Some bills, such as Senate Bill 522 by Republican state senators Charles Perry and Brian Birdwell, would allow county clerks to recuse themselves from signing marriage licenses for same-sex couples if they believe doing so would violate those sincerely held religious beliefs (hereafter known as SHRB). Another senate bill authored by the same pair of ambitious religious freedom fighters would allow people employed in any of Texas's 65 licensed occupations to refuse service to people if those folks violate their SHRB.
So, for example, private medical providers wouldn't really have to help trans patients if they assert that being transgender violates their SHRB; barbers wouldn't have to cut gay people's hair if they didn't feel like it; plumbers could let toilets overflow and electricians could keep people in the dark if they happened to religiously disagree with the customer's sexual orientation. And the bill would prohibit the state from disciplining them for any of this.
Other bills allow wedding-industry businesses, such as cake makers and florists, to refuse service to LGBT couples (HB 2876 by Rep. Scott Sanford), allow "conscientious refusal" of healthcare services of any kind based moral beliefs (HB 2878 by Sanford) and allow child welfare service providers to refuse to take in LGBT kids (SB 892—also by Senator Perry).
None of these bills has made significant headway in the Lege, at least not yet. The so-called bathroom bill, SB 6, has passed in the Senate, but its future is far less certain in the house. A House substitute, HB 2899, is less restrictive than SB 6 and does not include provisions about requiring school districts and cities to enforce bathroom bills based on biological sex, but prohibits jurisdictions from passing trans-inclusive bathroom policies. Which, to the LGBT community, is not much better.
if we allow full religious freedom then this must pass otherwise its b/s discrimination against christians
Nathaniel Foster
Discrimination against Christians is prohibited by federal law.
Julian Hernandez
WE WUZ OPPRESSED N SHIET
Jacob Evans
Only an authoritarian would want to limit someone's right to discriminate people.
Hudson Torres
I don't agree with state clerks being given the right to discriminate. They're paid with the taxes of all citizens and should therefore serve all citizens equally.
On the other hand, private individuals or businesses should always be allowed to discriminate anyone based on anything they like.
The free market will take it from there.
Hudson Ramirez
Huge potential. Think of all the SHRB trolling you could do. First and foremost would be proving sincerity (if she drowns she's not a witch).
Justin Lopez
bump
Jackson Peterson
I agree with you, Mario. Any government employee/organization should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The rest I agree with.
Joseph Barnes
Should they be allowed to discriminate based on religion (currently banned federally)?
If not, why should the laws be applied inequitably?
Oliver Rogers
I love my state so much...
>degenerate BTFO
Jose Morris
>I don't agree with state clerks being given the right to discriminate.
Except they aren't being discriminated against.
It allows an INDIVIDUAL to recuse their self from doing something that violates their religious belief.
Nothing stops a different clerk from being able to help you.
Cooper Price
If Trump gets removed, Mike Pence will end any rights gained by the LGBT crowd from the Obama administration.
Grayson Hall
>I love my state so much... For pandering to religious idiots?
Josiah Gutierrez
Noam Chomsky was right
Christian Parker
>recuse yourself from doing your job
Why should government workers be given rights that private workers don't get?
Oliver Wilson
This is correct. Texas should just outlaw gay marriage and be done with it.
Sebastian Long
texas, just another mongrel shithole that happens to vote republican
instead of whataburger, it should be called muttaburger, that would represent the average texan quite well
Ethan Hughes
>It allows an INDIVIDUAL to recuse their self from doing something that violates their religious belief. Sharia courts here we come. Dumbass.
>equating individual liberties with powers of the state (((courts)))
WEW
Evan Collins
That individual is being paid to do a job. He entered into a contract that states he is required to marry people in exchange for his salary.
If he refuses to do so, he is not entitled to his pay.
Try working for a restaurant and telling them you don't want to serve pasta or some other retarded shit because your religions forbids it and see how it goes.
Eli Diaz
*slow clap*
Nolan Howard
So a muslim clerk can refuse to serve you per according to sharia?
Anthony Cooper
Is that chink a boy, or a girl?
Henry Fisher
texan, can confirm. race mixing is rampant and there are very few white people here.
Jack Gutierrez
>That individual is being paid to do a job. >That individual is being paid to do a GOVERNMENT job.
See the difference?
THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT INFRINGE
BTW - not your country so fuck off.
Charles Gutierrez
Very well put together comeback. I am sure Texans are taken aback by it.
Alexander Parker
Yes.
