Guest Post: The Battle For Religious Liberty for All of Us

Editor’s Note: This guest post was written by Republican State Senator Marty Harbin of Tyrone. Sen. Harbin was elected in 2014. He represents District 16, which includes Lamar, Spalding and Pike counties and most of Fayette County.

We have been involved in a very long and difficult struggle to defend religious liberty in the state of Georgia. Let’s take a look back at what has happened.

In the first year of the 2015-2016 Biennium, my colleague, Senator Josh McKoon, introduced a bill that was essentially the same as a piece of legislation that had passed at the Federal level in 1993. It would have prohibited the government of the state of Georgia from compelling someone to do something against their religious beliefs unless there was a very strong, compelling reason. This bill was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

While some said that no such bill was needed in Georgia because of the Federal RFRA, they are incorrect. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the Federal RFRA does not apply to the states, and that, in fact, states do need their own version. In large part because of this ruling, thirty-one other states, besides Georgia, have already passed laws identical to or very much like the 1993 Federal RFRA. All of the states surrounding Georgia have State RFRA’s in place.

Some have claimed that RFRA is a radically far-right and discriminatory bill, despite passing at the Federal level with overwhelming support by Congress, including Georgia’s current Governor and then Congressman Nathan Deal, as well as with the support of then President Bill Clinton, who signed the Federal RFRA into law. There have been no incidents of discrimination in regard to this law since its passage in 1993.

Senator McKoon’s bill, after passing overwhelmingly in the Georgia Senate, languished in a House committee for an entire year. As a result, several versions of RFRA were offered by various representatives at the beginning of the 2016 session. But only one bill was introduced in the House, commonly called the “Pastor Protection Act,” or PPA, which would have simply provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not compel a pastor to officiate over a same sex wedding if doing so violated his deeply held religious conviction that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman.

After passing unanimously in the House, the PPA, legally numbered House Bill 757, came to the Senate, where my colleague, Senator Greg Kirk, amended it in committee to include the “First Amendment Protection Act”, or FADA. This would have provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not take adverse action against an individual or business for having a deeply held religious belief that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman. Thus, protection for all Georgians.

Having passed out of committee, HB 757, with FADA added to it, passed the Senate by a strong majority and went back to the House, where it was amended again to add what was, essentially, Senator McKoon’s long lost RFRA bill. The result was that both Houses agreed overwhelmingly to this version of HB 757, that in summary, combined PPA, FADA, and RFRA together.

The objection came from Governor Deal who demanded that the bill be stripped of the language which provided religious freedom protection for individuals and businesses, leaving protection only for pastors/clergy and non-profits. Meeting this requirement which was necessary for his support, this bill then passed out of the Georgia General Assembly on March 16th and went to the governor’s desk. But, despite the fact that all of his demands were met, Governor Deal vetoed HB 757 – the law titled “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom” on March 28th.

Some have claimed that the bill is radical, and thus Governor Deal vetoed it. But is it really? It says that the state cannot force a business to be open on Sunday. Is that radical? It says that the state cannot make someone attend a wedding they don’t want to attend. Is that radical? The majority of Georgians do not think so and have expressed their strong support of this legislation.

But do you know what is radical? It is radical for Big Business and the Atlanta Chamber to succumb to the pressure of special interest groups and help push their agenda. The businesses that are making these threats are located all over this nation and in other parts of the world. They haven’t pulled out of those places so why threaten Georgia?

Why doesn’t the media present this story as businesses intimidating Georgia rather than legislator’s threatening the economy? Why does something that is “for” protecting something get reported as “against” something else? Why has there been so much negative press about this issue? The real reason is because there is and has been an agenda to destroy religious freedom which is the basis of all of our other freedoms.

The simple truth is that there is nothing discriminatory about this bill. I repeat, there is no discrimination in it. A lot of diligent work has gone into this bill. There was concerted effort by those in both chambers working with the speaker and the lieutenant governor and the governor’s office to ensure protection against discrimination.

That is why I am very disappointed that a man who, not only once, but twice, won the trust of a majority of the voters in this state, so blatantly violated that trust by refusing to sign a law that will protect them – the ordinary people who live and work in our state – those who are producers and consumers – those who contribute to making our economy strong as well. Their voices have been ignored by our governor.

