Georgia House that would, if adopted into law, allow both individuals and organizations

to refuse or conduct business with anyone whose marriage they find counter to their

religious beliefs. It also protects individuals from existing non-discrimination laws in Atlanta

and elsewhere.

A similar law was defeated last year, but the passing of this version of the bill has

sparked outrage and backlash from both the public and the business community, with some

companies vowing to leave the state if the bill is signed into law. The most recent incarnation

of the bill bars the government from taking “adverse action” against a person or faith-based

organization that “believes, speaks, or acts in accordance” with the religious belief

that “marriage should only be between a man and a woman”.

Over four hundred companies have joined a coalition opposing the bill, many citing fears

the Georgia will suffer lost revenue as in Indiana where public disdain for a similar

bill before it even became law is said to have cost the state up to $60 million. Atlanta’s

chamber of commerce and visitors bureau estimates a potential loss of one to two billion dollars

if the bill is passed without civil rights protections.

The religious community is also represented among the many in opposition to the law. Almost

three hundred clergy member in the state have spoken out against what they see as an overly

broad, discriminatory proposal. Not only does the bill allow individuals and faith-based

organizations to discriminate against same-sex couples, but also against anyone perceived

to have sexual relations outside of a heterosexual marriage, such as single parents, or unmarried

couples, whether gay or straight.

However, supporters argue the law is needed to protect the religious freedom of individuals

to exercise their “sincerely held” religious beliefs as they pertain to marriage. State

senator Greg Kirk, who proposed an earlier version of the bill in the Senate, argues

that faith-based organizations risk being discriminated against by the state for acting

in accordance with their religious beliefs. He points to the Catholic Church’s policy

of permitting adoptions only to male-female couples and not same-sex.

In response Joe Whitley, former US attorney and Department of Justice official, calls

the proposed law superfluous and unnecessary in a legal analysis. “The first amendment

in and of itself protects all Americans’ rights to speech, to worship freely, and to

be free from a state-established creed,” he said. “These rights do not need the General

Assembly to legislate in order to give them force or effect.” He and others fear the

law will be used by a restaurant refusing service to an interracial couple; a hospital

denying a man the right to visit his male spouse; a business refusing to hire a single

woman living with her partner. The same kind of discrimination on the part of an employer,

landlord, or public employee could be protected under FADA.

State Senator Nan Orrock remembers the battles that raged across the South after the US supreme

court findings established a law that people of color are equal. “The southern states

did the same sort of thing back then,” she says, referring to attempts by state governments

to circumvent federal protections using Jim Crow laws. “It all boils down to sanctioned

discrimination.”