands next to someone there, too?
Your statement boils down to “I don’t want these people in the same room as me.” That’s not a valid argument. Where should the people who look different from you go to the bathroom?
Should a trans woman be required to risk being assaulted by having to go into the men’s room?
You should know that the statistics don’t support the idea that trans women put non-trans women in danger by using the proper bathroom, but they absolutely support the opposite. Forcing trans women to use the men’s room causes violence.
If your argument is “I don’t feel comfortable when I’m in public and these people who aren’t breaking any laws are around,” then your only solution is to stop going out in public and using public bathrooms. That’s what plenty of trans people have had to do – but not just for comfort – for safety. They’d be in danger if they didn’t.
So let me get this straight, when I say people have a right to a private space, which should include the whole bathroom not just stalls or urinals which are in open space, you say “why are you afraid of people different than you?”
When someone else says “I don’t want some man following my 12 year old daughter into the bathroom,” you say “not all trans people are rapists, and sexually harassing or assaulting someone is illegal anyway!” When I suggest people use the bathroom more aligned to their appearance for the sake of someone else privacy, you say that “forcing trans women to use the men’s room causes violence.” I’d remind you assault is against the law already, and not all men are violent criminals.
You have taken on the difficult task of trying to help people understand what being trans is about. Understanding is what’s going to change the culture on this thing, an internet comment crusade or forcing legislation against how a majority of people feel. 15 years ago not a single state had legalized same sex marriage, today it’s legal and the majority of Americans support it because time was given to foster understanding. Saying “hey, you don’t understand what transgender is all about but they’re coming in your bathroom anyway,” is probably not the best course of action.
I asked you to consider a scenario where a woman is doing her business and sees what she sees as a man in the same bathroom and imagine if she may feel that her privacy is violated. Instead you suggest I shut myself in and never go out in public, and then generalize violence towards transgender women on all men. Cool.
Don’t let it bother you, Snarky. You talk in terms of rational, everyday common sense. In the face of today’s fierce, defiant PC crusade and its warriors, common sense views are passe.
Is that elephant logo your design, Snarky? I like it!
Ha ha I wish, I found this on Google.
Drew and Robbie, I hope you don’t have anyone you ever personally know who’s female relative may become a victim of some perv male, who now sees this permissiveness granted to the legitimate transgender community, as an “open door” to easily go into a female restroom to, at the very least, see a female in a state of undress. We WILL eventually read about a case like this. But you be strong and stick to your uber PC guns. You should be proud!
These laws are in place in 17 states and over 200 cities and municipalities. What you’re describing hasn’t happened. Stop trying to pretend this is something new. It’s not. This is tested and clear. We know what happens when people are treated fairly.
And we know what happens when people break the law. It’s all very simple, even though you don’t want it to be.
Noway2016 … Here’s the FAQ published by Charlotte related to the bathroom issues. I can’t cut and paste right now but it discusses how to handle these situations.
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/PublishingImages/Pages/default/NDO%20FAQ'S-Public%20Accomodations.pdf
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/Pages/default.aspx
HB 757 is one of those pieces of legislation that is legislating something that doesn’t need to be legislated at the state which is just one of many reasons for why it’s not needed. Has their been any individual of the cloth that refused to perform a wedding because of their differences that is now facing repercussions for their decision? Are their any lawsuits pending in this state against a Georgia business who refused to provide services because of their religious differences? I respect any person, business, or faith-based organization’s right to choose who they want to serve just as I choose who I support. What I have a true fundamental problem with that I haven’t seen mentioned yet (disclaimer that I’ve not read the comments this afternoon) is that faith-based entities accepting my tax dollars or businesses with government contracts may choose to discriminate by denying services. Plain and simple, if you want to choose who you serve or work with, then do it on your own dime but absolutely under no circumstances should you be permitted to do so with tax dollars of any kind.
By your logic, the first murder law wasn’t needed and the law had no way to deal with the the first murderer. The point of laws such as HB757 is to give parties the ability to deal with possible, if not likely, situations.
Tax dollars go to all kinds of thing that are objectionable. There is no reason to single out religious organizations that perform a public service.
Of course there is. Religious organizations that use tax dollars to discriminate against non-believers is, in essence, the government discriminating against certain people because of their religious beliefs. It’s literally allowing for governtment discrimination based on religious beliefs, which I can’t imagine you’d actually support.
Sen. Harbin is completely wrong by stating, “The simple truth is that there is nothing discriminatory about this bill. I repeat, there is no discrimination in it.”
Here it is:
“50-15A-2.
184 (a) Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the
185 burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability,
186 except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.
187 (b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it
188 demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
189 (1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
190 (2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
191 (c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this Code
192 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain
193 a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief against a government.”
