We’ve talked about Indiana’s “religious freedom” bill allowing people to not face penalties for discrimination against LGBTQ folks based solely on belief, so when similar legislation came up in front of the Georgia House of Representatives this week, one Republican bravely stood up and killed it with truth.
As in Indiana, proponents of Georgia’s bill have tried to argue that it has nothing to do with discrimination. Rep. Mike Jacobs, an LGBT-friendly Republican, decided to test this theory by introducing an amendment that would not allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination protections. Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Barry Fleming (R), countered that the amendment “will gut the bill.” Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Committee approved the amendment with a 9-8 vote, three Republicans joining the Democrats in supporting it.
Fleming moved to table the amended bill, a motion that passed with 16 votes, making it unlikely the bill will proceed before the legislative session ends. With an exception for nondiscrimination protections, the “religious liberty” bill is dead.
Before the vote, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Josh McKoon (R), joined the hearing to similarly argue against making an exception for nondiscrimination protections. He claimed that the bill’s religious liberty protections would no longer be “uniform” across the state, adding, “That amendment would completely undercut the purpose of the bill.” Rep. Roger Bruce (D) pressed McKoon: “That tells me that the purpose of the bill is to discriminate.” Without further explanation, he countered, “It couldn’t be further from the truth, no sir.”
Well played, Mr. Jacobs. Well played indeed.
tybee
i am quite pleasantly surprised at the results of that amendment.
Gidy51
No one in the Indiana legislature is as brave as that man from GA. Not even an IN Dem is brave enough,
Calouste
Thank you, Rep. Mike Jacobs, for sacrificing your political career in the name of actual liberty.
Steve in the ATL
Georgia Republicans value money over bible thumping
Southern Goth
I would chalk this up to the district he represents more than any actual sacrifice.
Mike Jacobs (Georgia politician)
There are more than a few Georgia Repubs that would like to keep the crazy on the down-low to stay business friendly.
ETA: Also what Steve said.
NonyNony
Okay, can someone please explain to me what purpose of the bill is supposed to be then?
Following the link through to the Project Q website they say this:
Again – what do the Republicans putting this bill up claim that it is supposed to be doing if not allowing businesses to deny service to LGBT customers? These bills are supposed to “solve” the “problem” of the “devoutly Christian” flower shop owner who thinks he’s going to Hell if he sells a gay couple some flowers for their wedding. The “problem” here is literally “I am not allowed to discriminate against them because they are gay”.
If that isn’t the “problem” that this bill is trying to remedy then what the hell is it?
And clearly that is the “problem” – we can tell by how quickly it was tabled when the amendment saying that you have to follow non-discrimination laws got attached. But I really do want to know – I thought that they were very proud of the fact that they wanted to make it legal for “Christians” to discriminate against anyone they wanted to based on “religious objections” – if that isn’t their stated purpose then what is?
John M. Burt
When the right wing try to use the concept of human rights against us, just remember that they’re fighting us on our own home ground. We invented the concept of universal rights, the idea, as one radical leftist put it, that all men are created equal. The right opposed it then, and they oppose it now, and we need to remind ourselves (and/or remind the general public) of that little fact.
indycat32
@Gidy51: The Indiana Senate is made up of 50 members, republicans hold 40 seats. The vote in the senate was 40-10. the House has 100 members, 71 of them republicans. The vote was 63-31. What would you like Indiana dems to do?
Paul in KY
When I see something like this done by a modern Southern Republican, it basically flabbergasts me.
satby
@NonyNony: Of course the purpose is to make it safe to discriminate. They just don’t want to admit that in public because even the troglodytes know that “discriminate” is a bad thing. It’s why thy always try to claim other people are “discriminating” against them as g-d fearin’ Christians.
Linda Featheringill
Mike Jacobs is a good person and deserves to be reelected. Even I would vote for him.
Villago Delenda Est
@John M. Burt: Charles Koch told The Weekly Standard that his problem with Barack Obama was that Obama was an egalitarian.
They hate the idea of “all men created equal”. Hate it, hate it, hate it.
Attitudes like this are what tumbrels were made for. Well, that and hauling shit around. Which I guess is the same thing.
Tree With Water
It was an astute move, to be sure. And then there’s that brave legislator who stood and spoke in opposition to a bill restricting abortion the other day, citing her own experience as rape victim. That was both astute, and brave. Their actions were hardly extraordinary, however. Rather, both legislators merely exploited the shortest route to effectively exposing simple minded republican lies. Which is to say, both democrats were shooting fish in a barrel.
