Do You Really Know What HB 757 Says?

My View by Jim Yacavone

A giant controversy has erupted over The Free Exercise Protection Act (HB 757) recently passed by the Georgia legislature. The LGBT community is urging Governor Deal to veto the act, and a number of large organizations, including the NFL, have threatened consequences for the state if the bill is signed into law. Deal has until May 3 to sign or veto the bill.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation about what the bill says. I was told by one opponent that it would allow a baker to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. While there are bills in the legislature that may allow that, HB 757 is not one of them. 


The bill has five significant provisions. The first two are as follows:

• “All individuals who are ministers of the gospel or clerics or religious practitioners ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments according to the usages of the denomination shall be free to solemnize any marriage, perform any rite, or administer any sacrament or to decline to do the same, in their discretion, in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”

• “All individuals shall be free to attend or not attend, at their discretion, the solemnization of any marriage, performance of any rite, or administration of any sacrament in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion under the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”

Note that the bill says: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to afford any protection or relief to a public officer or employee who fails or refuses to perform his or her official duties" This addresses the Kim Davis situation in Kentucky.

The last three significant provisions of the bill address “faith based organizations.” The bill defines a faith based organization as “a church, a religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended."

The bill says:

• “No faith based organization shall be required to rent, lease, or otherwise grant permission for property to be used by another person for an event which is objectionable to such faith based organization.”

• “No faith based organization shall be required to provide social, educational, or charitable services that violate such faith based organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by its practice, expression, or clearly articulated tenet of faith; provided, however, that government may enforce the terms of a grant, contract, or other agreement voluntarily entered into by such faith based organization.”

• “Except as provided by the Constitution of this state or the United States or federal law, no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based organization's sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or clearly articulated tenet of faith.”

One concern over this part of the bill is whether a hospital or other public service provider can qualify as a faith based organization. If so, then the bill would allow such a public service provider to refuse service to someone based on his or her sexual orientation. Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to that question; however, I suspect that federal law would overrule state law if that were the case.

You have to make up your own mind whether HB 757 strikes the proper balance between the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment and LGBT rights. Before you can do that you have to understand what the bill says and not be swayed by fear-mongering from proponents and opponents of the bill.

That’s my view. What’s yours?