To me, that is a clearly legalizing discrimination by individuals. So many versions leading up to this clearly allow personal discrimination which may be applied in the course of business or employment. Discrimination, based on religion or other beliefs, is allowed in Georgia. No prohibitions. People can still discriminate without the passage of HB 757. Surprise!
Explained here; http://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11301758/georgia-lgbtq-religious-freedom
” It says that the state cannot force a business to be open on Sunday. Is that radical?” No. it is unnecessary as law. Chic-fil-a closes on Sundays. A law was not needed to force that.
“It says that the state cannot make someone attend a wedding they don’t want to attend. Is that radical?” YES. This is not needed in legislation. I’ve missed family weddings, perhaps they were relieved, but there are no warrants out for my arrest and I can still go home for the holidays. Grow-up, people!
“Religious liberty created our great nation.” More like Religious Intolerance. Read “The Right to Be Wrong” (2012) by Kevin Seamus Hasson for a history of religion and the struggle to define religious freedom from colonial America forward. ‘We can respect others’ freedom when we’re sure they’re wrong. In truth, they have the right to be wrong.’ Admit it, most of this bill only seeks to protect a small portion of Christian based entities. Ironically, Christianity is often defined as teaching compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, redemption, and most importantly non-judgement.
Gov. Deal stated it best, “HB 757 enumerates certain actions that religious leaders, faith-based organizations and people of faith shall not be required to take or perform. These include solemnizing a marriage, attending such marriages, hiring church personnel or renting church property when such acts would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. While most people would agree that government should not force such actions, there has not been a single instance of such taking place in Georgia. If there has been any case of this type in our state it has not been called to my attention.” Again. the legislative need is unnecessary. The minuscule odds of frivolous lawsuits by imagined scenarios is nil. Perhaps there are enough self-respecting citizens in this state that can do the right thing without legislation.
“Freedom is not free.” Nor is it only reserved for the loudest and most obnoxious of citizens, as so many unfortunately believe. Our Freedoms come with the responsibility to act with respect, civility and equality toward our fellow citizens. Our laws should strive to uphold equal freedoms and encourage respect for others.
The funny – and sad – thing about all of this is that both sides are acting like there is an actual issue to discuss here; that there is sincerity in the arguments of the bill’s supporters; that the charade they pulling about their limited intentions is real; that they actually believe that the bill is not intended to discriminate; that everyone else just has it all wrong. This continual back-and-forth discussions acting like there is a real debate is laughingly absurd.
The “defenses” made by the bill’s supporters – the attempts at “rational” explanations and the nuanced responses and parsing of words, etc. – remind me of the playful game adults play with toddlers: “I stole your nose off your face. No, you didn’t! Yes, I did. No you didn’t! Yes, I did.” Both sides – even the toddler – damn well know that you didn’t rip off the kid’s nose, but both sides play along and go through the motions. We all know damn well know what this is all about, so both sides should stop playing this stupid game. Stop treating their arguments as if they’re sincere. They’re not.
The bill’s supporters are part of a larger group that simply doesn’t like that acceptance of gay rights is expanding throughout the county. We all know it. They don’t like the Supreme Court decision. They don’t like how the bigot in Kentucky was treated. They believe that homosexual acceptance must be stopped. They go to ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) conferences in Savannah to get wined, dined, indoctrinated and informed on how to pass bills that accomplish their goals. (http://legacy.11alive.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/07/02/alec-11alive-atlanta-report/29632701/)
We can all debate whether the bill discriminates or not, but that’s a useless waste of time. If it doesn’t discriminate, then it’s not doing its job.
“Josh McKoon, I got your nose!”
Mike,
I agree, but I think it runs much deeper that just gay rights. Many groups behind this bill want to blow up any concept of separation of church and state. The ironic part is they scream constitution, yet are ignorant to the fact that this was promoted by the church. In America we did not want a state like church running our country ie like the “Church of England” many were escaping. The scary part is politician like Sen. McKoon are promoting this RFRA bill with hate groups, given them a green light to spew!
…………The phrase “separation of church and state” is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,
“ “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”[1] ”
Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644 of “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.”Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”…………
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Please, Please stop. You have made this site almost unreadable with your continued attacks on Josh. I have no problem with your reasoning behind attacking Josh. I will even go as far to say that Josh deserves a lot of what is being thrown at him, but this is now less of a negative reflection of him and more of a reflection of how crazy you are. Stop.
Please continue to talk about how bad the bill was. That is fine, but you have got to ease up on the Josh McKoon thing. I like this website and you are ruining it.
Tee up the attack on me in 3…2…1…………..
Thank you Eiger! My thoughts exactly.
I agree too. John, you are obsessed and there is no reason to read any of your comments because they all say the same thing. Get your own blog and vent all you want, but this is a shared space and you are being a bad neighbor.
