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

[Canadamus Prime]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney would actually follow through with their threat. If so then I approve of them take a stand against discrimination.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

They could do that, but considering this is Georgia, you know every business is going to use it do discriminate against gays. ...or possibly Muslims since they're America's fear mongering hate target at the moment.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Has AMC said anything on the subject? I don't follow TWD or really anything on AMC.

North Carolina needs to be in the crosshairs next.

Totally with you there. Especially given the way they actually conducted themselves in North Carolina. That was some serious kangaroo court horseshit.

(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.)

Dying here. Can't breathe. Laughing too hard.

One of the issues with religion is that you tend to take on the religion and politic of your parents. While you technically can choose your religion, you're very likely going to end up of similar religious and political beliefs to your parents or at least the community to which you belong. It's where that Jesuit saying comes from "give me a boy until the age of seven and I will give you the man."

It's also one reason certain people try and alienate gays. It's understood that unless you teach kids to hate LGBT individuals, they probably won't grow up feeling that way. Especially if they're exposed to them. It's not so much a fear of people catching teh queer as it is a fear that if prejudices aren't actively enforced, they won't be carried on. Religious freedom is a good smokescreen, because almost nobody opposes it. I mean, there are antitheists out there, but they're a minority of a minority. Most people don't oppose religious freedom and don't want to be seen as opposing religious freedom, so it makes it easier to get away with hate and discrimination.

Ironically, one of the main reasons fewer millennials go to church or consider themselves religious is the treatment of LGBT folk. Sure, it's not every church, every religion, every denomination, but a perception exists. And to people ten or twenty years younger than me, we've become normalised. Or started to, anyway. Hell, my SO went to college in Greensboro NC, and there's a huge LGBT population there. In North Carolina. I keep seeing "lolthesouth" sentiments, buuuuuuuut....

Anyway, yeah, pretty much preaching to the choir, since I just want to live my life. This idea that it's the religious in this country who are being denied freedom is just...I don't even.

 

[Lightknight]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney would actually follow through with their threat. If so then I approve of them take a stand against discrimination.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

They could do that, but considering this is Georgia, you know every business is going to use it do discriminate against gays. ...or possibly Muslims since they're America's fear mongering hate target at the moment.

No, because as I stated in the post above yours, the bill doesn't apply to general businesses. In the case of marriage specifically (it clarifies marriage), it protects ministers. In the case of religious institutions, it does protect them from not participating on religious grounds but only if they're a 501(c)(3). It also limits the severity of punishment an individual can have for exercising their freedom of religion.

It does not protect regular businesses and does not protect an individual from civil litigation or regular fines/jail time. It also explicitly states that this bill does not allow discrimination based on protected class status as per federal or state guidelines. So the person above saying they could deny white people is not correct. Pink Mohawks is still correct though.

What is it you think the bill can do? Essentially, if people would only read the damn thing they're complaining about they'd realize that they are getting pissy that ministers can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony and that religious institutions can't be forced to host a ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs and that individuals can't be sent to prison for 10 years for refusing to bake a cake (they can still be fined and sent to jail for an appropriate amount of time, it just can't be deemed an extreme burden. They can also be sued which doesn't apply here). Which part are you upset with? Because the first two things were already implied in the US Constitution and the final thing just sets limits on the severity of punishment at reasonable burdens.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney would actually follow through with their threat. If so then I approve of them take a stand against discrimination.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

They could do that, but considering this is Georgia, you know every business is going to use it do discriminate against gays. ...or possibly Muslims since they're America's fear mongering hate target at the moment.

No, because as I stated in the post above yours, the bill doesn't apply to general businesses. In the case of marriage specifically (it clarifies marriage), it protects ministers. In the case of religious institutions, it does protect them from not participating on religious grounds but only if they're a 501(c)(3). It also limits the severity of punishment an individual can have for exercising their freedom of religion.

