Texas considering law similar to Indiana

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Larry T Spider, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-l...ligious-freedom-law-being-considered-13452212

    Do y'all think this is necessary or a good idea? If the goal is to continue to drive business growth from states such as New York and California, could this hamper that? Seems like a ploy to solidify the anti-gay conservative base more than actually solving a problem. After all this is a state that has banned gay marriage about 14 times.
     
  2. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Why would we elect Dan Patrick as Lt. Governor if we didn't want to implement some wacky right-wing legislation?
     
  3. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    What would Jesus do?
     
  4. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Jesus had some pretty conservative views on righteousness, but seemed more interested in achieving them through Godly relationships than civil authority.

    I expect if He were on earth in human form, He'd spent most of his energy advocating for the poor, healing the sick and calling on us to love our brothers and examine our own righteousness, just like last time He was here. Maybe since no one recorded anything He said about homosexuality 2000 years ago, He might want to have a news conference clarifying his stance. Obviously, it's a bigger issue among His followers these days than many of the timeless issues He preached about.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2015
  5. chango

    chango 2,500+ Posts

    I think any business owner should be encouraged to discriminate against anyone they choose. Please put out huge signs - I want to know up front so I know where not to spend my money.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    Supporters say the measure would prevent, for example, a baker from being punished for declining to bake a cake for a same sex wedding or commitment ceremony, if the baker says his 'basic religious beliefs' don't include support for gay rights.

    Their “basic religious beliefs” should advocate love above all else. This is not complicated. In fact it could not be simpler. You are commanded to love.

    Supporters say the laws have nothing whatsoever to do with interactions between individuals, but only guarantees that a person's sincere religious beliefs will not be trampled on when cities are enforcing NDO-style ordinances.

    If it’s not about interactions between individuals then bake the damn cake for the gay couple and sincerely wish them well. If their lifestyle is displeasing to God then this is between them and God. Has “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” been secretly repealed?
     
  7. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    I am with chango 100%. If you own a business, you should be able to do business with whom you choose. And if you are myopic enough to choose based on silly things like skin color or sexual orientation, then let the chips fall where they may. But tell us up front so we know with whom we are spending our money.
     
  8. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    This was the law in 1940. If nothing had changed, market forces would have perpetuated discriminatory practices for decades beyond what actually happened. It would probably be hard for a black person to find lunch in many southern towns even today.

    I can see an argument that gay rights are different from racial rights. But the idea that market forces should regulate discrimination in all cases is, imho, silly.
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    On its face, I don't have a problem with it. If you read the actual bill (or more precisely, joint resolution, because it would propose a constitutional amendment), it's not particularly harsh. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SJ00010I.htm

    Essentially, it prohibits the government from burdening 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 belief unless the government proves that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. In other words, the government can burden your religious practice, but it can't do it without a very strong reason and only to the least degree possible. It's essentially applying a strict scrutiny standard to religious burdens, which is what the First Amendment should be applying in the first place and what federal law has required without controversy for 20+ years.

    Two important differences from the Indiana law, which gives me more concern. First, the Indiana law defines "person" broadly to include pretty much any business enterprise. The Texas version only appears to include actual people and religious organizations. In other words, it doesn't presume to permit pieces of paper to have religious beliefs. As some will recall, if we're talking about corporations asserting religious beliefs to get out of obeying laws, I'm unsympathetic. If we're talking about individuals or true religious organizations like churches doing that, I think their case is a lot stronger. Second, the Indiana law expressly recognizes the religious freedom rationale as a defense to civil litigation regardless of whether a governmental entity is a party. That means it's anticipating that it will be used as a defense in discrimination lawsuits. The Texas version leaves that issue alone.

    A few things do give me apprehension though. First, this is a solution looking for a problem. I haven't seen any willingness on the part of Texas courts to recognize civil actions that infringe on anyone's religious beliefs, and the Texas Supreme Court would take a piss all over a lawsuit that went after someone trying to get out of baking a cake for a gay wedding. (Besides, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in Texas in pretty much every context.) Second, if this passes and goes to the ballot, we're going to have more ****-flinging like we did when the most recent "screw the gays" initiative was on the ballot. That's bad for the GOP. The last thing it needs is a bunch of grandstanding old guys with bad comb-overs saying stupid things in public.
     
  10. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    My biggest problem with this is that it is a solution looking for a problem, as you put it. I think this is just another way to try to stick it to the gays. However, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing for current Texas GOP politicians, at least in the short term. If you are worried about winning your next primary, there is nothing like doubling down on a wedge issue. In Texas GOP primaries, there are some issues you just can't be far enough to the right on and this is one of them. Hell, in the last Lt Gov debate, all four candidates were trampling each other to the right on teaching creationism in school.

    In a larger sense, I think you are right. Old white rich guys on TV bitching about the gays taking their freedom doesn't play well. I think the GOP is in a precarious place with their presidential nomination process. A lot of Midwestern and southern states with high numbers of evangelicals that show up in droves are going to pick the nominee. That same person is going to have to convince independents in swing states that he's not really anti-gay. Tough position to be in. My guess is that they will handle it like abortion. Play it up in the primary then try to avoid all talk of it in the general.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    The problem is that we elect politicians that legislate to appease their base rather than for the common good. There is no reason for this law in Texas or any other state.

    If this were designed to stop bakers from making wedding cakes for gay couples, the baker only needs to have a set menu with the terms of "no substitutions." However, it is not designed for that - it is designed to juice their anti gay supporters.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    I think both sides are "juicing" supporters. I'm sympathetic to gays who want to make their way in this world. I think religious freedom is a foundation value. When I read accounts about what this law will accomplish/destroy I get MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over).
     
