Opposition to the Pastor Protection Act / FADA Increases

The print version of the New York Times editorial published Saturday, February 27th
The print version of the New York Times editorial published Saturday, February 27th
In the week since the Georgia Senate passed a version of the Pastor Protection Act that included significant portions of Senator Greg Kirk’s First Amendment Defense Act, opposition to the bill as it stands now has grown. While it might have been easy for legislators to brush off the complaints of a telephone service provider that largely works for Democratic causes, more scholarly concerns about House Bill 757 were expressed here and here.

At a Capitol ceremony marking the success of the Peach State’s film industry and the $6 billion it adds to Georgia’s economy, Governor Nathan Deal was asked if passing the Pastor Protection Act could cause filmmakers to leave. The governor signaled his interest in the measure, saying legislation was not finalized. Later in the week, Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com, who threatened to pull his company out of Indiana last year following its passage of religious liberty legislation, expressed his concerns over the measure, including this tweet.

On Friday, the Southern Sociological Society threatened to pull its convention out of Atlanta should HB 757 pass. The group has held its conference in Atlanta every three years, spending around $650,000 each time.

All of this has drawn attention to Georgia, which Governor Deal proudly says is the number one state for business. Today, the New York Times lent its voice to the debate in an editorial published in Saturday’s editions. In it, the paper says,

One of the most alarming bills comes out of Georgia, where state lawmakers have cobbled together a dangerous piece of legislation that would prohibit the government from punishing anyone or anything — individuals; businesses; and nonprofit groups, including those that receive taxpayer funds — for discrimination, so long as they claim it was based on their religious views of marriage.

The bill’s backers say they are trying to protect religious freedom. But they know full well that the measure is nothing more than a legal shield for discrimination. Georgians are free to believe as they choose, and to say whatever they want to whomever they want about their views on marriage. But when they enter the public sphere, and particularly when they benefit from taxpayer dollars, they are not free to ignore any law that doesn’t align with their personal religious views on marriage.

If Georgia’s House approves this bill, which would do immeasurable harm to the state’s citizens and businesses, Gov. Nathan Deal should veto it.

Don’t expect a quick resolution to this issue. Leadership in the House, Senate, and the Governor’s office are looking at their options, which range from letting the bill die at the end of the session, to modifying the language in the FADA portion of the bill to make it clear that for profit entities are not included in the protections it offers. Another option is eliminating the FADA language, and substituting either Josh McKoon’s SB 129 version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which as amended contains anti-discrimination provisions or Rep. Ed Setzler’s version of RFRA, which incorporates by reference the language of the federal RFRA, but has no anti-discrimination clause. There are other options as well, including stripping the FADA language and returning to the House passed version of the Pastor Protection Act.

What is true is that if the legislature hoped to pass a religious liberty bill without it drawing nationwide attention, that horse has left the barn.

2
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
John KonopWill Durant Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Will Durant
Will Durant

The whole RFRA/FADA thing is more of an time waster than official state [insert flora or fauna of choice here] designations. The difference is that in this needless legislation some people are making millions for themselves by churning fears and phobias, that if codified, could cost the state billions. Ralph Reed learned from his previous lobbyist, er…extortion groups preying upon his niche of “Christians”. We have no idea how much money he pulls in or pays out in the “dark money” behind these bills. One certainty is that most of the politicians who claim they are not “beholden to special… Read more »

John Konop
John Konop

I have a simple solution, Senator Josh McKoon will sign a personal guarantee for any economic impact on business or people via him telling us none of this BS will have any impact. It is time for Josh to step up or kill this concept. He is a politician, we all know how that will play out….