It does not protect regular businesses and does not protect an individual from civil litigation or regular fines/jail time. It also explicitly states that this bill does not allow discrimination based on protected class status as per federal or state guidelines. So the person above saying they could deny white people is not correct. Pink Mohawks is still correct though.

What is it you think the bill can do? Essentially, if people would only read the damn thing they're complaining about they'd realize that they are getting pissy that ministers can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony and that religious institutions can't be forced to host a ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs and that individuals can't be sent to prison for 10 years for refusing to bake a cake (they can still be fined and sent to jail for an appropriate amount of time, it just can't be deemed an extreme burden. They can also be sued which doesn't apply here). Which part are you upset with? Because the first two things were already implied in the US Constitution and the final thing just sets limits on the severity of punishment at reasonable burdens.

Forgive my ignorance. I didn't do the appropriate research.

 

[Lightknight]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney would actually follow through with their threat. If so then I approve of them take a stand against discrimination.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

They could do that, but considering this is Georgia, you know every business is going to use it do discriminate against gays. ...or possibly Muslims since they're America's fear mongering hate target at the moment.

No, because as I stated in the post above yours, the bill doesn't apply to general businesses. In the case of marriage specifically (it clarifies marriage), it protects ministers. In the case of religious institutions, it does protect them from not participating on religious grounds but only if they're a 501(c)(3). It also limits the severity of punishment an individual can have for exercising their freedom of religion.

It does not protect regular businesses and does not protect an individual from civil litigation or regular fines/jail time. It also explicitly states that this bill does not allow discrimination based on protected class status as per federal or state guidelines. So the person above saying they could deny white people is not correct. Pink Mohawks is still correct though.

What is it you think the bill can do? Essentially, if people would only read the damn thing they're complaining about they'd realize that they are getting pissy that ministers can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony and that religious institutions can't be forced to host a ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs and that individuals can't be sent to prison for 10 years for refusing to bake a cake (they can still be fined and sent to jail for an appropriate amount of time, it just can't be deemed an extreme burden. They can also be sued which doesn't apply here). Which part are you upset with? Because the first two things were already implied in the US Constitution and the final thing just sets limits on the severity of punishment at reasonable burdens.

Forgive my ignorance. I didn't do the appropriate research.

I... I think you just won the internet... What do we do when someone listens to a counterpoint and changes their position accordingly? I guess if you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods and of legal drinking age then I owe you a beer. Yeah, let's make that a standard practice.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

It'll be interesting to see if Disney would actually follow through with their threat. If so then I approve of them take a stand against discrimination.

The law is incorrectly reported as a ANTI GAY law, its not, it is a law that COULD be used to deny GAY people or deny WHITE people, or people that like PINK MOHAWKS, or UNION JACKS shaved on their skulls.
The escapist 'journalist' has opted to make the report a click bait by focusing on what the law COULD do.
The law would give business owner the OPTION to deny entry based on what the OWNER decides.
How is this less freedom than insisting anyone should be allowed entry no matter what ? If you don't like the fact the owner is denying gay people into their establishment, then simply show your distaste by not giving the owner your custom.

They could do that, but considering this is Georgia, you know every business is going to use it do discriminate against gays. ...or possibly Muslims since they're America's fear mongering hate target at the moment.

No, because as I stated in the post above yours, the bill doesn't apply to general businesses. In the case of marriage specifically (it clarifies marriage), it protects ministers. In the case of religious institutions, it does protect them from not participating on religious grounds but only if they're a 501(c)(3). It also limits the severity of punishment an individual can have for exercising their freedom of religion.

It does not protect regular businesses and does not protect an individual from civil litigation or regular fines/jail time. It also explicitly states that this bill does not allow discrimination based on protected class status as per federal or state guidelines. So the person above saying they could deny white people is not correct. Pink Mohawks is still correct though.

