Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Georgia governor says he will veto religious exemption bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Georgia governor says he will veto religious exemption bill

    ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia's term-limited Gov. Nathan Deal took a stand against his own party and averted threatened boycotts by major corporations on Monday by announcing his veto of a "religious freedom" bill passed exclusively by Republican lawmakers.

    "I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia," Deal declared.

    The bill enumerated a list of actions that "people of faith" would not have to perform for other people. Clergy could refuse to perform gay marriages; churches and affiliated religious groups could have invoked their faith as a reason to refuse to serve or hire someone. People claiming their religious freedoms have been burdened by state or local laws also could force governments to prove there's a "compelling" state interest overriding their beliefs.

    All but 11 Republicans in the Georgia House and Senate voted in favor; all Democrats voted against it.
    AP Full Article

  • #2
    Sums it up pretty well:

    Democrats - the party of overriding minority rights and privileges
    Republicans - the party of Constitutional rights

    I have to lean towards the Republicans on this one. I cannot accept the Democratic position that the rights of the few override the rights of the many, or of anyone else, for that matter, and I believe implicitly that market forces will determine if refusing service to anyone is unprofitable.

    Rights are like property - on person's stops where the next person's begins. Does anyone have to serve an avowed Nazi? How about a rabid anti-Semite in a Jewish enclave in any major city?
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Not a single fracking word of this:

      "The bill enumerated a list of actions that "people of faith" would not have to perform for other people. Clergy could refuse to perform gay marriages; churches and affiliated religious groups could have invoked their faith as a reason to refuse to serve or hire someone. People claiming their religious freedoms have been burdened by state or local laws also could force governments to prove there's a "compelling" state interest overriding their beliefs."

      Was in either bill. The "compelling interest" aspect was imposed on the State by the State, codified in the wording of the legislation.

      2013-2014 Regular Session - HB 1023 - Preservation of Religious Freedom Act; enact

      Source: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/...132014/HB/1023

      2013-2014 Regular Session - SB 377 - "Preservation of Religious Freedom Act"

      Source: http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/...0132014/SB/377

      The Georgia Bill was heavily modeled after the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 proposed by Chuck Schumer, and the companion bill proposed by Ted Kennedy. The FRFA was passed by unanimous vote in the House and garnered only three dissenting votes in the Senate. It was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

      On the Georgia bill, quote:

      "To make clear the lack of a discriminatory intent, Teasley substituted the federal text into HB 1023 verbatim; the sponsor of SB 377, Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, has pledged to do the same."

      Source: http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/kyle-wing...nt-protect-di/

      The wording here is crafted not to allow for discrimination against gays, transgendered, blacks, or martians. It is crafted to protect individuals, such as business owners, from targeted lawsuits as occurred a few years back in Colorado. It is crafted to protect people from having their business, and thus their source of income, destroyed because someone got their feelings hurt. It is crafted to protect, as an example, a photographer who chooses not to provide services for a gay couple from being sued into oblivion when all the happy couple had to do was hire another photographer.
      Last edited by Martok; 28 Mar 16, 21:11.

      Comment


      • #4
        Doesn't a bill that's very purpose is to legalize discrimination against one group of people bother anyone else?

        I could buy it if wedding cake bakers also chose not to make cakes for adulterers and fornicators, or if the photographer also refused all weddings where the bride or groom drank alcohol, or engaged in premarital sex. I grew up in a legalized Southern Baptist Church, and all of those things are sins. Worse yet, would be leading people younger in their faith astray. Matthew 18:6 says ,'If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.'

        Personally, that is the defining characteristic between religious freedom and discrimination. Oh, and I couldn't follow all the rules of the church. I did the honorable thing and left.

        I kind of get the concept of people serving who they please at their own business, but I know you can't tell black folks they can't come in because their black. Being a teacher and serving in the Reserves, we serve all comers. Some don't like their like the service though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
          Doesn't a bill that's very purpose is to legalize discrimination against one group of people bother anyone else?
          If such a bill existed, it would. The Georgia legislation did no such thing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Sums it up pretty well:

            Democrats - the party of overriding minority rights and privileges
            Republicans - the party of Constitutional rights

            I have to lean towards the Republicans on this one. I cannot accept the Democratic position that the rights of the few override the rights of the many, or of anyone else, for that matter, and I believe implicitly that market forces will determine if refusing service to anyone is unprofitable.

