Disney & Marvel Studios Are Threatening To Boycott Georgia Over Anti-Gay ‘Religious Liberty’ Bill

Marvel Cap Civil WarIf you’ve been paying attention in recent times, you might have noticed that many projects have been heading to Georgia for production due to the state offering a very nice tax incentive. This list includes The Walking Dead as well as many of Marvel Studios projects, such as Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2  which is currently filming in the state. Well, it looks like Disney & Marvel Studios might be looking for a new base of operations as the two are threatening to leave the state due to a controversial religious liberty bill that may be passed.

The bill that is at the core of this issue is intended to shield opponents of the Supreme Court’s landmark same-sex marriage ruling and would protect religious officials from having to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The bill also would allow faith-based organizations to deny services of employment to those who violate their “sincerely held religious belief.” The bill is currently on the way to Governor Nathan Deal. Walt Disney Co. & Marvel Studios issued the following statement on the matter.

Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.

Bravo to Disney & Marvel for this. This definitely isn’t something that Steve Rogers would stand for. Here’s hoping other studios join in. Sound off with your thoughts in the comments section below.

Source: Variety

Shawn Madden

Shawn Madden

I write stuff. Sometimes.

  • breakerbaker

    I live in Georgia, and I applaud any company’s threat to halt doing business in the state over this. However, I wonder how Disney and Marvel would feel if a major theater house, say Regal or AMC, had brought the Hobby Lobby suit to the Supreme Court. Would they stop doing business with Regal or AMC?

    • Jake Bucsko

      The theater chains need the movie studios much more than the other way around.

  • Shawn Michael

    Why is it that this agenda has to be shoved down everyone’s throats. Is this not the land of freedom? Are we not allowed to say NO to something we don’t believe in? Is there not 1000 other churches folks can get married in? I just dont get it..like civil unions have been a thing for years, but everyone wants to jump on the train of equality all the sudden.The only people that dont seem to have rights are the christian people and I mean real Christians not the westboro baptist church that the whole world likes to compare every christian too. SMH

    • Brian Holland

      Christian people have had their rights protected for years. Gay people have not. Preach love. Don’t fall for the hate!

      • Zach Cooper

        Isn’t it hate to force Christian people to serve those they think are sinners? You’re ignoring their will for the sake of someone else’s. The path to equality doesn’t come from reversing values, it comes from incorporating them. Personally I think that any business owner has the right to refuse to serve someone. If they have an ethical issue that stems from their religion, then it’s unjust to force them to serve someone. Especially when not serving them can result in a financially crippling lawsuit. Currently Christians who don’t want to serve gays risk a lot already, this would take away their right to their religion almost. There’s no honor in that.

        • kebernet

          The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ, Later-day Saints thinks, and I quote, “the black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.”

          Should they get to have a whites-only restaurant?

          If you open a business to the public, you have to serve all the public It has been the law for years. If you don’t like those terms, you are free to pursue other career options. But allowing professed faith to serve as a fig-leaf to change the rules and let businesses discriminate is a radical change too the law.

          • Zach Cooper

            The law states that any business owner has the right to refuse patronage. As businesses are private property. It is illegal to discriminate based on race, the law says nothing of sexual preference. Because sexual preference is often irrelevant. In the case of weddings, which are literally a Christian celebration, the sexuality of a customer is pertinent in the current social climate. If a Christian doesn’t feel comfortable committing what they believe to be a blasphemous act, or aiding someone else in doing such, then they shouldn’t have to. I’m not religious but I do believe in the right to express your religion as you see fit on your own private property. That includes refusing patronage to those who you feel would impede on your religious rights. A solution to this problem would be getting religious figures to support gay marriage, so that people don’t see it as a problem, but imposing new laws on them isn’t an honorable or ethical way of solving the problem. That doesn’t integrate anyone into society more, it creates a divide.

          • Thanostic

            Really – weddings are a christian celebration? So Jews don’t get married? Hindus don’t get married? Muslims? Atheists? What a small world you live in.

