Chip is absolutely correct. The letter recommends that the bill be amended in two ways, and the change apparently being entertained by the sponsor only addresses the first proposed amendment. I should have been more careful in my earlier message not to conflate those issues, for unless the second amendment is also made, I suspect most of those currently opposing the bill will continue to oppose it.
That said, I'm still quite surprised -- especially in the post-*Hobby Lobby* environment -- by the sponsor's stated willingness to exclude corporate entities from coverage. Am I alone in that surprise? Either way, this development does make me wonder if I have been wrong in thinking that there is no political appetite in the current climate for bipartisan state RFRAs targeted at the type of noncontroversial exemptions discussed during the debates over the original RFRA. - Jim On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > Thanks, Jim. I did not know that Bill co-sponsor Teasley had said that. > I hope the Bill is so changed. > But that will not solve the entire problem. Individuals, especially > public employees like marriage license clerks, will still rely on the Bill > (if enacted) to discriminate. Likewise entrepreneurs, whose businesses are > not held in the corporate form. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:01 PM, James Oleske <jole...@lclark.edu> wrote: > > Thanks for the links, Chip. Interestingly, the sponsor of the legislation > told a reporter a couple of days ago that he was planning to change the > bill to address concerns like those laid out in your letter. Here's the > relevant passage from the news report: > > *** > > Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory University who also is the senior > fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, said there is an > easy fix. > > The bill could be amended to define a person as only a "natural person or > religious organization," meaning only specific organizations, churches, > temples and the like. > > Teasley plans to do just that. He told PolitiFact Georgia that he had > heard of the claim about corporations being able to claim the exemption and > put the question to legislative counsel. > > Like the outside scholars, the attorney for the Legislature agreed the > measure would extend to businesses. > > Teasley said he plans to add the term "natural person" to the bill in a > bid to achieve his original objective: Stop government overreach on an > individual’s right to religious conscience. He said he plans that change in > the next week. > > "This should not be a controversial bill," Teasley said. "This kind of > thing used to bring Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals > together, and I hope it can again." > > > http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2015/jan/21/jeff-graham/are-corporations-able-claim-religious-exemptions-u/ > > *** > > Question for those on the list who are following developments in Georgia > more closely -- does this change really look like it might actually > happen? If so, and if the bill passes, it would seem to be a major > development in the debate over state RFRAs (and a development that I, quite > frankly, would not have anticipated in the current political environment). > > - Jim > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> wrote: > >> The Georgia General Assembly is considering RFRA-type legislation. The >> proposed Bill is here: >> http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/29. >> ​ A group of legal scholars, including myself and others who post on this >> list, have written a letter to Georgia political leaders, urging >> significant revisions in the Bill to prevent it from becoming a license to >> engage in invidious discrimination. A copy of our letter is available >> here: >> >> http://www.georgiaunites.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Georgia-Religious-Freedom-Letter.pdf >> . >> >> -- >> >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
