AJC reader suggests compromise on the "religious freedom bill" (updated)

Georgia has been struggling over how to balance people's right to religious freedom and their right to equal protection under the law.   The "religious freedom" side objects to being required to provide their commercial services for situations that they feel violate their religious beliefs.    This usually comes up around same-sex weddings or hotel room rentals.

On the other side, the denial of such services to people because of sexual orientation does constitute denial of equal treatment and therefore is unacceptable discrimination.

Obviously a proprietor does have some right to refuse services to people who disrupt or destroy the place of business or people who are grossly offensive to other patrons.   They may, for example, require that shirts and shoes be worn inside the place of business, that smoking is not allowed, etc.   So where is the line?

It's OK to deny services to someone because of their behavior there in the place of business.   But how is it OK to deny services because of behavior in the privacy of their bedroom at home?   That doesn't make much sense.

Tim Fuller of Atlanta wrote a letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution offering a simple solution.  Give it a little thought.   Maybe Mr. Fuller's plan could work.   It avoids having to define that elusive line.   Here's his letter.   See what you think.

*   *   *

"There is a workaround for the religious freedom bill quandary.  Let the Georgia Legislature pass the religious freedom bill, but include the following requirement:

   Any business that would seek its protection must include the following prominent notice on their premises and in all advertising:   'The products and services offered by this company are not available to all citizens of Georgia.   The policy of this company is to discriminate against citizens of Georgia based on the sincerely held religious beliefs of the owners of the company, in furtherance of which the owners of the company invoke the First Amendment and the Georgia religious freedom statute.'    The purpose of this notice is to warn potential customers so they can decide if they wish to patronize said company.   Anyone in favor of religious freedom must also be in favor of truth in advertising."
   Tim Fuller, Atlanta

*   *   *

On the other hand, despite the creative and honest attempt by Mr. Fuller, the only real difference from the days-of-old signs -- "Colored Not Allowed," "White Only," signs -- is that it forces the proprietors to take ownership of the fact that they are discriminating, with the hope that public shame will decrease the numbers who actually discriminate.   

The other difference is in the shifting of public sentiment.  Back then, white people held all the cards:    the sole ownership of shops, etc.;   the lack of any power among those discriminated against;  and there has been a major change in what is socially acceptable, so that it is possible that shame might affect behavior of the group in power.