gov. deal vetoes jawjuh "religious liberty" bill

92tide · Mar 28, 2016

glad to see this

ajc link

Gov. Nathan Deal on Monday vetoed the “religious liberty” bill that triggered a wave of criticism from gay rights groups and business leaders and presented him with one of the most consequential challenges he’s faced since his election to Georgia’s top office.

In a press conference at the state Capitol, Deal said House Bill 757 doesn’t reflect Georgia’s welcoming image as a state full of “warm, friendly and loving people” – and warned critics that he doesn’t respond well to threats of payback for rejecting the measure.

“Our people work side by side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to,” he said. “We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way,” he said. “For that reason, I will veto HB 757.”

TideEngineer08 · Mar 28, 2016

Was this bill anything more than protecting churches and pastors who would oppose performing or hosting gay marriages?

AUDub · Mar 28, 2016

TideEngineer08 said:
Was this bill anything more than protecting churches and pastors who would oppose performing or hosting gay marriages?

Yes. I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

tidefanbeezer · Mar 28, 2016

TideEngineer08 said:
Was this bill anything more than protecting churches and pastors who would oppose performing or hosting gay marriages?

I think it initially started that way, but morphed over time to include interactions for businesses and lots of other stuff (like what AUDub notes in his post).

TideEngineer08 · Mar 28, 2016

AUDub said:
Yes. I do have major problems with the bill and Gov. Deal was right to veto it.

The state provides funds for the community good to religious institutions to distribute. Which means that people who would otherwise receive state funded services can be denied based on their sexuality or gender expression. That is unconstitutional.

I'm sure everyone here would have a problem with a homeless shelter that takes government money to help keep it running telling homosexuals they aren't welcome there simply for being homosexual. This bill would have legalized that.

In that case, I'm happy he vetoed it.

AUDub · Mar 28, 2016

tidefanbeezer said:
I think it initially started that way, but morphed over time to include interactions for businesses and lots of other stuff (like what AUDub notes in his post).

One silly example is that a baker could have refused sale of bread or grape juice to a Methodist if they found out it was being used for communion.

Search

gov. deal vetoes jawjuh "religious liberty" bill

92tide

TideFans Legend

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend

AUDub

Hall of Fame

tidefanbeezer

All-American

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend

AUDub

Hall of Fame

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!