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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sadly, this is exactly what her Repub constituents want. As a lawmaker, she is doing her job based on that, and her interpretation of the constitution
 
adamsappel said:
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?
Click to expand...

See my edit. Also, neither Hobby Lobby nor Hobby Lobby discriminate against women.

Pelydr said:
It's Metaphoreus. Champion of the GOP.
Click to expand...

At least you spelled my name right.
 
Metaphoreus said:
See my edit. Also, neither Hobby Lobby nor Hobby Lobby discriminate against women.



At least you spelled my name right.
Click to expand...

To your edit, the RFRA is not this act. The RFRA is more specific about its definitions:

http://law.justia.com/codes/texas/2005/cp/005.00.000110.00.html

§ 110.011. CIVIL RIGHTS. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), this chapter does not establish or eliminate a
defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or
state civil rights law.
(b) This chapter is fully applicable to claims regarding the
employment, education, or volunteering of those who perform duties,
such as spreading or teaching faith, performing devotional
services, or internal governance, for a religious organization.
For the purposes of this subsection, an organization is a religious
organization if:
(1) the organization's primary purpose and function
are religious, it is a religious school organized primarily for
religious and educational purposes, or it is a religious charity
organized primarily for religious and charitable purposes; and
(2) it does not engage in activities that would
disqualify it from tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3),
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as it existed on August 30, 1999.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, § 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.
Click to expand...

While what is being proposed in Joint Resolution 10 is far broader:

14 (b)AAGovernment may not burden an individual’s or religious
15 organization’sfreedomofreligionorrighttoactorrefusetoact
16 in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief unless
17 the government proves that the burden is in furtherance of a
18 compellinggovernmentalinterestandistheleastrestrictivemeans
19 of furthering that interest. For purposes of this subsection, the
20 term "burden" includes indirect burdens such as withholding
21 benefits,assessingpenalties,anddenyingaccesstofacilitiesor
22 programs.
Click to expand...

(sorry about the copy and paste, the full text is here):

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SJ00010I.pdf

To the point where comparing them as an example of how it could be applied is errant. Its broadness it what is so concerning to people here. What does it mean as a right to act or refuse to act in a certain way? Does this mean when gay marriage is finally legalized in Texas that magistrates can deny gay couples the right to marry due to their religious belief? Does this apply to wedding vendors who could deny their location to gay couples based on their personal religious belief, even if they're not a religious organization?

What is the point of this legislation? Is it actually to protect religious discrimination?

Just because gay people aren't mentioned at all in the amendment does not mean that this amendment isn't targeted at them.
 
ivysaur12 said:
To your edit, the RFRA is not this act. The RFRA is more specific about its definitions:

http://law.justia.com/codes/texas/2005/cp/005.00.000110.00.html

While what is being proposed in Joint Resolution 10 is far broader:

(sorry about the copy and paste, the full text is here):

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SJ00010I.pdf

To the point where comparing them as an example of how it could be applied is errant. Its broadness it what is so concerning to people here. What does it mean as a right to act or refuse to act in a certain way? Does this mean when gay marriage is finally legalized in Texas that magistrates can deny gay couples the right to marry due to their religious belief? Does this apply to wedding vendors who could deny their location to gay couples based on their personal religious belief, even if they're not a religious organization?

What is the point of this legislation? Is it actually to protect religious discrimination?

Just because gay people aren't mentioned at all in the amendment does not mean that this amendment isn't targeted at them.
Click to expand...

Obviously the TRFRA is not the amendment being considered; the TRFRA is already law, whereas the amendment being considered is... well, it's being considered. But they are similar enough that cases interpreting the TRFRA (not to mention the federal RFRA) would likely inform the interpretation of the amendment if it were enacted.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, the amendment adds the following 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...

Here's the operative language from the TRFRA:

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code s. 110.003 said:
(a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.​
Click to expand...

"Free exercise of religion," according to CPRC 110.001(a), "means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief."

With two significant exceptions, the amendment and CPRC 110.003 appear to say the same thing, but in different ways. The exceptions are that the CPRC speaks in terms of "substantial" burdens on acts or refusals to act that are "substantially motivated" by sincere religious belief, whereas the amendment omits the "substantial" requirement in both cases. As I say, these are significant differences, but I don't think this omission, alone, can justify the ThinkProgress spin.

You are quite right to point out that CPRC 110.011 specifies that the TRFRA "does not establish or eliminate a defense to a civil action or criminal prosecution under a federal or state civil rights law," while the proposed amendment has no such disclaimer. That's another important difference between the two, though it should be noted that the omission of such a disclaimer would simply place Texas law in the same indeterminate posture in which the federal government and other state governments, whose own versions of the RFRA do not include such a disclaimer, find themselves.

