State Representative Roger Bruce & Religious Freedom Bill SB129

Roger Bruce his been in meetings of the sub-committee of the Judiciary Committee for since Tuesday, March 24. This is the committee that is debating the future of the highly controversial Religious Freedom Bill SB129. He will be voting on this bill in the week to come.

While in sub-committee, debates have been going back and forth between proponents of the bill and opponents of the bill. Proponents of say that the existing first amendment and the current federal RFRA laws (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in place are not enough to protect freedom of religious exercise. Opponents of the bill propose that the language in the bill suggest legal discrimination. The proponents are comprised of mostly church organizations while opponents consist of LGBT advocates and business affiliates. Topics of discussion around the bill varied from different cases where religious exercise was burdened to the actual spirit of the bill and that entailed legal discrimination. Representative Bruce asked for practical applications of the bill and if these examples are an infringement on the already adapted ideals of separation of church and state. Former Rep Ed Lindsey answers “no.” When asked if this bill would allow businesses to deny services to customers who’ve adopted a lifestyle that is inconsistent to their own, Senator McKoon responds with a “no” and furthers states that “In the state of Illinois, they have had this bill since 1998 and the Federal government has had it since 1993. What you have described has never happened under the RFRA.”

Representative Bruce’s position is clear, “The state should not be involved in state sponsored discrimination, and this bill would allow for that to happen. In addition, this bill erodes the concept of the separation of church and state. This is what I think this bill will do.”

The bill passed out of the special sub-committee on Wednesday and was debated Thursday in the full Judiciary Committee headed by Chairman Wendell Willard. After a much-heated debate on perception vs. reality, and religious freedom vs. civil rights, an amendment was proposed and passed by an 8-9 vote. This amendment states the following: “’Compelling governmental interest is included but is not limited to protecting the welfare of a child from abuse or neglect as provided by state law and protecting persons against discrimination on any ground prohibited by federal, state, or local law.”

In response to the proposed amendment to include a statute that protects people from discrimination, Senator McKoon states “it creates an exception that will ultimately swallow the rule . . . the adoption of the amendment negates the purpose of the bill.” This amendment in the eyes of the author and the proponents proved to gut the bill, in their opinion, and they motioned to table it.

Representative Bruce was prepared to offer a second amendment that proposed to make businesses who did not want to serve or accommodate another person based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity shall post a notice on their places of businesses and or websites for public knowledge.

The bill being tabled does not mean that it is dead but is a great step in the right direction in protecting people of Georgia against discrimination. For more information regarding the progress of this bill please visit the website at www.rogerbruce.net.