  13. IvanDiabloHorn

    IvanDiabloHorn 1,000+ Posts

    This is about forced acceptance of sexual deviancy, nothing more. That's why the bake/ flower shop attacks and the ensuing legislation are taking place. As for discrimination, give me a break, money rules the market place and some baker/florist will step in and make the money on homosexual celebrations.
    Most people tolerate homosexuality, they just don't accept it and don't want to codify marriage or discrimination for sexual deviants.
     
  14. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Yes, and the same goes for roads and buildings built by myopic public entities that require MBE and WBE quotas. Let's post signs on those structures so we can avoid them. The same goes for Universities. If a school is admitting a certain percentage of applicants based on skin color or sex, we should avoid them and their graduates. How should we handle the defense contractors paid by the DOD that are required to meet certain MBE, WBE and DBE goals? Can we send a letter to Congress stating that we do not want the protection of armaments built with discriminatory practices? All of these entities use our money and discriminate in some form or fashion. Let's get a tax refund since we don't support such discrimination.
     
  15. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    I think all the noise over Indiana's law is a tempest in a teapot. The Federal Gov. supposedly has a very similar law, as do 20 something states. No one has given a **** up until now. Why now?

    If these laws prevent little old florists from having to service gay marriage ceremonies against their will, that's a good thing. Why should the government, any government, force people to do things against their religious beliefs? I'm sure gay people can easily find florists glad to take their money.
     
  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Ivan, the problem is that this is a solution looking for a problem. Gays aren't a protected class in Texas or under federal law and have no recourse for discrimination in Texas. The baker/florist doesn't have to serve gays. So the law is trying to fix something that's not broken.
     
  17. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I think that the intent is why people care now. There is no there no real reason for the law other than to publicly crap on the gays.
     
  18. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    There are a lot of things that were once considered deviancy that are now considered normal. The most recent example is interracial marriage. Literally the same old arguments are being brought up again just with a different group of "deviants". Money ruled the market in the south 60 years ago and non-whites weren't allowed in a lot of businesses. I would prefer to stay away from that mentality. If you open your business to the public then guess what. You have to deal with the public.
     
  19. chango

    chango 2,500+ Posts

    Thankfully, you do not speak for "most people". Most people accept homosexuality, support gay marriage, and do not consider homosexuality to be sexually deviant behavior.
     
  20. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    Conservatives certainly don't want this to become about what the majority wants. Talk about a losing battle. If I was a younger GOP politician, I would choose my position very carefully. In 30 years people will talk about the ones that opposed gay marriage like we do now about old timers that supported segregation. That won't be completely fair to them, but I feel it will be the political reality.
     
  21. IvanDiabloHorn

    IvanDiabloHorn 1,000+ Posts

    I suggest we let Texas vote on the issue....oh, wait a minute ...we already have voted on the issue. "Most people" in Texas share my opinion and tolerate, not accept. Maybe "most people" was referring to somewhere other than Texas?
    Opening your business to the "public" has a whole lot of variations. Most business owners try to make money, like Apple selling to Muslim countries. Apple apparently does not like the state of Indiana, but Saudi Arabia is okay.
    The people of Indiana may vote their convictions and laws as they wish, it is their state.
    The market place will take care of the red herring bakeries and florists issues, someone will provide the service and take the money.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2015
  22. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    An excellent point was made here.

    Do you think Apple has the right to DISCRIMINATE against the state of Indiana? Do businesses have the right to discriminate (boycott) against people that take actions they do not like?

    This law says that certain businesses do not have to serve people that take certain actions they do not like (gay weddings are an action). Businesses can discriminate against people taking actions they do not like such as if someone comes into a business not wearing any clothes. Indiana took action that Apple did not like. Apple decided to discriminate against Indiana based on the action. Some people in Indiana think sexual deviant actions are wrong. Apple thinks discriminatory actions are wrong against those that take sexual deviant actions. The funny part is both sides obviously believe in discrimination against those that take actions they do not agree with and both do not apply their discrimination equally.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

  24. Spur 90

    Spur 90 25+ Posts

    Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake with Hitler on it?

    Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with Muhammed on it?

    Should a gay baker be forced to bake a cake that has an anti-gay message?
     
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Not really. Apple wants to discriminate with it's purchasing power which would hold up in any court. The state of Indiana wants to allow people to discriminate based on religious beliefs. If you can't see the difference then you too are on the wrong side of history.
     
  26. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    ^ Under this reasoning, yes.
     
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'd be OK if the law stopped that. The following passage is more accurate:

    "Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi customer? etc."

    These laws are essentially allowing institutional discrimination based on religious preferences. I suspect they wouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court but I'm not an legal scholar.
     
  28. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    which would hold up in court if the law passes. But the supreme court is not the end all be all on getting things right. See Dred Scott or Plessy. Many certainly disagree with the recent Heller decision on handgun ownership.

    This is no argument at all. In early 1930s Germany, a nazi could have told another german standing up for democracy or the jews that they were "on the wrong side of history."
     
  29. Htown77

    Htown77 5,000+ Posts

    There is a first amendment protection of religious preference.
     
  30. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'd be curious of the opinion of the multitude of lawyers on this BBS. Do you think these laws hold up in court given the 1st amendment? Is an evangelical christian baker's religious freedoms being trampled on by forcing them to sell the cake in their display case to a gay couple in the eyes of the Supreme Court?
     

Share This Page