Nathan Deal may get pressure from outside parties about the religious liberty bill awaiting his signature, but it won’t come from the College Football Playoff folks or Greg Sankey. At least not yet:
The College Football Playoff said Monday it opposes discrimination but will allow others to best decide whether a controversial religious freedom bill in Georgia becomes law. The SEC said it’s “attentive” to what’s happening in the state where it holds its football championship game…
“We deplore discrimination wherever it occurs and note that there is a public debate about this matter and its implications, as well as whether or not it will become law,” College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said in a statement to CBS Sports. “We will keep an eye on this, but our group’s focus is on sports and public policy matters are better left to the experts and voters to resolve.”
Translation: please, governor, veto this bill so we don’t have to show our ass either way.
Real profile in courage there, Bill.
Sankey’s statement is a couple of degrees warmer…
“Our conference championship events are an extension of our universities which are places of diversity and opportunity,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said in a statement. “We are attentive to this legislative matter as we continue our policy of considering numerous factors in determining sites for our championship events.”
… but more of the same. He’ll wait to see which way the prevailing winds are blowing before making a decision one way or the other. It would just be a heckuva lot more convenient if he never has to make one in the first place.
I guess that’s why they pay these guys the big bucks.
Get The Picture 
I feel pretty confident that Deal will veto this bill and the campus carry bill.
I think that both of those vetoes would be consistent with how he has handled previous issues like these. I have found Deal to be rather pragmatic as governor.
LikeLike
As long as he is not for re-election, i.e.
LikeLike
I think he is term limited as governor. I am sure he has his consultants doing polls to determine if a veto would hurt his chances of winning a Senate seat.
LikeLike
He’s not going back to Congress. He left there one step ahead of the Ethics Committee posse.
LikeLike
The hubris of politicians knows no shame or bounds. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him make a Senate run. Of course, he might have stolen enough to last him and simply retire.
LikeLike
He’d have to primary Isaakson (or hope this upcoming term will be Johnny’s last) in six years, or wait four to primary Purdue. I don’t think either’s too likely.
LikeLike
Why should he take a position on a controversial issue that has little or nothing to do with the SEC Championship if he is pretty sure he knows what the outcome will be (a veto)? The Governor is paid to make the decision. Let him make it, and then deal with whatever the fallout is. I’m pretty sure the “hospitality industry” and the “corporate community” have already weighed in, publically or privately, on their wishes.
Not everything has to be handled by weeping, hey look at me, I’m a martyr public statements.
LikeLike
I am ashamed my Reps voted for this. Just veto it. One question, are the votes there to override a veto? I have not followed it that closely. Politics are not my bag, mainly due to trash bills like this one.
LikeLike
if we get rid of the silly posturing and the lobbyist gifts/junkets/cocktail parties, will the Gold dome stand?
LikeLike
No. The dome is held up by hot air.
LikeLike
I haven’t followed this bill at all, other than to know it was passed by both the House and the Senate and is on Deal’s desk. I guess my thought is; if a majority of the elected representatives of the people of the state passed the bill, why should Deal veto it? I have always been under the impression we live in a representative democracy and the will of the people should be granted through the legislative process.
Also, is it any less discriminatory to force someone to act against their religious beliefs in the name of “tolerance” than it is to force someone to act against their sexual persuasion in the name of what some people think is “sinful”?
LikeLike
Why do governors have veto power at all, then?
LikeLike
Like I said, I don’t know if it passed by one vote or was a landslide victory thing. If it was a narrow, heated controversy, I could see a veto to put it off for a while. If it passed with a comfortable margin and the House and Senate are reflecting the will of a real majority of the people, a veto would seem to be the governor going against the will of the people of the state.
LikeLike
A governor’s veto can be overridden by the legislature. I think that’s your ultimate measuring stick.
LikeLike
Same query as above, are the override votes there?
LikeLike
I’m guessing not. But I’m also guessing that if Deal vetoes the bill, it gets reintroduced in next year’s session.
LikeLike
Good grief, don’t we ever learn.
LikeLike
No, Josh McKoon would introduce a bill to criminalize going to church if he thought it would improve his chances of getting elected to a higher office in the future.
LikeLike
I can’t tell you how wonderful it is to share both a hometown AND a religious denomination with ol’ McKoon. He’s making me look bad on two fronts. Thank goodness he’s not a UGA grad too, or I’d hit the Guilt By Association Trifecta.
LikeLike
That’s the thing with a representative democracy, instead of a direct democracy: sometimes legislators do, or should, exercise their own best judgment. Same thing for the executive.
And how, exactly is the Governor’s “vote” (via signing or veto) any less an expression of the “will of a real majority of the people,” as you say, than the votes of the legislators? He’s the only one who was elected statewide.
PS – can we get back to fretting about spring practice?
LikeLike
No one apparently has any clue what this bill does. The practical effect is: If a gay couple asks a religious official or institution to host or officiate their wedding and the institution or official politely declines, the gay couple can not sue them. Also, the state can not discriminate against the religious institution for doing so.
I have a really hard time understanding why that is such a problem for some people. Can one of you guys on the other side help me out?
LikeLike
What could they sue them for now? What’s the theory of recovery? How is there any basis for recovery in Georgia for your hypothetical religious official?
LikeLike
Emotional distress, discrimination, denial of services or public accommodation, people can find a way to sue for anything once they decide they are a “victim”.
LikeLike
Even with this proposed law, people can sue for anything. Suing and winning are two different things.
Is there any case law supporting a generalized “discrimination” theory under Georgia law? How about case law supporting sexual orientation discrimination as actionable under a denial of services or public accommodation theory under Georgia law? And is the impact rule still in effect for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in Georgia?
