>From what I have heard, the sponsors of the Georgia Bill are concerned
about public employees who want to preach and proselytize, sometimes while
acting in their public role (e.g., public high school football coach with
his players; deputy sheriff to jail inmates). If that is the major concern
(an
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 a
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 entrep
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 E
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
