The surprising thing to me about this story, is that the Georgia legislature thought that this law was necessary. Has anyone (other than a whack-a-doodle online comment writer) suggested the remote possibility that a clergyman would be required to perform gay weddings?
You know how Ted Cruz keeps yammering about “religious liberty”? That’s where that fear came from.
“I see one fag wedding cake,” growleth the LORD, “it’s frogs and locusts, so help me Me!”
It wouldn’t surprise me if it were a common delusion among the Christians who are crying “persecution”. I know my Mom’s pastor in a large mainstream church in Charlotte NC said during a sermon he was afraid of going to jail for refusing to perform a gay marriage.
I told my Mom that just like no pastor was ever forced to perform an inter-racial marriage or inter-faith marriage or any marriage they didn’t want to perform, they also will not be forced to perform gay marriages.
A Hindu and a Buddhist decide they want to get married in a Catholic church because, I dunno, they like the stained glass.
Catholic priest refuses. Couple sues, because religious discrimination.
Happens all the time, right? Right? /s
Yes, it seems like a dumbass law and worth vetoing, did it have any teeth at all? Most of these laws that get press attention seem to allow any business to discriminate against anyone because of their “moral” or “religious” beliefs, but the story in the link suggests the bill was limited to allow only churches and ministers to discriminate in their religious practices. As far as I know, that makes the law essentially pointless and not particularly threatening to LGBT people.
Did the article downplay the scope of the law?
Apparently there was concern it would extend to religiously-affiliated entities in services to the public and in employment. That though the language was apparently narrow, someone could seek to stretch the meaning/coverage in a sympathetic court.
One good part of the bill, though, was that it explicitly provided that it did NOT “afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses to perform his or her official duties”.
But that NEVER happens!
looks around
What?
I guess money in politics isn’t always so bad for liberals…
It’s an awful good idea, because if you don’t, you lose just due do the exposure of the hypocrisy and inconsisency of not allowing guns in the first place.
Not quite - you still haven’t managed to arm teachers to protect kids from school shootings.
Don’t forget the kids – they need guns too.
The day my state allows guns in the classroom is the day I quit teaching. I know the nuts I teach with. I wouldn’t trust a one of them with a BB gun. That includes me.
Luckily I live in a sane state.
Just no one arm cats, okay? We already spend a lot on canned fud.
The 2nd amendment only talks about arming bears, so it should be constitutional to forbid arming cats.
Let’s put this in perspective.
Georgia was looking at roughly $10 billion a year that was threatening to walk out of the state over this. (TV & Movie production put $1.7 billion into the state in 2015, which netted a $6 billion economic impact alone!)
And frankly, some of it may still walk out just because the bill was passed, then vetoed.
Dumb fucks.
The big question is will the legislature override? They have the votes for it. Whether the boycott and pull-out threats have convinced any of the original state reps and senators to reconsider is unknown right now.
Donald Trump says we should make the rules in the Geneva convention a lot tougher so we can torture ISIS members.
The analogy makes perfect sense because the process around guns and abortion rights are almost exactly the same. WIth the exception that pro-lifers make no bones about their end goal, while gun control advocates insist they aren’t actually trying to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. Which means we won.
In other words, when you get to make up what your opponents’ “end goal” is, you can claim that since that made-up goal hasn’t been achieved, you’ve successfully defeated them! Congratulations! :rolleyes:
Similarly, I recently singlehandedly beat the LA Lakers in basketball. Of course, they pretend that they aren’t actually trying to take partial derivatives of multivariable functions, and mumble something instead about “basketball” meaning throwing balls through baskets, but I know what their real end goal was. Which means I won.
Because gun control advocates are terrible liars? I don’t get your logic.