Georgia lawmakers have passed "religious rights" bill; now up to the governor to veto . . or not

Both houses of Georgia's legislature have now passed a modified House Bill 757, the "Free Exercise Protection Act."   Governor Nathan Deal said two weeks ago that he would veto it if it legalized discrimination in any form, which many believed the version at that time did.   It was strongly opposed both by gay groups and by national business corporations and sports enterprises.

I have just read the full language of the amended bill that passed Wednesday night.  The sponsors of this later version say it does not allow discrimination;  critics say it does.   In fact, some say that it is even worse than the original senate bill and that it legalizes discrimination.   Let me try to clarify.

1.  The bill essentially protects "faith based organizations" (which includes churches, religious schools, or an integrated auxiliary of a church that qualifies as an IRS-exempt religious organization) and their ordained clergy from:

   (a) having to perform or attend a wedding or to rent out space for an event that is objectionable to their faith;  
   (b) having to provide social, education, or charitable services (other than fulfilling existing government contracts);  
   (c) any civil claim or penalty for refusal to hire or to retain in employment any individual based on a claim of discrimination.

2.  But there is one section of the bill that seems to apply, not just to faith based organizations but to anyone.    It amends Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated that limits what the government may do.   It includes this language:

   (a)  "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability, except as provided . . . "   And then it specifies that, to justify the burden, the government must demonstrate a compelling government interest and that the burden is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.

3.  In the proponents' view, this bill applies only to faith based organizations and their affiliated, tax exempt organization, such as schools and hospitals -- and to the services they perform.   But this section says "a person's" exercise of religion, not an organization.   And "burden" seems aimed directly to exempt the photographers, florists, and caterers -- private businesses -- who do not want to provide their services to same-sex weddings.  It has nothing to do with faith based organizations.

4.  At one end of a spectrum, no one argues for requiring clergy to perform same-sex marriages if it violates their faith;   they are already exempted specifically in the 2015 SCOTUS decision that legalized gay marriage.   But HB 757 allows a church or church school to fire a gay teacher or janitor.  It would allow a church adoption agency to refuse adoption to same-sex parents.   Or a homeless shelter to refuse gay people -- or unwed mothers.  And it exempts them from any legal challenge.

5.  There is a section which says:  "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law" (emphasis added).    The fact is that the federal government and that state of Georgia do not have any laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

A gay person can be fired without penalty now in Georgia, whether by a church or not.  So, while sounding like a non-discrimination clause, in the state of Georgia, that italicized phrase above makes this completely meaningless.      It's worse, in one respect:  by not including "local ordinances"along with federal or state law, it implies that it does permit discrimination not prohibited by federal or state law, leaving non-discrimination ordinances in Atlanta and other cities vulnerable to overrule.

So, now the ball is in Gov. Deal's court.   He has said he will review it in April along with other bills and make his decision then.   If he reads the non-discrimination clause as I do, and if he sticks to what he said two weeks ago, he will veto HB 757 -- and save the state a lot of trouble, shame, and the loss of billions of dollars as corporations, conventions, tourists, and events like the SuperBowl and NCAA tournaments shun Georgia, as they did Indiana. 

Ralph