If the life of the mother is threatened.

Strongly Agree

Disagree

Disagree

In the case of small businesses, I would give them the highest level of protection to pick and choose whom they serve. For a mega-conglomorate that benefits from government largess (big tech for instance), I could see implementing tighter regulations regarding who and how they serve their customers.

I can't really thiink of any circumstances...perhaps if the church wasn't really a church, but a front for some illegal operation. It would have to be something really extreme to trump our constitutional rights of assembly and religious freedom.

I'm running for state office. I have not opinion on this issue at this time.

Choose not to answer

Outside the scope of my office.

I believe in a perfect world we would have mostly private healthcare, buoyed by a government safety net for the most vulnerable. With the current state of our insurance-pharmaceutical-health provider complex, it would be severely disruptive to go straight there. We do have a moral obligation to protect the most vulnerable in our society, but part of that is putting in the best health care system possible. Free markets are one of the most powerful tools we have to fix broken systems. Wherever possible, we should use them to resolve the health care conundrum we have gotten ourselves into.

Government, never; small employer, in most circumstances; large employer, only in the most extreme circumstances; school, only if students have other school choices or can opt out.

The tax code should be simplified, and the overalll tax burden should be reduced. Income tax is a horribly inefficient way for the government to gather revenue, and it disincentivizes productivity. In an ideal world, the income tax would be replaced with other revenue gathering methods.

I would reduce spending in almost every area. I believe in freedom, free markets, free enterprise--getting the government out of the way and letting the private sector resolve most issues.

Strongly Disagree

There is no evidence that education beyond the high school level produces a "public good" (by the economic definition of the term). There are many people who find well-paying, rewarding careers in a variety of fields that do not require a college degree. Why should they subsidize education for others?

Choose not to answer

Outside the scope of my state-level office, but in general I favor merit based immigration.

Strongly Agree

Private sector innovation and competition will increase educational outcomes and will strengthen public sector education.

Neutral

Qualified immunity as stated in this question should remain, but qualified immunity is often taken much more broadly as blanket protection for every action an officer takes whether consistent with departmental policy or not. Some form of qualified immunity must remain to protect officials carrying out their reasonable duty, but qualified immunity should be limited to the way it is described in this question.

Strongly Disagree

No. Although I am not against sending money to mental health and community programs, we should NOT defund the police.

The current license and registration system in place in Georgia works well here. I would uphold existing gun laws, but not add any new ones.

Strongly Disagree

That makes no sense. Should I be able to sue Ford if someone driving an Explorer hits me? Should I be able to sue Craftsman if someone hits me with a hammer? I think everyone would say no to those. You cannot sue the manufacturer of a product for misuse by a customer.

To provide "public goods" (using the economic definition of the term) and to control for externalities...and to get out of the way on everything else.

Conservative

Did not answer

No.

My top priorities will revolve around enhancing freedom, especially in the areas of education and the economy.

Agree

Strongly Disagree

Neutral

Strongly Disagree

My Judeo-Christian faith is an integral part of my life and my world view. I grew up in a Bible church, came to Christ at an early age, and now attend and serve in church weekly. In Galations 5, Paul says, "it is for freedom that Christ has set us free." While I believe in living out my Christian faith in a fallen world, I do not believe in legislating Christianity or its moral code. When we allow the world to live as the world, we allow Christ-followers to truly be the "salt and light" to their neighbors and friends.

Disagree

It is imperative that citizens in a Democracy have a high degree of confidence in the out come of elections. Photo IDs help ensure that people voting are who they say they are and are legally allowed to vote.

None. I support the new voting laws just passed by the state of Georgia. I think they are adequate to ensure future election integrity and prevent major abuse to the system.

No. I believe that Democratic politicians are trying to divide us along racial (and other) lines in order to maintain power. We have had a steady march of progress in race relations since the 1960s, but Democrats want us to think that things are still just as bad as they were in Jim Crow days. Is there more progress to be made? Certainly. But to consider racism a domestic threat is to pretend that the work Martin Luther King, Jr and his generation of reformers was in vain. Like MLK, I believe that "light will drive out darkness".

Strongly Disagree

Freedom and free markets are the most powerful tool we have in stimulating the environment and creating jobs. But there are times when the free market does not produce the equilibrium amount of a good or service. It is the right role of the government to step in in these areas. For example, the free market would not produce the optimal amount of police force, so it is right for the government to provide a police force. Likewise, the free market often produces an unhealthy amount of pollution and other environmental harm. It is the right role of government to step in and correct this "externality", but that correction most be done proportionately to the harm and with the least disruption possible to the free market.

Agree