Disney is threatening Nathan Deal with a boycott if Deal signs the religious liberty bill into law. On its face, that affects Georgia’s movie bidness, although for the bill’s supporters, that might be more of a feature than a bug. (Ed Kilgore notes there’s always been a little tension between culture and Mammon when it comes to handing out those movie-making tax credits: “It’s becoming a regular amusement to watch right-wing politicians who blame Hollywood and its godless liberals and Jews for poisoning American culture turn around and offer to help pay for all the filth so long as it is produced locally.”)
That’s not what I’m really interested in, though. Disney owns ESPN. Is it possible the hostility could trickle down to there in some form or fashion? As we’ve seen in Louisiana, mentioning that college football could be affected by state policy is at least perceived as being an effective threat. I don’t know if that translates over to Georgia and this bill, but does anyone really want to chance that?
As Ed concludes, “Hollywood is influential in Georgia. But football is holy.”
Get The Picture 
Given some of Mickey’s troubles in Southeast Asia especially with Disneyland Shanghai, I would be surprised if Disney’s accountants let the film business give up the tax credits offered by Georgia.
LikeLike
GA isnt the only state with tax credit. I am sure if they pull out of GA they can find someone else to take their money and give them tax credits.
LikeLike
Agree but there’s also the incremental cost associated with moving those resources to another state. It’s a stupid issue the state has gotten itself in.
LikeLike
That incremental cost would be far outweighed by the cost of the public perception hit they would take if they stayed in GA if the bill gets signed. Especially now that they’ve already said they would leave.
You said it well. This is a stupid position the state has gotten itself into. Even if it gets vetoed, a certain amount of damage has already been done.
LikeLike
Let’s see; gays make up about 2% of the population, conservative Christians probably make up over 50% of the Georgia population. Which group should have more political pull?
Tell Disney we welcome their movies and will offer the tax breaks but we will decide for ourselves what laws we pass in Georgia.
LikeLike
Might makes right! Right? I mean when have a majority of voters discriminated against a minority of the population, before?
LikeLike
I understand your 2% stance–there is very credible research that says that is correct.
There is also other very credible research that says about 10%.
Not going to argue that point.
Just wanted to reference Plato’s “Tyranny of Democracy” ideas.
That, even in a true democracy, the majority can do whatever they want, with no regard to being fair or just, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
So you might as well have a king issuing royal decrees and the other 45% have no recourse.
There are some ideas, ideas that the founding fathers trusted in, that say that elected officials should consider their constituency as a whole, and not just pander to the crowd that will re-elect them and blow off the minority opinion in their own district.
Opinions vary.
LikeLike
83dawg +1,000,000
LikeLike
Yes. Forcing pastors to perform ceremonies against their religious tenets is exactly why the American Revolution was fought. Good point.
Freedom of religion is the same as tyranny of the majority. We don’t need it.
LikeLike
I must have missed where that’s happened.
That’s all the original version of the bill had in it and nobody had an objection to that.
LikeLike
http://time.com/4215503/georgia-religious-liberty-bill-protest-lgbt/
“LGBT rights activists on Tuesday protested a Georgia bill that would grant a religious person the right to not perform a same-sex marriage ceremony.”
LikeLike
Considering the percentage of the population in metro Atlanta makes up a good chunk of the state, I’d bet money your 50% conservative Christian percent is off. By a bit.
LikeLike
Why then does over 50% of the population even need to worry about that 2%?
I don’t know when a majority Christians decided they were being persecuted against (aside from the times of Jesus, 2000 years ago), but apparently they feel they are. Which is odd, considering the fact that a majority of Americans still identify as Christian and we have basically been a Christian nation, ideologically, for at least 100 years.
But, you know, gays and muslims and stuff.
LikeLike
You are assuming that all 50% of Christians agree on the issue. I do not agree with that assumption.
LikeLike
The ironic thing is that there are 21 other states with very similar religious freedom laws and have had them for years. But, similarly to Kirby and Transfergate, it’s only the most recent thing that gets noticed.
LikeLike
Ahhh the time honored excuse of “but everyone else was doing it”.
Didn’t work on mama, doesnt work now.
LikeLike
didnt say I was for it, just stating fact. There are a lot of firestorms in GA right now that aren’t really new issues.
LikeLike
Maybe they can pull out of other states with RFRA provisions too, states like AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NM, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, and WI.
Relocating all the Disney World parks to New York sounds like a great business decision.
This is a pure political blackmail bluff.
LikeLike
You forgot to mention one entity that also has an RFRA….The United States.
It was introduced by Chuck Shumer and Ted Kennedy and signed into law by none other than Slick Willy himself.
Of course the Senator already knows this, as it has been pointed out to him before.
LikeLike
I do. So why does Georgia need this bill?
LikeLike
Johnny Biblethump is not the most trusting of Federal law?
LikeLike
I’m going to assume this is a legitimate question and that you are trying to learn why.
Research City of Boerne v Flores and you will understand that the courts have held that the Federal RFRA only holds as pertains to federal issues and not at the state level, hence the need for individual state RFRAs.
LikeLike
You misunderstand. What exists on the state level in Georgia that requires the need for the law?
LikeLike
“pull out” is not a reliable form of birth control…
LikeLike
Georgia’s “religious liberty” bill was supported by a hell of a lot of Dumbos.