And then people can leave that town/state/whatever OR vote in different individuals who will make that town/state/area more to their liking.
What part of personal rights don't you get?
Andrew Turner
Why do these people always look like they live next door to a radioactive waste dump?
Asher Miller
>pandering to religious idiots Nonsense, it's to fuck with fags, not pander to christians
Isaiah Taylor
That's exactly what these laws would do, but Dippy McJawcancer you were replying to is too stupid to realize it because muh degeneracy
Brody Wood
cheeky nip xd
Robert Wright
It's not an infringement on your rights to fire you for not doing what you're paid to do.
There's no right to gibs.
Adrian Cox
>christians Nobody cares about Christians being discriminated against, We need some Muzzies to get in on this shit, they hate gays as much as we do and we can use 'muh islamophobia' against them
Jaxson Clark
Tejas can't help itself. You just can't fix stupid. The supreme court decision allowing Anal (Lawrence v Texas) will forever be associated with Texas. How much more do they want?
Colton Thomas
what will libs do when muslims will be backing these bills?
Chase Richardson
Sure, but there's no counties in the state that would elect Muslims
Adrian Jenkins
opponents of these proposals are islamophobic.
Jason Ramirez
I don't approve it, because it can be eaisly used against you. >I dont serve to christian quffar if you don't like it you should move and waste months of moving, buying/renting another house, finding another job, or expanding your commute to hours. Or you can wait for fuck knows how many months and vote him out
Since we are in the love or leave it territory, how about if a job is against your beliefs or hurts you feelings you dont do that job? I'm sure christians and muslims can find many jobs where they will not have to cherry pick whom they serve.
stupid idea, but its basically religious right circlejerking, so meh.
Don't be so sure, times change, people change and a lot of the times laws "which will never be used against us" tend to bite people in the ass when they don't imagine. Maybe not muslims but Latinos for example. Goodluck with i aint servin no gringo esse's.
muh feels laws will bite you in the ass
Eli Morales
>I don't approve it, because it can be eaisly used against you. >Your logic against the 1st Amendment
Let's see how it works against the 2nd Amendment
I don't approve of you owning guns because you could use them against me.
>i aint servin no gringo esse's Catholics aren't anti-white. The Pope is an Argentine, for whiteness sakes!
Liam Gray
>What part of personal rights don't you get? The right to stay in my hometown and not have social climbing Baptists ban alcohol sales in my county. What you're advocating is basically BRING BACK BLUE LAWS cuz we don't want that kind round here anyhow.
Adam Moore
they must not be working jose, your state is more mexican than coahuila
Holy shit Texas is retarded and misses the nuance of SHRB rulings. The baker's refusing to bake a wedding cake might be one of the only situations I can think of where someone can refuse service to someone based on their SHRB. Because a wedding cake could easily be considered art, or at the very least is beyond a simple commercial product, compelling someone to make one which violates their belief's would set a funky precedent. Plumbing and the like, however, are generic services which are totally unaffected by whether the customer is hetero or gay. These are so facially unconstitutional that, were they passed, I can't see them surviving more than a day before a judge strikes them down. SCOTUS wouldn't even grant cert for most of these.
Samuel Rodriguez
Fuck the (((()))) JEWS HAVE ACCELERATED THEIR EFFORTS TO ENSLAVE AND DESTROY HUMANITY. WE ALL CAN SEE IT. NEOCON WARS FOR GREATER ISRAEL AND UNLIMITED REFUGEES FOR THE WEST. ALL CAUSED BY, AND ENABLED BY, RIGHT AND LEFTWING JEWS. TWO WINGS OF THE SAME DEMON.
MAKE EVERYONE AWARE...NOW. (YOU) CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BE AFRAID OF A PUBLIC BACKLASH FOR EXPOSING WHAT JEWS ARE DOING. THIS IS A FUCKING PSYCHOLOGICAL WORLD WAR..AND THE SYNAGOUGE OF SATAN HAS RECENTLY BEEN DOUBLING DOWN IN A FINAL PUSH. BLM, SAME SEX BATHROOMS, GAY ADOPTION AND TRANNY KIDS ETC
SHOW PROOF TO AS MANY NORMIES AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT PEOPLE GET THE MESSAGE THAT IT'S NOT JUST ONE JEW. THIS IS JEWISH "CULTURAL" AND TRIBAL WARFARE.
