Disney May Pull Marvel Productions From Georgia Over Anti-Gay Law

[Lightknight]

Also, a big aspect of this law is to ban Transgender people from their public restroom of choice, under the pretense of preventing sexual assaults (ignoring that being trans makes you far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator)

I seriously doubt that Georgia is ahead of the curve of other states and currently allows trans people to go to the appropriate restroom for their gender. I would be shocked if they're that progressive. Nearly all the surrounding states are having significant difficulties passing laws just to allow it with the default having already required matching birth sex with bathroom demarcation.

Is the ability to prohibit bathroom use contained in the law itself and is there not already a law on the books preventing it?

I don't really consider use of bathroom facilities to be part of a "service" unless it is charged for. Also, refusal to use a specific bathroom but allowance to use the other bathroom doesn't sound like a refusal of service either (though it is wrong for other reasons). So I'm just not entirely sure how this particular law would be applied in that way.

I also wouldn't see how a business could justify not serving someone a meal, for example, under religious grounds. I could see something like a wedding cake or ceremony-related services could have a defense, but not general services and goods.

But maybe I'm just under-estimating how humans would abuse the bill. Either way, I can't imagine this surviving a trip to any federal court. Most things we consider to be the most egregious forms of discrimination just wouldn't be defensible. Like a bus driver claiming that the black people can't sit in the front because of religion or whatever. The bus driver would not be able to successfully claim religious grounds. I should read the exact words of the bill though, now I'm concerned.

 

[Erttheking]

Religious freedom is the new anti-gay huh? It has been for awhile.

Frankly if your religious freedoms require you to discriminate against someone else, then fuck your religious freedoms.

 

[Lightknight]

Religious freedom is the new anti-gay huh? It has been for awhile.

Frankly if your religious freedoms require you to discriminate against someone else, then fuck your religious freedoms.

Let's say I have a religious objection to catering to members of the KKK. Is it "fuck my religious freedoms" there too?

You could at least limit it down to "discriminating against innocent bystanders" or whatever since not all discrimination is bad... But remember, as awful as KKK members are, they're a protected class too...

Can you imagine being forced to make a swastika cake for one of them?

 

[hentropy]

You could at least limit it down to "discriminating against innocent bystanders" or whatever since not all discrimination is bad... But remember, as awful as KKK members are, they're a protected class too...

Can you imagine being forced to make a swastika cake for one of them?

Apples and oranges, organizations are not people (except when they are, welcome to American law). You're not forced to deal with any organization, political or not, that you don't want to.

As a cake maker I may not want to make an Elephant cake for the Republican party, not because I think the Republican party is universally hateful, but because I'm not forced to serve them.

The issue here is simple, legal discrimination against individuals based on their inherent characteristics creates a coercive environment for those people. The bill does not apply just to wedding cake makers, but any "faith-based organization". And of course, any pizza shop could call itself a faith-based organization (and has, in states where this has been tried), there's not even a form you have to fill out for that.

The conflict and ambiguity would be easy to clear up if they simply passed anti-discrimination legislation barring most businesses from discriminating against gays, but of course they won't do that, because this is a bill specifically designed to allow any business to discriminate against gays.

 

[Something Amyss]

If they're not being loud about it how else would you know they are gay to ban them?

The same way you can spot Muslims and illegal immigrants without racially profiling[footnote]because "Islam isn't a race," but we always seem to find the ones who look Arabic[/footnote].

Also, a big aspect of this law is to ban Transgender people from their public restroom of choice, under the pretense of preventing sexual assaults (ignoring that being trans makes you far more likely to be the victim than the perpetrator)

Oh, come now. How can someone possibly be expected to pee if they don't know the genital configuration of the person in the next stall?

Clearly, this is a health issue and not an unfounded implication that transfolk are child molesters.

Religious freedom is the new anti-gay huh? It has been for awhile.

Hell, they were pulling this crap in the early 90s.

There have been comprehensive anti-discrimination laws legal here in New Jersey for over a decade and they're still trying to do this crap, though it gets very, very little support.

We've got people coming from half the country trying to push such bills here.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I'd say that said law most likely wouldn't be sustainable as its unconstitutional in its nature, so even if it were to pass it would get shot down by the Supreme Court. States have rights, true but overall they still have to make laws within the framework of the Constitution lest the state open itself up to lawsuits.

 

[Lucane]

This is unusual. I'm legitimately not buying it. Not because I don't think that Disney's execs don't feel strongly about the issue, but because this is from a corporation whose goals are the maximization of profits. If they're willing to do business in China to the point of modifying their work to have it released there, the massive financial incentives Georgia offers would be downright shocking to have a comparatively small issue be enough to drive them out.

Honestly until they're willing to do a complete 100% pull-out of the Chinese market I don't believe this for a second and am calling their bluff.

