The strongest argument offered by advocates for a Georgia “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” is that Senate Bill 129 merely mimics legislation that Congress passed almost unanimously more than 20 years ago. They then ask a simple, disarming question:
How could a Georgia version of that non-controversial federal law be as discriminatory as its opponents claim?
The answer — as they know quite well yet try to deny — is timing and intent. In the two decades since passage of the federal RFRA, Supreme Court decisions and changes in public opinion have dramatically altered the landscape. That landscape is about to be altered yet again with a ruling that makes gay marriage legal throughout the nation. In this new environment, backers of a state RFRA believe that with a little tinkering, the noncontroversial 1993 federal law can be “repurposed” to allow continued discrimination against gay Americans in the name of religious liberty.
Many advocates of the bill have been open and even enthusiastic about its anti-gay intent, while others attempt to hide or disguise it. State Sen. Josh McKoon, the sponsor of SB 129, says it “couldn’t be further from the truth” to say that the bill offers a license to discriminate. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who just signed Indiana’s version of the law, repeatedly refused to address questions about its discriminatory impact.
Put bluntly, such people are being dishonest under the cover of religion. And if you can’t be forthright about what you’re up to, if you can’t be honest about what you’re really trying to accomplish, then maybe, just maybe, you’re up to something that you know is wrong.
Here in Georgia, the entire argument has come down to one sentence that was added to SB 129 by the House Judiciary Committee, one crucial sentence that would “completely undercut the purpose of the bill,” as McKoon puts it. That sentence reads: “Courts have consistently held that government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination.”
It is not logically possible for McKoon to claim that his bill has nothing to do with discrimination, yet would be gutted by a sentence saying it has nothing to do with discrimination. Yet that’s where we are: As long as that sentence remains in the bill, SB 129 is fine and should be passed easily. If that sentence is removed, SB 129 would give individuals or businesses a religious-based right to discriminate against gay people, and once again Georgia takes a big step backward.
Look, I understand and in some ways sympathize with the emotions driving the bill. To social conservatives, the world is transforming right before their eyes at a pace that they never would have imagined, and they are frightened by it. One Baptist minister told the House Judiciary Committee last month that without a state RFRA, the government might force him to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples in complete violation of his religious faith.
That absolutely will not happen — left and right agree that such an intrusion into religion is unthinkable — but the pastor’s fear is nonetheless indicative of the panic that rapid change has engendered. Such change is hard; it is scary. But in the interest of human equality, it is also necessary.
About the Author
