March 28, 2016

"Gov. Nathan Deal said he will veto the 'religious liberty' bill that triggered a wave of criticism from gay rights groups and business leaders..."

He said it "doesn’t reflect the character of our state or the character of its people" and: "Their efforts to purge this bill of any possibility that it would allow or encourage discrimination illustrates how difficult it is to legislate something that is best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment...."

But the First Amendment doesn't give "broad protections" against neutral generally applicable laws that burden religion. The idea of exempting for those with religious beliefs from following the law that applies to everyone else comes not from the First Amendment, but from statutes like the one Bill Clinton signed in 1993 and the one Nathan Deal is vetoing today.

62 comments:

rhhardin said...

It shows what happens when the supreme court gets it wrong. They abolished freedom of association, and everything now is a bad fix.

Birkel said...

The First Amendment will be swallowed whole.

Basil said...

This is more of the explanation for Trump. The people, through their legislators, expressed their will. Then the governor, bowing to pressure from outside Georgia, vetoes the bill and THEN has the nerve to tell the people that it is his veto and not the legislation that expresses their will.

And this is an establishment Republican governor, whom the people elected to be on their side, not to act like the Mayor of San Francisco.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Sonny Lied! Oh, wait, wrong governor.

The local Media's been wall-to-wall the last two weeks or so with stories about companies and events threatening to pull out of GA if the bill passed (NFL, movie studios, all of 'em) so it's not a shock that Deal vetoed the bill.

The upshot, I guess, is that the state gets to keep the $ those outside groups bring in and if some mom-and-pop bakery or some such place gets fucked over by some activists, well, too bad for them.
I wasn't a fan of the bill, but I'm certainly not a fan of GA law being dictated by Hollywood studios (who, of course, receive pretty generous tax breaks to film down here anyway).

MadisonMan said...

Money Talks.

gspencer said...

Another winner of the Profiles in Putty medal.

Qwinn said...

Isn't this the bill that was already so gutted that it wouldn't protect any baker or pizzeria, but only priests themselves from having to officiate gay weddings?

If so, I guess we know what the next step in the Left's legal jihad against Christianity is going to be. So glad we were all informed during the gay marriage debates that we were really talking about criminalizing Christianity altogether. But hey, how could gay marriage POSSIBLY affect straight marriages?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Basil said...
And this is an establishment Republican governor, whom the people elected to be on their side, not to act like the Mayor of San Francisco.


An optimist (of the Right-ish persuasion) would say that this might have been a good way to resolve the problem--the Republican legislators get to say they voted the correct way and it was only because of that dastardly Deal that the bill didn't pass, while the State gets to say that it isn't anti-LGBTQ!* since the bill didn't become a law.
That read works if you think no one will introduce a similar bill next session...I guess we'll see.

David said...

Isn't this the bill that was already so gutted that it wouldn't protect any baker or pizzeria, but only priests themselves from having to officiate gay weddings?

No.

I spent the last two weeks phone banking against this. Glad the governor vetoed.

Alexander said...

Alternate headlines:

Governor continues transformation of Georgia into California with pressure from Hollywood.

Corporations threaten to disassociate with state if others given right to disassociate.

People who scream GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS most likely to openly cheer state government bending to corporate pressure.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The art of the Deal in Atlanta, Georgia has always been pro business success. The City to busy to hate integrated its police force and accepted political power of educated African Americans 15years before an Atlanta born and educated Baptist preacher named King challenged the rest of the South. That is why small town Georgians resents Atlanta and why Governor Deal had to treat the issue with more respect and consideration than it deserved.

Static Ping said...

This is going to end in bloodshed, isn't it? Might as well enjoy the spectacle, I suppose.

What I find most amusing is this quote from the governor in response to criticism of his veto:

“I don’t respond well to insults or threats.”

Except, his veto was a direct response to insults and threats.

David said...

It was a bad bill, so it's quite possible he vetoed it irrespective of the threats and insults.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

David said...It was a bad bill

Can you elaborate, David? What made it a bad bill, and what would have made it acceptable to you (if you don't agree that some sort of protection of that sort needs to be written into the law I guess "nothing" would be the answer)? Thanks.

Static Ping said...

David: It was a bad bill, so it's quite possible he vetoed it irrespective of the threats and insults.

If it was such a bad bill, he would have announced his opposition to it much earlier. He waited until the last possible moment. He responded to insults and threats. Duh.