What is it you think the bill can do? Essentially, if people would only read the damn thing they're complaining about they'd realize that they are getting pissy that ministers can't be forced to perform a wedding ceremony and that religious institutions can't be forced to host a ceremony that conflicts with their beliefs and that individuals can't be sent to prison for 10 years for refusing to bake a cake (they can still be fined and sent to jail for an appropriate amount of time, it just can't be deemed an extreme burden. They can also be sued which doesn't apply here). Which part are you upset with? Because the first two things were already implied in the US Constitution and the final thing just sets limits on the severity of punishment at reasonable burdens.

Forgive my ignorance. I didn't do the appropriate research.

I... I think you just won the internet... What do we do when someone listens to a counterpoint and changes their position accordingly? I guess if you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods and of legal drinking age then I owe you a beer. Yeah, let's make that a standard practice.

Doesn't happen often, does it? It'd be nice if it did.

 

[kekkres]

Disney care so much about gays rights they show films in countries where being gay is a criminal offence. Gay rights are important as long as it cost us no money, yeah right grandstanding halfwits.

the thing is dysney not showing films there wouldent change anything, not selling movies in Russia would not convince Russia to be pro gay, HERE they have a chance to actualy use their weight to make a much more meaningful impact, its not the statement they are making that they are concerned with with, so much as the result

 

[kekkres]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Likely true to an extent, however not taking a stand at all, pretty much guarantees there won't be any pressure to actually change/prevent the laws. Not to mention exposure. I didn't know Georgia was trying to pass a law like this, until this article popped up. Because Disney leaving an entire state is big news, whereas another article about some back asswards state passing shit bigotry laws, is getting lost in the noise these days.

Besides, if the lost wages/employment/business of the Disney stuff, is because the gay people you mention happen to work for Disney in that state...well they could probably get work elsewhere with the company "Hey guys, so yeah, I used to work for you in Georgia, and you kind of took my job away, got an opening for me somewhere else?" I'd be willing to bet Disney would be accommodating in that regard. Sure many of them might be unable/unwilling to move, but it's still an option.

its also worth noting, that this doesnt actualy "kill" any jobs at all, it moves them, dysney will still film and they will still hire people they will just be hireing different people somewhere else, so while it sucks for the guy loosing his job its awesome for the new guy who gets it and i think it kind of balances out

 

[Lightknight]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Likely true to an extent, however not taking a stand at all, pretty much guarantees there won't be any pressure to actually change/prevent the laws. Not to mention exposure. I didn't know Georgia was trying to pass a law like this, until this article popped up. Because Disney leaving an entire state is big news, whereas another article about some back asswards state passing shit bigotry laws, is getting lost in the noise these days.

Besides, if the lost wages/employment/business of the Disney stuff, is because the gay people you mention happen to work for Disney in that state...well they could probably get work elsewhere with the company "Hey guys, so yeah, I used to work for you in Georgia, and you kind of took my job away, got an opening for me somewhere else?" I'd be willing to bet Disney would be accommodating in that regard. Sure many of them might be unable/unwilling to move, but it's still an option.

its also worth noting, that this doesnt actualy "kill" any jobs at all, it moves them, dysney will still film and they will still hire people they will just be hireing different people somewhere else, so while it sucks for the guy loosing his job its awesome for the new guy who gets it and i think it kind of balances out

I think my argument has moreso moved to the fact that this bill doesn't do the shit people here are claiming it does.

1. It allows Ministers to not have to perform a ceremony (this bill specifies marriage) they don't want to on religious grounds (a right they already have).
2. It allows religious organizations that are already 501(c)(3) non-profits to be able to refuse services based on religious grounds. (they functionally already had this right)
3. It limits the severity of punishment the government can inflict (fines, jail time, etc) on an individual if they are doing something to exercise religious freedom to be punishments that do not constitute a severe burden. (This does not prevent fines or jail time or even civil litigation, it just means that the government can't ruin someone's life for refusing to bake a cake because of their personal convictions). This does not cover people who discriminate against a federally or state accepted protected class and does not protect government workers so a person using this law to discriminate against a black person, for example, could be punished to the full extent of the law.

