The story I looked at through 3 different news sources was on the recent bill in Georgia called the "Religious Liberty Bill". The proposed Georgia law ensures "that pastors could not be forced to perform same-sex marriages. It also would have allowed faith-based organizations to fire, to refuse to hire, or to refuse services to someone if doing so violates their faith," (CNN) It was very interesting to see this story covered by such different sources based on their different framing techniques which resulted in very different received messages from the readers. To begin with, the first source I looked at was on nbc.com their story was titled, "Mississippi Senate Passes Sweeping 'Religious Liberty' Bill. The content seen on NBC showed both perspectives on the controversy, but mainly focused on the political sides of things. It prominently mentions Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal's perspective on the Bill in comparison with other high political positions and their differing views on the bill, such as Mississippi's Senator John Horhn.
The second story I read about the 'Religious Liberty' Bill was an activist post from the website, http://scottlazarowitz.org/ written by Scott Lazarowitz titled, "Clarification is necessary on the 'Religious Liberty' Bill Controversy". His post was quite different from the first story I read in that it doesn't focus on the politics as much as it does on the social responsibility and the laws we already have in place, seen in our first amendment which he argues goes against this very bill. He made a very convincing and concise argument using clear details and points to illustrate his personal belief on the topic. This story was framed through the use of language in that he made sure to clarify it was his opinion but he backs up each of his points with very well thought out examples and explanations. In my opinion, the activist post was much more beneficial in learning about the entirety of the case, along with providing me multiple reasons as to why this bill should not be allowed to be implemented as a law in any way, shape or form.
The third story I read on the topic was from CNN titled, "Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal to veto 'religious liberty' bill. This story took a different spin on the situation through shedding light on the relationship between multiple large corporations who threatened to stop their products from being sold in Georgia, along with the NFL announcing the bill could cost Atlanta the opportunity to host the super bowl in relation to Gov. Deal's final decision to veto the bill. They provide multiple quotes from credible sources all in which agree in one way or another that the only reason Gov. Deal vetoed the bill wasn't because of his belief that the bill was wrong and discrimatory, but because of personal gain for his own political agenda and the threats from various fortune 500 companies to stop all investment in the state if the bill did pass.