They also have federal courts in Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Each of these states has passed nearly identical legislation, starting after the Supreme Court decided City of Boerne v. Flores, which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied against the states.
It may interest you to learn that not one of those states’ law has been overturned, so far as I can recall.
I think it’s important for people to get what these laws do: they effectively amend state laws regarding public accommodations and private discrimination. They don’t affect federal laws (other than the federal RFRA, obviously.) Georgia businesses with still be required to comply with the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and so on.
Right, but these laws could be attempts to use the RFRA as a way around those acts in at least some circumstances.
I’m wondering which wins if there’s a conflict between federal civil rights laws and the RFRA.
Institutional policy (in this case, laws) shouldn’t be based on what happened in the past. It should be about protecting society from what’s plausible.
The bible was used to justify all kinds of shit in the country’s history, from slavery to segregation, but that’s beside the point. There’s nothing stopping a town from being taken over ultra-orthodox Jews. Should the businessmen in that town be allowed to not serve women? There’s nothing stopping a town from being taken over by a retro Christian sect that believes all sex is sinful. Should these crazies be able to discriminate aganst parents?
Since religion is so personal, it’s hard for me to understand how an exception like this would work. Would it be enough for someone just to say “It’s against my religion!” or must they cite scripture and verse in their holy book? What if their religion doesn’t have a holy book, and they’re just operating based on what they’ve read off a Wikipedia or what Elder Cunningham told them? What if their interpretation of the holy book is not aligned with the mainstream interpretation? What if it’s clear they are perfectly willing to break their religion’s rules in some instances (they have married and divorced several times)? What if they are the spiritual leader of their religious faith and thus is the one who writes all the rules of what is and isn’t allowed?
The difficulty in fairly implementing this policy alone makes religious exception a stupid, short-sighted idea.
Where were the rest of the committee’s Democrats? Is it true that only one Democrat made the effort to show up for the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee meeting?
I strongly suspect this law hasn’t been challenged because it’s not been used. In theory it could be completely toothless pandering. You’d need someone to actually be adversely affected by this law to put forth a lawsuit before anything can happen.
This law hasn’t been challenged because it isn’t a law yet.
The ThinkProgress article by Jack Jenkins indicates that the bill was moved out of the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee because not one of the committee’s Democrats were present for the vote.
Since then, SB 129 has passed the Georgia Senate but not the Georgia House.
*SB 129
“Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act”; provide for the preservation of religious freedom
Current Status: Senate Passed/Adopted By Substitute
Current Version: As passed Senate
Official Summary: A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, so as to provide for the preservation of religious freedom; to provide for legislative findings; to provide for definitions; to provide for the granting of relief; to provide for a short title; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes*.
Homophobes have always targeted anyone they *suspect of *being gay. Even some straight people have been attacked because one or both of them was androgynous. Don’t expect these jerks to be concerned with facts.
Of course all of this is irrelevant. It makes no difference whether the victims are in fact gay; it’s still homophobia. Isn’t a racist who attacks another white person by mistake . . . still a racist?
Personally, I see no reason to have a law that protects the irrational, hateful beliefs of bigots . . . religious or otherwise.
Reminds me of the story of George M. Cohan who was denied a room in a hotel in Florida. He told them: “You thought I was Jewish, and I thought you were a gentleman. We were both mistaken.”
As a fellow non-religious person, may I ask why you don’t (or at least seem not to) object to the notion that such a law would mean there is no protection for your right to not go against your personal philosophy - irreligious as it is?
Rep. Sam Teasley introduced the same bill into the Georgia House as HB 219 (or HB 218, I can’t remember and can’t be arsed to Google). That bill is currently before the House Judiciary Committee. And as my original link shows, the SB129 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee when the one Democrat had asked for a potty break.
I think you don’t realize just exactly how deeply red Georgia is. Not a single Democrat holds a statewide post, in the entire Georgia government.
He left for a potty break according to the one Democrat who had walked out of the meeting. The article didn’t quote any other member of the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee.
Do Georgia Senate Committees require 100% yea votes before a bill escapes from committee or do they only require a simple majority? If it’s only a majority, then it seems that Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta), would have been outvoted even if he had been sitting in committee.
Because atheists have no religious beliefs that they would like to protect, and therefore there is no need for such protection for atheists. It would be like saying that civil rights laws that protect blacks should be invalid because as a white person I cannot claim any rights under the law.
It is already the law in many states and at the federal level that homosexuals have no protection under civil rights laws. I have yet to hear of any “sundown towns” or heard stories of gay couples having to travel many miles to find restaurants or hotels that will serve them, like blacks suffered pre-1964.