Sup Forums WE NEED TO SHILL EVERY AREA OF THE NET. SHILL RELENTLESSLY AND LIKE YOUR LIFE AND THE FUTURE OF CIVILISATION DEPENDS ON IT...BECAUSE IT FUCKING DOES
DO IT NOW BEFORE (((LAWS))) ARE INTRODUCED TO CENSOR THE NET COMPLETELY BECAUSE (YOU) KNOW (((THEY))) WILL SHUT US DOWN..SOON.
USE FACTS NOT MERCHANTS
And remember to copy pasta
Sebastian Hughes
way i see it is that private businesses refusing service should be fine but not government officials. you chose a government job you dumb, worthless, fuck, you can't push your religious beliefs when you represent the government.
Levi Jenkins
Back to redit faggot.
Hunter Bennett
>So, for example, private medical providers wouldn't really have to help trans patients if they assert that being transgender violates their SHRB; barbers wouldn't have to cut gay people's hair if they didn't feel like it; plumbers could let toilets overflow and electricians could keep people in the dark if they happened to religiously disagree with the customer's sexual orientation. And the bill would prohibit the state from disciplining them for any of this.
>Other bills allow wedding-industry businesses, such as cake makers and florists, to refuse service to LGBT couples (HB 2876 by Rep. Scott Sanford), allow "conscientious refusal" of healthcare services of any kind based moral beliefs (HB 2878 by Sanford) and allow child welfare service providers to refuse to take in LGBT kids (SB 892—also by Senator Perry).
and then there would be a market for businesses that don't discriminate which would eventually force discriminatory businesses to adapt or die. no fucking plumber gives a shit about unclogging some gay dude's pipes (as long as we're talking about metal pipes)
Carter Cook
Hands tied by the Feds. Texas has deployed the National Guard to the border multiple times, and provides very little welfare, especially to immigrants.
dude "I dont approve it" is just my personal opinion. I'm not implying i will enforce to do anything stop putting words into my mouth as I stated here it will bite you in the ass due to whites becoming the minority.
You will be persecuted and this persecution will hide behind the law you made in the first place you ignored everything else probably because you have no argument but oh well, lets see how these laws will work out for you in 2030+
Jason Young
It is arguably detrimental to one's 1st amendment right of free exercise by forcing them to marry homosexual couples. This is because of a couple factors which make the case at least somewhat compelling:
1. It involves a state actor 2. Someone who signed up to be a clerk prior to Obergefell could not have reasonably foreseen that gay marriage would become protected 3. The fundamental nature of the interest at hand requires a very compelling state interest for it to be infringed 4. They can just find another clerk to marry the couple (this is especially significant given one of the factors for consideration when evaluating an EPC is whether the state has chosen the most narrowly tailored method.)
Given the current make-up of the SCOTUS, if a case regarding this law allowing clerks to recuse themselves made it in front of them, it would likely be upheld. I personally believe the cake scenario would be found constitutional as well. The others are hogwash though.
Jason Smith
So you're either completely retarded or trolling. In which case 2/10 made me reply.
Jacob Harris
>SHRB ? >Plumbing and the like, however, are generic services which are totally unaffected by whether the customer is hetero or gay. Fags with their loose assholes means they pass bigger, cum encrusted shits which means more clogged toilets.
Luis Hall
>personal feelings >afforded even an iota of deference when compared to a fundamental right >thinking this is about "muh feelings" and not a constitutionally enumerated right >literally the first right expressly protected in the Bill of Rights
It's entirely possible that this subject matter might be beyond your capability, user.
Hudson Lewis
>Texas Attempts To Pass a Dozen "Anti-Gay" Religious Freedom Bills I fixed that for you!
David Peterson
You're not american so I can understand the confusion, but the user you're responding to has a point. That this is a government job completely changes the fact pattern; firing a clerk for refusing to marry a gay couple is in fact forcing a clerk to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs. Because the wording of our Constitution specifically states it pertains to state actors, suddenly the case gets some legs.
Dylan Wright
Chick in OP pic is Anel Rodriguize for those looking for fap material.
Luke Jones
Good. Our society should never accommodate faggotry.
Christian Rodriguez
You know how constitiution can be streched to this way or to that way.
Again, good luck when a hispanic doesn't like your white ass and make you suffer for it citing his first amendment to not serve you. Not likin move elsewhere esse
Not mixing your personal beliefs and opinions with the gov job will protect you and other whites in the long run, you still feel you are the majority and think the laws will not effect you since "it will always be pro white pro christian"
and thats a big fucking gamble to make, given the demographical trends, its basically granting future latinos to fuck with you.
or maybe you are some beaner, than its fine. I'm baffled how stupid some whites lawmakers are I think it is due to the delusion of thinking they will be a majority in the future as they were previously.
