Video: Bookman and Wingfield on religious-liberty legislation

Here’s the second installment of the Bookman/Wingfield video series. Up this week: Religious liberty legislation.



If you’re interested, here’s more of what I’ve had to say on the topic:

A perfect example of how religious-liberty bill’s critics get it wrong

Why an anti-discrimination clause guts a bill not intended for discrimination

A path forward for religious liberty in Georgia

When all else fails, bring up the Klan

More available here.

Reader Comments 0

16 comments
Jefferson1776
Jefferson1776

Good job talking about something that's unneeded and a waste of time to talk about, but good talk.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

Excellent video clip.  Kyle, you and Jay have a real winner here.  I hope it will continue to get better and better because it's already excellent.  I hope that you both get syndicated nationally, like the duo Star Gazers at 2:30 a.m. with a short ongoing spot on public television.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

I like the addition of topic-related articles, Kyle.

This presents an opportunity. Pass SB 129 this year, to address what we might call “gay marriage-neutral” religious liberty. Lawmakers then could focus on crafting a more specific public-accommodations law that considers both the rights of gay couples and conscience protections for small-business proprietors.

One instance where separate (interests) but equal (protections) works for me.

During this debate, I took the liberty of researching images of wedding cakes online. Lawd ah mercy, there have been some sexually risque, not to mention violent portrayals put upon wedding cakes. Were I a baker with no religious convictions, I would refuse to construct such cakes although other confectioners would, almost certainly, be willing.

HeadleyLamar
HeadleyLamar

@FIGMO2 One instance where separate (interests) but equal (protections) works for me.


Separate but equal


Now where have i heard that before ?

HollyJones
HollyJones

The only way RFRA can pass in GA without a repeat of Indiana and Arkansas is if we first pass civil rights legislation that includes LGBT individuals.  That's how this law has survived in other states- they already had laws protecting those who could face any number of discriminatory acts, well beyond not having a cake at a wedding.   Yet, I hear no discussion of that. If McKoon and the supporters of RFRA really believe it isn't about gay rights, then they should be willing to make that clear in the bill or with other legislation. If they don't do that, then their  motives are obvious.  

LogicalDude
LogicalDude

I see no problem with a RFRA bill that contains non-discrimination language.  I do see a problem with a RFRA bill that is so overly broad that supporters who claim it allows them to discriminate will then discriminate thinking they are within legal bounds. 

It should be absolutely clear that RFRA will not allow discrimination.  If putting language into the bill then destroys the intent of the bill (as bill supporter/creator McKoon stated) , I question the intent of the bill in the first place. 


Aside: I don't like the black background, can you guys use a lighter tone back there?  :) 

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@LogicalDude The dark background probably would have looked better if I'd remembered not to wear a dark jacket yesterday ...

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Technical issue you should pass along--the right channel is nothing but background music, which would make listening rather difficult for some. Should be pretty easy to rectify next time around.

JackClemens
JackClemens

After the intro, the only audio is background music. Y'alls lips are moving, but you ain't saying nothing. Is this mic on?

Kyle_Wingfield
Kyle_Wingfield moderator

@JackClemens Are you using headphones? If so, see the comment above from Visual_Cortex and let me know if that fixes the problem.