However, this battle is not over. There are several options for the true, freedom loving, God-fearing members of the legislature to take. Our Founding Fathers have given us a form of government that includes a balance of powers with checks and balances. They have given us the incredible gift of a representative form of government – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The voice of the people has spoken through their elected representatives. They want HB 757 – “An Act to Protect Religious Freedom.”

The Constitution of Georgia allows for a special session of the General Assembly to be called in order to overturn the governor’s veto. For that, we would need the support of 34 Senators and 108 Representatives. This is certainly possible, as overwhelming majorities in both Houses voted for the passage of HB 757.

But it will take courage. Freedom is not free; it is costly and has come to us because of the great sacrifice of so many. Are we now willing to protect it for those who come behind us? I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms that I have had in my life – freedoms for which my father fought. Others are fighting in the states around us. Others are taking a stand. Not taking action now on this issue will only result in more battles in the future.

Religious liberty created our great nation. Religious liberty is the foundation of all of our other freedoms, and it must be protected. Join me as I make every effort to call a special session to overturn the governor’s veto. This is the right thing to do, whatever the cost!

I urge my fellow senators and representatives to rise up. I urge the citizens of Georgia to rise up as well. Let your senator and representative know how important this issue is to you. Watch to see how they respond and hold them accountable for their action or inaction. I pray, and I ask that you join me in praying that enough will be willing.

However, if there is not enough support for a special session to be called, know that we will not give up. My colleagues and I will return next year at the start of the new 2017-2018 Biennium, and we will continue this battle for the religious liberties of all Georgians.

73
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
59 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
26 Comment authors
SnarkyGOPWill DurantAndrew C. PopeDave BearseBenevolus Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Robbie
Robbie

If you truly believed the bill didn’t allow for discrimination, why not make that explicit? Why not ensure that ALL non-discrimination laws, including local non-discrimination ordinances, were respected in the text of the law? Until you’re all willing to sit down with everyone – with all communities represented, including the LGBT community – and ensure that everyone’s needs and concerns are met, the end result won’t be fair for all. As long as you’re trying to pass a bill that “protects” people from having to honor constitutionally-guaranteed legal rights, you’ll always be fighting for some kind of discrimination. Could anyone… Read more »

LTWill
LTWill

“The businesses that are making these threats are located all over this nation and in other parts of the world.”

It’s ironic that the people that fought to give first amendment rights to businesses get made when businesses form opinions.

Davo65
Davo65

Congratulations on hitting every note on the conservative dog whistle. I’m glad for all the bakers in Tyrone you have their back to keep them from having to dish out cupcakes to cupcakes. And good luck with continuing this fight…I’m sure that it’s really going to get your democratic rivals thinking.

Noway2016
Noway2016

“cupcakes to cupcakes”? Really? Just damn…

The Dixie Cheetomonger
The Dixie Cheetomonger

I’m surprised he didn’t have this song playing in the background as you read it.

https://youtu.be/BVkTmnJkAN8

John Konop
John Konop

Jon, ……..Why doesn’t the media present this story as businesses intimidating Georgia rather than legislator’s threatening the economy? Why does something that is “for” protecting something get reported as “against” something else? Why has there been so much negative press about this issue? The real reason is because there is and has been an agenda to destroy religious freedom which is the basis of all of our other freedoms……….. Sen. McKoon has publically promoted the bill with NAZI style religious groups, you really do not think this is a PR nightmare for our state beyond being morally wrong? You really… Read more »

TheManUndertheBridge
TheManUndertheBridge

One for the “Best one liners since PeachPundit”:

…dishing out cupcakes for cupcakes.

Peace unto to you Sen. Harbin, your intentions were poorly expressed by the lack of craftmanship in this failed effort.

TheManUndertheBridge
TheManUndertheBridge

Sen. Harbin R-Tyrone receives ~golf clap~ for his hauntingly Nixonian defense of the indefensible today in Georgia.

Stick a fork in it, Sir, it’s DONE, before you bring us all down in a smouldering pile of misplaced piety.

That is all.

xdog
xdog

Senator Harbin, you make the usual error of failing to recognize that those who oppose you can be “true, freedom loving, God-fearing members of the legislature” too. What is so off-putting about you and other Christianists is your eagerness to cloak yourself in righteousness. Why don’t you concentrate on the state’s business when you’re on the state’s dime?