They say whites are self destructive and I totally agree. These are the days one should take precautinos to project the white minority in the future. But rather you gave a lot of loopholes to be exploited,
anyways its not you and me it will be future texans who will suffer so there's that.
Jace Gutierrez
So? Give your money to a plumber who doesn't hate you.
Why are fags so entitled?
Jonathan Myers
>Fags with their loose assholes means they pass bigger, cum encrusted shits which means more clogged toilets. Well then they would want them as customers. Congratulations on making plumbers LBQT allies.
Luke Morgan
Do you have a single case which supports the assertion that "a hispanic who doesn't like [my] white ass" is afforded remotely the same constitutional protections as a sincerely held religious belief?
Josiah King
Sorry, never been there. I'm gonna stay right here and stink up our hugbox.
Thomas Flores
> That this is a government job completely changes the fact pattern; firing a clerk for refusing to marry a gay couple is in fact forcing a clerk to act against their sincerely held religious beliefs.
No, it doesn't and it isn't. Nobody forced the guy to become a state clerk. If he doesn't want to be one he can fuck off back to the private sector and someone else will take his place. If nobody is willing to marry gays, the state will raise the pay until someone who is shows up.
This has nothing to do with the constitution.
Jason Ross
...
Joseph Lewis
Yes, he can use being a catholic, or not being in the same hispanic church as you do. Religion is heavily tied with ethnicity, you have black churches you have white churches and you have "hispanic" churches.
An organized hispanic movement backed behind an ethnic church can and will exploit these measures you put forth. Again this law would never be enacted if say muslims were %45 of texans and had a chance to win elections. Now I want you to think of future when hispanics will be %45 and even more
Last post as I need to go to eat, but you need to think about the long term and should not create laws that can be expolited by people. Your basic "I dont want to serve fags" can be turn into an legal excuse to ostracize you.
but one must lie in the bed one makes me thinks, we'll see how texans will fare in few decades.
James Jackson
>discrimination How is forcing religious people to participate in marriage activities discrimination when it wasn't discrimination to call it marriage in the first place? Fuck all of you who say >discrimination seriously, fuck you. They wanted it to specifically say marriage and not any other term because they specifically wanted to stick it to religious people. They were given opportunities to call it something else, and they refused. It's disingenuous and downright deceitful to call it discrimination.
Cooper Moore
This
Josiah Lopez
Kek, Birdwell is my senator. I actually met him once.
Noah Lee
>muh words >muh feelings
They wanted to call it marriage because they wanted it to sound like the real deal. If you call it "legal union like a marriage but for faggots" you're clearly classing fags as second class citizens, and the state can't do that. "marriage" isn't a copyrighted christian word you know.
I seriously don't understand why Sup Forums has this much trouble separating the state from private entities. The state must serve all citizens equally, the citizens should then be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.
Josiah Taylor
But now you are discriminating against Christians by not giving them equal employment opportunities. If Christians have to do duties that violate their morality you are being prejudice by not allowing them to refuse that task and let someone perform it.
Henry Martinez
Assuming you are being genuine rather than simply positioning yourself as opposition for laughs:
There is nothing in current SCOTUS jurisprudence which could remotely support someone refusing to serve someone because they go to a different church. That you would use this as an example reveals just how much you do not understand the present question regarding SHB.I'll do what I can to help you understand.
The first major factor is that this is a government job, meaning it would specifically be the government forcing the clerk to act against their SHB. This evokes concerns about a first amendment violation given the "state actor" element. Next, admonishing homosexuality has been a major tenant of many religions for at least the past century, with historical evidence placing it back significantly further. This is not some arbitrary feeling, nor would a court view it as such. Compare this to your "because they're white/don't go to my church" thing. The former is entirely arbitrary and racial, specifically prohibited by statutes passed by Congress. The latter is not sincere or fundamental to their practice of religion. Finally, it is likely that many people serving as marriage clerks began working prior to Obergefell. This means that it is likely they did not expect to marry gay couples when they took their job. Homosexuals traditionally and historically have not been part of the institution of marriage. For some it might not matter, but for others it would be both unfair and infringing upon their rights to compel them to marry.
Finally, to wrap it all up, the SCOTUS has acknowledged that freedom from government interference with religious practices which do not violate valid statutes are fundamental, while gay marriage is not. This would mean the courts would likely afford significantly higher deference to the religious liberties of the clerk when pushed against by the liberty for gays to marry.