            Rights are like property - on person's stops where the next person's begins. Does anyone have to serve an avowed Nazi? How about a rabid anti-Semite in a Jewish enclave in any major city?
            You are 99.99% right... The problem is that the Republican governor of Georgia just overrode expressly enumerated constitutional rights because he was worried about...
            The NFL warned that Atlanta's bid for the 2019 or 2020 Super Bowl could be in jeopardy. Technology firms, led by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, asked for Deal's veto. The Walt Disney Company, Marvel Studios and dozens of Hollywood figures vowed to take projects elsewhere, despite Georgia's generous tax credits for the film industry. Multimillion-dollar events and investments were threatened.


            My wife and I have become huge fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe over the past few years. We might just have to boycott Captain America Civil War and Doctor Strange because of this...
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
              Doesn't a bill that's very purpose is to legalize discrimination against one group of people bother anyone else?

              I could buy it if wedding cake bakers also chose not to make cakes for adulterers and fornicators, or if the photographer also refused all weddings where the bride or groom drank alcohol, or engaged in premarital sex. I grew up in a legalized Southern Baptist Church, and all of those things are sins. Worse yet, would be leading people younger in their faith astray. Matthew 18:6 says ,'If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.'

              Personally, that is the defining characteristic between religious freedom and discrimination. Oh, and I couldn't follow all the rules of the church. I did the honorable thing and left.

              I kind of get the concept of people serving who they please at their own business, but I know you can't tell black folks they can't come in because their black. Being a teacher and serving in the Reserves, we serve all comers. Some don't like their like the service though.
              The bill did not discriminate against anyone. It protected the expressly enumerated rights of Georgians against judicial infringement.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                The bill did not discriminate against anyone. It protected the expressly enumerated rights of Georgians against judicial infringement.
                No it protected basically nothing while exposing the GA economy to potential losses that would hurt the general population that elected the governor.
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                  No it protected basically nothing while exposing the GA economy to potential losses that would hurt the general population that elected the governor.
                  Since the Federal courts will uphold their infringement on the First Amendment on behalf of the Freak Show, irrespective of what State legislatures do, and corporations have the freedom to boycott Georgia, if they choose to do so, you are correct.

                  However, unless Governor Deal took an oath to protect Georgia businesses at the expense of protecting the Constitution, he made the wrong call.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Since the Federal courts will uphold their infringement on the First Amendment on behalf of the Freak Show, irrespective of what State legislatures do, and corporations have the freedom to boycott Georgia, if they choose to do so, you are correct.

                    However, unless Governor Deal took an oath to protect Georgia businesses at the expense of protecting the Constitution, he made the wrong call.
                    So by vetoing the bill he violated the constitution how? Simple fact is it was a poorly worded bill that did little to nothing. That's it.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      The bill did not discriminate against anyone. It protected the expressly enumerated rights of Georgians against judicial infringement.
                      Martok's explanation of the matter specifically stated that it was so they wouldn't have to do business with one class of people. Sounds like discrimination to me...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
                        Martok's explanation of the matter specifically stated that it was so they wouldn't have to do business with one class of people. Sounds like discrimination to me...
                        That isn't what I said. If you are going to cite my comments at least make some effort to be accurate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is being gay a 'class of people'?

                          I could care less one way or the other. But as a wood worker if someone wanted me to build a 'bondage chamber' I should have the right to refuse service.

                          ****. If I want to refuse service to someone that is rude is that a 'class of people'?

                          I assure you that there's more rude people than 'gays'. Is it now required that gays have a big G tattooed on their forehead? No, rather its the guys coming into a store and demanding a 'gay' cake.

                          I don't give a hoot what way somebody swings. But if they want a custom built piece of furniture its not going to represent a lifestyle I don't agree with.

                          Frig them. I'm a artist.
                          Credo quia absurdum.


                          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
                            Doesn't a bill that's very purpose is to legalize discrimination against one group of people bother anyone else?
                            You've just described every law on the books.

                            The criminal statues discriminate against criminals. For two thirds of rapists and all pedophiles, their brand of sexual activity is a lifestyle choice, and yet there are many laws singling them out.

                            Noise ordinances discriminate against people who like their music loud. Speed limits oppress people in a hurry.

                            Every law puts someone down.
                            Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 29 Mar 16, 09:55.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              So by vetoing the bill he violated the constitution how? Simple fact is it was a poorly worded bill that did little to nothing. That's it.
                              Strawman.

                              I didn't say he violated the Constitution. Deal failed to protect it. SCOTUS violated the Constitution.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X