LikeLike
because oftentimes the representatives do not vote the way their constituents want them to. Once they get elected they do what they want. And we the people are too dumb and memory challenged to call them on these things the next time they are up for election.
LikeLike
Sankey has to walk a fine line given every SEC state except Georgia has a RFRA law or constitutional amendment already in effect.
I don’t see him moving any SEC championship event outside the SEC footprint.
LikeLike
I don’t think he could find a more gay friendly city than Atlanta in the Southeast.
LikeLike
Miami ????
LikeLike
In my opinion, there are only two suitable venues for the game in the south, Atlanta and New Orleans.
LikeLike
Key West?
LikeLike
Veto the damn bill so we can move on.
LikeLike
As that great philosopher Rodney King said “can’t we all just get along.”
LikeLike
It would actually show more courage to hold the line on religious freedom instead of cowering against the blackmail of the NFL.
LikeLike
Did I miss the law that was passed that forces churches to perform weddings for same-sex couples?
LikeLike
Apparently the legislature feels there is a civil risk for churches and officials that decline. In today’s environment I would probably agree with that assessment. However, you may have the only substantive argument against this bill in that it may seek to remedy a problem that does not exist. Still, I don’t see what the harm is.
LikeLike
It seeks to remedy a non-existing problem AND its passage into law will cost the state millions. Not just film production, but international companies, plus no shot at a Superbowl. All in the name of alleviating the irrational fears of a minority of god-botherers who wouldn’t set foot in midtown Atlanta to begin with.
LikeLike
I guess you would have no problem being the test case that created the problem? You wouldn’t mind being sued for millions and having to defend yourself and pay legal fees so you could become the case that allowed this law to be needed?
I don’t see it as remedying a non-existent problem, I see it as having foresight into a problem that has occurred elsewhere and the state of Georgia attempting to prevent the problem from occurring.
As to costing the state millions, what is the dollar amount threshold that people should be willing to sell their beliefs for?
LikeLike
Thats rich…. a politician (especially a Georgia politician) having foresight…
You dont really believe that do you ? Its some knucklehead legislators that are bending the the nutjiob evangelicals that gave them big campaign contributions.
LikeLike
No, but did you miss where people are being sued out West for refusing to perform services for same-sex couples such as bake wedding cakes, or for refusing to allowing same-sex couples to use their property as a wedding site due to their religious beliefs? That’s what this law is trying to prevent. In addition, Prez. Bill Clinton signed a variation of this law into effect in 1993.
LikeLike
That’s because those states where those events occurred had specific laws on the books prohibiting that. Georgia doesn’t.
At best, the bill is pure political posturing. At worst, it’s an invitation to discriminate.
LikeLike
With the Senator here. Federal anti-discrimination law, at least the public accommodation piece, does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination. Like in many other areas of the law, some states provide MORE protections than federal law does, some (like Georgia) do not.
The easy analogues here are employment: some states set minimum wage higher than the federal government; and some states are not employment-at-will. As an employer in Georgia, I can fire an employee for a “good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all,” so long as it does not fun afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws or an existing contract. So I can fire a male employee for marrying another man, or for being gay, and that is legal in Georgia. But I could not do the same due to an employee’s race or sex. The analysis is the same for the wedding cake/wedding reception examples.
Just think about it from a risk/reward perspective: because the law doesn’t fix any existing problem, there is no reward. Meanwhile, because anti-gay and anti-not-your-religion discrimination is made at least marginally easier (not to mention the whole PR and tourism backlash that started this conversation), there is substantial risk.
But passing this bill is not about substance. It is about certain legislators grandstanding for their base by reinforcing the myth that the by-far-dominant religion in the US, Christianity. is under attack.
LikeLike
Exactly. But they don’t have the guts to put it as a general referendum item for everyone to vote for it in November because they know deep down it would never pass that way.
LikeLike
If this bill were put to a binding referendum in November, it would pass with 70+% of the vote. For the record, I am not a bible thumping Christian who hates gays. My issue is the ever expanding PC culture in this country and this seems to be a small step in slowing that down.
If a business owner decides they cannot, in good conscience, serve a gay couple or a gay person without violating their religious beliefs, I don’t think the govt or the courts should be able to force them to or punish them for not serving them. I think it would be foolish for a business in the Atlanta metro area to refuse service to gay people, or any customer for that matter. However, if a preacher or business owner had such strong beliefs that they could not live with the idea of serving a gay person or couple, they should be allowed to live their faith as they see fit.
LikeLike
So what currently stops the business owner in Georgia from doing this?
LikeLike
Well said Navin….
LikeLike
I’ve seen the invitation to discriminate argument all across the board without a single example. How would this bill legalize or invite unfair discrimination? Not trying to be argumentative, I just can’t find anything in the text that would do so.
LikeLike
What else should it be against the law to sue someone for? This is a slippery slope to start banning things on, IMHO.
LikeLike
I’m sure that’s a great comfort to Arthur Blank.
LikeLike
I don’t care about the outcome of this because I see both sides of this issue, but I really could care less about Arthur Blank’s desires. He and his whole organization lost me when they passed on TG3II last year.
LikeLike
Given the last minute changes, Deal should veto it because it is toothless & incomplete.
Jurists in Oregon & Colorado who magically deny, with monetary judgements, the Liberty of the Individual as well as any other entity are why these measures are so popular. Very little in the way of Constitutional rule wafts over from the Leftist West.
LikeLike
Ahhh, but we do have beautiful weather out here, Comrade.
LikeLike
Should a business be forced to provide service to anyone that wants to pay even if they find it objectionable?
LikeLike
Will somebody think of the persecuted Christians?!?
LikeLike