Mason Butler
kek I helped draft one of these model bills
>timmy "not in my day care faggot" thicc
Matthew Morales
So when all the politicians who got jobs before Obergefell die, gays will finally know peace? Good to know!
Michael Adams
nowhere in the bible does it say not to marry or serve people who do things you don't approve of
the new testament says judgment should be up to god and to treat people with love regardless of sin (we're all sinners according to the bible and sins are to be judged by god)
it's not discrimination against someone's religious beliefs to expect them to do their job when the services required by the job don't force them to actually violate any biblical principles
using any religion as a tool to discriminate against others isn't a "right," and it's even worse when there's nothing in the actual religion that even justifies that behaviour
Mason Young
>barbers wouldn't have to cut gay people's hair if they didn't feel like it; plumbers could let toilets overflow and electricians could keep people in the dark if they happened to religiously disagree with the customer's sexual orientation. And the bill would prohibit the state from disciplining them for any of this. Do you not understand what Freedom of Association is? You can't force people to do business with each other.
Aaron Sanchez
You sort of have a point, but not really. If he really wants the job he can get it even if he's christian. The fact the job goes against your beliefs isn't my problem.
If your religion forbade you from going to space would you say NASA is being discriminatory when they hire an astronaut?
What if someone applied to be an astronaut and then complained their religion prevents them from going to space? Would you justify them?
Asher Sanchez
t. legal beastiality state
Jason Lopez
>Refusing service to gays Let them. Gays can service each other. This isn't even an issue unless faggots contribute no skillsets or hardwork to society. That's impossible, so this isn't an issue.
Benjamin Rivera
Absolutely correct
David Nguyen
the only way a gay marriage would violate christian morality as far as actual biblical ideas go is if they got married to a member of the same sex
jesus never said people should discriminate against others for their sins, said the opposite
christians like the pull the religion card to excuse hateful behaviour, but it's not actually justified by their religion and it shouldn't come into play in a government job either
when you have a job there are duties you have and conduct you uphold at your job that's based on the standards of your employer
if you can't comply then you need to work elsewhere, and religion isn't an excuse
Joshua Foster
If a Muslim clerk refused to check bacon pr alcohol out at the register would you still be singing the same tune?
If a Christian can't do the job then fuck them. They're not entitled to special accommodations.
Friendly reminder that white Atheists are actively taking part in Jewish schemes to destroy ethnocentric society.
Friendly reminder 2.0 Unless we push hard for white christian society, we are done for as a race. Civic nationalism is an ill effort to retain nationalism without "mean ol' racism" and thus a branch of Jewry
Ryder Fisher
If someone doesn't want money then they won't provide their service to them. If they want their money then they will provide service.
Samuel Watson
what if jews privately own the central bank of your nation (oh wait they do) and they free marketly decide to disallow you and your family from using their currency?
Matthew Barnes
Yes we are. White christians specifically. This is a white country built by Christian whites. If you don't like that, you can leave
Also inb4 "christians can't be racist or they go to hell"
Pauls famous "no jew or gentile" verse is in conjunction with the fact that race doesn't have impact on rewards reaped by being a christian.
There is no restrictions in the new testament on preserving God's diverse creation.
Colton Brooks
all abrahamic faiths are poison, christianity included
the world doesn't need people basing their lives on works of fiction and using it to justify idiotic behaviour
Chase Cruz
ok, but now your argument is totally moving the goal posts. saying 'times change' as a reason to not enact a law applies to every law ever. Times fucking change and so do people might as well make zero laws because 1,000 years from now Cylons wont like them
Colton Mitchell
Good goy, reject christ.
Extreme tolerance(including religious) is just a ploy to dampen down anti-semitism, thus reducing ethnocentrism and allowing jews to take over your social hierarchy.
It's historical fact that jews have been teaching Atheism in universities since the early 20th century, regardless if it is the antithesis of they're own beliefs.
Sorry bro, your a brainwashed cuck.
The very attitude "religion is a prison, you only live once. do whatever feels cool man"
Is the exact reason the west is dying.
Aaron Jenkins
the country hasn't just been white people for a very long time, you're clinging to an idea that doesn't exist and taking credit for achievements that aren't yours based on your skin colour
there are white people who are pure shit with poor genetic health and low iqs and there's people of other races who are the exact opposite
skin colour doesn't necessarily mean anything, and being born white doesn't automatically make someone worthwhile by default