Loren
Loren

In the event Sen. Harbin drops by the comment section, I have an off-topic question I’m hoping he might answer: The Pursuing Justice for Rape Victims Act (aka the Rape Kit Bill) was passed unanimously by the Georgia House three times this year, and in the Senate it was passed by a vote of 55-1. And that lone dissenter between both houses wasn’t even Renee Unterman (who briefly blocked the bill); it was Marty Harbin. And so, since I don’t believe he’s commented on this particular vote elsewhere, I was hoping Sen. Harbin might like to explain why he was… Read more »

jannr
jannr

I’d like to know the answer to this as well but I fear it would make me violently ill.

Rambler14
Rambler14

AP BREAKING: PayPal cancels $3.6 million investment in North Carolina over discrimination law.

NC LGBT law prompts Lionsgate to pull production of new Hulu show from Charlotte
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article69837702.html#storylink=cpy

Noway2016
Noway2016

Does “transgender” mean they’ve had actual surgery to change sexes? Or does that mean anyone who feels like they are the opposite sex to that they were born with? If so, the raging Casanova, heterosexual who humorously claims to be a “lesbian trapped in a man’s body” may follow your eight year old daughter into the bathroom to get a peek? Please tell me that example could not occur If so, praise be to NC! If, on the other hand, that example could be the case our society is truly, totally screwed up…

Robbie
Robbie

About 70% of transgender people do not have any kind of surgery. Transgender just means that you are not the gender the doctor assigned you at birth. It’s important to note, also, that most transgender people live every single day as the gender they know themselves to be. Some take hormones, some have surgery, some just dress in a way that matches their gender. None of them are pretending and it’s very clear that they are consistent in their gender identity and presentation, and it’s never about fooling anybody. With all of the violence against trans people and the legal… Read more »

Noway2016
Noway2016

Answer this: Are you comfortable with a male following your ten year old daughter into the restroom?

Enjoy the Silence
Enjoy the Silence

Ok. I am going to use a 2nd Amendment argument here….

What prevents a bad guy with a gun from going into a building with no security, but “No Guns Allowed” signs?
Right-wing: NOTHING!!!!
Left-wing: They are breaking the law though!!!!

What prevents a bad guy with a b****r from going into a designated women’s restroom with no security?
Left-wing: NOTHING!!!!
Right-wing: They are breaking the law though!!!!

Does that about sum it up?

Noway2016
Noway2016

Neither you or Robbie have the guts to answer my question. Deflect….

Robbie
Robbie

Sorry, I wasn’t around this afternoon. I’ll answer the question. No, I wouldn’t be comfortable with a grown man following my 10 year old daughter into the bathroom. But that’s not what’s happening, and that’s not what’s allowed by having an inclusive civil rights law.

Men are still not allowed in women’s restrooms. Women are still not allowed in men’s restrooms. People doing bad things in restrooms are still breaking the law and can be prosecuted as such.

Transgender women are women. Transgender men are men. Full stop.

Jean
Jean

Noway201– you asked:
Answer this: Are you comfortable with a male following your ten year old daughter into the restroom?

I’m female. I wouldn’t hesitate to have a transgender woman in the bathroom with me – regardless of her genitals.

I would do a double-take at someone presenting as a man entering the woman’s bathroom – whether that person was a transgender man (with female birth genitals) or a cisgender man (with male birth genitals).

Regardless, it’s only a problem if someone starts peeking under the stall door or starts touching me — then the cops get called 🙂

Noway2016
Noway2016

Why do you think we ever had separate restrooms in the first place? Hmm?

Noway2016
Noway2016

So, as long as they have a wig, lipstick and a dress, (presenting…as a woman…) you have no prob with a guy following your pre-teen or teenage daughter into the john? Really?!
Don’t you think your daughter might be a bit uncomfortable with that? Or are we past the feelings of the little girls being creeped out by it in order to be PC?

Benevolus
Benevolus

I suspect the little girls are less creeped-out about it than you are.

Noway2016
Noway2016

Be sure and send that answer to all of the females in your life, B. They’ll love you for it!

Robbie
Robbie

You need to stop thinking that transgender people are just playing dress up and pretending to be something they’re not. That’s disgusting and offensive, not to mention factually wrong.

Transgender men are men. Transgender women are women.