A lot of things work "with" China so Disney isn't alone on it but Gay rights believers (people of it and supporters) are growing in percentage so being on the side that says no don't do it doesn't cost them anything to say if Georgia does it and there's push back from corporations working with the state Disney could be negatively effected either staying or going so financially speaking saying "say no to the bill" is the cheapest thing to do, Or you know the right thing to do too.

 

[Quellist]

Dont mess with the Mouse i guess!

This is pretty much the only language these hard right morons understand. People can wring their hands forever but once the money threatens to go away things happen

 

[Lightknight]

You could at least limit it down to "discriminating against innocent bystanders" or whatever since not all discrimination is bad... But remember, as awful as KKK members are, they're a protected class too...

Can you imagine being forced to make a swastika cake for one of them?

Apples and oranges, organizations are not people (except when they are, welcome to American law). You're not forced to deal with any organization, political or not, that you don't want to.

How would you distinguish between the individual's (racist) belief system and the organization they're a part of? What if someone made the argument that they have nothing against the individual themselves but do have something against the LGBT as an affiliation?

One should be just as defensible as the other in court. Either you should be in favor of forcing people to cater to people of all protected groups or you should be in favor of not forcing people to do so. Anything in between produces a double standard.

Want to know something really disturbing? You could potentially make the base price of products really high and then literally give a discount down to the normal price to non-LGBT the same way you can give the elderly a discount. That would be a dirty way to do what they want or make a lot of money...

 

[FirstNameLastName]

You would be screwing your state over by signing that bill. <color=red>It's 2016, yet by doing allowing such a bill to pass would make Georgia a prime example of something being stuck in the past. Why allow companies / private business holders have the freedom to discriminate / refuse service to religious people of any kind? It truly baffles my mind, because we're in <color=red>the year 2016 ... we should be past this but apparently not. This bill already has loop holes since this includes refusing service to gays, sex, all the way to someone supporting a particular politician or being born from a different country ....

Good for Disney to make a stand. Hell, it's pretty funny because they recently made a movie based on discrimination (Zootopia) so seeing them take action shows they're acting on the morals they usually preach through their movies.

No offense, but I can no longer read any variation of that phrase without laughing ever since it became the butt of jokes on the internet recently.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd say that said law most likely wouldn't be sustainable as its unconstitutional in its nature, so even if it were to pass it would get shot down by the Supreme Court. States have rights, true but overall they still have to make laws within the framework of the Constitution lest the state open itself up to lawsuits.

Well, yes. The problem is it could take years to shut down. There's a reason this happened in response to the marriage ruling, and it's basically conjured as a big "fuck you." The Supreme Court doesn't have to hear any given case, but they do have to have such a case reach them either way. Meanwhile, you are talking about a group of people who are disproportionately poor and already marginalised. This may mean an outside group is going to be necessary, which may further slow things down.

The law will be struck down. Eventually. And in the meanwhile, it could be used to hurt people. Same's true of the North Carolina law that just passed.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I'd say that said law most likely wouldn't be sustainable as its unconstitutional in its nature, so even if it were to pass it would get shot down by the Supreme Court. States have rights, true but overall they still have to make laws within the framework of the Constitution lest the state open itself up to lawsuits.

Well, yes. The problem is it could take years to shut down. There's a reason this happened in response to the marriage ruling, and it's basically conjured as a big "fuck you." The Supreme Court doesn't have to hear any given case, but they do have to have such a case reach them either way. Meanwhile, you are talking about a group of people who are disproportionately poor and already marginalised. This may mean an outside group is going to be necessary, which may further slow things down.

The law will be struck down. Eventually. And in the meanwhile, it could be used to hurt people. Same's true of the North Carolina law that just passed.

Hopefully it doesn't pass but if it does, I'm quite sure there's going to b e a lot of unintended consequences from it, and maybe just maybe there can be some silver lining to it passing. I don't think its a good thing, mind you, not at all but I also try to look at things from a Law of Unintended Consequences perspective. At the very least it will not be sustainable and I'd think that is quite possible that it'll backfire in such a way that whoever supported it will most likely lose their political seat. Especially if the law costs the state income from sources like filmmakers. Alienating an industry that is growing their economy is a really bad move.
And there's always the other side that while some people might take advantage of said law, it could lead to many establishments who do embrace that law losing a hefty amount of customers in protest.
Of course I'm being optimistic about people, and it very well could go a dark route, but I have a feeling there's a decent chance of disconnect from the general populace and their government in terms of what people want and what the lawmakers think they want.
At least that is my hope. Funny how I can be a cynical jackass at times but deep down there's a part of me that hopes people are better than my fears paint them to be.

