MPAA Is ‘Confident’ Georgia Governor Won’t Sign ‘Discriminatory’ Religious Liberty Bill

mpaa Motion Picture Association of America
Courtesy of mpaa

An MPAA official said on Monday that officials at the organization are “confident” that Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal won’t sign what they called a “discriminatory” religious liberty bill that was passed by state lawmakers last week.

The legislation has spurred opposition from business groups in the state, who fear it will trigger the kind of backlash that forced Indiana to reconsider its religious liberty legislation that passed last summer.

“We are confident that Governor Deal will not allow a discriminatory bill to become law in Georgia,” said Vans Stevenson, senior vice president of state government affairs.

The state has gone through a production boom, as its 30% credit is one of the most generous incentives in the country.

But on Saturday, Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin urged studios and production companies to refuse to commit to any further productions in Georgia if Deal does not veto the legislation.

Griffin called the bill “an affront to all the values Hollywood prides itself on.”

Georgia legislators passed the bill last week. It protects religious officials from having to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and would allow faith-based organizations to deny services or employment to those who violate their “sincerely held religious belief.”

Several weeks ago, Deal warned that he would reject any bill that he determined was legalized discrimination. But opponents say that the compromise reached this week will still permit discrimination against gays and lesbians. Deal has not said whether he will sign the revised legislation.

A number of corporations including Apple and Salesforce have come out against the bill.

In addition to drawing a number of TV shows like “Vampire Diaries” and “The Walking Dead,” Georgia has become a production hub for mega-budget tentpole pictures. Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” is shooting at Pinewood Studios outside Atlanta, and “Captain America: Civil War” shot there last summer.

By some estimates the state has moved into the No. 3 position for production, behind California and New York. According to the state’s Dept. of Economic Development, $1.7 billion was spent on production in fiscal 2015. In 2007, it had been $132.5 million.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 16

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. john says:

    Hollywood has been stuffing their money into Deals pockets so he’s likely bought like most politicians.

  2. marshalart says:

    The MPAA is certainly free to express their opinions, regardless of how unreasonable it is. Allowing Christians to live their faith, as the 1st Amendment does, should not be a reason to discriminate against states that do so. While Christians, generally, simply object to participating in the celebration of that which they consider immoral (homosexual “wedding” celebrations), the homosexual, and homosexual enablers such as the MPAA, discriminate against anyone who expresses any hint of opposition to the LGBT agenda. In other words, they are guilty of the very form of discrimination of which they accuse Christians, other people of faith as well as states and municipalities who propose or enact RFRA laws. These people (and such laws) have no trouble distinguishing between discrimination against a person versus discrimination against what a person does, or in this case, requests of people of faith. Homosexuals and their enablers do not possess the character and honesty to even acknowledge the distinction, or the willingness to care. All that matters is that everyone, regardless of their own personal opinions, mus be on board in every imaginable way with the LGBT cause, as if there is no legitimate reason to oppose them. This is a lie, and further indicts the character of the LGBT community and those who enable them, such as the MPAA.

  3. Brian says:

    The only bigots I see are the leftists, gays, and anyone who disagrees with them. Fascist a-holes!

    • That’s because you are too stupid to know what a bigot is. Sorry you’re so ignorant, not surprised just sorry for you.

      • marshalart says:

        The following is the Merriam-Webster definition of a bigot:

        “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”

        To focus on the first part would mean that Verna is also a bigot. To focus on the second part makes Verna an absolute bigot as she treats people like Brian with hatred and intolerance by calling him stupid and ignorant for his accurate assessment of the attitudes of leftists and gays. Indeed, Verna proves his point quite well.

        Christians who do not wish to involve themselves with celebrations of homosexual unions are being forced to believe as homosexuals do when they are made to comply with the requests of homosexuals to provide their personal property or talents for the purpose. Their participation is an expression of tolerance, acceptance and/or endorsement of that which they find objectionable. It is an assault on their free speech rights, their right to live out their faith in all they do, and their right to associate with whomever they choose as they choose. It is an attitude of “you will agree with me whether you like it or not”. By failing to agree, the Christian is then castigated by the homosexual as hateful, when obviously the true hatred is clearly coming from the homosexual. Few Christians refuse general service to homosexuals. They don’t freak out if a homosexual shops at their stores. But that doesn’t mean that anything the homosexual demands is worthy of complicity by the Christian. Our civil laws discriminate against behaviors. Christians merely wish the same option to decide which behaviors they will honor or endorse.