LikeLike
Mentally and physically
LikeLike
“It’s becoming a regular amusement to watch right-wing politicians who blame Hollywood and its godless liberals and Jews for poisoning American culture turn around and offer to help pay for all the filth so long as it is produced locally.”
Name one.
LikeLike
I’m not going to dig up the names of each state senator and representative who approved the tax credits, but needless to say it passed with a majority of republicans and received final approval from a republican Gov. And in GA, that’s about as right-wing as right-wing gets.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure he means name enough right-wing Georgia politicians who blame Hollywood “Jews” for poisoning American culture to make it a “regular amusement”.
The author’s statement is really offensive.
LikeLike
The College Football Playoff issued a non-statement in its statement on the matter. But ESPN/Disney certainly has a lot of pull with that group. Whither the Peach Bowl Semifinal or Final?
LikeLike
Just veto it already.
LikeLike
Seriously.
LikeLike
tell the Disney, the Chamber of Commerce and other hypocrites to pound sand. Protect small mom and pop businesses, already.
Sign the bill.
LikeLike
Protect them from what, exactly? Marauding hordes of the gays?
LikeLike
LOL.
LikeLike
From having to choose their integrity and religion vs. staying in business.
It is a win, win for some, if a small mom and pop either is forced to violate their principles or they are forced out of business. There are some very vindictive people among us.
LikeLike
Just like how gay people in the past had to do business with people who were voting against their rights. To them it was choosing between staying in business vs. selling themselves out.
LikeLike
I thought conservatives were big free market fans? Why does “I think gays are icky” get market intervention, but not refusing service to anyone wearing Auburn gear?
LikeLike
You have the issue backwards. The proposed law isn’t forbidding boycotts. It’s guaranteeing that faith-based organizations won’t face legal sanctions for acting in accordance with their beliefs.
LikeLike
When did a indpendent bakery become a faith-based organization?
LikeLike
As soon as they decided to open the business.
LikeLike
Nope, I’m pretty sure a faith based organization has to be a non-profit.
LikeLike
So you’re arguing that a mom and pop shop that disagrees with gay marriage should be able to kick a gay person out of their shop because it conflicts with their values? Last I checked the issue of not letting people in your shop because they’re different was settled in the 1960s.
LikeLike
Completely off topic (sorry, Senator) but it appears our favorite politician is in some trouble. Go Gata.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2016/03/us-rep-corrine-brown-under-investigation-by-house-ethics-committee.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
LikeLike
The Ethics Committee is racist.
LikeLike
And they are waging war on women.
LikeLike
When I owned a business (a coffee shop), I had a jerk off redneck trash customer come in and complain that I had a drink called “the redneck lattee” (I was born a farmer so I and all my associates had no problem with it, but this trash did) He complained about it and asked why there wasn’t a spick or nword lattee. I told him to leave and never come back.
Technically, without some protection from a religious liberty bill, what protection might I have some day from a bigot (pro or against homosexuality, race or other) from behaving like a jerk-off? A company should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Take your money somewhere else if you don’t like a company. Personally, I prefer to know if a business doesn’t like me because I am white or blue eyed, male or straight.
Tell me instead up front instead of hiding it and spitting in my food. I will go somewhere healthier.
btw, with or without the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, there will be thousands and thousands of Georgia businesses willing to take anyone’s money. Fighting this bill (Disney, ESPN, Chamber of Commerce, etc) is the ultimate in intolerance and bigotry. People should have the right to run their business the way they see fit as long as it doesn’t go out and physically hurt or infringe on others liberties.
Live and let live.
LikeLike
lulz at ending your pro-bigotry rant with live and let live.
h/t
LikeLike
Isn’t part of bigotry is forcing people to do things they don’t want to do. Right?
I don’t want to force a homosexual to go to reeducation camps, why force a devout Christian bakery or caterer to serve a homosexual wedding? There are plenty of bakeries that will take the money. Don’t force your will on the Christian baker or force them out of business. That is intolerant.
LikeLike
In a small town?
LikeLike
If you show the green, you can get people to come in from miles. Besides, the homosexual community is a “colorful” and vibrant community. I am sure volunteers from midtown would drive to Warwick to help toss a wedding.
LikeLike
I had no idea you were such a cultural expert.
LikeLike
I’ve been everywhere man. I’ve been everywhere. – Johnny Cash
LikeLike
The other thing that gets understated, or not stated at all (surprise), is that laws that follow the RFRA simply provide Religious Freedom as “a” viable defense. Not an absolute and incontrovertible defense. There are plenty of private religious freedom cases that have lost on that defense, but others that have won. Alas, nuance doesn’t grab headlines.
LikeLike
I’m just impressed that Donald Trump reads your blog and posts comments.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
That’s where a religious freedom defense would be challenged by the undue burden placed on the buyer right? So, in Waynesboro, GA, perhaps the buyer would have some recourse. But in Portland or Atlanta?
LikeLike
Maybe the law could be amended so that citizens of a large town could have liberty, while those who live in small towns couldn’t.
LikeLike
Even small towns have roads and stuff to other towns. And the internets! It’s not like anyone really lives on an island. Except if you live in St. Simons, I guess.
LikeLike
That’s no doubt very comforting for somebody facing a medical emergency.