E,
I think you are missing my point. The reason many of us are so upset about this bill, is you cannot separate the hate agenda, from people promoting the bill. The only reason I mention Josh McKoon, is he is the face of the RFRA bill in Georgia out promoting it with hate groups. Sen. McKoon has taken shots at people in the business community, for standing up, and saying we cannot treat our employees that way. Had this bill not been paraded around with hate groups, you would not get all the resistance. For people who stand silent about the hate in the name of Christianity, makes a much larger statement about them than me.
Famous Poem that was written in concentration camp in Germany:
Fear not your friends for they can only betray you
Fear not your enemy for they can only kill you
Fear the indifferent who do nothing about Killers and betrayers
Rather ironic when you understand what the supporters and promoters of RFRA said about Jews.
The words “separation” “of” “church” “and” “state” do not appear in the Constitution. Nowhere. Anymore than the word “abortion” does (not that such lack thereof was any barrier to the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade). The establishment clause indeed was meant to prevent a Church of England (Anglican—forerunners of today’s U.S. Episcopal Church), Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) etc. from being a state-supported church, one living off the taxpayers. And yes, houses of worship should live or die on their individual numbers/tithing. But it was never meant to keep the church out of the state. Churches have participated in social causes of both the Left (antiwar and civil rights causes of the 1960s) and on the right (abortion, same-sex marriage). The fact that churches may support a particular bill or issue does not render that cause unjust or unconstitutional, though in the case of religious liberty legislation, the support is not very ecumenical—basically the Georgia Baptist Convention You don’t see widespread backing (if any at all) from mainline Protestants (non-fundamentalists such as Methodists and Presbyterians), Jews or Catholics. And therein lies a problem supporters have…
…….The fact that churches may support a particular bill or issue does not render that cause unjust or unconstitutional……….
The below agenda is unconstitutional by RFRA supporters, and that is my point.
……..Cruz writes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and it is not enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Ten Commandments, he writes, are the foundations for these documents. […]
The pastor warns that there are five areas where the United States could change and “jeopardize our freedom,” including that “freedom of religion could become freedom of worship,” meaning that people would be punished for worshiping outside of churches……….
“of” appears in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe you have the King James Version?
Mike,
You can read about the true agenda by many in the movement.
Ted Cruz’s father pushes radical religious vision:
…………Cruz writes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and it is not enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Ten Commandments, he writes, are the foundations for these documents. […]
The pastor warns that there are five areas where the United States could change and “jeopardize our freedom,” including that “freedom of religion could become freedom of worship,” meaning that people would be punished for worshiping outside of churches. He said Obama has made appointments of people who think the government should discriminate against Christians………..
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ted-cruzs-father-pushes-radical-religious-vision
Blakeage, two wrongs certainly don’t make a right. If your best friend jumps off a bridge, are you going to follow? Tax dollars supporting any entity that denies services or declines business based on discrimination of any kind must continue to be prohibited. Yes, we know it happens & when we learn about it they must pay the consequences. Anything less as stated above is government sanctioned discrimination.
So everyone is supposed to be part of this perfectly homogeneous lump of humanity, indistinguishable from one another? We are all supposed to accept everything that any one person wants to accept? Tax dollars fund the ATF and they discriminate against those that have committed crimes every day. Should we de-fund the ATF? The Olympics discriminates by gender, in their events. Should any US city/state be prohibited from using city resources to host the games?
The difference is that government endorsement of one religious belief over another is expressly prohibited in the Constitution. There are always going to be things folks disagree with, but some lines are more clear than others.
And for what it’s worth, even the Olympics is getting in on the non-discrimination game: http://www.outsports.com/2016/1/21/10812404/transgender-ioc-policy-new-olympics
The government grants religious organizations tax exempt status without regard to their doctrines. How is that endorsing one religion over another?
“Thus, protection for all Georgians.”
True in the his worldview because Harbin doesn’t think LGBT people are Georgians, succeeding if not a continuation of those thinking African-Americans weren’t Georgians either.
I started to pick this apart point by point but it isn’t worth the effort and the trout are rising. So just a couple of thoughts as I go out the door to one of my favorite cathedrals in the Cohuttas.
A comprehensive collection of intellectually dishonest arguments presented in a condescending and morally superior manner wins the debate every time when one is preaching to the choir. Southern Baptists once assisted Georgia’s political leaders in convincing the populace that any right-minded “God fearing” Christian was only doing His will by keeping the accursed “Children of Ham” in slavery using much the same arguments. I don’t know if I can recall more time and energy being wasted on such an unnecessary effort in my lifetime. I submit to you that it is genius to subvert both the religious message of Christ and the conservative philosophy of running the state. Making it appear that opposing hate and wresting away local control using state government is somehow going against God and the Constitution. Real genius indeed, perhaps a man of wealth and taste?
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what’s confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails…
“However, if there is not enough support for a special session to be called, know that we will not give up. My colleagues and I will return next year…”
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith…