TX-Republican lawmaker wants to pass legislation to allow discrimination against gays

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Protein

Banned
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/...ium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article


Texas businesses would be allowed to fire LGBT employees and turn away LGBT customers under a new proposal issued Monday by state Sen. Donna Campbell (R).

Campbell’s proposal would strengthen existing protections in Texas for the “right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief,” a legal maneuver that critics have described as a “license to discriminate.” This year, many state legislatures have considered putting the religious rights of business owners over the civil rights of would-be customers. Similar proposals in Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona, and Oregon ultimately failed this year, while a number of other states have held that the law protects LGBT folks from discrimination even if that discrimination is based in scripture.

Mississippi signed a license to discriminate into law, and Kentucky lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto to put their own religious freedom law into effect. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers who are trying to extend non-discrimination protections to LGBT couples have so far been stymied.

These laws have come into vogue after numerous anti-LGBT small business owners have refused service to LGBT clients in Kentucky, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Iowa, Colorado, and other states in recent years. Many of these disputes involve bakeries and other vendors who refuse to contract for services at same-sex weddings, but some businesses have refused to print Pride t-shirts or put rainbow frosting on an order of cookies.

Conservative political forces have leaped to these companies’ aid, arguing that their religious convictions about sexuality trump everyone else’s civil rights against discrimination. Those calls grew louder after this summer’s Supreme Court decision that a retailer called Hobby Lobby did not have to provide health insurance that covers birth control due to the company’s religious views, a ruling that reversed decades of precedent whereby legal protections tied to religious faith were limited to actions that did not impede other people’s rights.

Sen. Campbell’s new proposal in Texas is her second bite at the license-to-discriminate apple. Her first, in 2013, didn’t go very well. Critics pointed out that by amending the state constitution as she proposes, lawmakers would empower Westboro Baptist Church protesters to attend military funerals rather than protesting them from afar. One commentator applauded Campbell’s intentions but warned that the way her proposal was written might some day allow a person to claim a sincere religious belief in the right to an abortion, effectively legalizing abortion in Texas.

Her new proposal is “nearly identical” to the 2013 version, according to the Lone Star Q, which also notes that Texas already has a statute on the books that “provides strong protections for religious freedom.” Campbell’s proposal removes a key adverb from the legislative language, which a lawmaker who helped pass the existing religious freedom law says would render the protections far too expansive.

While many conservatives are convinced that the religious liberty to discriminate against LGBT coworkers and clients is under attack, there are still 29 states where it is completely legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation. Workplace discrimination against transgendered people remains legal in 32 states. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed the Senate last year, but never had a chance of advancing in Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) House of Representatives.

Even before Republicans retook the Senate earlier this month, ENDA already lost significant support from progressive LGBT groups who feel that the laws carve-outs for religious employers are too broad. With ENDA politically dead for the time being, President Obama has used executive authority to provide workplace discrimination protections to federal workers and anyone employed by a business that contracts with the government, and has not provided religious carve-outs in those executive orders.
Click to expand...

Fuck my state's politicians. And fuck the Tea Party too.
 
I would say the best way to fight this is to try and poison pill the legislation to add the allowance of discrimination against blacks, hispanics, and Jews and let them try and defend one sort of discrimination while (at least politically) deriding another.
 
How can people defend this? How can somebody pretend that this is an attempt to protect religious rights and not blatent and disgusting discrimination.

Are people who are divorced, have sex before marriage, use contraception, disobey their parents, don't go to church, work on Sundays, etc..affected. Nope, the only sin that matters is gay sex apparently.
 
Notice it has "right to act" in the beginning, so if a group has a "sincere" belief in killing children as an offering to god, then I guess the law would let them.


"But murder is against the law!!!"



Yeah, and this bill alows you the "right to act or not act" depending on your religion.

It would basically allow terrorism too.


People are freaking idiots.
 
If the law passes, it would be great if Texas businesses collectively decided to excercise their right to no longer serve lawmakers.
 
As a person who now lives in Texas I promise everyone here if such a thing ever reached a ballot I would vote no as would every memeber of my family. What a horrible horrible idea, and what a horrible person for even thinking of it.
 
While many conservatives are convinced that the religious liberty to discriminate against LGBT coworkers and clients is under attack, there are still 29 states where it is completely legal to fire someone for their sexual orientation. Workplace discrimination against transgendered people remains legal in 32 states.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
BTW, say an insurance company goes christian, and this bill is passed. Could they reject over weight people from having insurance with them because of gluttony?
 
She's my rep, but I didn't vote for her. I recently muted her on my Tweetdeck list of local info since she sickens me. She is very much a parrot of Republican talking points.
 
Ziltoidia 9 said:
This is the bill if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SJ00010I.pdf#navpanes=0
Click to expand...

I've been recently getting into this law stuff, but is this all that a bill would require? Seems like it would require more than that.

Government may not burden an individual ’s or religious organization ’s freedom of religion or right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious...
Click to expand...

This seems rather vague. Does this just refer to religious institutions, or if the person who owns the company is religious?
 
That's some pretty messed up legislation. It puzzles me how someone could say "If someone is gay, I want to be able to fire them", wtf are they trying to go back to old times and try to fire colored people too?
 
Shy Fingers said:
I've been recently getting into this law stuff, but is this all that a bill would require? Seems like it would require more than that.



This seems rather vague. Does this just refer to religious institutions, or if the person who owns the company is religious?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it just means individuals and businesses. Basically its a one size fits all, and since "corporations are people my friend", it would allow companies to basically do what ever they wanted, as long as they come up with some wacky religion to be behind.
 
ricochetguro said:
Oh screw off, plenty of amazing cities in Texas. Austin isn't the only liberal place surrounded by the horrible conservative hordes.
Click to expand...