What this does not prevent:
1. Regular private and public companies (still as liable as ever) can still be sued and be punished to the full extent of the law
2. Private individuals can still serve jail time and pay fines and be sued.

So here's my question to people. What is it they have a problem with? That Pastor's aren't forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will? That Churches aren't forced to perform or host ceremonies they don't believe it? Or is the real issue that individuals aren't to have their lives ruined by not baking a cake but are still liable for legal repercussions?

Disney is being stupid, this isn't the bill to fight Georgia on. The vast majority of the rights being stated here were already present under the constitution and the only real change is a limitation on how bad the government can punish someone expressing their faith under certain conditions. That's just sentencing laws, that's not even legalizing behavior.

Now that someone (Me) has finally read the bill I think this thread will start to die down as people realize they were misled and jumped the gun. Yes, you still can't force a Pastor to marry someone you don't want to and yes a Church doesn't have to host your wiccan wedding or any wedding for that matter.

 

[Fox12]

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

Ah, yes. Money. The only thing red blooded American evangelicals love more then God. Where your money is, there your heart is also.

Don't underestimate our stupidity though. This is the state that almost ended ALL education in the state as a response to integration. They'll probably try to ban ALL marriage next : P

 

[Gengisgame]

You know full well no one is being denied service based on who they are, just on what they want.

That's not true, they see them as an "abomination before god". They have a problem with everything gay, denying them a cake is just the only way they can negatively effect their lives in a kind of legal way.

Ok now your argument is based on the assumption that you know the unstated motives of people, a hypocritical one at that. Here's how I see this, you've just taken a side and like every side you need a demonized bad guy, modern politically correct thinking hasn't left you with a lot of options but this one is ok.

You would not say the same thing about someone from the middle east DESPITE the fact that the are far more likely to be from a culture that supports the thinking you just accused these people of. Don't reply unless you are willing to admit that and not dodge this point.

 

[omega 616]

You know full well no one is being denied service based on who they are, just on what they want.

That's not true, they see them as an "abomination before god". They have a problem with everything gay, denying them a cake is just the only way they can negatively effect their lives in a kind of legal way.

Ok now your argument is based on the assumption that you know the unstated motives of people, a hypocritical one at that. Here's how I see this, you've just taken a side and like every side you need a demonized bad guy, modern politically correct thinking hasn't left you with a lot of options but this one is ok.

You would not say the same thing about someone from the middle east DESPITE the fact that the are far more likely to be from a culture that supports the thinking you just accused these people of. Don't reply unless you are willing to admit that and not dodge this point.

I don't really know what the hell you're talking about but I think you're batting at the idea that I will treat people differently based on their background or religion. I'd say a person from the middle east wouldn't get my ire as much as a person from the West doing the same thing, right?

WRONG and you don't know me, so don't say what I will admit to and what I wont.

If somebody does something I think is evil or wrong or whatever else, I will call you on it. If a Muslim hates a gay person as much as the KKK does, I will think that guy is horrible person as well. If that person rapes, I will hate them as much as a white or black or Asian or theist or atheist or alien or Qunari or Asari or Simpson ... I judge you on your actions and words not what you believe or race you are.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Devil's Advocate chiming in to say that the law is all-encompassing regarding beliefs. You could refuse service to someone wearing orange because in your beliefs, orange is a sign of a devil trying to take your soul so you can deny them service.

Just, well, most people are going to use it to deny Homosexuals. Sometimes being a DA really sucks.

it's kind of like the french law that prohibits the public wearing of religious symbols. in theory it's universal but it is clearly targeted at muslims who wear traditional religious garments. likewise i doubt anyone besides homophobes will ever make use of this law.

 

[rcs619]

I think my argument has moreso moved to the fact that this bill doesn't do the shit people here are claiming it does.