        Clearly, homosexuals assume the right to decide how to respond to the beliefs and behaviors of Christians. They are discriminating against those beliefs and behaviors, indeed, in a manner far more unreasonable than do Christians against the specific requests of homosexuals. Yes. The Christian opposes homosexuality, as it is an immoral behavior. But the homosexual opposes, ironically, the morality of opposing immoral behavior.

  4. doc says:

    its nice how if you you do or say anything against the beliefs of gays you are a bigot and shouldnt be tolerated,but if your or a christian,you have no rights,our beliefs are trampled on by bigotted people everyday and nothing is done about,if you dont want to make a cake for someone or do a wedding for someone because you dont belief the same ,why should you,just go somewhere else that is ok with it and have it done ,whats the big deal,yall were so upset about christians being intolerant and shoving your beliefs down our throats,then stop doing the same thing to us and everybody will be happy

    • Dhamilton says:

      I have a lesbian daughter that got married last year. The lgbt community doesn’t ask a church they don’t attend to marry them for they know they will be turned down. If you only knew how the LGBT is treated you would fully understand. See they dont really visit businesses that isn’t gay friendly. Would you take your car to someone the hates you? Fearing what might happen. Would you got to a church that thinks of you as a abomination? Knowing they will never marry you.
      Where does the discrimination stop. Next it could be the blacks oh thats right we alread did that. How about the poor thats right we are doing that now. My one question is this who’s next? Me, you, men, women, our children, the color of our skin, our intelligent’s, our right’s to hunt and fish. Everyone can said that they are against something. The non faith people can discriminate against the religious groups. Hate never stops!!! Are you truely better then a gay person? Has traditional married people proven they never get divorced? Never commite adultery? Sex out of wedlock? Sin is a sin. Its all in the good book. So becareful in what you preach. If you can truely stand on the high road, and have never commited a sin in any way please cast the first stone. Until then step off the soap box

    • What “beliefs of gays”? That they deserve to be treated equally? LOL I personally disagree with that, by the way. I think they should be treated much better than ignorant bigots like you.

  5. Dale Crowe says:

    I’ve read the Bill and thought it was unnecessary and redundant legislation thrown out as red meat to the Georgia religious conservative/Fundie folks and mainly harmless as it merely reiterated things already protected under law like not forcing Pastors or Priests to solemnize marriages against their beliefs or religious schools to hire gays or Muslims. (No mention of divorced people, hmmm)
    Mean-spirited, exclusionary and par for the course in the Deep South but nothing egregiously un-Constitutional until I hit this gem hidden at the bottom of the Bill:


    (a) Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.

    (b) Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:

    (1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

    (2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

    Yep, they had to include the “No Gay Cakes” bit in there and that nullifies the whole Bill as far as I (and American law) am concerned. With that one section they went beyond reiterating protection for religious institutions to shielding individuals (and remember, businesses and corporations are now individuals thanks to them) from being prosecuted for discrimination.

    Yet another blatant attempt to place discrimination based on “firmly held religious belief” above the law.

    • marshalart says:


      In what way is government interest furthered by forcing a merchant to provide his private property or talents for the celebration of behaviors the merchant finds objectionable? What compelling government interest is put at risk by a homosexual having to find another merchant to provide those products or talents? Unlike the homosexual, there still exists in this country those who believe changing hearts and minds is best accomplished by example, instead of judicial fiat.

      You say the last bit nullifies the whole bill. I say it clarifies what religious freedom is all about. In that, it is absolutely aligned with 1st Amendment protections, the US Constitution being the primary American law. The freedom to choose for one’s self which behaviors one will endorse by the sale or rental of one’s private property or talents, is no different than the discrimination of the state toward various behaviors outlawed by civil law.

      How sad that while insisting on tolerance, you and other LGBT activists and enablers cannot bring yourselves to tolerate the different opinions and beliefs of others, such that you’ll force them by law to accept YOUR beliefs over theirs.

    • I find it interesting that you jmention “business and corporations are now individuals thanks to them” as though businesses and corporations should not be allowed their own voice, at the bottom of an article about a business voicing its opinion .

      • Businesses and corporations aren’t individuals. Are you not bright enough to know that? Oh, I guess not. A company CAN’T have an opinion, it isn’t a person. People who are in the company or own the company can, but not a company. You seem to have difficulty telling the difference between a human and an inanimate object. GOD you people are slow. It amazes me that regressives ever even make it to adulthood.

    • Yes, they think they are being really sneaky.

  6. The bill does not force anyone to discriminate against anyone. Obviously the opposition opposes freedom of religion.

  7. eddie willers says:

    The tyranny of the minority marches on.

More Biz News from Variety