One of the key authors of Georgia's "religious liberty" bill defended the measure Tuesday while more groups and independent analysis questioned why it's needed.
State Sen. Greg Kirk, R-Americus, said House Bill 757 should become law. He read from a collection of articles and reports from Canada and the United Kingdom that he said showed parents losing control of what their children are taught in schools, and pastors and churches being forced to perform gay weddings as the result of the legalization of same-sex marriage last year.
HB 757, he said, would prevent that.
“Will our state and nation going forward be a state and nation that is intolerant of those who express a sincerely held belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? And will expression of that belief in the workplace or marketplace lead to sanctions by local, state or federal government in the name of tolerance? I say no,” Kirk said. “That’s not the America that I grew up in, and by the governor signing this bill into law, it preserves freedom.”
Deal has yet to signal what he will do with the bill that has led supporters and opponents to light up his office phones and email accounts. Supporters say the bill would provide protection for the free practice of religion, and opponents have maintained it would amount to state-sanctioned discrimination.
Businesses, professional sports teams and the National Football League have all raised questions about the bill's impact on Georgia, even as many on both sides try to discern its practical impacts should it become law.
Former state Rep. Edward Lindsey, R-Atlanta, wrote, in an analysis for the House GOP caucus, that the bill would do little to change current law but would add protections for pastors and faith-based organizations.
Atlanta attorney Joe Whitley, who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, conducted his own analysis of the bill on behalf of the gay rights group Georgia Equality.
Whitley found that the bill would allow expanded levels of discrimination in Georgia but would do little to expand religious protections for people of faith.
“These provisions, along with their definitions and other implementing actions, constitute approximately 117 of Amended HB 757’s 208 substantive lines of text,” Whitley wrote in a letter to Deal. “In other words, more than half of amended HB 757 is dedicated to enacting a statutory scheme that would not change current protections for free expression.”
Given its lack of new protections, Whitley wrote, “the conclusion that some could reasonably draw is that its purpose is to make members of the LGBT community, visitors to our state, and others feel unwelcome in Georgia, and to send a message that the leaders of our government believe that Georgians need some special protection from them.”
The bill, he said, would create “the legal right to discriminate against other Georgians and visitors to our state.”
University of Georgia Law School professor Hillel Levin, who teaches constitutional law, analyzed HB 757 for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The bill, he said, “clearly allows for some types of discrimination in some areas. And that’s pretty clear. It must be the intent, in fact.”
In particular, Levin pointed to the section of the bill that would allows nonprofit faith-based organizations to refuse to hire, or to fire, anyone with whom they have a religious objection. Levin said established law is clear that no church or faith-based organization can be forced to hire a minister with whom it disagrees.
“That’s a constitutionally protected right,” Levin said. “But this goes further than that. It allows a religious organization to discriminate in hiring in employment even in nonministers. That would include a secretary, would include anyone really.”
The “anti-discrimination” clause found later in the bill would prohibit these organizations from violating federal and state protections against discrimination, which means they could not hire or fire someone for being black or female, for example.
“But sexual orientation or transgender identity are not protected by federal and state law, and only by local law,” Levin said.
And there’s the rub, he said, because HB 757 would also trump local nondiscrimination laws adopted in cities such as Atlanta. While others have said a court would ultimately decide, Levin said he doesn’t believe that would be necessary.
“I think it’s explicit that a local ordinance is overruled by this,” Levin said. “It’s not a state or federal law.”
About the Author