1. It allows Ministers to not have to perform a ceremony (this bill specifies marriage) they don't want to on religious grounds (a right they already have).
2. It allows religious organizations that are already 501(c)(3) non-profits to be able to refuse services based on religious grounds. (they functionally already had this right)
3. It limits the severity of punishment the government can inflict (fines, jail time, etc) on an individual if they are doing something to exercise religious freedom to be punishments that do not constitute a severe burden. (This does not prevent fines or jail time or even civil litigation, it just means that the government can't ruin someone's life for refusing to bake a cake because of their personal convictions). This does not cover people who discriminate against a federally or state accepted protected class and does not protect government workers so a person using this law to discriminate against a black person, for example, could be punished to the full extent of the law.

What this does not prevent:
1. Regular private and public companies (still as liable as ever) can still be sued and be punished to the full extent of the law
2. Private individuals can still serve jail time and pay fines and be sued.

So here's my question to people. What is it they have a problem with?

The issue most people have is with Section 6 of the law which states that the government can't intrude on a person's or organization's religious rights unless it has a compelling government interest to do so and is acting in the least intrusive way possible.

What constitutes a compelling government interest? What is the least intrusive way to act in such a situation? As with most of the recent religious freedom bills passed in the last few years, it's wording is extremely broad and ill-defined.

There is some doubt as to whether or not you could use this part of the law as a means to discriminate, but it's worded so ambiguously that just about anyone with a little bit of legal creativity could try. If it were just saying ministers don't have to perform gay marriages and that specifically religious non-profits didn't have to hire people not of their faith/beliefs, then no one would have had any issues with it.

The larger issue though, is that in most of the US it's still entirely legal to discriminate against gay people in employment, housing and public accommodation. Someone in Georgia, for example, it's now perfectly legal to marry someone of the same sex thanks to the supreme court, but then it is also perfectly legal for their employer to then fire them for doing so. Only a handful of states have actually passed comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, and federal protections are currently thin to non-existent.

It's very likely to stay that way too, since I could never see federal anti-discrimination measures towards gays and co being passed through the current congress. Short of a democratic super-majority in both houses, it's never going to happen unless there's another supreme court decision.

Even that is a bit of an uncertainty, given how long republicans in the senate could potentially string out any future nominations under this president or the next.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Disney leaving Georgia hurts more people in Georgia than the anti-gay bill would likely impact and significantly harder. People who may have had absolutely nothing to do with bill and ironically it could even harm more gay people by way of lost wages/employment/business.

It's nice for companies to take a stand on issues they believe in, but it's important to note that sometimes the stand you're taking is hurting the wrong people.

Likely true to an extent, however not taking a stand at all, pretty much guarantees there won't be any pressure to actually change/prevent the laws. Not to mention exposure. I didn't know Georgia was trying to pass a law like this, until this article popped up. Because Disney leaving an entire state is big news, whereas another article about some back asswards state passing shit bigotry laws, is getting lost in the noise these days.

Besides, if the lost wages/employment/business of the Disney stuff, is because the gay people you mention happen to work for Disney in that state...well they could probably get work elsewhere with the company "Hey guys, so yeah, I used to work for you in Georgia, and you kind of took my job away, got an opening for me somewhere else?" I'd be willing to bet Disney would be accommodating in that regard. Sure many of them might be unable/unwilling to move, but it's still an option.

its also worth noting, that this doesnt actualy "kill" any jobs at all, it moves them, dysney will still film and they will still hire people they will just be hireing different people somewhere else, so while it sucks for the guy loosing his job its awesome for the new guy who gets it and i think it kind of balances out

I think my argument has moreso moved to the fact that this bill doesn't do the shit people here are claiming it does.

