News

Anti-gay Bill could cost Georgia a fortune in lost revenue

Anti-gay Bill could cost Georgia a fortune in lost revenue

If the Governor of the US state of Georgia, Nathan Deal, above, signs into law a ‘discriminatory’ Bill, the state could see a raft of big corporations taking their business elsewhere.

The Free Exercise Protection Act AKA House Bill 757 House Bill 757, passed last week by Georgia’s legislature, allows faith-based organisations to not hire or provide services to those who:

Violate such faith-based organisation’s sincerely held religious belief.

Deadline Hollywood reports that a Disney spokesman had warned that:

Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.

And an NFL spokesperson cautioned late last week that it may boycott the state if local laws do not meet league polices that:

Emphasise tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.

The city of Atlanta hopes to land a Super Bowl in the near future when its new stadium for the Atlanta Falcons opens in 2017.

Disney is the first Hollywood studio to tell the Peach State it will boycott that state if Governor Deal signs the bill now on his desk. Right now, Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 is filming at Pinewood Studios just outside Atlanta.

The Governor’s office did not respond to request for comment on Disney’s statement today but Deal has until May 3 to sign or not sign the Free Exercise Protection Act.

AMC Networks is another company that has slammed the Bill. A spokesman for AMC said on Wedneday:

As a company, AMC Networks believes that discrimination of any kind is reprehensible. We applaud Governor Deal’s leadership in resisting a previous version of this divisive legislation and urge him to reject the current version as well.

Part of the Bill says that:

Religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion.

Deal, a Republican who was re-elected in 2014, has indicated he will review the bill in April and told the Atlanta-Journal Constitution he had a tough decision to make.

48 responses to “Anti-gay Bill could cost Georgia a fortune in lost revenue”

  1. barriejohn says:

    North Carolina has abolished gay rights anyway (is that constitutional?):

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/23/north-carolina-passes-bill-to-void-all-lgbt-protections/

    Should please that ignorant bigot, Franklin Graham. Billy still lives at Charlotte, and Franklin’s not far away.

  2. Newspaniard says:

    Pinewood Studios “Just outside Atlanta”? England is more than “Just outside” surely?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_Studios

  3. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion.
    I actually agree with this.
    As much as I detest religion, if we’re going to have a free people, then let’s have a free people.

    And if I’m free to exercise my religion, then why should I be compelled to marry two short people, who obviously do not belong in my Church of the Tall ?

    Figuring out why they want to get married in my church is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Let the government perform civil unions, to all comers, to produce the legally binding union.

    Let the churches perform their own ceremonies, for their own purposes, with their own criteria.

    As long as the government is non-discriminatory, then there’s no need to force me to marry short people.

  4. jay says:

    Coastal Maine bird

    I too am a little concerned by the government attempts to mandate what people think, and decide to override personal feelings by government edict.

    When we got married, one venue did not want to do an atheist wedding. We did not even consider complaining (or as everyone in the US wants to do) suing for discrimination. We just went somewhere else. There is no constitutional right to a wedding cake, or really any non emergency service.

    That’s how freedom works.

  5. Raul Miller says:

    Well, what can you expect from a bunch of flesh eating, blood drinking, zombie worshippers? They’ll never stop until they’ve turned us all into beasts, just like them. The fact their minds have been eaten away is little reason to excuse their behavior.

  6. L.Long says:

    If the law is to protect churches then it is a lie and unnecessary as churches do not have to do gay marriage. But I think the law is just a ‘you are allowed to be a bigot’ bill, which if I was an opposing politician I would endorse it but also put a rider on it stating that any group that wants to be bigoted has to have a large sign stating they are bigots clearly visible at the front main entrance, and this includes the ahole churches!!!!

  7. AgentCormac says:

    If Deal does go ahead with this he will effectively be putting those with sincerely held delusions above the law.

  8. barriejohn says:

    Here’s one of those poor petals whose “sincerely held religious beliefs” are offended by same sex unions:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/03/24/alabamas-anti-gay-marriage-governor-caught-having-phonesex-affair-with-top-aide/

    Oh, for those “traditional values”!

  9. barriejohn says:

    PS Don’t you think that, if they’d had mobile phones in his day, Lot would have been sexting all the young women in his family circle?

  10. Broga says:

    “Violate such faith-based organisation’s sincerely held religious belief.”

    The inerrant word of God bible has a plethora of beliefs which I assume are “sincerely held” but impractical in 2016 so they are ignored.

  11. andym says:

    We’ve been here before. There is a difference between the constitutional rights of a private individual , and the responsibilities of a state employed worker to abide by democratically passed legislation. This, again is a deliberate confusion of the two.

    I agree it cuts both ways. In the UK , we have seen council workers dismissed for expressing anti-gay views as private individuals. This, to me , is also wrong.

  12. barriejohn says:

    Broga: No, God’s commandments have never been rescinded, so you should be obeying them all!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

    “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. 5:18 KJV)

  13. barriejohn says:

    @andym: Well said.

  14. andym says:

    I misread the article. What I said doesn’t necessarily apply to individuals within faith groups, but it’s individuals , rather than organisations who have the freedom. If faith-based organisations want to be exempt,they should think about paying taxes, and hence cut state support, becoming like any other private enterprise.Most churches are clearly enterprises . That, too, cuts both ways.

  15. Smokey says:

    When did “sincerely held religious belief” become the magic words to be able to discriminate? To become licensed to be a bigot? To no longer having to pretend that you have any redeeming human values?

    Oh wait, they’re Christians. They actually believe in magic and the power of magic spells, AKA prayer and special words, like “in Jesus’ name” and “Amen”. Not to mention that they believe they can define god into existence with convoluted logic and incomprehensive philosophy.

    And they claim the moral high ground.