 

[Zontar]

This is unusual. I'm legitimately not buying it. Not because I don't think that Disney's execs don't feel strongly about the issue, but because this is from a corporation whose goals are the maximization of profits. If they're willing to do business in China to the point of modifying their work to have it released there, the massive financial incentives Georgia offers would be downright shocking to have a comparatively small issue be enough to drive them out.

Honestly until they're willing to do a complete 100% pull-out of the Chinese market I don't believe this for a second and am calling their bluff.

A lot of things work "with" China so Disney isn't alone on it but Gay rights believers (people of it and supporters) are growing in percentage so being on the side that says no don't do it doesn't cost them anything to say if Georgia does it and there's push back from corporations working with the state Disney could be negatively effected either staying or going so financially speaking saying "say no to the bill" is the cheapest thing to do, Or you know the right thing to do too.

No corporation that has lost its altruistic founder has ever done anything because something is the 'right thing to do'. When one looks at the global market, the pro-gay rights side is a smaller market then the anti-gay side, because contrary to popular belief most of the human race is not of a liberal leaning. As someone else pointed out there are whole countries which have criminalized being gay, and some, including ones where it is punished by death, and that hasn't stopped Disney from doing business with those countries.

Call me a cynic, but given how generous Georgia's tax brakes are for filming I just don't see corporate suits who have openly only cared about making money suddenly wanting to do 'the right thing' in an insignificant way, in an insignificantly small part of the world on an issue that this isn't even in the top 100 'right thing to do' situations they could do as a corporation.

This is a PR stunt, which means the bill never had a chance in the first place.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'm glad that corporations are fighting this. AMC, and Disney, both. They've strength that no others possess.
While I support religious freedoms, America was, ideally, founded by people that wanted to get the hell away from an all powerful religion forcing it's beliefs on people, am I right?
I'm glad Christian tyrants are being fought by forces that have considerable power. They've had their hooks in society so hard, so long that they are uncomfortable with people not being treated as second class, and equality.
These people are those that give Christianity a bad name by being unrepentant oppressors of others and no doubt the people that want to strip away the civil, constitutional, and human rights from everyone they deem unworthy. So desperate they are to cling to their fight against those they see as monsters that they don't care if they're seen as monsters themselves, never mind un-American.

It's a considerable problem for Christians in general, really. I mean it's people, quite a list that I'll not name for the sake of this thread, like these that have become the face of Christianity. They're the ones being reported on by media. They are the Christians the people see first, and foremost. They are becoming the representatives of the vast majority (Yeah, not all Christians are bad, like them, etc.), if not the only representatives depending on assorted factors to many people across the board.

Without positive Christian forces to combat the bad press with positive press, it's going to be hard, if it isn't already to like Christans.

It really is sad that a comedian posing as an ultra conservative reverend doesn't sound like a parody sometimes.

Heck, the same can be said about a lot of groups.

/rant

 

[Something Amyss]

Hopefully it doesn't pass but if it does, I'm quite sure there's going to b e a lot of unintended consequences from it, and maybe just maybe there can be some silver lining to it passing. I don't think its a good thing, mind you, not at all but I also try to look at things from a Law of Unintended Consequences perspective. At the very least it will not be sustainable and I'd think that is quite possible that it'll backfire in such a way that whoever supported it will most likely lose their political seat. Especially if the law costs the state income from sources like filmmakers. Alienating an industry that is growing their economy is a really bad move.
And there's always the other side that while some people might take advantage of said law, it could lead to many establishments who do embrace that law losing a hefty amount of customers in protest.
Of course I'm being optimistic about people, and it very well could go a dark route, but I have a feeling there's a decent chance of disconnect from the general populace and their government in terms of what people want and what the lawmakers think they want.
At least that is my hope. Funny how I can be a cynical jackass at times but deep down there's a part of me that hopes people are better than my fears paint them to be.

Like, I really don't know the filmmaking metrics or how burgeoning it really is. As such, I don't know what kind of impact this will have, or if other studios could even afford to follow suit.

I mean, more power to them. I've been told for years and years that companies, businesses, whatever synonym you want to use, should have the right to determine who they do business with and refuse service. And that's what Disney's threatening right now. If it was okay when it was used to refuse service to gays or blacks or transfolk or whoever, then it should be okay here.

However, regardless of the outcome, there's immediate harm that comes from these bills.

While I support religious freedoms, America was, ideally, founded by people that wanted to get the hell away from an all powerful religion forcing it's beliefs on people, am I right?

More specifically, the freedom here is one designed to deprive other people of equal treatment, equal rights, under the law. This is not a freedom we are in a position to, nor should we ever grant. This is, as you say, religious tyranny.

