As a proponent of Georgia’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), I have been asked to address whether or not there are legitimate economic development or workforce concerns, as well as whether the bill would lead to discrimination. The answer is that no one needs to be concerned that adoption of a bill which merely grants Georgians the same protection of their right of free exercise that they currently enjoy from the federal government would lead to any of the parade of horrors imagined by RFRA opponents.
Indiana and Arkansas experienced a measure of controversy over their respective RFRA proposals because they went beyond the safe harbor of the federal RFRA, allowing private parties to assert a RFRA defense in litigation where the government was not a party. This brings in the proverbial baker, florist or other business owner asserting a RFRA defense to deny service. That language is not in my Senate Bill 129. In fact, Arkansas wound up giving final passage to a bill that, like my bill, largely mirrors existing federal law and applies it to state and local government. Did Wal-Mart leave Arkansas? Has there been some flight of businesses from that state elsewhere? If so, that story is the best-kept secret in this debate.
Probably the best example of how RFRA simply does not impact economic development can be seen in the site selection process for Volvo Motor Corp.’s new factory. The finalists were Pooler, Georgia and North Charleston, South Carolina. If Volvo was seriously concerned about public relations concerns surrounding locating in a state with its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the choice between these two finalists could not have been clearer. But Volvo chose South Carolina, a state which has had a RFRA on the books for many years over Georgia, a non-RFRA state. This tells us something that should not be surprising; businesses make these decisions on a dollars-and-cents basis. Here, they went with the state that offered the richest incentive package and were unconcerned with the extent to which each state protects the right of free exercise.
Passing a RFRA sends a clear message that people with varying religious beliefs can expect that the state of Georgia and our local governments will respect and honor those beliefs. While some have argued that RFRA would be utilized to discriminate, there are zero cases at the federal level or in the 30 or so state jurisdictions with RFRA in place where a Court has upheld or protected an act of discrimination. Courts have most recently rejected that line of argument in the heavily publicized Kim Davis case. So it is difficult to argue that adoption of a RFRA in Georgia would provide a disincentive to moving to our state to work. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite, that people with a wide array of religious beliefs would feel more welcome in our state.
Robust protection of individual civil liberties is an American value. Taking steps to protect the right of free exercise, even with those whose beliefs differ from our own, should not be seen as something to be frightened of, but rather a cornerstone of our republic that should be celebrated. With the help of the Legislature and Gov. Nathan Deal, Georgia can and should take the important step of passing RFRA next year..
About the Author