LikeLike
The way I see it is that there is infrastructure(roads, police, fire dept, etc.) around these Christian businesses that are paid for by taxpayers (gay and straight taxpayers). How is it fair that gay people have to pay to help provide infrastructure to Christian businesses, and then these businesses can turn around and refuse to serve them?
LikeLike
oh, the whole “you didn’t build that!” leftist rant
Why bother have a business? Let’s just have socialism or communism and the government give us our gray, drab lives and control of all places of work and “commerce”.
Let’s stamp out individualism.
LikeLike
Well, that’s quite an over-exaggeration and still doesn’t go to my answer of fairness from the above post. If you don’t want to serve the public as a whole that you shouldn’t get the benefit of their support through infrastructure. Feel free to build and maintain you own roads to your business, remove yourself from protection by the fire dept., etc. and I will allow you to refuse any customer no matter who they are.
LikeLike
You make a great little communist.
LikeLike
That’s name calling and avoidance of my question from above. I guess taxes collected in order to pay for our police and fire departments is communist.
LikeLike
When did Christian businesses stop paying taxes????? Good golley………wah wah wah
LikeLike
Christian businesses didn’t stop paying taxes. Nobody stopped paying taxes. That’s why EVERYONE should not be excluded from being served by a private business that has benefited from public goods.
LikeLike
Dude, if we agree a Christian business paid taxes then they have a right to the road. So does a gay person have the same right to that road. I think you’re getting confused on the difference in the road and the business. They are two different things.
LikeLike
The business couldn’t operate without the road.
LikeLike
So, if a person uses any kind of public resources, however indirectly (which means everyone), then it’s cool for force those people to behave contrary to their beliefs?
Wouldn’t it just be easier to ban religions that aren’t politically correct (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.)?
LikeLike
So, if a person uses any kind of public resources, however indirectly (which means everyone), then it’s cool for force those people to behave contrary to their beliefs?
You can have beliefs. You can’t act on those beliefs in a way that harms someone else.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to ban religions that aren’t politically correct (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.)?
Nobody is stopping you from believing whatever you want to believe. But you can’t discriminate against people just because you believe that it is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
“You can have beliefs. You can’t act on those beliefs in a way that harms someone else.”
We agree on that. We simply disagree on the points that not acting is the same as acting, and whether inconvenience is the same as harm.
“Nobody is stopping you from believing whatever you want to believe. But you can’t discriminate against people just because you believe that it is the right thing to do.”
So, citizens have freedom of religion, as long as they don’t behave in accordance with the peaceful tenets of their religions? That doesn’t really sound like a right to me.
LikeLike
“We agree on that. We simply disagree on the points that not acting is the same as acting, and whether inconvenience is the same as harm.”
If I refuse to sell you water on a hot day, isn’t that an action? Ask some black people if discrimination is an inconvenience or a harm.
“So, citizens have freedom of religion, as long as they don’t behave in accordance with the peaceful tenets of their religions? That doesn’t really sound like a right to me.”
How is discrimination peaceful? It certainly as hell ain’t friendly.
LikeLike
No, not trading isn’t an action. By definition, it’s inaction. Not selling me water isn’t the same as mugging me and stealing my water. Stop pretending like it is.
If you think friendly is the same as peaceful, you need a dictionary.
LikeLike
Refusing to serve is an action.
Discrimination isn’t friendly or peaceful. It’s a hostile act.
LikeLike
A long time ago, we the people all got together and decided that there were certain things that needed to be done that we had neither the time, nor inclination to do. Things like defending our nation, building roads, and what-not. We decided to call these things public goods and we all kick in a little bit towards them. What we did NOT determine needed to be public goods were things like bakeries, nail salons, barber shops, etc. Otherwise, we’d all pay taxes towards the establishment of those businesses (current cozying-up of big business to government notwithstanding). Instead, individuals, acting out of their own interest, could set up these activities on the side of the publicly-funded roads, and under the protection of the publicly-funded police, and then open doors, conduct business the way they saw fit, and let the chips fall where they may. We don’t restrict who is defended by the Military, or by the police, or restrict who can drive on public roads, because, yes, we all pay for them. But that’s the extent of it. We all pitch in so that these basic needs can be met. There’s no ideological test to take advantage of these services outside of: 1) are you an American taxpayer? This is proven out over and over because business currently DO discriminate against people – even for conditions that people didn’t explicitly choose for themselves. Ever compare the car insurance rates for teenage boys vs. girls?
LikeLike
Those private businesses benefit from those public goods. And those public goods aren’t a one-time cost. They are constantly maintained. People in the past (gay and straight) paid into these public goods that provided an opportunity for people to open businesses. And without those public goods private businesses could not continue to operate. Insurance companies charge different rates based on demographics based on statistical analysis in order to maximize profits. They do not refuse to offer insurance to teenage boys.
LikeLike
So discrimination based on trends for the sake of profits is ok? Because, I agree that it is, but I’m not quite certain that’s a position you’d support. EVERYONE benefits from those public goods – that’s why they’re “public”. If a business can “benefit” from the use of a road, but is subject to an ideological test to do so, or an expectation of a certain set of beliefs, then why shouldn’t we impose the same test on individuals? If a road makes your life easier to get from point A to point B, then you’ve benefitted. But you’re not held to some standard to take advantage of that. The KKK can stand on a publicly-funded sidewalk and spew bogus invective all over the place. Discrimination is, for that group, the very reason for their existence. But, they get to use the sidewalk nonetheless. What magical barrier is crossed when two people share a face-to-face correspondence on a publicly funded sidewalk vs. when they want to engage in commerce with one-another on that same sidewalk?
