Texas bill would shield religious rights from LGBTQ agenda
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R-Texas) is pressing forward with a new bill that would protect the religious rights of Texans when threatened by LGBTQ activists seeking privileges in the name of “civil rights,” inclusion, and so-called “nondiscrimination.”
If passed, the SB-17 legislation promoted by the Republican lieutenant governor as championing “life, liberty and conservative Texas values,” would allow Christians and Texans of other faiths to conduct their business and careers without compromising their religious beliefs.
“The bill would allow state license holders like lawyers, health care professionals and counselors to serve clients based on their religious beliefs without any adverse actions from licensing boards,” CBN News reported .
Prioritizing Texas values
Patrick declared the faith-safeguarding bill as one of his highest priorities in Texas’ 2019 Legislative Session, along with legislation that would apportion $800 million to border security, give teachers pay raises and add protections for taxpayers.
“The … bills are not only my priorities, they are also priorities of the majority of the Texas Senate and the conservative majority of Texas,” Patrick proclaimed in a statement on the government website . “They strengthen our support for life, liberty and Texas values, increase protections for taxpayers, and ensure that our democracy remains strong and our economy will continue to grow and create jobs.”
The proposed legislation protects Christians and those adhering to other faiths in a number of ways so that LGBTQ activists cannot undermine their ability to live out their faith in the workplace.
“[A] state agency that issues a license or otherwise regulates a business, occupation or profession may not adopt any rule, regulation or policy or impose a penalty that: (1) limits an applicant's ability to obtain, maintain or renew a license based on a sincerely held religious belief of the applicant; or (2) burdens an applicant's or a license holder's: (A) free exercise of religion, regardless of whether the burden is the result of a rule generally applicable to all applicants or license holders; (B) freedom of speech regarding a sincerely held religious belief; or (C) membership in any religious organization," the section on religious freedom for SB-17 states .
With the Republican Party having control of the Lone Star State’s House, Senate and governorship, conservatives statewide are confident that the pro-religious freedom bill will pass, yet leftist pro-LGBTQ groups are planning to fiercely oppose the legislation in the upcoming hearing, claiming that the bill is “discriminatory.”
“The panelists spoke about the religious exemption bills currently filed at the Texas capitol and how this legislation could harm countless Texans by allowing medical and mental health providers to discriminate based on a religious belief,” the Texas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) announced in its news briefing .
The leftist group pushing for LGBTQ privileges and abortion rights argues that the conservative bills backed by Patrick will deny certain services to women and those practicing homosexual behavior.
“These bills run counter to the NASW Code of Ethics for all professionals and will deny services to already marginalized persons in the LGBTQ community or women seeking access to reproductive care and services,” NAWS contended. “The advocates called upon all Texans to oppose this discriminatory legislation and explained why providers must speak out against attempts to circumvent the principles of their professions.”
Religious freedoms need protection now more than ever
With the Democratic Party now controlling the United States House of Representatives and unleashing new threats to religious freedom nationwide to promote the LGBTQ agenda, Texas’ proposed SB-17 comes at a very critical time.
“This month, Democrats introduced an updated version of their Equality Act that elevates protections for sexual orientation over protections for religious liberty,” CBN News’ Christian Ellis noted. “The bill could threaten ministries with legal consequences if they denied an LGBTQ individual from working for their institution.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Greg Baylor argues that privileges for a select group should not usurp the constitutional rights of Christians to live according to their faith in the workplace.
"Every American should be treated with dignity and respect, but our laws need to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights that we have," Baylor told CBN News. "Now – under the Equality Act – we will have a nationwide law, [as] we will see a proliferation of instances where Christians and others are being coerced to violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law."
Because the blue party only controls the House, it is doubtful that its pro-LGBTQ legislation will move forward and be enforced anytime soon.
“While Democrats are indicating the Equality Act is a big part of their agenda, they do not currently control the U.S. Senate, so the measure is not expected to pass – unless they gain control of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election,” Ellis pointed out.
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
“Religious freedoms need protection now more than ever
With the Democratic Party now controlling the United States House of Representatives and unleashing new threats to religious freedom nationwide to promote the LGBTQ agenda, Texas’ proposed SB-17 comes at a very critical time.
“This month, Democrats introduced an updated version of their Equality Act that elevates protections for sexual orientation over protections for religious liberty,” CBN News’ Christian Ellis noted. “The bill could threaten ministries with legal consequences if they denied an LGBTQ individual from working for their institution.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Greg Baylor argues that privileges for a select group should not usurp the constitutional rights of Christians to live according to their faith in the workplace.
"Every American should be treated with dignity and respect, but our laws need to protect the constitutionally guaranteed rights that we have," Baylor told CBN News. "Now – under the Equality Act – we will have a nationwide law, [as] we will see a proliferation of instances where Christians and others are being coerced to violate their beliefs in order to comply with such a law."”
Per the damn gop civil rights, inclusion and nondiscrimination are bad things...
It remains legal to discriminate against LGTBQ persons in 26 red states today.
Twenty six awesome states that protect the religious liberty of people to avoid being coerced by government to act in violation of their religious beliefs. Three cheers for all of them. And as a citizen of the state of Jefferson, I love that beautiful Lone Star Flag, the symbol of freedom.