Noway2016
Noway2016

Ok, Rob, I’m obviously missing something. Does this legislation allow anyone who might identify with the sex they aren’t , to use the bathroom they aren’t? If that isn’t allowed to happen, I have misunderstood the dust up.

Robbie
Robbie

Transgender men are men. Transgender women are women.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

This is honestly, hands down, the dumbest line of argument I have ever read on this site or on PP. Noway, transgender people are not child molestors. They are not sexual predators. They are significantly more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than cisgender individuals. If you want to be concerned about anyone’s safety in a public restroom, it should be for the young woman forced to use a men’s restroom because of the genetalia she was born with.

Noway2016
Noway2016

You’re damn right about that, Drew. To finish this, I’ll stick with my original 3:34 pm post and say people, who are not legitimately Trans Gendered, might use the ability to go freely into any restroom they please may lead to bad things happening.

Robbie
Robbie

Will you be doing the genital checks on everyone as they enter the bathroom to make sure they have the genitals you assume they should? That’s what you’re getting at, right?

Noway2016
Noway2016

You genuinely cannot be that obtuse. I’m worried about some pervert using this law to go into the female restroom to leer at our daughters and wives!

Robbie
Robbie

Noway2016 – That’s already against the law and will continue to be against the law. Stop trying to demonize transgender people.

Enjoy the Silence
Enjoy the Silence

Annnnnd this gets to my tongue in cheek point on the 2nd Amendment. Glad you have finally caught up Noway2016.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

If you’re someone who thinks looking and/or fondling little children is ok, you aren’t going to be deterred by a sign. Further, a sign is not so significant a deterrent that it’s going to force you to spend your entire candy budget on women’s clothing and makeup just so you can get into the women’s restroom with less of a hassle.

Noway2016
Noway2016

You’re right, Drew. In fact, now, even less so. I now channel my inner woman identity on any given day and barge right on in! Thanks for making my point! What a dope.

Enjoy the Silence
Enjoy the Silence

Noway2016. I am now just really curious.

How do you feel about signs prohibiting guns in buildings? Do you think those signs are effective? Please explain either way.

SnarkyGOP
SnarkyGOP

I think a key point that gets left out of this discussion is how cis men or women would feel about someone who appears to be or presents themselves as a member of the opposite gender walking into a place of privacy, like a bathroom. Even assuming the transperson isn’t a creeper (as most aren’t) or that they would do something objectively alarming to other people (as most don’t), many men and women would feel their privacy is being violated when they step out of the stall and see someone they perceive as the opposite gender washing their hands in… Read more »

Robbie
Robbie

You need privacy to wash your hands? Seriously, you can’t wash your hands next to someone who looks different from you? What if the toilets are inside but the sinks are outside of the main bathroom? Are you uncomfortable to wash your hands next to someone there, too? Your statement boils down to “I don’t want these people in the same room as me.” That’s not a valid argument. Where should the people who look different from you go to the bathroom? Should a trans woman be required to risk being assaulted by having to go into the men’s room?… Read more »

SnarkyGOP
SnarkyGOP

So let me get this straight, when I say people have a right to a private space, which should include the whole bathroom not just stalls or urinals which are in open space, you say “why are you afraid of people different than you?” When someone else says “I don’t want some man following my 12 year old daughter into the bathroom,” you say “not all trans people are rapists, and sexually harassing or assaulting someone is illegal anyway!” When I suggest people use the bathroom more aligned to their appearance for the sake of someone else privacy, you say… Read more »

Noway2016
Noway2016

Don’t let it bother you, Snarky. You talk in terms of rational, everyday common sense. In the face of today’s fierce, defiant PC crusade and its warriors, common sense views are passe.

Noway2016
Noway2016

Is that elephant logo your design, Snarky? I like it!

SnarkyGOP
SnarkyGOP

Ha ha I wish, I found this on Google.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

LOL at anyone seeking privacy in a public restroom. Even bigger LOL at people seeking out public restrooms as a place to just get away from the ladies for a while. You know how many folks I know that refuse to use public restrooms for their existing lack of privacy? The “I just wanna poop in peace” argument is not the strongest.