LikeLike
I should clarify my first statement that I agree that if you can make a profit in WHATEVER way you see fit, then you are free to do so. Providing that you do so in a legal business. I personally wouldn’t support discrimination as a means to profits.
LikeLike
The KKK in this example is exercising free speech. They are not taking action in this example to prevent the rights of someone else. A christian business owner isn’t exercising free speech, they are taking ACTION against another person by refusing to serve them. The law here is blind to ideology. It doesn’t care what you believe. But it does care about action.
LikeLike
So, we’re not talking about “freedom of religion” then? Is that more or less important that freedom of speech. And what rights would be taken away? Do you have a right to be served by people against their will? Do you have a right to demand that an individual render you services? Any “right” that requires a commitment of time or resources by anyone other than yourself doesn’t sound like much of a right to me.
LikeLike
Man, I’m just responding to the example that you used. Your example had nothing to do with religion, it was about speech. No rights are being taken away unless you consider discriminating against people as exercising religion. Would you feel this way if there was a religion that said it must not do business with any Christians and this religion was held by the majority of the population?
LikeLike
You’re confused about rights. You don’t have a Constitutional right to force someone to trade with you. If a person refuses to trade with you, you haven’t been harmed. However, forcing another person to behave in a manner contrary to his belief system certainly harms him. And that’s exactly what you’re advocating.
LikeLike
So I guess it’s OK to refuse to trade with someone based on the color of their skin? Please explain
LikeLike
Exactly. A person has the right to his own property and labor. If he doesn’t want to trade with another person (for whatever reason), it’s tyrannical to force him to.
LikeLike
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
LikeLike
You’re arguing legal rights and I’m arguing natural rights. Legally, the government can lock up Japanese-American citizens in a concentration camp. The courts gave it the OK. However, the action was tyrannical and morally indefensible.
LikeLike
Are you honestly comparing being forced to serve a minority to being imprisoned? Yes, we have unalienable natural rights. Being allowed to inflict harm on a group of people isn’t one of them.
LikeLike
I’m saying that legality is not the same as morality. And I’m saying that inconvenience isn’t harm. You disagree. That’s fine.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting there is really no such thing as private ownership? The owners of those businesses also paid into those public goods. By that argument, my neighbor has a right to use my lawnmower because he pays taxes and the truck that brought it to Wal-Mart used an interstate.
LikeLike
That’s a gross exaggeration. There is private ownership, and there is a business receiving a benefit from the public and then refusing to serve all of the public. Simply put, businesses should not be allowed to refuse service based on a customer’s race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. Can you refuse to serve an unruly customer? Sure, of course. Customer not wearing a shirt and you want customers to wear shirts? Sure, refuse service. Customer is gay and you don’t want to serve them because of that? Nope, not ok
LikeLike
So, would these guys be OK to discriminate against, or not OK?
LikeLike
Well Napoleon, Do you care about whether people wear shirts in your business?
LikeLike
Are we talking about gay people, or straight people? Because it’s a legally sticky issue.
Perhaps shirtless gays would cancel out since only one of the two conditions is a protected class. But, would a shirtless gay Muslim be more protected then unprotected, and thus required to be served? I suppose only a judge could say for sure.
LikeLike
It depends on the motive for refusing to serve. Shirtless Gay Guy or Shirtless black guy since you claim that a business can refuse to trade with someone based on their race. Can you refuse this person service? If you are refusing him service because he isn’t wearning a shirt, then yes you can. If you are refusing him because he is black then no you can’t.
LikeLike
And any law that requires divining the motivation behind an action, whether I’m refusing service because of wardrobe, or because of the characteristics of the guy underneath the wardrobe, is a bad law.
LikeLike
We have criminal laws that require the determination of the defendant’s state of mind. Are those bad laws as well? In law, it’s called “Mens rea”.
LikeLike
Yes, in determining malice. But when discriminating because of X is legal, but discriminating because of Y is illegal, it’s not a good situation.
LikeLike
There’s more than just malice in criminal law. There is Negligence, Recklessness, Knowingly, and Purposefully. All different states of mind that criminal law sets out for a jury to determine. Just because something is difficult to do in law doesn’t mean that wrongdoing gets a free pass. We have to determine a defendant’s motivations/mental state in order to know what level of manslaughter to charge them with. Is that too complicated?
LikeLike
In manslaughter, someone has died. So going to great lengths to determine exactly why the death occurred is fine. In a case of trading, one party has been inconvenienced. In that case, going to great lengths to determine what the other party was thinking, so we can decide whether to imprison him, take away his life savings, or whatever else does seem excessive. I guess that’s just me.
LikeLike
You keep using the term “inconvenience” as a one-size-fits-all magic talisman. If I’m living in a small town with only one pharmacist who has some strong feelings about who she’ll dispense medicine to and I’m on the wrong side of that line, it’s gonna be a lot more than an inconvenience should I face a medical emergency.
LikeLike
Manslaughter was just one example. Fraud has a mens rea element as well. So does Tax evasion. For a civil case example, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress requires the determination that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly. Determining what a person is thinking is a critical part of the civil and criminal law process. It isn’t just discrimination.
