A bill known as the “’First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) recently passed the
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.”