David said...

They could have stuck to the original Pastor Protection Act.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Pastor Protection Act didn't protect religious organizations themselves, though. Also many of the same groups who opposed 757 opposed the Pastor Protection Act, so although that was a "good bill" to you I have to imagine that most of the big groups (and big $) opposing this bill would have opposed that bill, too. In its final version 757 didn't give much of any cover to private businesses anyway, and that's the objection I heard most (that as originally drafted it would have "let anyone fire anyone else just for being gay").

At any rate it's over for now. I think something like this has come forward in the last 3 sessions, so maybe next year'll be 4 (I doubt they'll actually be able to call a "veto session") but Deal's around through 2019 so it seems pretty settled.

James Pawlak said...

1. The original intent of the "separation clause" was to prevent only the new Federal government from establishing a national sect/religion (As was the Church of England in the UK, the Lutheran Churches in parts of Western Europe, the Catholic Church in other parts of Europe, the Orthodox Churches in the East and, for that matter, various forms of Islam where such ruled). In fact, some of the Several States maintained "official churches" into the 1830s, and that without SCOTUS intervening.
2. President Thomas Jefferson addressed all matters of considering the Constitution as being best considered in the light of the intent of its authors (A). 
3.  The current misunderstanding of that clause was written down by a Justice who was an active member of the KKK and who held a life-long hatred of the most orthodox of Christian Churches being the Catholic Church. It was, essentially, based on one private letter of President Jefferson and was/is opposed to the intent of the Founders and two-hundred years of honoring the Judeo-Christian base of our exceptional nation.
 4. Such persons are attempting to unconstitutionally suppress orthodox Christianity and Judaism in favor of establishing the "Religion Of Atheism" (B).
NOTES
A. "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench"; About which please see the novel Moby Dick.]
B.   James J. Kaufman VS Gary R. McCaughtey, et. al.; 7th US Court Of Appeals #04-1914; Decided Aug. 19, 2

damikesc said...

The local Media's been wall-to-wall the last two weeks or so with stories about companies and events threatening to pull out of GA if the bill passed (NFL, movie studios, all of 'em) so it's not a shock that Deal vetoed the bill.

I'd say them all pull out. Movies don't want to be shot in CA as is. And just HAMMER them on selling their products in some horrid places for minorities. Non-stop blasting them on it.

The art of the Deal in Atlanta, Georgia has always been pro business success. The City to busy to hate integrated its police force and accepted political power of educated African Americans 15years before an Atlanta born and educated Baptist preacher named King challenged the rest of the South. That is why small town Georgians resents Atlanta and why Governor Deal had to treat the issue with more respect and consideration than it deserved.

Atlanta has been turned into an utter shithole. Don't think it is not noticed.


Perhaps Christians should treat gays as Muslims do. Hollywood and the hyper-sensitive Left has few problems with how the ME treats homosexuals.

MountainMan said...

One of the companies most vocal about pulling out was Disney, which has been producing some films at the new Pinewood Studios in Fayette County. Yet Disney has no problem whatsoever spending $5.5 billion on its new theme park in Shanghai, where people have absolutely no rights at all. And one of the major investors in the new Pinewood Studios is the family trust of the Cathy family, of Chick-Fil-A fame. They seemed to have no problem with that, either.

traditionalguy said...

The CEOs of Delta Airlines, Coca Cola Company, Georgia Pacific, Home Depot and many others thank Nathan Deal for being civilized. It hurts no one.

damikesc said...

...except the pastor who doesn't want to officiate a gay marriage.

...or the baker who doesn't want to be forced to make a cake for the wedding.

...or the florist who doesn't want to be forced to provide flowers for the wedding.

Even if money is involved, if they have no legal option to say no, then it is slavery.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

James Pawlak:

The 14th Amendment did bind the state's to respect the Bill of Rights. That needs to be, ahem, Incorporated into your above analysis.

traditionalguy said...

Chik Fil A and Truett Cathy's family do not hate gays and they never have. That is a total slander by the liberal industry of Christian haters and anything Southern haters.

All Bubba Cathy did was make one more donation to Christian orphanages and foster family organizations like they have been doing for 50 years. Tithing is work.

Why do haters of Gays and Haters Christians arrive at the same place. It seems they both want to have power by stirring up hatred at good people in a silly protection racquet.

James Pawlak said...