LikeLike
Yes. And I think a life or death exception to forcing service may be reasonable. But that wouldn’t apply to wedding cakes.
LikeLike
“And without those public goods private businesses could not continue to operate. ” How in the heck do you suppose a public good could continue without a private entity???? Money just doesn’t magically appear.
LikeLike
Guess what? Some of those private businesses are owned by gay people and owned by people that don’t support refusing people service based on who they are!! That’s where the money comes from. Shocking, I know.
LikeLike
Guess what? Private business pays for the public roads. Obviously shocking to you.
LikeLike
Yes. I agree private businesses pay for roads. Private businesses are owed and operated by many different people. Some of them gay and some of them that don’t care for refusal of service based on sexual orientation. I guess their tax money doesn’t count?
LikeLike
And some of them that choose to not participate in things that go against their beliefs. Does their tax money not count?
LikeLike
You tax money allows you to enjoy the benefits of the public good, your tax money doesn’t allow you to exclude others who have also paid taxes from getting that same benefit.
LikeLike
As long as you decide what is good right? What an ego………..
LikeLike
Using your faith as a weapon against a minority just because you are so certain that your religion is correct, is true egotism. If you are a taxpayer, you don’t deserve to get excluded from a private business that got benefit from your taxes. Try putting yourself in their position. What if suddenly people could refuse to serve Christians? I’d be against that too.
LikeLike
Using idealism to force beliefs down someone’s throat is called tyranny. You want people to think like you and do like you because you know you are right…..that’s ego dude.
LikeLike
How many times do I have to say this? I’m not demanding anyone to think like me. You can think and believe whatever you like. I’m saying your beliefs don’t allow you to discriminate against a group of people. Let’s break it down simply. I’m asking for equal treatment of people. You are asking to be allowed to discriminate. If you still think this is an issue of ego, than my ego is asking people to be treated equally and your’s is asking to discriminate. What does that say about ourselves?
LikeLike
You can turn that around and say Christians have to pay taxes that fund stuff like Planned Parenthood, or something else of which they feel is an infringement of their beliefs. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. Everyone has to pay taxes. Nobody gets to pick and choose where their tax money goes, I thought.
LikeLike
Or why force a baker to serve African Americans or Asians if he/she doesn’t approve of them?
LikeLike
Because there’s this thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It’s been around since…you guessed it…1964
LikeLike
FYI…
“Isn’t part of bigotry is forcing people to do things they don’t want to do. Right?”
No, not really. The word means something different than that. I think the word you are looking for is oppression.
Just sayin’…
LikeLike
And your pro bigotry against religious beliefs is no different.
LikeLike
Except his bigotry isn’t pushing to pass a law that allows him to discriminate against you.
LikeLike
You already had protections for kicking out an unruly customer who used foul language in your business.
LikeLike
That could easily change. Businesses thought they had protections from not putting two men on top of a wedding cake. Why force your will on private businesses? Why bother have a business if you can’t do things your own way? Trust me. The government and these special interest groups are making it harder and harder. It is sad.
LikeLike
Just like Lester Maddox!
LikeLike
+1 and far from being a rant.
I oppose the bill because I think it’s a rotten political stunt to gin up a lot of controversy over what was previously a non-issue and because I agree with this:
People should have the right to run their business the way they see fit as long as it doesn’t go out and physically hurt or infringe on others liberties.
LikeLike
Sorry – “although” I agree with this:
LikeLike
“Fighting this bill (Disney, ESPN, Chamber of Commerce, etc) is the ultimate in intolerance and bigotry”
Says the person promoting the right to not serve others based on their sexual preference.
LikeLike
Yes. Because there are no examples in history of folks denying others the right to participate in commerce on the basis of their race or religious beliefs. The Third Reich approves of your message. Yellow stars are so 1941, so we should find another way for folks to identify themselves so that shopkeepers can deny them service on the basis of their beliefs. Should we have an avatar contest for that on here?
LikeLike
Screw Hollywood and their money, and the same goes for Disney and the WWL. Walt Disney is spinning in his grave over the way his namesake company is now run.
LikeLike
I’d hate to see gay people get any rights in this country because allowing any freedom to gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage. I mean, before you know it, 40-50% of all marriages will end in divorce.
LikeLike
What does Religious Freedom Protection (protecting business from not having to do something that disgusts them) have to do with homosexual rights?
If anything, having all businesses homogenize is destroying diversity and freedom in our great nation. Soon, the government will tell us exactly how all businesses and organizations have to run. wait a minute….
LikeLike
I think your sarcasm meter needs to be re-calibrated.
LikeLike
Indeed it does.
LikeLike
Gosh, I sure hope that I learn think, say, and believe in all of the correct things before I’m allowed to practice my religious beliefs in Georgia. After all, I’m already apparently excluded from running a business if I’m not one of the “good ones”. I guess the Thought Police aren’t so bad after all as long as the Big Corporations have their back amirite?
LikeLike
The great Christian belief of shunning and ostracizing your fellow man. Quite the religion of love and peace.
LikeLike
But people are free to believe that way, and practice accordingly, right? I mean, legally.
LikeLike
You are free to believe and practice whatever faith you want to. But the moment your faith attacks the rights of someone else, your right of practice ends there. “The right to swing your fist ends where the other man’s nose begins”
LikeLike
What rights are being attacked here?
