Like the Saturday Night Live character played by Jon Lovitz — who would tell one false and ridiculous story after another punctuated with the tag line “Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket,” — opponents of religious freedom have come up with their latest whopper to oppose the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.They now claim that a religious freedom law will retard economic development and discourage tourism.
It helps to understand what the Georgia RFRA is and is not. Senate Bill 129 discriminates against no one; it is an anti-discrimination law. It has nothing to do with bakers or florists or same-sex weddings. It applies only to lawsuits brought by or against the state or a local government and merely ensures the same safeguards protecting the free exercise of religion that have applied to federal laws since 1993 now extend to state and local laws. Namely, that the government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion without a compelling governmental interest, and using the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. It protects people of all faiths, including religious minorities.
Twenty-one states currently have RFRAs, including solidly “blue” states such as Illinois, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Twelve other states, including Georgia, are considering them. Georgia’s bill tracks the federal RFRA of 1993, which was passed by a wide bipartisan majority.
The two studies claiming Georgia’s economy will be harmed by passage of RFRA are a classic case of the principle of “garbage in, garbage out.”
First there is the “study” focusing on the impact RFRA will have on convention business conducted by the Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau. Some meeting planners were asked, would you be less likely to hold a meeting in a state with a religious freedom law that did not have protections for LGBT individuals? Unsurprisingly many responded that, yes, they would be less likely. On top of being a loaded question, the question assumes that religious freedom laws cause discrimination against LGBT individuals, which has never occurred in the 22-year history of RFRA laws.
Four of the top 10 cities for convention planners, according to meetings management company CVent, are located in states with laws identical to the RFRA statute we are trying to pass in Georgia. Five of the top 10 states for expenditures on tourism in 2015, according to CNBC, have RFRA protection identical to what is proposed here in Georgia.
The Metro Atlanta Chamber has conducted a “study” with a core assumption that the proposal in Georgia is the same as the law passed in Indiana earlier this year. Georgia’s law mirrors the federal RFRA, while Indiana chose to initially pass a bill which went beyond the federal language. It is that difference that opponents latched onto and which caused the media firestorm and subsequent negative publicity. Aside from some conclusory statements about negative economic impacts which don’t seem to be extrapolated from any actual data, the “study” seems to focus on negative social media impressions.
What about the Super Bowl and other big ticket events? Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and others have suggested Georgia will lose out on such events if we pass RFRA. Six of the last nine Super Bowls have been played in states with RFRA laws like the one proposed in Georgia. Six of the last nine NCAA National Football Championships have been played in RFRA states.
Even when companies have chosen to locate manufacturing facilities or headquarters in other states, none of these competitive losses have been because of the “threat” of a RFRA in Georgia. Whether Mercedes-Benz in Alabama, BMW and Volvo in South Carolina, or GE, for now, deciding to remain in Connecticut, all have chosen states with an RFRA.
Religious liberty is not at odds with Georgia’s pro-business environment. Rather, a commitment to the right of free exercise reinforces a commitment to free markets and free minds to create opportunity for all.
About the Author