TO BICKEL: If we cleave to Jefferson's statement about "intent", then it should be remembered that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide the (Then) just freed Slaves with a minimum of political rights.

All other uses are "legal fictions" invented by "judges making law from the bench" AND taking from the People the democratic means, provided within the Constitution, to grant or take-away rights.

Such judicial "creativity" is also exampled by the Courts failure to understand the very clear language of the "shall not be infringed" clause of the 2nd Amendment.

JPS said...

I figured there'd be a huge outcry on the left against this overt upending of the democratic will in response to the influence of massive corporations, but so far I'm missing it.

traditionalguy, 12:11:

I know a former university administrator, very senior, who has a lot of respect for the Cathys. I think it's from their program to send deserving employees to college, among other reasons. Anyway, I had the chance to witness an amusing exchange between him and a left-liberal friend, well after the Chik Fil A uproar had died down. He'd forgotten about it, the liberal, and was dredging it back up:

"Oh yeah - he's the guy who…what was it, he wouldn't serve gays?"

"No."

"Oh - he wouldn't hire gays?"

"No."

"Um - " You could tell he was dredging the memory banks: I know he held some really horrible position! He must have!

n.n said...

The "=" crowd has a pro-choice problem.

Michael said...

The proposed bill was designed to solve a problem that did not exist. If it had become law it would have had terrible economic implications for the state (the sanctimony of the bill was trumped by the sanctimony of Disney et al) but more importantly it would have created disharmony that does not now exist. Those who were aggrieved would have flooded the zone looking mostly in vain for cake bakers who would refuse them. The way things now work in Georgia is that people have other people bake them cakes who want to bake them cakes. Simple. People down here pretty much sort things out themselves and are both generous and polite.

mccullough said...

Religious people need to disengage from society in order to get what they want. Start with not having your sons sign up for combat. Figure out what the SJWs won't do, like become cops in urban areas or join combat units or drive trucks or unload containers at the docks, etc.

There are more of you than them. Play the game the right way and you win. Play the game their way and you lose.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael said...The proposed bill was designed to solve a problem that did not exist.

Yeah, that was my main problem w/it, too. The flip side is that if there's an actual danger of people being sued then waiting until that happens means those people who get used as test cases get screwed. It's not paranoia if people really are out to get you, and activists have definitely been looking for places & people to target so it's not a wholly unreasonable fear.

I would have been ok with the bill being defeated and I'm not too upset that it was vetoed, but being vetoed due to what look like economic pressures applied by non-GA companies sure doesn't look good, and Deal's speech about not being bullied seems out of place.

Matt said...

Smart Governor. Ask yourself what's worse; Telling a business they cannot discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation or telling people that businesses are now allowed to discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation? It's a no brainer. This is America. Not Saudi Arabia.

No one is threatening people in the United States from their Christian beliefs. Some conservatives go on and on about how the government will take away religion and guns. It's like crying wolf. At a certain point most people with a modicum of common sense will realize conservatives are simply lying in order to keep fighting the wars that have long been lost.

Amanda said...

These sorts of discriminatory anti gay laws laws will always have financial blowback. The rest of America hates bigotry.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Matt... Some conservatives go on and on about how the government will take away religion and guns. It's like crying wolf.

Matt, respectfully, if you don't think a large number of people (on the Left) in the U.S. wouldn't happily "take away [our] guns" then you either haven't been paying attention or are a moron. That number includes our current President and the leading candidate for the Democrat nomination for President, Matt. They keep losing only because a lot of other people "keep fighting [that] war."

The Left is the antagonist in almost all culture war battles, Matt. The GA legislature tried, with 757, to preempt a fight. They failed, and I agree that what they're trying to prevent has so far not been a large problem in GA and that fact certainly helped make the case that the bill wasn't needed (I mean, it still PASSED with the votes of the people who represent the citizens of GA, but the duly-elected Governor vetoed it). That does not at all prove that the problem they were trying to address will never exist, nor that all the things conservatives "go on and on about" are false/invalid.

damikesc said...

These sorts of discriminatory anti gay laws laws will always have financial blowback. The rest of America hates bigotry.

Yet the Left applauds when a baker decides he doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Not that he won't or hasn't served them...but that he doesn't want to be forced to spend the time and creative energy to make one.

I wouldn't give two shits about gay marriage but SJW will make sure that you forced to care.

Michael said...

Amanda

I believe you are confused about the bill that was vetoed.

Michael said...