LikeLike
Equal Protection – 14th Amendment
LikeLike
Equal protection doesn’t compel private parties into the service of one-another. Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll follow up with one of my guy friends currently enrolled in the legal studies program at Bryn Mawr University. But, as far as I DO know, it ensures that the Federal and State Governments don’t apply their laws in a discriminatory manner. I’m unsure what application of the law is discriminatory here. The State of Georgia isn’t saying that only specific groups of a specific religion are protected. In fact, it’s doing the opposite by saying that it won’t discriminate against religious institutions by by imposing certain standards on religious practices or beliefs. It’s what some old dude once referred to as a “wall of separation between church and state”.
LikeLike
“The Supreme Court for example stated in Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. (1985): “The First Amendment … gives no one the right to insist that, in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.’” Relying on that statement they point that the U.S. Constitution allows special exemptions for religious actors, but only when they don’t work to impose costs on others. Insisting on “the constitutional importance of avoiding burdenshifting to third parties when considering accommodations for religion” they point out the case of United States v. Lee (1982).”
LikeLike
So what you’re saying here is that if a gay person’s religious beliefs allow for the inclusion of homosexual behavior, that’s great, although “The First Amendment … gives no one the right to insist that, in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.’
So the bakery doesn’t have to make the cake.
LikeLike
Homosexuality isn’t a religious belief.
LikeLike
“Inclusion of homosexual behavior”
LikeLike
Inclusion of homosexuality isn’t a religious belief either.
LikeLike
So if your religious beliefs teach that homosexuality is a sin, you should be forced to cater to, say, a gay wedding? Because that kinda sounds like the gay fist is headed toward the religious guy’s nose to me. Or does the “free exercise of religion” in the First Amendment not mean anything? That’s a right, too. And unlike the recently discovered gay marriage right, it’s been around since the Constitution was ratified. I’m just using your analogy to explore your view.
LikeLike
I must have missed the part where catering is exercising your religion.
LikeLike
The great liberal left belief of “we’ll make them think like us, and if they don’t, we’ll cry like little bitches and call the PC police”.
LikeLike
Dude, You can think whatever you want to think and believe whatever you want to believe. But when you take action against someone, that’s where the line is drawn.
LikeLike
wildcat, you have used terms like “take action against someone” and “your faith attacks the rights of someone else”. There are no such stories, to my knowledge, of business owners standing in their doorways waiting to attack passing persons they don’t want to do business with. There is nothing inherently violent about a business owner refusing to enter into a transaction with anyone. Please, cool your rhetoric.
LikeLike
Taking action doesn’t necessarily mean violence. If I decline your job application based on your religious beliefs, is that not action? If I refuse to sell you water on a hot muggy Atlanta day, is that not action? I’m pointing out the difference between having a belief and putting an action behind those beliefs. A belief is protected, making an action that harms someone based off of that belief is not protected.
LikeLike
Maybe semantics are in play. How is not baking and selling you a wedding cake harmful? If I refuse to sell you water, I have chosen to take no action, which, I believe, is my right. Now, if you die as a direct result of my decision, your heirs may sue me. Proving intent may be next to impossible.
LikeLike
How is not letting blacks sit at a public lunch counter harmful? After all, they can just go around to the back and get lunch, right?
LikeLike
What religion is against the serving of blacks lunch?
LikeLike
Dude, you’re missing the point.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure discrimination is harmful. Not providing a service to someone that is offered to everyone else is harmful. What’s the damage? Maybe you have the only bakery within miles, maybe you have the only good bakery within miles, there are several possibilities. Let me tell you the idea of this country is that if you work hard you can achieve things. Well how must it feel for a gay couple that have worked hard for their money like you or me be told that their money is worthless. Kinda sucks don’t it?
LikeLike
Point made and taken, fella’s. My attempt at counterpoint was off base and I stand corrected.
LikeLike
No, you were right. Discrimination by the government is harmful because there’s no alternative. Blacks, gays, Muslims, and everybody else should have the right to vote, access to the courts, the right to own property, etc. But most, especially on the left, want to expand that to private interactions. They believe those same classes should be able to force private parties to trade with them.
The belief isn’t consistent with the Constitution. But some version of it has been codified in law for at least the last few decades.
LikeLike
Wow, so you are in support of allowing people to willfully refuse to serve or trade with black people?
LikeLike
Of course. Freedom means freedom to be a jerk. The alternative is tyranny.
What you’re arguing is exactly how tyrannical should we be toward exactly which people in order to benefit exactly which other people. That’s an argument I choose to refrain from. I don’t believe that I, or anybody else, has the right to act tyrannically toward anyone.
LikeLike
“I don’t believe that I, or anybody else, has the right to act tyrannically toward anyone.” except when it’s a group of GA state legislators tyrannically using their political power to allow discrimination against a minority, right?
LikeLike
Freedom of trade isn’t tyranny by government. I don’t know why that’s such a hard concept for you.
LikeLike
Freedom of trade does not encompass discrimination. This has already been decided by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the public. See, the Heart of Atlanta case I posted earlier, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc. I don’t know why established law is so hard for you to understand.
LikeLike
I understand established law. I just disagree with it. The internment of Japanese-Americans was legal. But it wasn’t right.
And forcing citizens to do something with their property or labor against their will is also legal. But it’s not right.