Noway2016
Noway2016

Drew and Robbie, I hope you don’t have anyone you ever personally know who’s female relative may become a victim of some perv male, who now sees this permissiveness granted to the legitimate transgender community, as an “open door” to easily go into a female restroom to, at the very least, see a female in a state of undress. We WILL eventually read about a case like this. But you be strong and stick to your uber PC guns. You should be proud!

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

As someone with plenty of female relatives I know that they don’t need to only worry about bathrooms when it comes to being sexually assaulted and that there are plenty of perfect males out there that don’t need to go into a bathroom to victimize women.

Get your guilt trip game up Noway…

Robbie
Robbie

These laws are in place in 17 states and over 200 cities and municipalities. What you’re describing hasn’t happened. Stop trying to pretend this is something new. It’s not. This is tested and clear. We know what happens when people are treated fairly.

And we know what happens when people break the law. It’s all very simple, even though you don’t want it to be.

Jean
Jean

Noway2016 … Here’s the FAQ published by Charlotte related to the bathroom issues. I can’t cut and paste right now but it discusses how to handle these situations.

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/PublishingImages/Pages/default/NDO%20FAQ'S-Public%20Accomodations.pdf
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nondiscrimination/Pages/default.aspx

francooper
francooper

HB 757 is one of those pieces of legislation that is legislating something that doesn’t need to be legislated at the state which is just one of many reasons for why it’s not needed. Has their been any individual of the cloth that refused to perform a wedding because of their differences that is now facing repercussions for their decision? Are their any lawsuits pending in this state against a Georgia business who refused to provide services because of their religious differences? I respect any person, business, or faith-based organization’s right to choose who they want to serve just as… Read more »

blakeage80
blakeage80

By your logic, the first murder law wasn’t needed and the law had no way to deal with the the first murderer. The point of laws such as HB757 is to give parties the ability to deal with possible, if not likely, situations.

Tax dollars go to all kinds of thing that are objectionable. There is no reason to single out religious organizations that perform a public service.

Robbie
Robbie

Of course there is. Religious organizations that use tax dollars to discriminate against non-believers is, in essence, the government discriminating against certain people because of their religious beliefs. It’s literally allowing for governtment discrimination based on religious beliefs, which I can’t imagine you’d actually support.

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

Well, no. There are already protections for pastors and religious organizations. It’s called El First Amendment-o or something like that. This is more like the second murder law that said “hey guys, I know murder is already illegal, but Atlanta passed an ordinance making the stoning of homosexuals illegal. As you know our religion prohibits homosexuality, so we need this law so we can keep stoning … err, protect our religious freedoms.”

NoParty4Me
NoParty4Me

Sen. Harbin is completely wrong by stating, “The simple truth is that there is nothing discriminatory about this bill. I repeat, there is no discrimination in it.” Here it is: “50-15A-2. 184 (a) Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the 185 burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability, 186 except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section. 187 (b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it 188 demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is: 189 (1) In furtherance… Read more »

Mike
Mike

The funny – and sad – thing about all of this is that both sides are acting like there is an actual issue to discuss here; that there is sincerity in the arguments of the bill’s supporters; that the charade they pulling about their limited intentions is real; that they actually believe that the bill is not intended to discriminate; that everyone else just has it all wrong. This continual back-and-forth discussions acting like there is a real debate is laughingly absurd. The “defenses” made by the bill’s supporters – the attempts at “rational” explanations and the nuanced responses and… Read more »

John Konop
John Konop

Mike, I agree, but I think it runs much deeper that just gay rights. Many groups behind this bill want to blow up any concept of separation of church and state. The ironic part is they scream constitution, yet are ignorant to the fact that this was promoted by the church. In America we did not want a state like church running our country ie like the “Church of England” many were escaping. The scary part is politician like Sen. McKoon are promoting this RFRA bill with hate groups, given them a green light to spew! …………The phrase “separation of… Read more »

The Eiger
The Eiger

Please, Please stop. You have made this site almost unreadable with your continued attacks on Josh. I have no problem with your reasoning behind attacking Josh. I will even go as far to say that Josh deserves a lot of what is being thrown at him, but this is now less of a negative reflection of him and more of a reflection of how crazy you are. Stop. Please continue to talk about how bad the bill was. That is fine, but you have got to ease up on the Josh McKoon thing. I like this website and you are… Read more »

LoyaltyIsMyHonor
LoyaltyIsMyHonor

Thank you Eiger! My thoughts exactly.

