Southern Baptist Governors

[Sandy]

I'm surprised that Stephen hasn't been around to comment on the scandal that appears to be developing around his favorite, "family values" Governor Bentley in Alabama. Or on the veto of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, much to the consternation of the religious right in particular.

Both governors are Southern Baptists.

[William Thornton]

Deal is member of Gainesville FBC, CBF affiliated I believe. I don't know if they identify at all with the SBC or GBC any more.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

https://baptistnews.com/2016/03/29/mohl ... erty-bill/

The SBC GBMB invested heavily in this bill and are apopleptic that the CBF gov vetoed it. My GBMB brethren practically pronounced that the apocalypse was on us now that there's not going to be a law that says no one can be required to attend a wedding. Our lobbying efforts were rather inept on this, although I think media coverage was rather inept (biased) as well.

Delta, Coca Cola, Home Depot, and the NFL deep-sixes this bill.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Yep. Changed the name. Same outfit. Same problems. New name.

[Sandy]

After reading the text of the proposed legislation, it's hard to see why there is a need for it. I understand that the hysteria and misinformation that has been spread about the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling might prompt some conversations about the possibilities, especially among those who see demons under every leaf, and need an emphasis on perceived persecution to rally the troops, but it seems that state legislators would have a more level-headed perspective, and a better understanding of both constitutionally protected rights and personal vs. business choices. But that's probably too high of an expectation.

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

It makes me wonder if some of these strange bills are being proposed now because they are less likely to be declared unconstitutional while GOP controlled senate refuses to do its job confirming a Supreme Court nominee.

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

It's complicated. I may write a piece for my SBC brethren and put it here. The general idea is to protect non-clergy, non-church individuals and entities from being forced to hire or keep homosexuals. You know, the wedding photog and baker, etc. To get there the GOP dominated GA legislature, a pretty sorry bunch exceeded only by the Democrats in the legislature, cobbled together a bunch of stuff floating around into frankenbill. The thing was simplified into two positions: discrimination or religious liberty.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

I agree with your assessment Sandy. And often the idea of the right refuse to serve was on the basis of not wanting to serve people of color or people who look different Than the management lights.

It reminds me of the rude behavior of a couple in Iowa who refused to tip a waitress at a place in Des Moines called "Zombie Burgers" because she had widely colored hair. Well gee, if you are at a hipster joint called "Zombie Burgers" what the heck do you expect your waitress to look like? They just proved themselves to be judgmental and cheap.

[Tim Bonney]

While we are talking florists, etc. if I were gay I'd not honestly want to use a florist who thought I was evil. But if you live in a small enough place it can be a real hardship if they are they only florist in the area. I've lived in towns small enough where that would be true.

I think it is honestly pretty hard for most straight WASPs to understand what it is like to be seriously discriminated against. Particularly if we are male, straight and WASP it is hard to imagine such discrimination. But LGBTQ friends of mine as well as friends of mine who are in some other minority, be that race or religion, often do experience discrimination and some form of profiling.

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]