LikeLike
Fair enough. That is your belief.
LikeLike
What about the lefts taking action to stop the 1st amendment rights of Trump supporters by blocking roads and acosting them outside of places of free assembly, to go and listen to their candidate at his rally?You say nothing of that. Where’s the equal protection there? Where is that line drawn?
LikeLike
Please stop talking about the Constitution as if you understand it. The First Amendment is about the government attempting to restrict free speech.
LikeLike
thank you.
i am an over-educated person with a masters in political science.
i am happy someone else has actually read the constitution…
LikeLike
Thank you. The first admendment crap being thrown about is just that. Government restricting free sppech. If you want to protest Trump, Sanders, or anyone, do not use the first admendment when people scream at you cause they do not like you or your politics.
LikeLike
do you have any cites for that?
besides fox news?
do we understand that the rest of the world considers the “liberal left” as firmly on the right, and that the “right” republicans are insane?
i would especially like a to see a reference for “we’ll make them think like us, and if they don’t, we’ll cry like little bitches and call the PC police”
is that a part of the democratic platform and i have somehow missed it?
i will respect any opinion of college or georgia football on this board, even if i disagree
but i grow weary of Donald Trump’s many aliases here..
LikeLike
Look in the mirror. You’ll see it. Oh lord the Fox news reference. The only reason why you left libs hate Fox news is because every other news service ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Huff. Post and AL JAZEERA are all left leaning and uphold lib left ideology. Fox does not and the left can’t stand it.
LikeLike
Answer the question or just deflect.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, by the way I am pretty strongly conservative. However, I get really tired of the hypoctical crap and deflection thrown out by the right and the left. When someone asks you for sources, answer the damn question.
LikeLike
Yeah, that Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is just a raging communist, what with practically begging Trump for a cabinet post and all…
LikeLike
There’s a guy on MSNBC to the right of Rachel Maddow? Obviously the entire network is completely politically neutral. Excellent argument.
LikeLike
“do we understand that the rest of the world considers the “liberal left” as firmly on the right, and that the “right” republicans are insane?”
You want to cite specifics for this?
Regardless, why do you feel the need for us to be like the rest of the world?
LikeLike
As a gay liberal socialist commie hippie (or whatever Fox news is calling us now) the last thing I want is to make you think like me.
LikeLike
You are confusing “love and peace” with “sanction / support”.
You are confusing defending the right of others to believe and behave in a certain way with defending the behavior itself.
And you are confusing the choice not to act with “attacking”.
LikeLike
You are confusing “love and peace” with “sanction / support” – I was confusing it with tolerance. I know of some other intolerant religious groups. One just happened to blow up some buildings in Belgium.
You are confusing defending the right of others to believe and behave in a certain way with defending the behavior itself. – Please explain more
And you are confusing the choice not to act with “attacking”. – You can do harm to someone by not acting.
LikeLike
Because some of us believe in the right of a business owner to not serve tall or old or young or gay or straight or black or white people does not mean we think it is moral.
I am not sure why you think people who believe homosexuality wrong must “serve” it to be tolerant of it. Tolerance is increasingly being seen as “xyz behavior being accepted by everyone”. I often do not agree with my either my fellow Christians or our gay brothers and sisters on these kinds of issues, and save for extremely isolated incidents (a wedding ceremony, for instance) cannot for the life of me think of why someone would go.out of their way not to serve them. But since gays do not have to announce their orientation every time they buy bread, I think both the proposed law and the opposition to it are pure political theatrics and everybody needs to just get a life.
Myself included, apparently. 🙂
LikeLike
Only when all of us think and act exactly like wildcatlaw will we have true diversity. 😉
LikeLike
I’m not demanding diversity. I’m asking for you to not use your religion to bash people over the head.
LikeLike
You think not trading with someone is “bashing him over the head”?
LikeLike
Figuratively. Ever heard of being blacklisted or being boycotted? I wouldn’t liken it to a pleasant experience. So I compared it to getting struck. I wouldn’t compare it to getting a handshake.
LikeLike
Still, your comparison is invalid. A gay protester outside a Christian business advocating a boycott of that business isn’t friendly. But as long as he doesn’t use force, he’s peaceful and exercising his right to speak. It would be awful if the shopkeeper could use the power of government to remove him for being unfriendly.
LikeLike
The gay protester isn’t engaging in interstate commerce. The Christian business owner is.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the protester be interfering with interstate commerce? Wouldn’t that mean we should force him to be nice?
LikeLike
The protester isn’t interfering with interstate commerce they are making speech and deciding not to patron a business. Also, there is no “forcing to be nice”. Hell, a business owner can be rude, mean or whatever. Just as long as they still serve the customer.
LikeLike
I wonder if Kirby will be blamed on this one as well, LOL.
LikeLike
Senator, you really ought to just go full-on politics from March 1 and maybe switch back to the footballs in late summer… 🙂
LikeLike
The good thing is that today is the last day on the calendar for the General Assembly, so at least we won’t be subjected to more stupidity on that front until next year.
LikeLike
Fuck politics!! From now on on this site, I only talk FOOTBALL.
LikeLike
And I that is a good point. I can argue politics on a political site, but it does make it interesting sometimes. And just think how intersting it is going to get before November. Football will be a side note.
LikeLike
Although, unlike football, I have zero faith they’ll get better in the off-season.