The ears of too many democratic politicians are full of grasshoppers. They should all kill their TV’s, and start thinking-and-speaking for themselves. The republican party is ripe for the gutting, and growing riper. The democratic rank and file should raise their expectations, at least to the degree where such sensible political counter-punching becomes commonplace.
MobiusKlein
@indycat32: wow, 80% R in Indiana? Is it really that gerrymandered? That is more unbalanced than CA by lots. Or is that standard for central American states?
indycat32
@MobiusKlein: dems are primarily in the northwest counties (near Chicago), Fort Wayne, Marion County (Indy), Monroe and Lafayette counties (Indiana Univ. and Purdue). The rest of the state is pretty much R.
the Conster
@John M. Burt:
The nutjobs would be on firmer ground if they stuck to discriminating against women only, by insisting that the words “all men are created equal”- literally means rights for men only. That would be an interesting fight to pick.
Betty Cracker
@Villago Delenda Est: It’s funny that the Koch Bros. imagine themselves as supermen, considering that they inherited their fortune from daddy. If they had to make their own way in the libertarian utopia they want to create, they’d probably be sitting on a pair of milk crates in front of a single-wide, shucking corn for 10 cents a bushel.
Frankensteinbeck
@NonyNony:
See, the thing is, this has history. This argument is old. Before desegregation went through, for a hundred years at least it was the default argument for discrimination against blacks. Freedom of religion is good. Their religion tells them to hate blacks/gays/women/weirdos/whatever. If we stop them from acting on that hate however they want, then we are impinging on their freedom of religion. Thus, we are the real bigots, and they are the real government oppressed masses! Since it’s almost always the federal government physically stopping them from, oh, lynching, cross-burning, beating gays to death, beating their disobedient wives, etc., they have built up a powerful resentment against the government. This argument lets them tell each other they’re righteous, and there’s nothing an asshole likes more than being praised for being an asshole.
It all ties together into a tidy and ugly package, and they’ve been saying it for so long they can recite it by rote.
Karen in GA
@Steve in the ATL: Yep.
NonyNony
@Frankensteinbeck:
Yeah, I get that. But the thing is – I’ve never heard any of them actually deny that what they want to do is be allowed to discriminate. They will go into how you’re the monster for forcing them to treat everyone equally when their religion demands that they treat other people like garbage, but they’ve never denied that what they want is the right to treat other people who are not like them like garbage with impunity.
What I’m wondering is how these guys are threading this needle. How are they rhetorically explaining this legislation in such a way that they can claim that it isn’t discrimination? I guess I hadn’t noticed that they were trying to deny that it was legalized discrimination before because they’ve spent decades telling us that their religious freedom to discriminate was so important.
JPL
Erick Erickson has a post up on red state, and he is not happy. haha
The bill is not dead yet and won’t be until Tuesday.
Frankensteinbeck
@NonyNony:
They stopped claiming it meant discrimination the moment discrimination became publicly shamed. They don’t have to thread the needle. We’re not allowing them to exercise their religion. All they have to do is say ‘Of course we’re not doing it to be bigots.’ That’s enough to allow them to feel like the oppressed. They don’t have to work through the details and see the contradictions. If you’re putting in an anti-bigotry amendment, their religious freedom is still restricted, so what’s the point?
Yes, the bill is specifically there to justify their being bigots and assholes and breaking the law. If you describe it that way, though, they don’t get to be the heroes, so they reject your description.
Also, bear in mind that they hate being shamed. They HATE it. Most people do, of course, but they’ve been feeling publicly shamed since openly admitting bigotry became a bad thing. Their resentment of not being able to admit and act on their feelings, of having to make excuses even to themselves, has built up into a festering boil. Seeing a black man as president, which they know in their heart is just wrong, has popped that boil and pus is spraying everywhere.
Villago Delenda Est
@JPL: My Schadenfreude meter is pegged again.
Villago Delenda Est
@Frankensteinbeck: They want to be able to use the N word in all contexts, in public, on the airwaves, again, without facing the consequences that they would face now if they did so.
feebog
@MobiusKlein:
California is not gerrymandered. State and congressional lines are drawn by an impartial commission made up of citizens. We had thousands of citizens apply for a spot on the Commission the first time around. It has resulted in more democratic seats for two reasons; one, many of the “safe” democratic seats are now more competitive, so Dem candidates really have to work to get elected, and two, there are a hell of a lot more Dems then there are Republicans in this state.
