In contrast to the theatrics we often see in national politics, the work of state legislatures is usually pretty boring. Such is the case with the compromise version of religious free exercise legislation passed by the Georgia legislature on Wed., March 16.
The compromise bill is a product of more than a month of meticulous behind-the-scenes work among legislators, senior attorneys, leaders in the metro Atlanta and statewide business communities, leaders from Georgia’s LGBT community, and even an atheist lobbying group from Washington, D.C. Committed to taking a balanced approach to protecting religious 501(c)3 nonprofits and citizens from unfair government action, the highly negotiated substitute integrated requests from each of these involved stakeholder groups, putting into statute a level of fair and candidly routine religious protections that Georgia citizens are right to expect.
Given the high-pitched rhetoric of lobby groups and the scripted opposition of select business interests, Georgians are being asked to conclude that something negative has happened, when in fact Georgia has achieved a very careful balance on this difficult issue. Working hand-in-hand with groups whose members demand opposition to a compromise bill that their own leaders helped create, the legislature voted by overwhelming margins to do two basic things in the bill: (1) protect 501(c)3 faith-based nonprofits and (2) provide citizens of all faiths with the exact same level of protection from state and local government intrusion that federal law has long provided from federal government intrusion. The bill also includes anti-discrimination language asked for by Gov. Nathan Deal and the corporate business community.
In deference to activist groups, the bill’s faith-based organization category follows the very narrow Obama Administration definition which includes churches, religious schools, and church auxiliary ministries with a 501(c)3 status, to ensure that for-profit businesses could not use the statute to attempt to sidestep their legal obligations. In spite of the fevered pitch of the bill’s opponents, the faith-based protections change nothing about existing Georgia law. It simply ensures that, in the future, clergy will continue to retain authority to perform rites and sacraments in a way consistent with their beliefs, that faith-based organizations can retain control of what happens within their facilities, and that faith-based organizations cannot be required to provide services in a manner inconsistent with their beliefs. One key provision of the bill that is being ignored by many critics is that faith-based organizations that receive grants, private contracts, or public funding could not make a religious claim to avoid fulfilling the terms of their agreement. The bill includes general protections that no individual be required to attend any religious ceremony that violates their personal beliefs and that no business can be required to remain open on Saturday or Sunday.
Lastly, the bill adopts the federal law protecting citizens from unfair treatment by the federal government and provides citizens the same level of protection from state and local governments. Simply put, it requires that for a state or local government to override a person’s religious rights, there must be an important reason and it must be implemented in as narrow of a way as possible. Far from an automatic protection, in the decades this balancing test has been used in the federal courts, the law has never been used to uphold a case of discrimination and the government interest has prevailed over the religious claim in more than 70 percent of the cases. By design, the bill does not affect the commercial marketplace nor does it include any provision that would allow private businesses such as restaurants to refuse to serve any customer.
Achieving balance and fairness on this issue has been the single goal throughout the process, in spite of opponents’ claims of potential discrimination. I challenge Georgians to recognize that the scope of the legal attacks on our First Amendment free exercise rights are vastly broader. With teachers in religious schools in America claiming a right to teach while not upholding the doctrines of the school’s faith, Georgia needs clarity on free exercise protections written into our state law, both for our citizens and for the courts that will decide these difficult cases in the years to come. This bill strikes a fair and carefully worked-out balance in accomplishing that important goal.
About the Author
