Congress also thinks religion needs protection
The AJC Editorial Board “can think of no reasons (for religious liberty legislation) other than election-year showboating or a misguided, potentially venal, attempt to protect a freedom that’s already been guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for more than 225 years” (“No need for such speed,” Feb. 21). If religious freedom is guaranteed constitutionally, then why did Congress overwhelmingly pass and President Clinton sign the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993? In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA doesn’t apply to the states. Subsequently 21 states passed their own RFRA, and 12 other states introduced religious liberty legislation last year. These states apparently agree with Congress’s assessment that religious freedom needs more protection than the Constitution provides.
The Editorial Board rightly asserts that “the First Amendment exists for good reason.” There’s also good reason for federal and state religious liberty laws.
CHARLES D. EDEN, ATLANTA
HB 757 sounds a little too familiar
House Bill 757, the so-called "religious liberty" bill appears headed for passage as Georgia retreats to the 19th century. By allowing businesses to cite religious conviction to deny services to gay couples, this bill will return Georgia to a period of discrimination against individuals because of who they are. Does this sound familiar? Too bad that the lunch counter at Rich's is gone or gays could re-enact a very distasteful vignette of Atlanta history right where it began. Make no mistake about it, the world will view this action as outrageous in a country where religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. Does that document have no relevance or support in our State? HB 757 is not only obnoxious, it is also unnecessary. And it is offensive, even to a good Methodist like me.
LLOYD E. FLEMING, DULUTH
