By Anthony M. Kreis
Proponents of religious freedom legislation are selling Georgians a false bill of goods that unnecessarily threatens civil rights and could harm the Peach State’s economy.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) would allow religious objectors to sidestep the requirements of laws if their religious exercise is “substantially burdened,” unless the government demonstrates the law serves a compelling governmental interest and there’s no less restrictive means to accomplish it.
LGBT Georgians worry RFRA could undermine the few municipal protections in place guarding against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. They worry RFRA could embolden bad-faith actors to mistreat them. Legislation supporters counter that these fears are unfounded because their proposal mirrors a 22-year-old federal law and similar state legislation.
The “nothing to see here” defense proponents offer is not persuasive, given the harsh anti-gay rhetoric coming from some grassroots RFRA supporters. Georgia legislators can easily defuse these criticisms. Indeed, the legislation could (and should) exempt anti-discrimination laws from religious objections. The fierce opposition to a civil rights “fix” strips the veneer from arguments that the legislation’s intent is unrelated to LGBT people and nondiscrimination laws.
Indiana went down this road— enacting a RFRA without civil rights protections — and disastrous economic consequences followed when the state was boycotted in protest. The damage was significant. The International Association of Fairs and Expositions, for example, chose San Antonio over Indianapolis partially due to the hostile environment ensnaring Indiana’s RFRA. The Disciples of Christ canceled a convention estimated to bring $5.9 million in spending to Indianapolis. The governors of New York, Connecticut, and Washington prohibited official state travel to Indiana. Major cities followed suit.
In response to RFRA, Angie’s List pulled a $40 million Indianapolis headquarters expansion proposal, which would’ve brought 1,000 jobs. Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff pledged to reduce Salesforce.com’s presence in Indiana. Similarly, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman wrote to customers that it would be “unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination.”
While conventions pulled their business from Indiana and corporations pledged to reduce their footprint in the Hoosier State, others expressed concern about the state’s reputation. Indiana Business Research Center’s director argued that the state’s ability to attract talent because of RFRA might stall the state’s economic growth. Perhaps this is why state officials paid nearly $400,000 for a public relations campaign to restore the state’s image.
While the original intent behind legislation like RFRA was to protect religious minorities, companies and organizations recognize that the mobilizing rhetoric behind the recent religious liberty debate has not focused on disfavored or powerless religious groups. Rather, the major forces supporting a Georgia RFRA see it as a tool to impose their discriminatory interests.
Georgia must learn from Indiana and not invite economic hardship. We should have a process of negotiation and debate about ways to simultaneously advance the civil rights of all Georgians. Blunt measures designed to protect one side and browbeat another should not succeed.
Anthony M. Kreis is a Ph. D candidate at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs where he specializes in LGBT issues and civil rights law reform.
Sent from my iPhone
No comments:
Post a Comment