David Thompson
Staff Writer
david.thompson@hawks.shorter.edu
Many Georgia residents are outraged over the Gov. Nathan Deal’s recent veto of a bill that would have given legal protec- tion to the religious beliefs of citizens, especially concerning homosexuality and the LGBT community.
Several other states have created similar bills, and the bills have passed in Mississippi, Indiana and North Carolina. Advocates of such bills (Chris- tians and people of faith) claim they protect religious freedom. Critics denounce them as discriminatory and anti-progressive.
House Bill No. 757 (HB- 757), or Georgia’s “Religious Freedom” bill, states that no minister “shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
Second, the bill allows religious institutions to refuse jobs for people who violate the insti- tution’s faith, such as a church refusing to hire a homosexual, who is otherwise quali ed sole- ly because of his or her sexual choices.
For many, Gov. Deal’s decision was in opposition to Christian values and outrageous. In the eyes of many Christians the governor upheld secular mo- rality, while refusing to protect Christian values when given the chance. But the bill would have also given faith-based organiza- tions the right to withhold their services based solely on sexual orientation, a point many casual observers missed.
For instance, a homeless person could be turned away from a Christian soup kitchen or shelter simply because that person is a practicing homo- sexual. If such a situation were to occur, the shelter would be legally protected despite their blatant discrimination (and lack of brotherly love). This type of situation was, in part, what led Gov. Deal to veto the bill after it passed both the Senate and the House.
“Government doesn’t need to confer religious liberty. Inclu- sions and omissions in their statutes may lead to discrimi- nation, intentional or uninten- tional…Georgia is full of loving, kind and generous people, who choose to worship God in their own way,” said Deal according to National Public Radio.
Deal, both a Republican and a Baptist, has a point; government should not have to protect the liberty of the religious. And it is true that people choose to worship God in their own ways. Despite this, there could be a more prominent reason why Deal chose to veto the bill.
After HB-757 was passed by the Senate and the House, sev- eral major movie studios con- tacted the governor concerning the bill. American Multi-Cine- ma, Disney and Marvel Studios (to name just a few) threatened to completely boycott the state should the bill pass according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitu- tion. In addition, the NFL stated that should the bill become law Atlanta would then have no chance to host a Super Bowl in future years.
According to the governor’s press release last summer on ga.gov, the 248 movies and tele- vision shows shot in Georgia in 2015 accounted for $1.7 billion of in-state spending and an economic impact of more than $6 billion. That amount would be immediately lost should the bill pass.
However, Christians should do what is right regardless of the cost, either nancially or publicly. So the question remains, did Gov. Deal make the right decision?
Personally, I am not sure whether Gov. Deal should have supported HB-757 or not. While the bill was intended to support Christian values and protect the rights of pastors and churches, it is very ambiguous and could possibly hurt pastors and their ministries.
On the other hand, while vetoing the bill might have been the motive to prevent discrimination against non-religious individuals, it could also promote discrimination against Christians.
Though the bill was vetoed, the issue is not dead. Hopefully, the bill will be presented in a clearer way so we understand it better.
Even though homosexuality is clearly denounced in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Showing His love to everyone should be the main priority, regardless of the person being reached.
