The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in favor of an evangelical Colorado web designer who maintained she had the legal right to refuse services for same-sex marriages despite a state anti-discrimination law evokes a long-running Georgia debate over “religious liberty” legislation.
Georgia has no such law that forbids discrimination against gay people. But state lawmakers have long debated legislation that could give private business owners legal protections to refuse service to gay couples, and the issue always has the potential to surface whenever the General Assembly is in session.
The closest it came to becoming law was in 2016, when Georgia lawmakers narrowly approved legislation that aimed to strengthen legal protections for opponents of gay marriage, a push that intensified after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex weddings.
Then-Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed that measure amid criticism from civil rights groups and business leaders who besieged the state with threats of boycotts and other economic backlash. In an emotional announcement, Deal said it didn’t reflect the state’s image as a state of “warm, friendly and loving people.”
He had ample cover. Executives from dozens of big-name companies called on the governor to veto the bill. The NFL warned it could risk Atlanta’s bid for the Super Bowl. And Deal’s office said at the time that two economic development prospects abandoned Georgia because of the legislation.
Major firms joined with gay rights groups who warned that the measure amounts to legalized discrimination and referred to the corporate outrage that rocked Indiana after a similar measure was signed into law there.
Supporters of the legislation, which passed largely on a party-line vote, said it would allow faith-based organizations to deny services to those who violate their “sincerely held religious belief” and preserve their right to fire employees who aren’t in accord with those beliefs.
They noted it mirrored language found in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed by President Bill Clinton and adopted by dozens of states, requiring government to prove a “compelling governmental interest” before it interferes with a person’s exercise of religion. And it includes a clause saying it could not be used to allow discrimination banned by state or federal law.
The second-term Republican faced intense pushback from within his own party for nixing the bill, including talk of a formal sanction from the state GOP. But his veto put an end to the legislation the rest of his time in office.
That doesn’t mean the issue has gone away. While the culture wars debate in Georgia has shifted, including recent measures targeting transgender youth, Kemp endorsed the legislation during his 2018 campaign — on certain conditions.
Credit: Bob Andres/AJC
Credit: Bob Andres/AJC
It’s not immediately clear whether the ruling will spark a new push for the legislation next year. Georgia GOP Chair Josh McKoon, who as a state senator was a lead sponsor of the “religious liberty” proposal, lauded Friday’s ruling as an unambiguous decision to protect “the conscience of a business owner.”
He said the ruling, along with other recent Supreme Court decisions penned by the conservative majority, served as a “solemn reminder that elections truly impact every aspect of our daily lives — whether we realize it or not.”
The critics of the court’s decision say it should provoke a different response. Jeff Graham of Georgia Equality, an LGBTQ advocacy group, said the “radical and reckless ruling” should prompt state legislators to adopt new anti-discrimination protections.
“This ruling renews our urgent call to lawmakers for a comprehensive, statewide nondiscrimination law in Georgia that will help ensure no one is turned away because of who they are or who they love,” he said.
About the Author
