Not only did Democrats and sane Republicans in the Georgia legislature figure out how to stop a bad law, they provided a template for pro-equality activists in other states to do the same.
Specifically, they found a way to not only stop the law, but at the same time prove that the law, a near-carbon copy of "religious freedom" laws Republicans are pushing in state legislatures all over America, was not intended to protect freedoms, but instead take them away.
Follow me past the pro-equality cupcake and I'll explain.
Republican legislators in Georgia, working from the same antigay template as their fellows in other states, used a sneaky parliamentary trick to pass their version of it, SB 129, in the Georgia Senate.
They didn't count on House Republican Bill Cowshert (R-Athens) and Cowshert's Democratic allies stepping in to make a few changes to their bill:
[Cowshert's] proposed amendment would come after “under compelling government interest” to now read “includes but is not limited to protecting the welfare of a child from abuse, or neglect as provided for by the laws of this state and protecting individuals against discrimination.”
If adopted, this amendment–by changing the definition of “compelling government interest” to specifically include protecting individuals from discrimination–seeks to preempt the courts from finding that such protection is not compelling enough of an interest to be allowed to burden someone’s religious freedoms.
The amendment was adopted, with suburban and college-town Republicans joining Democrats in backing its addition. As a result,
the bill's sponsors tabled it. It could be revived, but with the session set to wrap up by April 2, that looks to be highly unlikely, especially with mounting business pressure against it.
Now, here's what pro-equality forces should take from this:
If someone writes a bill calling for “religious liberty” and then tables that bill because of an amendment forbidding discrimination based on that liberty, the bill was meant to discriminate.
Which means that the stated purpose of the bill is a lie.
This is important, as courts of law frown on that sort of thing. The legal failures of the creationist movement in the US stem from their failed attempts to show that creationism isn't religious-based as opposed to science-based. Not even repackaging it as "intelligent design" has managed to work, as the Dover School District found.
So whenever there's a bill being pushed that claims to do one thing but is in fact designed to do another, try attaching amendments that would actually make the bill a) do what it's supposed to do, and/or b) NOT do what it's secretly been designed to do. If the sponsors' response to the amendments is to scream like vampires in daylight, you've not only made your point, you've gone a good way towards making your case.
Legal challenges to these newly-crafted bills have already been strengthened immensely, and so far only Indiana has actually passed one of them.