A fight over ‘religious liberty’ brews ahead of session

Here are some passages of a draft proposal of legislation state Rep. Sam Teasley, R-Marietta, plans to file by the year’s end:

50-15A-2.

(a) Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.

(b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if government demonstrates that the application of such burden to a person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this chapter may assert that claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against government.

50-15A-3.

(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:

Create any rights by an employee against an employer if such employer is not government.

Business leaders warn it could cost the state jobs and tarnish its reputation. Democrats cast it as a thinly disguised “license to discriminate.” And Georgia lawmakers are already clashing over it in a series of email blasts.

Supporters say the so-called “religious liberty” bills would provide another layer of protection to prevent government from intruding on faith-based beliefs. But storm clouds are already gathering over the proposals, which critics fear would allow private business owners to discriminate against customers by citing religious beliefs. And that furor surrounds a pair of proposals that have yet to be introduced.

The debate involves a sudden fight that flamed during the past legislative session over a bill that, sponsors say, would prevent the government from intruding on someone’s religious freedoms. Critics see it as a backdoor attempt to allow business owners to deny service to gays or others, and opposition from powerful business leaders helped scuttle the effort.

The two Republicans behind the proposals, state Sen. Josh McKoon and state Rep. Sam Teasley, plan to bring them back during the legislative session that starts Jan. 12. Both say they have been working for months to allay concerns from corporate leaders and others who have raised questions.

“We can make it clear that the misinformation about this having to do with the gay and lesbian community isn’t true,” said McKoon, R-Columbus. “I can think of nothing that is more of an overt sign to the incredibly diverse population we have, certainly in the metro Atlanta area, than saying that if you’re a religious minority we will not discriminate against you.”

They have work to do to overcome opposition from a coalition of business interests, Democrats and gay rights groups who aim to again stymie the proposals.

Democratic state Rep. Keisha Waites, who said her caucus has made opposing the legislation a priority, said it amounts to a "license to discriminate."

“This sends us backward. It sends the wrong message, and the fact that you’ve seen the corporate community speak out speaks volumes,” said Waites, D-Atlanta. “It doesn’t line up with the values we have in place.”

'Religious liberty' poster children

The debate will have new subtleties this time in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision in June involving Hobby Lobby.

That ruling found that a federal requirement for employer-based health insurance policies to provide certain contraceptives to employees infringed on the religious rights of a family-owned corporation that objected to the mandate. At the center of that decision is a 1993 federal law that some advocates hope to duplicate in Georgia state code.

The proposal's backers point to several examples of why the legislation is needed. In a dispatch to fellow lawmakers, Teasley mentioned a middle school student who was initially denied permission to form a religious club and a rabbi who feared authorities could mandate autopsies despite his objections.

“The citizens of Georgia do not have adequate protection from state and local government as it pertains to their religious exercise,” Teasley, a Republican from Marietta, wrote in that note.

He provided The Atlanta Journal-Constitution with a draft of the proposal that states “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

An exception in Teasley’s draft says that government “may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if government demonstrates that the application of such burden to a person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Teasley also added a proviso barring the creation of “any rights by an employee against an employer” unless that employer is a government agency. That addition, he said, ensures that the rules would only apply to governments and not businesses.

“The amount of concern has caught me off guard — the innuendo and subterfuge around this bill,” said Teasley, who said the language should soothe concerns of critics who fear it could be hijacked. “It was never about trying to make life more difficult for a minority group.”

Teasley’s allies have invoked more recent controversies.

State Rep. Ed Setzler, R-Acworth, referred to the case of Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, who was suspended after writing a religious book in which he describes homosexuality as a "sexual perversion." The fire chief's suspension has become a rallying cry for some religious groups who see it as government overreach.

And McKoon cited the tempest in Kennesaw over a mosque's attempt to move into a local strip mall. The City Council initially blocked the mosque's move, but weeks later reversed the decision amid bitter backlash. Count McKoon among the supporters of the decision to allow the mosque.

“I would be very surprised if the business community wanted to send a message to communities of faith that we don’t want you openly practicing your faith in Georgia,” McKoon said of critics of the legislation. “That’s a pretty negative and unwelcome message to send to this diverse population.”

Opponents see a legislative attempt for a solution in need of a problem, and they point to the First Amendment and other federal laws that aim to guarantee religious freedoms. Some fear that it could give business owners legal footing to, say, deny a wedding cake to a gay couple if the owners oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

“What is the need for this law right now? What events could have been prevented based on this legislation?” said Robbie Medwed, assistant director of the Southern Jewish Resource Network for Gender and Sexual Diversity, a gay rights group monitoring the debate. “Because I don’t see any need for it now.”

Others worry about an image issue. Delta Air Lines CEO Richard Anderson, the Metro Atlanta Chamber's outgoing chairman, sent an unmistakable message at a recent meeting by saying that corporate leaders should "stand up" to lawmakers considering laws that could be deemed discriminatory.

A reputation ‘at risk’?

Even amid the infighting, there’s a glimmer of a chance for a compromise. Eric Tanenblatt, a well-connected Republican operative, said there’s been “productive dialogue” about reaching a consensus on the debate since the session ended.

“I’m optimistic that there will be a version of this legislation that can perhaps address some of the concerns that will allay the business community and others,” he said.

One proposal making the rounds involves including a ban on workforce discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not currently covered by state law. A bipartisan group introduced a similar proposal in 2013, but it never reached a vote.

Others want to lift the text of the 1993 federal law aimed at safeguarding faith-based activities and insert it directly into the state code, following the lead of at least 18 other states that have adopted similar proposals.

Yet reaching a consensus could prove difficult, as the emails ping-ponging in legislators’ inboxes this month proved.

One came from Trey Childress, who was Sonny Perdue's budget director and Nathan Deal's chief operating officer. He sent lawmakers a note of warning about the legislation on behalf of a group called Competitive Georgia, a coalition of mostly business interests "united against discrimination."

“Georgia is better than this. Our reputation, as a state, is at risk,” he wrote. “And our economic opportunity is at risk because of those who would score a few political points without clear benefit to citizens, but with much to lose.”