This Texas law should be a national law for all America.
wow... so if a lesbian is in need of critical care - she can be refused that care due to the health care professionals " religious beliefs " ?
it's rather scary... a teacher could deny teaching your child in school... a real estate agent could refuse to serve you and help you buy a house... a doctor can refuse you medical care --- all because you happen to be a homosexual male or homosexual female .
The people that keep voting these assholes into office need a swift kick in the ass themselves.
i agree .... and this slippery slope they want to introduce can be used against them and give them a swift kick... very short sighted !! (of course you know they'll keep playing that "victim card" and keep whining regardless)
I've already skiied down this slippery slope.**
Muslims can and will call anyone not Muslim an infidel and refuse them critical care. That would include Christians and Jews, would it not?
**looks like Gordy beat me down the slope
Yep, that's exactly what some people want. Because they think their precious religion should trump all else, including peoples rights, health, benefits, ect.. So, does that mean we can also use that law to deny care or services to people if their religion differs from someone else's? After all, it might be against someone's religion to render some type of service to someone of a different religion.
it doesn't say that (i don't think) for this bill, this bill seems to be aimed at those "immoral" and "horrible" LGBT community members - but it does introduce quite a slippery slope. Soon we could have "Jewish only Banks" or "Christian only Laundromats" or something of that nature - legalized discrimination based upon people's "feelings" or "religious beliefs" !
Exactly.
That's what idiotic bills like this is!
I don't see why this would be necessary or desirable. Somebody like an attorney or a counselor already has discretion in the cases they accept, and I can't think of a reason why a healthcare professional would even want to choose to not take care of someone in need.
Taking care of a medical need isn’t the issue. Being coerced into providing optional care or counseling or not providing based on belief is the issue.
I don't see that happening either. Doctors have control over the procedures they perform. No one makes a doctor get into the business any particular optional procedure that I can think of. I guess the most controversial might be abortions, but who is in the abortion business who didn't choose to be? Sex changes? Same thing.
so having to do the job you voluntarily agreed to do is a problem now ? i didn't realize actually doing your job, that you voluntarily took, was a problem with some of the religious
Of course it is. Remember the Oregon and Colorado bakers? It seems religion has a way of finding problems with all sorts of things, including anything and/or everything.
very true - and let's not forget Kim Davis - apparently some of the religious don't understand that their "religious beliefs" have zero to do with their secular jobs they voluntarily agreed to do
I wish I could.
Or they just don't care.
And in Texas and about half of the rest of the states bakers, florists, photographers, stenographemes, caterers, etc. as well as counselors, doctors, pharmacists will not be coerced by government to violate their religious beliefs in the course of their professional endeavors.
Thanks for proving my point. And for showing how some people just want to use religion o be @ssholes!
so you advocate a situation where a homosexual person could not be receiving critical medical care due to the health professional's "religious beliefs" ?
There is no Christian religious belief that would allow for not providing a person life saving medical attention because of their orientation.
Anyone can use and twist religion or declare religious belief to justify anything, including not providing care.
They can, and do.
There is a difference between not having to do an abortion which is allowed and not providing a heart bypass operation which would not be allowed. This is all a rehash of what I said a couple days ago in 5.2
It looks like we made our point and some just couldn't handle it.
It would allow the refusal of routine care if that care is not "necessary to prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury".
A lesbian has strep throat? Street her. Strep isn't an imminent threat.
A gay man has the flu? No Tamiflu for him, if his pharmacist is a bigot. Most people get over the flu just fine.
A same-sex couple's child needs a pediatrician? Well, we've already seen that baby turned down, haven't we?
that's strictly your opinion and your interpretation of your religion which is completely irrelevant since -- it's not shared by every member of your religion. the exact situation i stated absolutely can happen so answer the question:
it requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Taking care of a medical need isn’t the issue. Being coerced into providing optional care or counseling or not providing based on belief is the issue.
Great, then we should be able to discriminate against Christian dominionists and refuse to provide them with healthcare if we want to. And make them sit at the back of the bus so they don't contaminate the rest of us with their hatred.
And these people claim to follow Jesus .... as the Bible tells us, he wouldn't even know these assholes in Texas who think there is anything Christian about persecution and discrimination.
Many of the nutters don't want healthcare from anyone.
Lol, when I was 4 decades younger my new boss introduced himself as a member of the Christian Science movement.
He drove a 61 ford with no heat or radio
and when he jumped off of a loading dock one day, he impaled his face on the antennae of a new early 70's auto.
It went in under his chin, thankfully bounced outward ( not through his mouth ) and came out near his eye lid. ( A fraction of an inch to the left and it would have gone through his mouth and pallet into his brain)
I was able to unscrew the antennae so we could pull it down and out.
He should have had 20 stitches at the ripped two inch entry point and two or three where the mast exited
but being a good CSC he declined treatment.
A coworker CS took him home where his wife treated him and the community prayed over his dumb ass for a few days until he could return to work.
Scarred for life. For no good reason.
Because some religious bigots (think they are) more equal than others.
EDIT: These same religious bigots were the same dumb asses trying to "keep Sharia Law" from taking over parts of the USA, but have no issues pushing their bigoted religious agenda.
You are probably OK with these actions, huh?
But that’s all different!
The Supreme Court should codify the Texas law and rule it a constitutional mandate upon the whole country.