Ultimately, however, I'm not in here to defend a claim that the proposed amendment is a good idea. What I would like to see is some critical thinking about what so partisan a source as ThinkProgress has to say about the dastardly doings of their political opponents, rather than leaping straight to outrage following blind acceptance of their spin. If you think the amendment would permit discrimination against gays, you need to make a case that that's so. Based on the fact-intensive nature of inquiries under similar laws, that's going to be one hell of a tall order if you have no actual precedent to point to. (ETA: Reframing RFRA-type laws as "anti-gay" laws is the same sort of rhetorical device as Republicans employ when referring to the estate tax as a "death tax," and represents the shameful rejection by some progressives of the historically strong progressive support of religious liberty.)

adamsappel said:
Lawyers gonna lawyer, I guess.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you upset that I pointed you to cases in response to your request for cases?
 
Metaphoreus said:
Ultimately, however, I'm not in here to defend a claim that the proposed amendment is a good idea. What I would like to see is some critical thinking about what so partisan a source as ThinkProgress has to say about the dastardly doings of their political opponents, rather than leaping straight to outrage following blind acceptance of their spin. If you think the amendment would permit discrimination against gays, you need to make a case that that's so. Based on the fact-intensive nature of inquiries under similar laws, that's going to be one hell of a tall order if you have no actual precedent to point to.
Click to expand...

The omission of "substantial" and the political climate in which this amendment is being considered in are both causes for alarm that point to the animus of JR10 that TP has asserted.
 
ivysaur12 said:
The omission of "substantial" and the political climate in which this amendment is being considered in are both causes for alarm that point to the animus of JR10 that TP has asserted.
Click to expand...

Why enact a law targeting gays when you're not even sure your law targets gays? This is just liberal scaremongering. Stop buying it.
 
Metaphoreus said:
Why enact a law targeting gays when you're not even sure your law targets gays? This is just liberal scaremongering. Stop buying it.
Click to expand...

Why don't voter ID laws mention poorer Democratic voters when those are the people that those laws blatantly target.

Maybe it's just liberal scaremongering tho.
 
It's comforting to know that religion is slowly but surely dying worldwide and will continue to do so as my generation gets older. It will take many many more years, but it is comforting. Comforting to know that in the future people won't use religion as an excuse for hate. And they'll have to actually come out and say, oh no I'm a homophobe.

Metaphoreus said:
Well, yeah. But we're going way off topic at this point.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that your whole point?
 
Metaphoreus said:
Well, yeah. But we're going way off topic at this point.
Click to expand...

So let me be clear: The only way to ever prove that something is discriminatory towards another group, I need to make super duper extra clear in the legislation that I draft?

Was a poll tax discriminatory? Or a literary test for voting? Those laws didn't specifically mention any group and were applied to all persons attempting to vote.
 
ivysaur12 said:
So let me be clear: The only way to ever prove that something is discriminatory towards another group, I need to make super duper extra clear in the legislation that I draft?

Was a poll tax discriminatory? Or a literary test for voting? Those laws didn't specifically mention any group and were applied to all persons attempting to vote.
Click to expand...

In response, let me be clear: to prove discrimination, you need to prove discrimination, not merely assert it as a rhetorical tool, hoping your readers are copartisan and won't call you out on it.

EDIT:

Dragon said:
Wasn't that your whole point?
Click to expand...

No, why would you think so?
 
Metaphoreus said:
In response, let me be clear: to prove discrimination, you need to prove discrimination, not merely assert it as a rhetorical tool, hoping your readers are copartisan and won't call you out on it.
Click to expand...

You'd also hope that readers would be able to understand political context and subtextual motivations, but apparently that's also difficult.
 
What an asshole. Someone should just tell her to just go on Xbox Live on a Saturday night to live out her gay bashing fantasies.
 
Metaphoreus said:
See my edit. Also, neither Hobby Lobby nor Hobby Lobby discriminate against women.



At least you spelled my name right.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was wrong to fashion you as a republican. Let me guess, libertarianism is your thing! An even more racist version of republicans!
 
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...

Wow...

Matter of fact, wow to this entire fucking post. This might be the dumbest thing I've read today by far to include the OP.
 
I wish there was a way to make things better without forcing people to do business with those they dislike.

Honestly though, I don't even really get why any reasonable business owner would want to arbitrarily limit their customers. If someone refused to sell me a wedding cake, they'd be the one losing out on the sale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Israel launches pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear sites. Top commanders dead .
0
175
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