1. It allows Ministers to not have to perform a ceremony (this bill specifies marriage) they don't want to on religious grounds (a right they already have).
2. It allows religious organizations that are already 501(c)(3) non-profits to be able to refuse services based on religious grounds. (they functionally already had this right)
3. It limits the severity of punishment the government can inflict (fines, jail time, etc) on an individual if they are doing something to exercise religious freedom to be punishments that do not constitute a severe burden. (This does not prevent fines or jail time or even civil litigation, it just means that the government can't ruin someone's life for refusing to bake a cake because of their personal convictions). This does not cover people who discriminate against a federally or state accepted protected class and does not protect government workers so a person using this law to discriminate against a black person, for example, could be punished to the full extent of the law.

What this does not prevent:
1. Regular private and public companies (still as liable as ever) can still be sued and be punished to the full extent of the law
2. Private individuals can still serve jail time and pay fines and be sued.

So here's my question to people. What is it they have a problem with? That Pastor's aren't forced to perform a religious ceremony against their will? That Churches aren't forced to perform or host ceremonies they don't believe it? Or is the real issue that individuals aren't to have their lives ruined by not baking a cake but are still liable for legal repercussions?

Disney is being stupid, this isn't the bill to fight Georgia on. The vast majority of the rights being stated here were already present under the constitution and the only real change is a limitation on how bad the government can punish someone expressing their faith under certain conditions. That's just sentencing laws, that's not even legalizing behavior.

Now that someone (Me) has finally read the bill I think this thread will start to die down as people realize they were misled and jumped the gun. Yes, you still can't force a Pastor to marry someone you don't want to and yes a Church doesn't have to host your wiccan wedding or any wedding for that matter.

The bill has gone through a ton of revisions. The entire bill was completely rewritten, the entire text completely replaced from line 1 about two weeks ago (march 16th). The structure, wording, and even content are very different from before. The previous parts of the bill are what people and companies like Disney were responding to, and was basically as it has been claimed. It is my understanding that the bill passed, or something like that, but was rewritten because the Governor made it 100% clear he would be vetoing it in that form. Here is a relevant portion of the text, before the rewrite:

"Government shall not take any adverse action against a person or faith-based
organization wholly or partially on the basis that such person or faith-based organization
believes, speaks, or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief regarding
lawful marriage between two people, including the belief that marriage should only be
between a man and a woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a union."

Notice the use of person in that section, as well as the term "sincerely held belief". They are important. The wording person (defined later in the bill as any natural person, so literally anyone) means this can apply to anyone, and it has already been ruled for a long time that courts cannot determine the sincerity of religious beliefs and must take them at claimed value.

Now, I am no legal expert. so I'll leave the analysis to an expert:

"Section 2-2 allows any "person" or "faith-based organization" to "speak[] or act[]" based
upon any "sincerely held religious belief regarding lawful marriage between two people," with
couples engaged in a same-sex marriage being explicitly focused on in the text. Section 2-2
essentially permits individuals and organizations to refuse to do business with or otherwise
discriminate against anyone whose marriage status they find inconsistent with their beliefs."
-Joe D. Whitley, formerly of the Department of Justice (that should be enough to find him in case you want to check his credentials or the full text of his analysis of the complete bill.)

There is more to it, his full analysis of the bill is a few pages long and worth a full read, but that is largely what the fuss was about.

There are a few more concerns even with the rewrite, but that was the main point of contention. In any case, the bill was vetoed this morning. If you read the governor's statement I think it was basically because in his opinion the bill attempted to address a problem that has not been shown to exist by putting into law redundant protections. It is a do nothing bill that only bloats the Georgia legal code and the history of the bill says to the world that Georgia doesn't like gays, so rather than let the Georgia reputation take another hit for no reason he decided to veto the bill.

Note: For the sake of full disclosure, Joe Whitley was hired by Georgia Equality, an LGBT advocacy group.

 

[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

Ah, yes. Money. The only thing red blooded American evangelicals love more then God. Where your money is, there your heart is also.

Don't underestimate our stupidity though. This is the state that almost ended ALL education in the state as a response to integration. They'll probably try to ban ALL marriage next : P

Coming from the kind of people who shut down the government just to prevent people getting cheap healthcare, nothing would surprise me!