Betty Cracker
@JPL: Here’s how Erickson put it:
LOL! What a maroon!
boatboy_srq
@NonyNony: They can’t say what it really is, because then they’ll look like the bigoted ars3h0les they are. Appearance is everything (which btw is one reason people like the Kochs get a pass: the Elect are recognized in this world with wealth and power, so it doesn’t matter what inhuman b#st#rds the Kochs are because their Election is obvious from their one-percent-ness). As long as they can look like poor persecuted Xtians without descriptors of what their Xtianity really means, then they’re fine. And from their perspective it’s possible that they don’t want to ‘discriminate’ so much as minimize the risk to their fragile little souls caused by being associated in any way with Those People. That to them is Religious Practice, not Discrimination; that it’s the dictionary definition of discrimination to the rest of us is irrelevant. IIRC there were similar justifications for slavery, Jim Crow, and opposition to Civil Rights and interracial marriage. It’s actually enlightened of them not to demand laws for the stoning of adulteresses.
beth
@Betty Cracker: What a weasel too! Notice how he never actually lays out or explains the amendment that killed the bill (because he’d have to admit to discrimination being the goal) but merely refers to it as “gutting the bill”. I bet not a single one of those idiots over there will ever go to another source to find out the truth.
Betty Cracker
Speaking of RedState, is it just me, or are they getting even more dog-whistley of late? There are two front-page posts at the moment, one calling the president a “manchild” (I guess “boy” was a bridge too far?) and the other illustrating PBO’s alleged “surrender” to Iran with a photo of a chimp waving a white flag.
I get that the chimp is supposed to illustrate the Simpson’s “cheese-eating surrender monkey” — the chapeau gives it away! But come on.
NorthLeft12
@Villago Delenda Est: The funny thing is that most of the Obama haters probably don’t know the meaning of the term “egalitarian”.
When they hear or read that quote they probably think it is something elitist or snobby. Big words are hard.
Frankensteinbeck
@Villago Delenda Est:
Absolutely. And the same with lots of other blatantly bigoted acts. Right here, with this bill, they’re wrestling with that. They’ve found an excuse to act on their bigotry that sounds perfectly good to them, and it’s not working. People still think they’re bigots. They’re so angry, now, they don’t know whether to change the subject or double down.
Before Obama, they were much quieter than this. Yeah, they felt the same, but they didn’t have that irresistible urge to throw temper tantrums about it. I grew up in the 80s in South Carolina, and I actually understand. When we look at Romney, we see a liar. His rictus grin and blank stare make him look like one. When we went searching for proof, there was lots of it. They look at Obama, and see a criminal, the kind of person they lock their car doors if he passes on the street. In the background I grew up in, that’s just the impression he would give. They’d be offended by any suggestion that they see that because he’s a black male, but there are no other explanations. They hunt and hunt for justifications, and those justifications get more desperate until you get Clint Eastwood lecturing an empty chair.
EDIT – @Betty Cracker:
See above. This itches and itches, their anger only building for years. It’s harder and harder to restrain themselves.
The Republic of Stupidity
@Steve in the ATL:
You misspelled the word ‘thumping’… there’s no T at the start of it…
Villago Delenda Est
@beth: As if they even care about the truth.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@Frankensteinbeck:
I think it’s also because, when Bush was president, they thought they had won. Everything was going to be fine, because one of the Elect was president. But he fucked it up. He got us into two pointless wars, he drowned an American city, and he tanked the worldwide economy. But Bush was one of the Elect, so it COULDN’T have been his fault. It must have been the fault of those Others, which only proves how urgent it is to suppress them.
Part of what makes them angry is people pointing at conservative policy failures as though somehow that makes conservative policy bad. (It does, but in their minds it just means that unbelievers sabotaged the success that would have undeniably been theirs.)
Patricia Kayden
Good for Jacobs. It’s horrible that this type of legislation has already passed in so many states. Needs to be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, which will surely overturn such legislation as bald faced discrimination.
Villago Delenda Est
@Patricia Kayden: As in what part of “equal protection under the law” do you not understand, dumbshits?
fuckwit
@NonyNony: It’s all religious, white, straight patriarchy. The long con of all the conservatives is that, if you dismantle and destroy secular, civilian, democratic government then what takes its place? Why, religious power, of course! And military/paramilitary. And corporations. The corporations take over anything that can be monetized and religions take over anything that cannot, and both pay off the military to keep them in power.
Secular, civilian, democratic power is fantastic for women, people of color, young people, non-straight people, and religions in the minority, or people who are not religious at all. If government gets drowned in a bathtub then all those people do too: and straight older armed white christian men gain more power.
