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

Status
Not open for further replies.
LumpOfCole said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be great to see.
 
Angelus Errare said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
 
Sub_Level said:
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.
Click to expand...

Should the scale be adjusted? It goes from like -1.1 to 0.5. The middle should be like -0.3, around Raleigh/San Jose/Sacramento.
 
GaimeGuy said:
Should the scale be adjusted? It goes from like -1.1 to 0.5. The middle should be like -0.3, around Raleigh/San Jose/Sacramento.
Click to expand...

The scale isn't specifically for cities. It's just that large cities tend to be more left, so that's how the chart ends up balanced.

Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

Replace "gay" in the above with "black", "Chinese", or "Jewish" and consider if that changes how you look at it at all.
 
Angelus Errare said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether it's a choice or not is completely irrelevant. If I don't want to make rainbow covered cookies, no one should be able to force me to.

I've said it before, but denying a commission is very different from denying service to someone.

If the bakery doesn't want to (or can't) make your gay wedding themed cake, but offers to sell you one they have in stock instead there should be no grounds to sue that business for discrimination.
 
Anoregon said:
I almost want to see laws like this pass, just for the shitstorm when anyone of a non-christian religion uses the law against them.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

The thing is that the law requires a sincerely held religious belief to allow action/inaction. However, a lot of the hypotheticals are based on made up religions and beliefs which would not hold scrutiny. So it would defacto favor large religions with established doctrines.

In my work I have had to ask for proof of "sincerely held religious belief" from people asking for exemptions from regulations and more often than not they could not produce anything aside from their own statement. To clarify, these were fringe "one man" or small sect "Christian" groups that did not have an established belief system other than whatever suited their particular goal at that point in time.

I would be curious how larger issues would be looked at. Who would be the authority? A local leader, say bishop/imam, or a larger one like the Pope?
 
TuckingFypo said:
You can fire someone in 29 of the states just for being gay? That can't be right, can it? :(
Click to expand...

This is the reaction it seems the majority of people have. I think polling has shown a sizable majority of Americans assume this isn't allowed anywhere in the U.S. (Have to run, so I don't have time to hunt down references), although that was several years ago and things may have changed with more attention on some of this in recent years. But it is indeed the truth.
 
crazygambit said:
Whether it's a choice or not is completely irrelevant. If I don't want to make rainbow covered cookies, no one should be able to force me to.

I've said it before, but denying a commission is very different from denying service to someone.

If the bakery doesn't want to (or can't) make your gay wedding themed cake, but offers to sell you one they have in stock instead there should be no grounds to sue that business for discrimination.
Click to expand...
There likely wouldn't be, because you wouldn't be denying them service. It's not the cake that is the issue, it's the customer.
 
Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

completely dismissed.
holy shit this is the dumbest thing i read, like i'm not even sorry to tell you.
this is the dumbest shit i've ever read on OT and Gaming side combined.
 
Stuff like this just plays to their base. They probably know that it will just be repealed anyway or not even pass
 
I dont have a problem with this provided the person can prove that theyre devoutly religious , follow all the rules of their religion to the letter and that their religion explicitly forbids them from providing a service to homosexuals.
 
Ri'Orius said:
.
Click to expand...

bStk5Xo.gif


I'm going to take this as satire, for my sanity sake.
 
Just waiting for someone to come in and say that because the law doesn't explicitly mention gays that it's not actually discriminating everyone let alone gays.
 
masud said:
I dont have a problem with this provided the person can prove that theyre devoutly religious , follow all the rules of their religion to the letter and that their religion explicitly forbids them from providing a service to homosexuals.
Click to expand...
no one does that
nice try
 
Sub_Level said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah Houston is pretty liberal, though there are still little pockets of conservative nut jobs.
 
Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

... what?
 
We've just landed a spacecraft onto a FUCKING COMET after years of careful planning and precise execution!!

WHY CAN'T YOU FUCKS JUST LEAVE THE GAYS THE FUCK ALONE AND SHOVE YOUR PETTY HATRED UP YOUR ASSES!!
 
The GOP isn't really going to shut up about this until they're sure courting the paranoid fundamentalist culture war demographic isn't going to do them any more good.

I mean, the Texas GOP's own documents declared war on gay people, for all practical intents. Their official position is that those who make the homosexual "lifestyle choice" should not be in any way legitimized by society. They must be ostracized and reminded that they are living an illegitimate existence which is not in any way tolerated by right-thinking people.
 
Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

Do you sometimes wonder if you're over thinking something?
 
You wouldn't know it from the ThinkProgress article, but the proposed amendment actually doesn't mention discrimination against gays.

Here is the language that would be added to the Texas Constitution:

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's Freedom of Religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
Click to expand...

To the dude concerned about murder and terrorism, see the clause beginning with "unless the government." Whether the proposed amendment would even protect someone discriminating against gays in violation of law isn't clear. The government could argue that it has a "compelling governmental interest" in prohibiting such discrimination, and very well might win that argument.

Y'all should try reading for once, before getting so bent out of shape. Goodness.
 
Kai Dracon said:
The GOP isn't really going to shut up about this until they're sure courting the paranoid fundamentalist culture war demographic isn't going to do them any more good.

I mean, the Texas GOP's own documents declared war on gay people, for all practical intents. Their official position is that those who make the homosexual "lifestyle choice" should not be in any way legitimized by society. They must be ostracized and reminded that they are living an illegitimate existence which is not in any way tolerated by right-thinking people.
Click to expand...

My favorite are the folks who claim to be against this nonsense but go along with it anyway.

"I love tax cuts and responsible budgeting
(nevermind what previous GOP administrations have done to the budget)
, and I respect my gay friends and family, but damn that little bit of money would be nice. Hmm. What to do, what to do.. Tax cuts.. human dignity.. tax cuts.. dignity.. ahh, fuck it - MONEEEEYYY!"
 
Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

Everyone is going to ask themselves where they were when the dumbest comment on NeoGAF was made, and generations will come to speak of it for centuries to come.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Just waiting for someone to come in and say that because the law doesn't explicitly mention gays that it's not actually discriminating everyone let alone gays.
Click to expand...
Metaphoreus said:
You wouldn't know it from the ThinkProgress article, but the proposed amendment actually doesn't mention discrimination against gays.

Here is the language that would be added to the Texas Constitution:



To the dude concerned about murder and terrorism, see the clause beginning with "unless the government." Whether the proposed amendment would even protect someone discriminating against gays in violation of law isn't clear. The government could argue that it has a "compelling governmental interest" in prohibiting such discrimination, and very well might win that argument.

Y'all should try reading for once, before getting so bent out of shape. Goodness.
Click to expand...
there you go
 
adamsappel said:
Can you give me some examples of how the law will be applied?
Click to expand...

See generally Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Other than that, do your own research.

ivysaur12 said:
You are fundamentally incorrect about this legislation and its intent, and to suggest otherwise is pedantic and best and malicious at worst.

Please explain the intent of this legislation and how it would be applied.
Click to expand...

See above. Texas has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, codified in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 110. Cases applying the Texas RFRA seem like a good start for building the case you two feel entitled to assume is true.

EDIT: My responses above may have been a bit too dismissive. Give me a second and I'll give you both some examples of how the TRFRA has been applied in the past, which indicates how the new amendment might be applied in the future.

Barr v. City of Sinton is a Texas Supreme Court decision in which the Court overturned a Sinton ordinance which had made Barr's ministry to recently released prisoners illegal, holding that the ordinance violated the TRFRA.

In Sanchez v. Saghian, a widow obtained an injunction against an autopsy of her deceased husband, claiming that such an autopsy would substantially burden her and her husband's sincere religious beliefs as Orthodox Jews. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, though the widow had provided evidence concerning the beliefs of Orthodox Jews, she did not provide evidence that such were her beliefs.

