Georgia on verge of repeating Indiana's mistake: discrimination by another name smells just as bad.

Remember last year when Indiana's governor Mike Pence signed into law a supposedly "religious freedom" law that allowed discrimination against gay people in public accommodations and other areas?    The reaction from the marketing, corporate, sports, and convention businesses was so swift and so severe that the legislature quickly backed down and amended the bill to protect against LGBT and trans discrimination.   Even so, they lost hundreds of millions of dollars in convention and tourist money.

Arkansas almost didn't learn the lesson and was flirting with a similar bill.   But just in time they changed course and amended the law to include protections against sexual orientation and gender discrimination.  Georgia also had a bill introduced but didn't allow it to get out of committee.  And we felt proud of Georgia, for once.   Remember all that?

Forget it.   This year, the Georgia Senate has passed an even worse bill, whose sponsors piously deny that it discriminates.   But it does.    And Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, who led the fight against discrimination in Indiana, is gearing up to lead the fight in Georgia.

Last week, the Georgia senators voted 38-14 for a bill that allows religiously affiliated groups to refuse to "rent, lease or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such religious organization."   It's called the First Amendment Defense Act;  and, according to Alexander Kaufmann, senior business editor, Huffington Post, "the legislation actually takes Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act a step further, barring government authorities from bringing civil cases against organizations accused of discrimination."

At least the Indiana law allowed specific cases to be argued in court.   The Georgia law does not;   rather, it grants an absolute right to discriminate, based solely on the religious beliefs of the owner of the facility.

The only part of the bill that makes any sense is completely unnecessary.  It says no religious clergy person will be required to perform marriages of people that would violate his religious principles.    That is already protected by specific mention in the Supreme Court decision that guaranteed marriage equality.   The SCOTUS decision has to do with civil marriage;  religions can have their own rules about religious marriage.

The rest of the bill has to do with discrimination in business arrangements, even when they deny it and try to disguise the fact.   Revealingly, one of the bill sponsors last year said they couldn't leave that part out, because that would gut what it was all about -- although he didn't want to admit that it was discrimination he was talking about.

Here's the thing:   Is your right to religious freedom -- to believe, to practice, and to advocate your particular religious beliefs -- absolute?   Start with an extreme example:   does it allow you to murder someone?   Of course not.   There are limits when your religious freedom encroaches on my rights.  That is the crux. 

Kim Davis was not jailed in Kentucky for her religious beliefs;   she was jailed for contempt of court in not following an order to do her job, which was to provide marriage licenses according to law.    That law may have put her in conflict with her religious belief -- but she was depriving others of their right to marry.

The court and the state ultimately made the appropriate accommodation for Kim Davis' religious belief:   she does not personally have to issue the licenses or have her name on them as county clerk.   But she cannot prevent others in her office from doing their job.    Just as a pharmacy may allow one of its pharmacists who objects to contraception not to fill such prescriptions, as long as there are others available who will do so.

Of course, there are going to be some gray areas when the two rights clash -- and they will have to be adjudicated based on the relative importance of the conflicting rights.   The corporate world, the convention world, the sports world (think SuperBowl) -- have spoken to Indiana.   They are about to have to speak to Georgia in the same way -- by withdrawing their business, if we turn back the clock to discrimination.  In Georgia, add to that the ever-growing film industry, which would surely join in this fight. 

Note to Gov. Dean:   Of course, first of all, this is a moral issue, and that moral issue is discrimination falsely camoflouged as "religious freedom."  It is also a business decision, and the nation has already spoken on this one.  By allowing this to become law (assuming the House passes it too), the state will lose billions of dollars.

Gov. Dean, you say we can't afford to expand Medicaid under the Obamacare plan.   Then how can we afford the loss of convention and tourist business that will result if this law is passed?   Of course both decisions are political;   don't pretend otherwise.  You can't have it both ways, governor.   Get your veto pen ready -- or else we may not be able to afford a lot of things you want.  Will that persuade you?

Ralph