Benevolus
Benevolus

I agree too. John, you are obsessed and there is no reason to read any of your comments because they all say the same thing. Get your own blog and vent all you want, but this is a shared space and you are being a bad neighbor.

John Konop
John Konop

E, I think you are missing my point. The reason many of us are so upset about this bill, is you cannot separate the hate agenda, from people promoting the bill. The only reason I mention Josh McKoon, is he is the face of the RFRA bill in Georgia out promoting it with hate groups. Sen. McKoon has taken shots at people in the business community, for standing up, and saying we cannot treat our employees that way. Had this bill not been paraded around with hate groups, you would not get all the resistance. For people who stand silent… Read more »

Andrew C. Pope
Andrew C. Pope

This. So. Much. This.

By “this,” I mean what Eiger said, not John.

augusta52
augusta52

The words “separation” “of” “church” “and” “state” do not appear in the Constitution. Nowhere. Anymore than the word “abortion” does (not that such lack thereof was any barrier to the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade). The establishment clause indeed was meant to prevent a Church of England (Anglican—forerunners of today’s U.S. Episcopal Church), Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) etc. from being a state-supported church, one living off the taxpayers. And yes, houses of worship should live or die on their individual numbers/tithing. But it was never meant to keep the church out of the state. Churches have participated in social… Read more »

John Konop
John Konop

…….The fact that churches may support a particular bill or issue does not render that cause unjust or unconstitutional………. The below agenda is unconstitutional by RFRA supporters, and that is my point. ……..Cruz writes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and it is not enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Ten Commandments, he writes, are the foundations for these documents. […] The pastor warns that there are five areas where the United States could change and “jeopardize our freedom,” including that “freedom of religion could become freedom of worship,” meaning that… Read more »

Benevolus
Benevolus

“of” appears in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe you have the King James Version?

John Konop
John Konop

Mike, You can read about the true agenda by many in the movement. Ted Cruz’s father pushes radical religious vision: …………Cruz writes that there is no such thing as separation of church and state and it is not enshrined in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The Ten Commandments, he writes, are the foundations for these documents. […] The pastor warns that there are five areas where the United States could change and “jeopardize our freedom,” including that “freedom of religion could become freedom of worship,” meaning that people would be punished for worshiping outside of churches. He said Obama… Read more »

francooper
francooper

Blakeage, two wrongs certainly don’t make a right. If your best friend jumps off a bridge, are you going to follow? Tax dollars supporting any entity that denies services or declines business based on discrimination of any kind must continue to be prohibited. Yes, we know it happens & when we learn about it they must pay the consequences. Anything less as stated above is government sanctioned discrimination.

blakeage80
blakeage80

So everyone is supposed to be part of this perfectly homogeneous lump of humanity, indistinguishable from one another? We are all supposed to accept everything that any one person wants to accept? Tax dollars fund the ATF and they discriminate against those that have committed crimes every day. Should we de-fund the ATF? The Olympics discriminates by gender, in their events. Should any US city/state be prohibited from using city resources to host the games?

Robbie
Robbie

The difference is that government endorsement of one religious belief over another is expressly prohibited in the Constitution. There are always going to be things folks disagree with, but some lines are more clear than others.

And for what it’s worth, even the Olympics is getting in on the non-discrimination game: http://www.outsports.com/2016/1/21/10812404/transgender-ioc-policy-new-olympics

blakeage80
blakeage80

The government grants religious organizations tax exempt status without regard to their doctrines. How is that endorsing one religion over another?

Dave Bearse
Dave Bearse

“Thus, protection for all Georgians.”

True in the his worldview because Harbin doesn’t think LGBT people are Georgians, succeeding if not a continuation of those thinking African-Americans weren’t Georgians either.

Will Durant
Will Durant

I started to pick this apart point by point but it isn’t worth the effort and the trout are rising. So just a couple of thoughts as I go out the door to one of my favorite cathedrals in the Cohuttas. A comprehensive collection of intellectually dishonest arguments presented in a condescending and morally superior manner wins the debate every time when one is preaching to the choir. Southern Baptists once assisted Georgia’s political leaders in convincing the populace that any right-minded “God fearing” Christian was only doing His will by keeping the accursed “Children of Ham” in slavery using… Read more »