This is the Grover Norquist breakfast coalition: religious fanatics, military/neocons, and corporations/1%. He started this in the 1970s and it has dominated American politics ever since. It’s imperative to do whatever is possible to fracture that coalition.
RSA
@beth:
You have to go back two of his diaries to find a discussion of the bill and the amendment, which are of course wildly distorted, in a piece Erickson titled, “Georgia Republicans Would Force Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby to Pay For Abortions.” Uh, right.
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
As stated before, they are not deep thinkers, they are believers. That they believe bullshit is not the point, they believe something, that makes that something correct. They don’t care about facts because facts make their beliefs untrue. And that destroys their entire existence. “I follow my gut.” Brains never enter into it.
maurinsky
I don’t understand the hate for Judas. I mean, since it was all pre-ordained by their oh so loving god, what the fuck would they be worshipping if Judas HADN’T handed Jesus over?
Arclite
Would that Indiana had someone with such backbone.
dww44
@Southern Goth: While I applaud the actions of Rep. Jacobs, he was once a Democrat and switched parties in 2007 after having won two elections for the same state house seat in 2006 and 2004. In red states like this, we’ve had a lot of former state legislators jump ship to the governing party. The R’s were seeking to build a super-majority and I presume that some of the former Dems wanted some of the perks of being in power.
I still have a problem with party switching, however. This is one reason the Democratic party has to rebuild from virtually scratch here in the South. Our ranks were decimated.
geg6
@maurinsky:
Exactly. You’d think they would LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Judas. Without Judas, no crucifixion, no raising from the dead.
Not that I think any of that really happened. But they do and you’d think they’d give credit where credit is due.
pluege
wow. How precarious is freedom and equality in the US when it takes a republican standing up in order to protect them. Scary times in the US.
Tree With Water
@Ruckus: Yours is an excellent point. I was recently acquainted with a well educated, accomplished, and capable couple (as these things are conventionally measured) who believed the right to vote should be restricted to property owners- and they were renters. They actually made an argument to disenfranchise themselves. Like you said, brains has nothing to do with it.
SWMBO
My daughter is into dog sports. One of the big ones is flyball. The NAFA is the governing body. They hold the CanAm Flyball Tournament in Indy in October. My daughter posted this today from NAFA’s facebook:
North American Flyball Association
NAFA is committed to providing an inclusive environment at our events for all our participants (both canine and human). Legislation that legalizes discrimination against any portion of our population is unacceptable and the consequences of such legislation should be addressed. We have a mandate to protect the participants of our sport from potential harassment and discrimination, as evidenced by our stance against tournaments hosted in BSL communities. The situation in Indiana, which affects not only the LGBT community but all of us in NAFA, should not be overlooked.
We expect this legislation will face legal challenges and we hope to see it overturned. Organizations with a larger financial impact in Indiana are already leading the effort to overturn this law by boycotting the state, but if this law is allowed to stand, NAFA will reevaluate the presence of CanAm in Indianapolis.
We are contractually obligated to the Indiana State Fair Grounds for 2015 and 2016, but will certainly reevaluate this relationship if this legislation stands. Until that time, we will do all we can to defend those who could be negatively affected. In the meantime, we encourage our participants to patronize businesses in Indiana that display signs indicating “This Business is Open to Everyone.”
We look forward to continuing playing flyball in a diverse and inclusive community. We hope to see you ALL at Canam.
Sincerely,
Leerie Jenkins
Chairman, North American Flyball Association, Inc.
Tree With Water
@SWMBO: You raised her right.
Mike G
@satby:
I once heard a wingnut go on a several minute rant, when he was obviously losing the argument, about how discriminating could not be a bad thing, because the word “discriminating” can also be a compliment, as in a person of “discriminating tastes”, a refined palate for the best foods and such. Thinnest argument ever.
My reply was yes, the word has multiple meanings, are you confused about which one we are discussing here?
mclaren
These bills are so grotesquely and so obviously in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment that there is no way in hell any of these things will ever survive a legal challenge. I confidently predict federal appeals courts will strike ’em down and the Supreme Court will refuse cert unanimously.
This is just a non-issue, people. It’s another case of crazy people passing grossly unconstitutional state legislation that’s going to be nuked the first time it’s challenged in court.
mclaren
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
Wingnuts said to me directly, to my face. After the 2004 debacle when the drunk-driving C student got re-elected, a wingnut told me, “Well, that election settled some things.”
I replied: “No, barbarian, it didn’t settle anything, except the size of the mob that will burn your house down if this kind of insane torture and illegal wars of aggression and theft and pillage by financial crime lords continues.”