Monday, March 28, 2016

Claudia Anthony "Georgia governor to veto 'religious liberty' bill"

Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia announced that he will veto the House Bill 757, which would have given faith-based organizations in Georgia the ability to deny services and jobs to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The supporters of the bill say that it is meant to protect religious freedom, while people against it say that it is "anti-LGBT." The governor said he did not find the bill necessary, and that his choice was not based on pressure from the faith-based community, or from businesses in Georgia, who said they could lose jobs if this bill was signed. State Senator Mike Crane called for a special session to override the veto, and he said that the veto was an example of how corporations can buy influence. Supporters of the bill pointed out that the bill has "clear anti-discriminatory language" and that opponents of the bill just haven't taken the time to read it. Members of the LGBT community are praising the governor's decision to veto the bill.

I think it was a good decision for the Governor Deal to veto the law, because any discriminatory laws should not be passed, no matter how anti-discrimanitory the supporters believe it is. This is similar to the court cases of Engel v. Vitale and School District of Abington Township v. Shempp which ruled that prayers and Bible reading could not be required in public schools, because the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.

Click here to read the article

3 comments:

  1. Discrimination due to something that does not inhibit working abilities is disgusting and unnecessary. If more gets done with collboration with LBGTQ+ community, than why should the less helpful option be chosen because they are a certain sexuality?
    Shara Jeyarajah

    ReplyDelete
  2. People who support the bill say that it isn't discriminatory are very wrong. No matter how nicely you portray something, discrimination is still there. (Alejandra Hernandez 6th period)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't understand how this veto could be an example of corporate bought influence. This is just one man's opinion on how his state should be run. -Mattie Whisler 9th period Flex

    ReplyDelete