Georgia Governor Deal Shows Some Fucking Sense

[The Skeletal Atheist]

After the reworking the bill got, it does not have as much teeth as it use to (most of it seems to be that pastors can't be forced to perform gay marriages, which was the law anyways), but I'm still hoping the governor does the right thing and veto the horrid bill. Passing bills like this is as much about discrimination as it is about sending messages, and I don't want the homophobes to get that message.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

VETOED

[drunkenshoe]

Good.

[Hydra009]

VETOED

Good news.  Thanks for the update.

I'm looking at an article about it right now.  It's quite the entertaining read.  Apparently, pissing off businesses with discriminatory policies didn't work out in evangelicals' favor.  Who could have seem that coming?

"Today, we saw exactly why our government needs committed conservatives who never stop fighting to protect the Constitution," he said in a statement. "The announcement by Governor Deal is another example of how the political class is bought and paid for by corporations and lobbyists. Rather than standing up and protecting the First Amendment, the political class would rather sacrifice those rights to keep the money flowing."

Deal mentioned the First Amendment in his statement, saying he found it ironic that some people acknowledge that God grants the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment but want the government to enact laws to secure those rights.

I'd love to hear what sort of "rights" they allegedly lost.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

It's not all sunshine and sparkles now though, nor will it be. Georgia still has no law actually protecting LGBT people, and the state's conservative legislators still have a frightening chance to overturn the veto. The business community has spoken, Georgia will lose billions if this goes through, but they've gone full derp and are already saying they're going to try everything to enact this legislation.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Good news.  Thanks for the update.

I'm looking at an article about it right now.  It's quite the entertaining read.  Apparently, pissing off businesses with discriminatory policies didn't work out in evangelicals' favor.  Who could have seem that coming?
I'd love to hear what sort of "rights" they allegedly lost.

The right to be placed upon a pedestal.

[Jack89]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the bill.  If all it's saying is that clergy can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage and other functions contrary to their faith, I'm all for that.  Why is that even a problem?  Is there something else in the bill that's contentious?

[Baruch]

Clergy have never been forced to perform same-sex marriages.  It has never been seriously proposed that they do.  So there is no issue here.  What they want is segregation ... not a White water fountain/Black water fountain kind, but a Straight water fountain/Gay water fountain kind.  That is the intent ... Gays are the new Black.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

I'm not sure I understand the problem with the bill.  If all it's saying is that clergy can't be forced to perform same-sex marriage and other functions contrary to their faith, I'm all for that.  Why is that even a problem?  Is there something else in the bill that's contentious?

The original bill had provisions that allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, or technically anyone provided they had a "sincere religious belief". Pastors are already protected by the constitution. They can even refuse to do interracial marriages, and some do.

The watered down version was meant as both a "we don't like your kind round here" type message, and as a foot in the door.

[Jack89]

Clergy have never been forced to perform same-sex marriages.  It has never been seriously proposed that they do.  So there is no issue here.  What they want is segregation ... not a White water fountain/Black water fountain kind, but a Straight water fountain/Gay water fountain kind.  That is the intent ... Gays are the new Black.

That's kind of a vague analogy, like most reference to the bill that I've read.  I did a little more reading and the concern seems to be that religious organization would have the ability to hire and fire based on beliefs and practices.  Again, so what?  Does it make sense to force a Mosque to hire a Hindu, or a Christian Church to hire an Asatruar? I certainly wouldn't want my local Catholic parish to hire someone who openly supports elective abortion.  We're talking religious organizations here. 

What I really think is going on here is Governor Deal responding to pressure from big businesses like Apple, Disney, Marvel, Time-Warner and the like, who have threatened to pull their business away from Georgia if the bill passes.  Financially speaking, it's probably best for the state if they buckle under the pressure, but it's also a testament to how influential big business really is. 

[Jack89]

The original bill had provisions that allowed businesses to discriminate against LGBT people, or technically anyone provided they had a "sincere religious belief". Pastors are already protected by the constitution. They can even refuse to do interracial marriages, and some do.

The watered down version was meant as both a "we don't like your kind round here" type message, and as a foot in the door.

Are we talking businesses, or religious organizations? Maybe that's the point I'm missing. 

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Are we talking businesses, or religious organizations? Maybe that's the point I'm missing. 

Anyone who had a " sincere religious belief", so businesses as well.

[Baruch]

This has been tried in other states.  Commercial law says, that within reasonable restrictions, you have to serve any legitimate customer like any other, for any product or service you publicly offer.  You don't have to offer a new product or service (unless you are Apple being strong-armed by the FBI).  Reasonable restrictions for a restaurant would include "no shoes, no shirt, no service".  But the sign that says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" isn't legal.  Don't like the law, then change the law.  The Catholics can only shop at Catholic owned stores etc ... Dominionism, just like Ted Cruz wants ... segregation for everyone.  So as a Jew, in my town, unless I can find a Jewish restaurant, I can't get any food etc.

[mauricio]

Warning: Link shows a republican governor being somewhat rational

As much as I disagree with the guy at times, he is one of the more sensible red state governors. He also accepted the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality with grace, even though he personally disagrees.

This shit sounds all backwards. This law says it lets clergy opt out of marrying same sex couples. Why is this even needed? Are clergy forced to marry same sex couples? There should be no laws at all about same sex marriage. That's the whole point of my support for it. Basically everything should be allowed unless you can justify imposing it's prohibition on the rest of society. Since there's not been any sound argument to prohibit same sex marriage there should be no laws about it at all. Gays should just follow the standard procedure of marriage: you get your legal documents from the state and then you can contract private entities to bake you a cake or whatever.

[_Xenu_]

Clergy cannot be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to, so this law is redundant and mostly symbolic. Its meant to send a message more than anything, and that message is something along the lines of "fuck dem queers." While I generally frown upon corporate influence in politics, at least this time it was put to good use.