Much has been written about Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s recent veto of House Bill (HB) 757 commonly known as the Pastor Protection Act. Deal, an active member of a Georgia Baptist church, said the bill “proposed to fix a problem that didn’t exist in Georgia.” Others called the bill a “solution in search of a problem.”
The bill sought to ensure that religious officials are not required by law to participate in gay “marriage” ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs. It also sought to protect religious organizations which own property from having to use that property in ways that infringe on the religious beliefs of the organization.
A third stipulation was that faith-based groups could not be forced to hire or retain employees whose beliefs run counter to the organization’s.
Stripped from the bill before it was passed 161–0 by the Georgia House of Representatives were references to businesses like florists, bakers, photographers and others being allowed to refuse services to gay “marriages” because of religious belief.
As an aside, one might ask where is the “freedom” part of religious freedom for such professionals if they are not allowed to act on sincerely held religious beliefs in the public square without undue interference by government?
Safeguards and protections
But back to this issue.
So careful were the crafters of HB 757 that an amendment was added stipulating the proposed law could not allow discrimination already prohibited by federal law. In other words, HB 757 was supposed to put into state law the same safeguards for religious freedom and protections against discrimination that were already established in federal law.
Some observers condemned pastors and others who supported the bill, saying ministers don’t need new laws protecting them because they already have federal protection. That is not entirely true. Yes constitutional protections are strong. But in City of Boeme v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal statutory safeguards provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) apply only to the federal government. That means RFRA does not protect against state or local actions which could burden a pastor or church’s free exercise of religion.
Perhaps that is why 21 states have opted to adopt state laws based on the federal RFRA model to ensure that state governments do not attempt to burden religious liberty in ways already forbidden to the federal government.
HB 757 was the same kind of bill. And, according to reports, Gov. Deal said he did not oppose the bill in its final form when passed.
Still he vetoed the bill. Many believe his actions were based on threats from business interests that opposed the bill such as Coca-Cola, headquartered in Atlanta. Coke, NFL, Disney Studios and others insinuated they would withdraw business from Georgia if Gov. Deal signed the bill into law.
Gov. Deal was correct when he observed there are no laws requiring a pastor to perform a same-sex “marriage.” A study by the Family Research Council concluded, “Pastors solemnizing civil marriages are not in immediate danger of being forced to perform same-sex ‘marriages.’”
The study added, “There is no significant risk that pastors and churches can be compelled by a court to solemnize, host or perform a same-sex ‘marriage’ ceremony.”
Concerning employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that churches and religious organizations have the right to hire and fire ministers as they wish. This right has been defined as extending down to teachers in schools who teach nonreligious subjects because they represent the teaching authority of the Church.
Before same-sex “marriage” became a national issue court cases had already begun defining the limits of religious property exemption. Frequently property put out for public use is covered by anti-discrimination laws. Churches remain free to set their own use policies for property that is primarily for the use of members and the organization itself.
Freedom of speech, freedom of association, free exercise of religion, the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception Doctrine (both related to the First Amendment) all provide strong protections for pastors and churches. Additionally, RFRA specifies that religious freedoms cannot be burdened by the federal government without a compelling interest and then only by the least restrictive means.
If these established federal standards are the principles embedded in HB 757, then why are Coca-Cola, NFL, Disney and others opposed? Are they opposed to federal standards protecting religious liberty being incorporated into state laws?
Threats to businesses
Are these businesses opposed to religious freedom?
Do they want to force pastors to have to perform same-sex “marriages” despite their religious beliefs against such a practice?
Do they want to force a church to open its doors to practices which the church considers against its core religious convictions?
Do Coca-Cola, NFL, Disney and the others want to force a religious organization to accept leadership which mocks the sincerely held religious beliefs of the group?
Do these businesses want to run roughshod over religious liberty through state laws and local ordinances?
The threats of these businesses against the state of Georgia if HB 757 was signed into law raise questions about their commitment to one of the basic freedoms on which this nation was founded — religious freedom.
Right now it seems Coca-Cola and others are willing to trample this basic human right underfoot with little concern to its implications.
Baptist historian Bill Leonard recently pointed out that religious freedom has never come easy in the United States. The majority and the powerful most always try to control the minority with the weapons of privilege, he said, and there is no greater weapon of privilege than economic blackmail.
But Baptists have fought and died for religious freedom, not for themselves alone but for all. Today this nation is a better place because we cherish religious freedom.
Coca-Cola and the other businesses would do well to carefully consider the implications of their threats before joining efforts that downgrade religious freedom from an inalienable right to something subject to the whims of the majority and the powerful.
Share with others: