Texas Senate Passes Religious Liberty Bill to Shield Lawyers Who Reject LGBTQ Clients

[trotsky]

https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2019/04/03/texas-senate-passes-religious-liberty-bill-to-shield-lawyers-who-reject-lgbtq-clients

The Texas Senate on Wednesday passed legislation that would protect lawyers who have sincerely held religious beliefs from losing their law licenses based on any rule or policy by the State Bar of Texas.

Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, has said that one reason he carried the legislation was because of a model rule by the American Bar Association that would prohibit attorneys from discriminating against LGBTQ people, according to the Dallas Morning News. The State Bar of Texas has not adopted the ABA’s proposed LGBTQ anti-discrimination rule, but the new law would protect attorneys from potential sanctions.

...During debate on the bill, Perry said he didn’t mean for the legislation to target any group, but rather to protect licensed professionals from losing their license because of their religion, reported the Dallas Morning News.

However, critics of the bill have said it’s an attempt to allow discrimination against LGBTQ people. The Senate voted against one amendment to the bill that would have made LGBTQ discrimination impermissible.

Religious privilege in action.

[muntrv]

1. In short, they miss Jim Crow.

[Firestorm49]

2. Cowards.

[WhiteTara]

3. Now to turn that around

If they're "Christian" I will discriminate as is my right in Texas.

[Mariana]

5. Why put the word "Christian" in quotes? nt.

[WhiteTara]

8. Because there are Christians and then

there are "Christians." You know the kind, the ones who won't make a cake for gay people. Let's boycott them.

[Mariana]

9. I'm with you on boycotting them

but let's not pretend they aren't Christians. They are.

[trotsky]

10. +1 n/t

[demigoddess]

23. just the kind that would make Jesus ashamed of them.

[Mariana]

24. That may make them lousy Christians.

It does not make them non-Christians.

The definition of "Christian" isn't "a good person". It's very offensive to suggest that all rotten people must be non-Christians. I know you didn't do that, but the poster I responded to did suggest exactly that, by putting the word "Christian" in quotes in that context.

[Karadeniz]

26. Not really christians. Jesus said if you love him, you must follow his teachings.

He said not to judge...love your neighbor...love your enemy. If you're doing so, you can consider yourself Christian. Otherwise, "Christian." Remember the man who'd worked miracles in Jesus ' name, but Jesus sent him out of his heaven? Going to church, slapping a cross around your neck, proclaiming faith in Jesus, memorizing a creed or catechism...that's not what Jesus says qualifies a person to be his follower.

[Mariana]

27. So, you've determined that these people are non-Christians.

What are they, then? Are they atheists? Are they secretly followers of some other religion?

[demigoddess]

28. pretenders.

[Mariana]

29. They are non-Christians [i]pretending[/i] to be Christians.

What are they, then? Do you think they are unbelievers? Do you suppose they secretly worship some other god? A straight answer would be nice.

[demigoddess]

30. no, they 'think' they are Christians. But they don't want to follow the

rules that Jesus set down. They want to make their own rules. Such as the guy I heard outside church one year who wanted to kill an old woman because she didn't go to church. Listen to the song "Long haired Radical Jew" or "I'm going to be a Southern Baptist" by Mr Jekyll and Dr Hyde.

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. Which rules?

The don't "screw outside wedlock or get divorced" rules? Or the "believe in me or burn in hell" rules?

[Mariana]

34. How do you figure out what the rules are?

There are more than 1000 formal denominations of Christianity. In addition, there are also countless "nondenominational" and "independent" churches, plus who knows how many individual practitioners, all doing Christianity in their different ways. Each of them is convinced that they are right and everyone else is doing it wrong. Clearly, the rules aren't all that straightforward and easy to understand. If they were, you'd think there would be much more agreement on what they actually are.

You don't think it's bigoted to say that only non-Christians can be rotten people?

[demigoddess]

36. I would say that 'Thou shalt not kill" is one rule

and I was at a church where the men talked about 'beating up and maybe killing" an old woman who 'may be an atheist'. I never went back to that church again.

[trotsky]

37. But is it an absolute rule?

Is killing in self-defense OK?

[Pope George Ringo II]

38. If somebody disagrees with you about one rule, are they still xian?

If you disagree with somebody about one rule, are you still xian?

Why is your answer better than theirs?

[Karadeniz]

39. This is what's been lost when Christianity went from simple small groups to a state

Religion. You wanted good govt jobs, tax breaks, you had to join the club. Paul showed how he could monitor a groups spiritual progress. One group was labeled a bunch of babies. Paul wouldn't have rated them as fully Christian. The process of qualifying is gone. You march to the front of the church, say you accept Jesus and you're in. Students studied full time under Origen.

[MineralMan]

11. The problem with that is that people self-define their religious affiliations.

If someone tells me he or she is a Christian, I have no choice but to accept that self-labeling.

Now, one can be a loving, kind Christian or a bigoted, vindictive Christian, but the label is up to the individual.

Some Christians are fine examples of the teaching supposed to have come from Jesus a couple thousand years ago. Others don't follow those teachings at all, really. But the label isn't mine to bestow or take away. The Christian is the one who calls him or herself that. Who am I, an atheist, to naysay someone's label?

Even Jesus was supposed to have said not to judge others. So, I don't judge people's labels for themselves. It's just another piece of information that is relatively meaningless without observation of that person's behavior.

I think we all know Christians at both ends of the Christ-like spectrum, and all across that spectrum. We have other labels we can apply - more descriptive labels that aren't generic like "Christian."

[WhiteTara]

16. When it's in quotes, it's not generic

[MineralMan]

17. I suppose. However, I think I understand the intent there.

There are all sorts of "Christians."

[Mariana]

18. The quote implies they aren't really Christians.

If they aren't Christians, then what are they, exactly?

[demigoddess]

31. read history. There was a time when being a Christian was not enough

the Catholics murdered Protestants in Paris, making the streets and the Seine run red with blood. Henry the 8th closed and knocked down all the catholic institutions in England.
Queen Mary Tudor burned alive protestants in vast quantities in order to get the nickname, Bloody Mary.
In WWII, ardent christians thought it was a good idea to kill all Jews in Europe. Not to mention the retarded and mentally ill.
Christian sects have risen up with the idea that they were the ones who were real christians and they could kill or reject every other denomination. Almost every christian church I have attended said they were right and everyone else was wrong. Look at Jehovah's Witnesses and others.

[MineralMan]

33. My point is that I'm not a Christian.

I accept people's definitions of themselves. That's all I can do. If other Christians want to judge, that's up to them, and none of my concern. I simply accept people's or labels for themselves.

[trotsky]

35. "Almost every christian church I have attended said they were right and everyone else was wrong."

Yeah but aren't you doing the same thing here?

[CurtEastPoint]

4. And similarly they also want to 'protect' the poor put-upon Christian healthcare/dr./nurses.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, I wouldn't have an attorney who disagreed with me on a basic

right in the first place, but this law opens the door for further bigotry.

[MineralMan]

7. Replace "LGBTQ" with "Black."

Sons of Ham, you know, so a real, Bible-buleeving Christian couldn't represent them, see.

[Lordquinton]

12. Black

of Jewish, or Muslim, or Female. This is a foothold they are trying to establish, and they'll only push it forward.

They are doing what they can to delegitimize LGBTQIA to keep us splintered. When it becomes normalized past what they can push back on, they'll move on to something else, just like they did with civil rights.

[MineralMan]

13. You are probably correct.

We live in perilous times.

[Lordquinton]

14. Someone tried a counter argument

I forget the specific topic, but it was similar to this, saying I had to admit it was much better now than it was in the '60s. I didn't and provided counter examples. He then moved the goalposts by saying he wanted the opinion of a black woman who was alive then. I bowed out of the conversation at that point.

[MineralMan]

15. Infuriating, isn't it?

[MineralMan]

19. And you were right to drop out of the conversation.

I can't imagine that it wouldn't deteriorate into something ugly. I don't remember that discussion.

[Lordquinton]

20. It was elsewhere

but the sentiment still stands, they look at it like they have given out enough to oppressed people, and demand quid pro quo for every bit of oppression they agree to lift.

The main difference when it comes to religion is they believe the roles are reversed, they want the opression lifted from them, and they see the oppression of others as their right.

[MineralMan]

21. For many, disagreement is counted as persecution.

That's a strange characteristic of some Christians.

[Lordquinton]

22. What's the line?

For those used to privilege equality feels like oppression

[Permanut]

25. Next thing you know,..

they'll be passing laws to protect parents who use a religious defense to medical neglect charges. Oh, wait, that's already happened; no longer valid in Oregon, but okay in Idaho, Pennsylvania and possibly others.