In A.H. v. Northside Independent School District, a federal district court applying the TRFRA refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a school's requirement that a student wear an ID badge.

In A.A. v. Needville Independent School District, the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the TRFRA, affirmed a district court's permanent injunction overturning a school district's policy that prohibited A.A., a Native American student, from wearing his hair as his religious beliefs dictated.

In Merced v. Kasson, the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying the TRFRA, reversed a district court's summary judgment against a Santeria priest who claimed a local ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifices violated his rights under the TRFRA, holding, instead, that the ordinance substantially burdened his religious exercise, that there was no compelling interest in doing so, and that, if there were a compelling interest, the outright prohibition was not the least restrictive means of furthering it.

I hope that helps.
 
shadowsdarknes said:
What is it with their obsession of gays?

Why aren't they trying to ban shellfish and tattoo stores for everyone instead?
Click to expand...

Because they are not interested in being gay so they can proudly tout their great godliness.

However, they like Red Lobster and tattoos, so they'd rather ignore those parts of the Bible.


But seriously . . . the gay-bashing stuff is pathological. Jesus said NOTHING about gays but he bashed divorce like crazy. But you don't see them trying to ban divorce do you?
 
Metaphoreus said:
See generally Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Other than that, do your own research.



See above. Texas has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, codified in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 110. Cases applying the Texas RFRA seem like a good start for building the case you two feel entitled to assume is true.
Click to expand...

Well, the reason that Campbell is even introducing this bill is because:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/12/Texas-lawmaker-proposes-license-to-discriminate-against-LGBT/2391415823920/

Campbell said her proposed amendment would put religious freedom in "a more formidable position" than the RFRA by elevating it to the state constitution.
Click to expand...

and the RFRA and this proposed amendment differ because:

The RFRA also includes an exception for enforcement of civil rights, which Joint Resolution 10 does not.
Click to expand...

which is why it's extremely concerning to LGBT persons on how this amendment would be applied.
 
PJV3 said:
Do you sometimes wonder if you're over thinking something?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm quite certain I over think many things. But looking at some of the posts in this thread, I take solace in the opinion that it's better to err on the side of too much thought than too little.
 
Metaphoreus said:
See generally Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Other than that, do your own research.

See above. Texas has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Act, codified in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 110. Cases applying the Texas RFRA seem like a good start for building the case you two feel entitled to assume is true.

EDIT: The above comments may have been a bit too dismissive. Give me a second and I'll give you both some examples of how the TRFRA has been applied in the past, which indicates how the new amendment might be applied in the future.
Click to expand...

The reactions of many people in the thread is, "Oh, no, this is going to be used to discriminate against gays!" You come along, lawyer-y as always, saying, "It doesn't even mention gays." I was hoping you'd give some example of it being applied in at least a benign way, but the best you could do was it could be used instead to discriminate against women?
 
Ri'Orius said:
Right, so why should a homophobe be obligated to work for a gay couple?

Now, part of the issue could be about whether the gayness is directly related to the product. Perhaps it's okay to compel people to work for people they hate as long as the work isn't directly hate-related. The freelance web designer can refuse to work on Sarah Palin's campaign site, but can't refuse to work on her personal quilting website. And a cake shop can't refuse to make a birthday cake for a gay person, but can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, or for a gay pride event.

Also, with respect to the choice aspect, things aren't quite as black and white as we'd all like. Sure, if scientists identify a "gay gene", DNA testing potential employees for it would be bad. But at the same time, there's evidence that political leanings are biologically driven as well. So refusing to work for someone with a "GOP gene" would be a no-no, but someone who chooses to act on these impulses and join up?

I mean, to be honest, I'd argue that being a homophobe isn't a choice either. If you can't control whom you love, how can you control whom you hate? But if I were, say, putting together an indie game studio, and noticed one of my applicants was homophobic, I wouldn't want to work with them. Should this discrimination be legal?
Click to expand...

this should be a thread on its own
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Israel launches pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear sites. Top commanders dead .
0
176
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