          • Zach Cooper

            The ceremonies are different. Typically the word “wedding” is used in reference to a romantic joining of two Christians, the other versions with the exception of Atheism have their own different names. The end result is largely the same, a joined pair of people living together having sworn stuff, but the ceremony, formalities observed, and actual name of it are different.

        • Thanostic

          Obviously it is not; don’t be ignorant. Closed-minded, bigoted people are obviously allowed to think whatever they want; they are not, however, allowed to foist those archaic views upon others or discriminate based on their prejudices. The difference here is, and always has been, that these “christians” cross a line when they try to impose their thoughts/views/way of life onto others. That should never be allowed.

        • Brian Holland

          Of course it’s not hate to force someone to serve gay people – it’s human rights. The two are completely different ideals. Personally I wouldn’t want to be served by someone who didn’t want to serve me because of their beliefs. The problem is that so many Christians feel gay people are out to get them. It’s simply not the case. Christians have problems with gay people. The reverse can be true when said Christians are oppressing their fellow man. Gay people tend to be more tolerant, me included. Some of my best friends are Christians…. good Christians.

          • Zach Cooper

            They’re different ideals but they intersect. I’m not saying that the interpersonal interaction is charged by hate (not trying to at least), what I’m trying to say is that an autocratic response like a law requiring them to serve people ignores their views and beliefs, which is wrong. They own the business they operate, it’s their own human rights that get impeded when the government tells them who they can or can’t serve. Which is just as ignorant a response as the initial refusal.

    • Carl

      There are gay christians out there who don’t want to be discriminated against. If you are pro discrimination then you are wrong and un-American.

    • You say “train of equality” as if that would be a bad thing. Shouldn’t that be something that we all aspire to? Check yourself.

  • kebernet

    That is a *REALLY BAD* summary of the law, and really not at all what the issue is.

    The issue is around (to quote):

    184 Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the

    185 burden results from a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or resolution of general applicability,

    186 except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section.

    Which is about providing exceptions to “Public Accommodation” laws. That is, allowing private institutions open to the public (read: restaurant, catering company, hotel, etc) who don’t want to service gay people or gay weddings an exemption. Of course, it also opens the door to, say, a member of the Fundamentalist LDS church member to refuse to serve black people. Or a Muslim to refuse to serve a Jew.

    Nobody is really up in arms about forcing churches or clergy to do anything. The question, though, is about allowing secular companies to discriminate around services they offer to the general public based on their claimed religious beliefs.

    • Grimnir13

      I thought “faith-based organizations” meant places whose main purpose or function is based in religion. (e.g. Churches, Synagogues, Mosques etc)
      Would any business run by a religious group be considered faith-based for the purpose of this law?

      • kebernet

        That isn’t all that is in the bill. And that is the point.

        Look, there are real issues with people like, say, Catholic Charities who get government money not allowing a gay couple to adopt. That is outrageous, but not the real kicker here. And yes, any business run by a religious group is faith based according to this law.

        But these are STILL not the issue.

        The issue is that it let’s ANY BUSINESS, period, ignore public accommodation laws if the proprietor declares it is in violation of his/her faith. Does the owner of the local Howard Johnson not like the queers? He can kick you out. Does the catering company not want to provide rubber chicken and baked salmon for you wedding? They can refuse. Take Leviticus REALLY seriously? Ban menstruating women from you car wash.

        The “faith based organization” is the FIRST section of the bill, not the entirety of it. The second part of it is the “You don’t have to rent tuxes to dudes getting married!” and “Kim Davis is just OK with us.” part of the bill — though strangely the bill specifically limits employees who can refuse to do their jobs based on religious belief to government employees. Private employers are specifically excluded. The government can’t force you to open your business on Saturday or Sunday (in the bill, which is going to be a problem for rural pharmacies), but you employer CAN force you to work on Saturday or Sunday… as long as it isn’t the government.

        The whole thing is just a disaster.

    • Louisecbrown1

      “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

      two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi1678➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsTime/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::!oi1678…….

  • Carl

    Good on you Marvel and AMC. Hit em where it hurts.

  • Jose Figueroa

    Thank you Marvel and Disney!