HoodlumDoodlum

I have not read a case in Georgia where someone has been sued for following their religious belief. If it happens I am sure that the person or group being sued will be well protected by those who would contribute to their defense. You cannot swing a cat, to borrow a phrase from Titus, in Atlanta without hitting a gay person. Ditto Savannah.

traditionalguy said...

Georgia has some had classy governors since Zell Miller set the pattern. The educated Georgia families that sent their children to Emory for Law School and Medical School also get a leadership education that comes from Methodist, Episcopal and Presbyterian traditions. And to them the hatred of Gays and Black Men was gone with the wind once the County Unit System broke the rural Georgian lock on State politics. One man, one vote works miracles.

The SCOTUS did that about 60 years late, but they got er done.

The previous governor Sonny Perdue was a wonderful man His brother did a Trump Revolt for a US Senate seat 2 years before Trump read Perdue's article and boldly blew the doors off the Bush owned GOP.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I think the Governor's words would look good on Georgia's license plates: "Full of warm, friendly and loving people."

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

But then again, I liked it back when New Jersey had "The Garden State."

Maybe it still does.

I'll check.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael said.... If it happens I am sure that the person or group being sued will be well protected by those who would contribute to their defense.

I'm not sure how much comfort a small businessperson with sincere religious beliefs will take from your sure-ety, Michael. I'm also not clear on how your third sentence is supposed to support your second sentence.

Titus has expressed (in a number of comments) disdain for the South and Atlanta notwithstanding the fact that GA does have a large, vibrant, and outspoken gay community. It doesn't make much sense to me but on the other hand I honestly don't put much stock in Titus' opinions, so there you are.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Well!

Looks like the world is NOT going to hell in a handbasket, after all!

Michael said...

HoodlumDoodlum

We'll see. I think our premise of this being a solution to a problem that doesn't exist is correct.

Titus is from the midwest and is therefore essentially clueless about everywhere including, from what I read, where he actually lives and works.

n.n said...

So, selective exclusion is now an established moral principle under the State's pro-choice quasi-religion (i.e. church), and the "=" crowd accepts it as a progressive right and rite. Perhaps the next generation of unplanned Americans will recognize the sanctimonious hypocrisy of its progressive liberal predecessors and restore "separation of church and state" that this generation of liberals has eviscerated.

Michael said...

HoodlumDoodlum

Ah, my point was that there are gays galore here in Atlanta and in Savannah and they have businesses that cater to their cohorts. No need to create a ruckus when you can support a friend.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Michael said..No need to create a ruckus when you can support a friend.

Oh ok, I wasn't sure what you meant, but that makes sense.
I fear you may be a too-trusting/too-nice person, though Michael (not the worst thing to be!). I sincerely doubt that in any of the lawsuits/legal or regulatory actions/fines etc in cases around the nation that the plaintiffs/people bringing the actions could not have easily found a business or vendor who would have accommodated their wishes. In at least some of the cases the business were specifically targeted by people ("activists" I guess) who wanted to make a point and harm those businesses/people.

I agree GA hasn't had any such lawsuits yet. I disagree that the reason is because there are lots of gay-friendly businesses in GA. I certainly hope there aren't any lawsuits of that kind in the future (or really that no one finds or invents a need for them). I guess we can both hope that the problem doesn't actually occur and that the Legislature drops the push for a bill that would be needed to counter that problem!

Thanks for the chat--are you in GA? I'm not far from Decatur myself--v. gay friendly area, mostly happy most of the time!

Michael said...

Hoodlum Doodlum

Yes, I am in Atlanta. At least most of the time. Travel a bunch.

I have lived down here for twenty-five years having come from the Bay Area in California. Grew up in the South and left California because the only black person in my community was Willie Mays, everybody else rich and white or rich and Asian. Wanted my kids to grow up in the real world so moved here to Atlanta, 60% black. Love the lectures from the yankees! their cohorts who have moved here from the north all live outside the perimeter in the all-white suburbs. Proving again the slogan that yankees love the black race but hate black people whilst southerners love black people but hate the black race. Actually the yankees don't hate blacks they are just scared of them.

Best

mccullough said...

Half of blacks live in the South.

In the US, Blacks are 12% of the population, Latinos about 17%, whites about 63% (Jews are about 3% of whites), Asians are about 5%, and bi-racial the rest.

Atlanta has about 450,000 people. 51% are black, 38% white (more than 10% of whites are Jewish), 4.7% Latino, and 3.8% Asian, the rest other.