20140809_gdc450.png
Click to expand...

Arlington on the right.
Forth Worth, Corpus Cristi, and San Antonio in the center.
El Paso, Houston, and Dallas on the left.
Austin on the far left.

So yeah the blue presence is there.
 
Ziltoidia 9 said:
Pretty sure it just means individuals and businesses. Basically its a one size fits all, and since "corporations are people my friend", it would allow companies to basically do what ever they wanted, as long as they come up with some wacky religion to be behind.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just trying to be hopeful.

Religious places, like churches, I have no problem with denying to perform the religious act of marriage to people who they don't agree with. A joe schmo t-shirt printing or bakery refusing to sell a product based on their religious beliefs is just unacceptable.
 
that is goddamn embarrassing, and i'm an FL resident

only silver lining i can see with that bullshit is having a (hopefully short) list of businesses to never, ever patronage as a result
 
Shy Fingers said:
Yeah, I was just trying to be hopeful.

Religious places, like churches, I have no problem with denying to perform the religious act of marriage to people who they don't agree with. A joe schmo t-shirt printing or bakery refusing to sell a product based on their religious beliefs is just unacceptable.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the case in which that scenario actually happening is really really low. I think its meant for something else, which I'd rather not find out what it is.

I mean really, even if they passed a bill that would allow a cake maker the freedom to not refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, not many instances of this would probably happen as most people would want the business. So its a moot point. Its definitely meant to evolve into something else down the line.
 
Goliath said:
How can people defend this? How can somebody pretend that this is an attempt to protect religious rights and not blatent and disgusting discrimination.

Are people who are divorced, have sex before marriage, use contraception, disobey their parents, don't go to church, work on Sundays, etc..affected. Nope, the only sin that matters is gay sex apparently.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone in the bolded is a protected class, so it's perfectly legal to discriminate against them. Just like employers can discriminate against people who use recreational drugs in their free time via drug tests, or discriminate against people with criminal records via background checks. Or like it's legal to discriminate against people who are smelly or ugly or have face tattoos or don't fit your corporate culture in any number of nebulous ways.

The principle is that, if you're the boss, you get to make the calls. Wanna fire a valuable employee for irrelevant reasons? Or turn away a customer offering to give you money? That's your prerogative. You, as the business owner, should have that freedom.

It's a complicated issue. There are some ways in which it should certainly be legal to be a jackass: if you hate gay people, you should be allowed to not invite them to your birthday party. There are some ways in which it shouldn't (eg death threats, lynch mobs). When it comes to businesses, things get murkier. Especially small, tight-nit businesses. Also, artistic businesses: should you really be legally compelled to make art for anyone who can afford your fees?

If you're a freelance web designer and Stormfront, or the GOP, or Sarah Palin herself, tries to hire you to update their website, should you be obligated to work for them?
 
Shy Fingers said:
I've been recently getting into this law stuff, but is this all that a bill would require? Seems like it would require more than that.

This seems rather vague. Does this just refer to religious institutions, or if the person who owns the company is religious?
Click to expand...

Some research into Texas law and case law would be needed to determine the most likely interpretation of that phrase, which I'm too lazy to do at the moment. As for if this is all the amendment would require: Well, assuming the entities covered by the text are the only ones that she thinks needs these "protections", then yes, it should be sufficient assuming the Texas courts don't determine sexual orientation (and gender identity, since the article mentions that) is a suspect class that requires strict scrutiny (I'm using federal standard of review terminology here. I don't know if Texas case law matches that), although it's not impossible that the Texas courts could decide otherwise.

Of course, if federal law is changed to add protections based on sexual orientation (or gender identity, although the EEOC has already made it clear that employment discrimination based on gender identity is forbidden under the grounds that it is sex discrimination) then this constitutional amendment will do nothing to protect individuals and organizations from federal lawsuits (Although it's an open question on how broadly the U.S. Supreme Court will let the federal RFRA get).

Also, to be clear, the proposed amendment is not specific to LGBT stuff, since singling out a group in that manner would be a bit too bold and possibly unconstitutional (Well, you can argue the amendment as written could be looked at in the same manner, but it's more likely to survive a challenge). In any case, this would apply to all topics. The only reason it likely wouldn't allow discrimination on bases such as sex, age, and disability is because federal law and regulation cover those (at least in some areas). Of course, it also would likely mean that any state resources available to general groups would also need to be provided to any group referring to itself as a religious groups (Tonight at the community center: The Boy Scouts. Tomorrow: Satanists).
 
Ri'Orius said:
If you're a freelance web designer and Stormfront, or the GOP, or Sarah Palin herself, tries to hire you to update their website, should you be obligated to work for them?
Click to expand...

You're not obligated under any law to work for them. And being a member of GOP or Stormfront isn't the same as being gay (such a horrible comparison). They joined GOP and Stormfront by choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Israel launches pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear sites. Top commanders dead .
0
177
Donald mac Ronald replied
Dead Internet Theory becoming more real every day: Meta to allow AI 'Users' on FB and Insta
28
2K
Wandering Leopard replied
  • Locked
Controversial opinion: NeoGAF should allow political discussions, because freedom of speech IS BACK!!
10
1K
Wheeljack539 replied
Free year of Movie Pass
17
1K
Husky replied
  • Locked
I just want to thank you, Americans
1
828
Digital-Aftertaste replied
Top Bottom