 

[Souplex]

This is unusual. I'm legitimately not buying it. Not because I don't think that Disney's execs don't feel strongly about the issue, but because this is from a corporation whose goals are the maximization of profits. If they're willing to do business in China to the point of modifying their work to have it released there, the massive financial incentives Georgia offers would be downright shocking to have a comparatively small issue be enough to drive them out.

Honestly until they're willing to do a complete 100% pull-out of the Chinese market I don't believe this for a second and am calling their bluff.

It's about morality/profitability ratio.
If they can do what they think is right for little cost simply by filming elsewhere, then why not. If doing what they think is right costs them the second biggest film market on earth, they won't do it.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

While I support religious freedoms, America was, ideally, founded by people that wanted to get the hell away from an all powerful religion forcing it's beliefs on people, am I right?

More specifically, the freedom here is one designed to deprive other people of equal treatment, equal rights, under the law. This is not a freedom we are in a position to, nor should we ever grant. This is, as you say, religious tyranny.

I'd hope that we'll see AMCs the Walking Dead pick up in another state next season if this tyranny is allowed to continue.

North Carolina needs to be in the crosshairs next.

The denial of services should largely be limited to the abuse of the business (scam attempts, abuse of the system, abuse to employees, inability to finance, you know general stuff that happens to everyone regardless of group.), not customers that haven't attempted to damage the business via malicious act. And existing, choosing who to love based on who they are and not their genitals, or deciding on a religion (Which, much like a penis, is all well, and fine to have, but whipping it out, beating people over the head with, and/or shoving down throats isn't cool.)isn't a malicious act. But I'm preaching to the choir here, no doubt!

 

[Fox12]

My state is full of morons.

Thankfully Nathan Deal will almost certainly veto the bill based on some of the things he's said about it.

*Researches bill*

God. Fucking. Dammit.

 

[Lightknight]

My state is full of morons.

Thankfully Nathan Deal will almost certainly veto the bill based on some of the things he's said about it.

*Researches bill*

God. Fucking. Dammit.

Wait a minute, the bill appears to only apply to religious officials and religious organizations that are clearly defined as such when discussing being able to refuse services (it even states marriage specifically as what it is pertaining to) and the only talk of regular individuals only deals with how severe the government can punish them directly and not whether or not a civil case can be brought and even that is a protection for individuals like an employee and not private/public companies which are legally seen as a separate entity. If an employee refuses to serve a black person, the customer sues the business, not the employee. So a company is still liable like always. Are you guys fucking kidding me that this is what we've been discussing all this time and that was enough for Disney to throw a hissy fit? "Oh no, now pastors don't have to perform a wedding ceremony just like they never had to and individuals can't serve ten years in prison for not wanting to bake a cake, let's leave the state like little bitches". I mean, come on.

"A BILL to be entitled an Act to protect religious freedoms; to amend Chapter 3 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to marriage generally, so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion; to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to selling and other trade practices, so as to change certain provisions relating to days of rest for employees of business and industry; to protect property owners which are religious institutions against infringement of religious freedom; to define a term; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."

In the bill itself they even clearly define what a religious institution is by the same IRS code. A standard business can't claim religious institution status just because the owner is religious for the same reason standard businesses aren't already doing that to avoid having to pay taxes. The institution has to be registered as a 501(c)(3) corporation at the time of the incident. So you're not going to get a situation where some dickhead florist says no and then claims religious freedom because unless it's a Church subsidiary then there's no way it'd be a 501(c)(3).

The only part dealing with specific individuals explicitly states in section 50-15A:
"(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to:
(1) Permit invidious discrimination on any grounds prohibited by federal or state law;" (emphasis mine)

It also wouldn't protect a clerk that refuses to sign a marriage certificate:
"(4) Afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses to perform his or her official duties; provided, however, that this paragraph shall not prohibit any person from holding any public office or trust on account of religious opinions, in accordance with Paragraph IV of Section I of Article I of the Constitution."

The bill does not say the person cannot be fined or serve jail time for their offense. It also doesn't say that a person can't pursue them in court. It purely limits how substantial the burden is for the individual exercising freedom of religion imposed by the government (not civil). So you can be fined but it can't be a huge amount. You can serve jail time but it can't be a significant amount. Stuff like that.

The main concern here I'd point out is that the federal government still doesn't list orientation or gender identity as a protected class. This bill doesn't protect them, but they also weren't protected before this bill. But keep in mind that this individual segment doesn't apply to businesses, only individuals. So regular businesses are at the same risk they always were. It only means that you can't ruin a person's life for saying no to a service based on their own personal convictions which is something most of us can get behind even if we think it's a dick move to refuse a service just because someone likes boys instead of girls or vice versa.

Geeze though, I'm so mad that I didn't read the bill first. I was starting to be worried that restaurants could just deny individuals service and stuff but you guys have been totally full of it regarding the scope of this bill. Not cool to just bandwagon onto something without any actual research.