  16. L.Long says:

    “sincerely held religious belief” is a flat out lie! What they mean is ‘this part that I think is icky violates my sincerely held religious belief’

  17. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Smokey: When did “sincerely held religious belief” become the magic words to be able to discriminate?

    Why shouldn’t I be able to have a club of tall people without you chasing me with laws about discrimination?

    In my view, I should be able to discriminate against short people ( or Peruvian people, or black people, or …), as long as I’m not part of the government.

    The “sincerely held” magic words simply provides them an “out”, to get away from the enforced-groupthink that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

  18. andym says:

    I suppose it would be how you define a private club. I see no reason to ban your tall person club if you’re just meeting to discuss height issues amongst yourselves. I’d support your right to assert the superiority of tall people as long as you incited no violence short people.As long as you stayed a private club you’re OK.
    But what if you started producing a fashion range specially for tall people. That again is OK. But what if you banned short people from your factory producing those goods, or selling, or distributing?What then if you argued that the specialness of tall people meant that you should pay no taxes?

  19. CoastalMaineBird says:

    I see no reason to ban your tall person club if you’re just meeting to discuss height issues amongst yourselves.
    “if” ? why do you get to interject that judgment?
    Suppose we talk about basketball – is that OK?
    Suppose we talk about butterflies – is that OK?
    Maybe I just want to hang out with tall people, because I want to.

    It’s just my opinion, and I know it’s contrary to US law, but if it’s MY factory, I should be able to ban short people from working in MY factory. Yes, it’s discrimination, and it doesn’t make business sense, but either it’s mine, or it isn’t.

    That doesn’t apply to government, because everybody (heh) pays taxes and everybody deserves equal treatment from the government.

    But I don’t think you should have a right to force me to deal with short people in my everyday life.

  20. AgentCormac says:

    The problem which lies at the very crux of all this is that what these people believe in is a lie. It is nonsense. Hogwash. Superstitious twaddle. It is claptrap which anyone with half a brain who hasn’t been previously indoctrinated into their particular brand of lunacy from birth can see is transparent bollocks. Even those millions if not billions of people who have been indoctrinated into a different brand of lunacy from birth would argue it is transparent bollocks. Yet their views and ‘sincerely held’ beliefs are still held up as being somehow credible and intellectually acceptable. To my mind it is beyond belief (pun intended) that in the 21st century there is even a discussion going on around such things. All they need do is think – think for themselves, and the world would be such a better place. (Cue ‘Life of Brian’ scene.)

  21. barriejohn says:

    CoastalMaineBird: I sympathize with your aims, but you are not right. People are free to associate, but there’s ALWAYS an “if”: if they’re not concocting plans to blow up the local council offices, for instance. And if you own a factory and employ people then it’s quite right that you shouldn’t be able to discriminate against employees and potential employees on grounds of race, religion, sexuality, etc. I’m all for personal liberty, but society has to put down certain markers as to what behaviour is or is not acceptable.

  22. RussellW says:

    CoastalMaineBird,

    “Let the government perform civil unions, to all comers, to produce the legally binding union.
    Let the churches perform their own ceremonies, for their own purposes, with their own criteria.”

    Are you advocating two separate and distinct systems of marriage,i.e. secular or religious, or the French model where only civil marriages are valid?

    barriejohn,

    “I’m all for personal liberty, but society has to put down certain markers as to what behaviour is or is not acceptable.”

    Agreed. The idea of ‘religious freedom’ is a myth, no civilised society could allow people to practice their religions or exercise their prejudices unrestrained. Our behaviour is subject to the parameters set by consensus.

  23. Trevor Blake says:

    United States Federal law has always allowed religious bodies to be exempt from labor laws. Always, as in from the establishment of the United States until this moment. This is a ridiculous stand for the State of Georgia to take – it’s not brave to propose a law that already exists.

    I am in favor of religious groups not being compelled to follow labor laws. And in turn, I am in favor of religious groups that do not follow labor laws, that do not provide a quantifiable social good, to not get tax exempt status. If a religious group wants to fund itself and limit itself in some way, good for them – that’s the ‘freedom’ part of ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘freedom of assembly’ and ‘freedom of speech.’ But don’t let them be a parasite to society in general.

    As they all are at present.

  24. barriejohn says:

    RussellW: Yes, this “absolute personal liberty” and “absolute freedom of speech” argument is nonsense, and I make no apologies for inserting the “but” word. I believe in personal liberty BUT you can’t allow someone to go round his neighbour’s with an axe and hack off his head; he is going to be put in prison or a mental hospital if he does that. We all accept that limitations upon our liberties are necessary in a civilized society, and that the government has to set limits upon our freedoms for our safety and the enjoyment of our own personal liberties. The alternative would be total chaos.

  25. harrynutsak says:

    I fucking hate Georgia and I have yet to meet anyone from the derp south who wasn’t some sort of total dipshit about most everything going.

  26. Edwin Salter says:

    All public policies and organisations should be secular, ‘faith blind’. But somewhere on the smaller scale we recognise choice of interaction (must you sell your house to any highest bidder… why shouldn’t an Alpha course exclude a determined atheist…etc).
    A sinister bit here is corporate power. Faceless wealth has long exploited the poorer world and now takes on all states to impose law it finds profitable. If there is a bigger social threat than fundamentalist faith it is international capitalism.

  27. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  28. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  29. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  30. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  31. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  32. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  33. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  34. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  35. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  36. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  37. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  38. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  39. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  40. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  41. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  42. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  43. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  44. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  45. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  46. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]

  47. […] The NFL has warned the state they might too if Georgia laws don’t meet their own standards that “emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” said an NFL spokesperson. This too could be devastating for the state as Atlanta would like to host the Superbowl in the future as their new Falcons stadium opens in 2017, Free Thinker noted. […]