LikeLike
So if I want to purchase advertising space for a KKK blog or a porn site, should GTP be forced to provide that service on their website?
LikeLike
I’m really amazed at how much trouble some of you have distinguishing between behavior – it’s okay, to use your example, to ban all porn advertising here – and simply being a member of a class of individuals.
A baker can say I won’t bake a wedding cake with an obscene message on it for anyone. But a baker can’t say I’ll bake a wedding cake for straights and not bake the same wedding cake for gays. Is it that hard to tell the difference?
LikeLike
What constitutes “obscene”?
LikeLike
Justice Stewart answered that, once. Not sure what it has to do with this discussion, though.
LikeLike
For that matter, what constitutes “being a member of a class of individuals”?
LikeLike
Who defines obscene message? To many, putting two or three women on top of the cake, or a man and a pig on a cake, or a man and a man would be obscene. How about a really old Muslim man and a child bride on the cake? You know that is acceptable in many Islamic cultures.
Where does it stop? How about we leave it to the individual store owner…. or just have the government take over the businesses like in Venezuela.
LikeLike
I’ll take “Slippery Slope Fallacies for $300, Alex!”
LikeLike
It’s one thing to say that I won’t put an old man and child on top of a wedding cake for anybody who asks. It’s another to say I won’t bake any sort of wedding cakes for Muslims, even if they ask for the same product I sell Christians.
I’m really having a hard time understanding why you don’t see the difference.
LikeLike
While some in this thread are truly advocating the right to full on discrimination which is bizarre, wildcatlaw could not really get to the core of the legal matter. Senator, you come closer, but still ignore a baker saying “I’ll bake you a wedding cake, but I’m not putting two figures of the same sex on top”. While a gay couple may have asked for that, the baker is being consistent in not providing that type of decoration to anyone.
So there’s the rub…the baker IS being consistent, but a class of individual is feeling discriminated against and thus is asking the government to intervene. I’m not sure this analogy helps, but why can Chick-Fil-A choose to be closed on Sunday, openly admitting it’s for religious reasons? Don’t us spicy chicken loving muslims have a right to buy a sammich on Sunday?
LikeLike
Chick Fil A can be closed on Sunday because they are refusing to serve all of us their tasty tasty delicious sandwiches. They equally refuse everyone the ability to get chicken on Sunday.
LikeLike
So for purely religious reasons, Mr. Cathey closes on Sunday and we’re all ok. But for purely religious reasons, the baker refuses to decorate a cake with a same sex couple…regardless who orders it…and it’s a problem. I’m not naive enough to ignore the reality that the refusal to serve was, indeed, targeted to a gay couple, but I am troubled by the obvious loophole I’ve stated. I can’t see how we’ll prevent the one without forcing the other…but at least we’ll have mor’ chiken to eat on Sunday’s while trampling one citizen’s rights for another’s? Civil rights for gender and color are easy to see…literally. But how do we properly legislate civil rights of the heart? On which side do we err?
LikeLike
There’s no loophole. CFA chooses not to serve anyone on Sundays. Your baker chooses only not to serve gays.
LikeLike
Why is a man and a pig on a cake obscene? What’s obscene is a man having sex with a pig. Dang, you have a dirty mind QL D.
LikeLike
Religion is not an excuse to be homophobic. It’s despicable to justify homophobia with your religious views, which is what any hypo-christian bakery owner is doing when they refuse to serve the gay community. Homophobia is simply not justifiable as it always stems from ignorance.
Constitutional rights of individuals, including provisions on religious freedom, have their limitations. To quote John Oliver on the subject, ““The constitution isn’t the star in Super Mario Brothers. It doesn’t make you invincible so you can do whatever the fuck you want.”
LikeLike
Homophobic ……LOL. That word is still being used? How do you equate not baking a cake for someone into they are afraid of them.
LikeLike
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Definition of homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or DISCRIMINATION against homosexuality or homosexuals
(Emphasis Added)
LikeLike
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homophobic
noun
1.
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality
I guess there are several different definitions we can find to suit our purposes.
LikeLike
My purpose: You asked if the word homophobic was still being used. I provided that it is still enough in use to warrant an entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Also, you asked “How do you equate not baking a cake into they are afraid of them?” and then gave a definition of Homophobic as “UNREASONING FEAR of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality”. So what is your purpose for using your Dictionary.com definition? To state that your source doesn’t include discrimination or that it just means an unreasoning fear?
LikeLike
Well wildcat i stated my purpose for using the dictionary.com definition. You should be able to find that.
I asked the question: how does not baking a cake show fear? You know….a phobia of homosexuals? Seems like a stretch to me is all.
I have no doubt Jesus loves homosexuals as much as he loves me but my interpretation is that He doesn’t condone it. So, I think some are trying to force people into agreeing with something that’s against their Saviors guidance. For the most part, I don’t think it’s hatred, a phobia, meanness or whatever you want to call it. I believe they simply don’t want to be a part of something they feel goes against Christ’s teachings. In other words they don’t want to be complicit in it. I believe that non-believers (and Christians) hate being told they are wrong (conviction) and will fight to get their wrongs made acceptable. Do Christians have flaws (sin)? Absolutely! But asking them to be in agreement with these flaws (sin) is absurd. Have at it….you’re a good debater by they way.
I believe that Jesus loves you man!
LikeLike