Logic Reveals the Anti-RFRA Hype

Governor Nathan Deal has pledged to veto his state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was recently passed.

He has pledged to do so, of course, out of the cries and concerns of LGBT activists allied with the business community. Supposedly, supporting religious liberty is now bad for business. Though there isn’t an iota of precedent, apparently supporting innocuous legislation like the one that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 is the equivalent of subjecting Georgians to a regime of state-sanctioned discrimination.

But that simply isn’t accurate on principle, and neither is it true in precedent. Simple logic shows why.

All the hype and fears that RFRA would supposedly accomplish or provoke are in fact already legal in most of Georgia, and no such discrimination has occurred in the past, is occurring in the present, nor is there indiction of it occurring in the future. What do I mean exactly? Because only certain cities in Georgia have non-discrimination ordinances protecting either or both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, it’s technically legal to enact the parade of horribles that activists fear would happen if RFRA was enacted. But guess what? There is no regime of discrimination happening pre-RFRA, and now that RFRA will be vetoed, the law of the land will continue to be the law of the land, which means Georgia is reverting back to how it has always been: A welcoming place where no such evidence of discrimination occurs—despite the fear-mongering by activists. That facts like these are ignored shows how much confusion and deliberate torpedoing goes on among the media, activists, and businesses. Facts don’t matter. All that matters is that the company line is accepted uncritically, and that First Amendment protections are given second class status.

About the author

Andrew T. Walker

View all posts