Atlanta has a lot higher percentage of blacks and Jews than the rest of the US. Interesting but unrepresentative amalgam.

mccullough said...

Emory Univeristy is 30% Jewish, 10 fold the percentage of Jews among the white population in the US. Harvard and Yale are 25% Jewish.

Is Emory the go to school for Jews rejected from the Ivy League.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

Sighs of relief were breathed at the Portfolio Design Center.

traditionalguy said...

Emory is surrounded by a community called Druid Hills ( which was where Driving Miss Daisy was filmed.) The store scenes were filmed in Highlands community across Briarcliff Road from Druid Hills. Highlands and Morningside are predominately Jewish neighborhoods. Emory Professors are mostly Druid Hills dwellers.

The CDC side of campus across the tracks and off Clifton Road leads back to another Orthodox Jewish community when it enters Briarcliff Road.

Don't sell young Jewish students from up north short. They are wonderful people with sharp minds and make great friends.

Michael said...

Mccullough

Yes. And these northern Jews finish Emory and settle in Atlanta. Win win.

JCC said...

What the bill as passed said was that, among other minor clauses relating to work on "days of religious observance", Saturdays and Sundays, for instance, was that priests and ministers could not be penalized for refusing to marry those persons whose marriage would violate a tenet of faith for the ministers, and that a religious organization could refuse to hire and/or refuse to retain persons on faith-based grounds. The bill defined religious organizations, etc. It did not apply to businesses.

That's it. Opponents claimed it allowed discrimination against, say, gays. Proponents said it allowed religious institutions like schools to avoid having to hire , say, someone who openly supported a gay lifestyle which might violate essential tenets of the faith of the school or church.

It's ability to pass Federal constitutional muster is suspect, I would think, but it was passed by a majority of the elected legislature. The governor obviously caved to external pressure from corporate entities, what the left would have limited in a re-do of Citizens United. So, a kind of role reversal happening here...but it's been that kind of year.

Jason said...

Libtards who want to force bakers and florists to cater gay weddings who think they're "pro-choice" = lulz.

Titus said...

This is not a shock. If this can't pass in a deep southern red state thea the issue is a lost cause for pubes.

Sorry the business community has spoken and they have the deep pockets.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Hear hear, Titus!
I can't wait for the Left (and Bernie & Hillary in particular) to apologize for demonizing the Loch, Sheldon Adelson, etc!
Big money & big business are good and their influence is to be cheered when that influence is used for the Left,but it is otherwise scary and dangerous.
Perfectly clear.

mccullough said...

So blacks and Jews live on the same streets in Atlanta? What neighborhood is this they both live in? Haven't been by Emory in awhile but it was in a super white area.

traditionalguy said...

McCullough...From Murphy's at Virginia Highlands up another 4 miles or so is a mixed Jewish and Black neighborhood. Granted, they are mostly educated blacks from Africa or Chicago.

Murphy's is a great place to eat.

Renee said...

People complain that CEOs make too much, yet have no problem with their tactics in public policy of states and local governments.

It a lot like how I think it is bizarre to have so many major corporate sponsors in parades. Remember when Gay Pride or Saint Patrick's Day parades were about the gay community or the local Irish Catholic community,now it's all politicians and corporations.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

VaHi's pretty white still, traditionalguy. Murphy's is good for brunch; Highland Tap is still a great place to eat. Osteria up the street is good, too.

I lived off Briarcliff within "the wire" and used to see Jewish families walking to services on Sabbath morning--I had not realized how heavily Jewish that area was until then.

Bagel Palace in the Toco Hills shopping center (N Druid & Lavista) is still my favorite weekend breakfast/brunch spot.

darrenoia said...

@Alexander: brilliant. May I add one more?

Ardent Defendants of Artistic Freedom Support Government Ability to Compel Artistic Expression

This is what the left has been reduced to. Then again, given the left's admiration for communism over the years, it shouldn't be surprising. It's never been about principle for them. It's always about the desired outcome, whatever means necessary. Curious: can anyone recall a SCOTUS case from the last couple of decades in which one or more of the four liberal justices voted on principle even though it meant the outcome would run against leftist interests?

We need a constitutional amendment reading "The government shall make no law infringing the right of individuals or sole proprietors to enter any contract, nor compelling them to enter any contract."

You'd think the first amendment would take care of it, but apparently not.