Veto of "religious freedom" won't end controversy

Yes, Gov. Deal vetoed the objectionable GA HB 757 "religious freedom" bill (see ShrinkRap 3/28), but that battle is not yet over.  Already, damage has been done to the state's reputation as being more enlightened than the rest of the south -- although North Carolina, our traditional rival for that title, has jumped even deeper into the mire of covert anti-gay and racist discrimination, thanks to Republican controlled legislatures in both states.   See what happens when you let those people take charge?

Let's face it.   Proponents of HB 757 have been convinced by its sponsors that it does not discriminate.   Dave Baker, of the Faith and Freedom Coalition said, "This was a compromise bill, and we made sure it protected people of faith without discriminating against anyone."

That may be what they think -- and, more important, what they have convinced others to believe.   But that is, to use Rachel Maddow's favorite dismissal, "Bull-hockey."   Opponents are equally convinced that it does allow discrimination.  What that difference hinges on is the section that says that nothing in the bill should be construed to permit discrimination based on anything that is prohibited by federal or state laws.

As explained in my 3/28 post, this ignores two facts:   (1)  there are no federal or Georgia laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender expression;  and (2) HB 757 omitted "local ordinances" in its list of non-discriminatory laws that could not be violated.    This intentionally targets some 60 city or local anti-discriminatory regulations that can now be legally ignored.

The bill was rushed through under time pressure, and legislators barely had time to read the proposal, much less study the implications.   Whether that was by design, or just from running out of time, the result is the same.   People voted on something they did not understand.

But do they now understand what it does?   It leaves the fate of city and other local ordinances outlawing anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination to be upheld or overturned in the courts -- with all the delay, furor, and expense that will entail.   We know it wasn't an oversight, because we know they discussed it.   So there has to be a reason why they didn't simply add in the one word that would have solved that problem,   Make it "federal, state, and local laws."

There is one obvious answer.   They didn't want to.   With no federal or state laws that prohibit discrimination against gays and trans, it was safe to include "federal and state laws."  But, in Georgia, there are some 60 local ordinances that are now in question.

Further proof of intentions came early in this process, during negotiations over a 2015 bill to "protect pastors" from having to perform same-sex weddings.   At one point, some negotiators wanted to leave out expanded language that would have been interpreted as discriminatory.   The bill's sponsor objected strongly, saying that "would gut the bill."   They called it a "pastor protection" bill;  but the author insisted that it have the clause that allows discrimination;  otherwise it would "gut" his bill.

In other words, the discriminatory language was the part they really wanted.    Now in the version that finally passed on March 16, 2016, they thought they had found a sly way to have it both ways -- protect religious freedom and also disguise the fact that they cleverly snuck in the discrimination part.

It didn't work, folks.   And you're not going to get the votes to over-ride Gov. Deal's veto.   You didn't have 2/3 in the House on this vote.   And, as people actually read and think about the bill -- and hear more of the consequences to the economy and reputation of the state -- you will have even fewer votes than you snuck through under the pressure of time.   So don't even think about bringing it up again.   It will only do more damage to the state than you've already done.

Ralph