Connect with us

Texas Lawmaker Working to Write Anti-LGBT Discrimination Into State Constitution

Published

on

Right-Wing Rep. Matt Krause is Undeterred by Economic Backlash in North Carolina

Despite economic backlash over House Bill 2 in North Carolina, one right-wing Texas lawmaker wants to write anti-LGBT discrimination into the state Constitution. 

And Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is signaling that he would sign the measure if it passes the House and Senate. 

Texas already has a strong Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government form substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling interest. 

GOP Rep. Matt Krause (shown above with Sen. Ted Cruz, whom he supports for president) is an attorney who previously worked for Liberty Counsel, an anti-LGBT hate group, and has compared gays to Nazis. Last year, Krause authored a proposal to remove the word “substantially” from the law, and enshrine it in the Constitution. Now, in the wake of overwhelming opposition from businesses to anti-LGBT bills in North Carolina and Georgia, Krause is vowing to introduce his proposed amendment to the state constitution when the Texas Legislature meets again in 2017. Only one other state in the nation, Alabama, has an RFRA in its Constitution. 

“Nobody should be forced to go against their conscience or religious beliefs,” Krause told The Austin Statesman. 

Gov. Abbott’s press secretary, John Wittman, told the Statesman: “To imply that religious liberty cannot be protected without hurting a business’ bottom line is inherently false and goes against the principles our country was founded on. Gov. Abbott has always sought to protect and expand religious liberty and economic freedom in Texas, and he looks forward to continuing that work in the 85th legislative session.”

In addition to sanctioning anti-LGBT discrimination, experts say Krause’s measure would open the door to a host of unintended consequences, such as domestic abusers using it as a defense to criminal charges; medical professionals refusing to provide life-saving treatments based on their beliefs; and workers being fired for violating the tenets of an employer’s faith. 

“A lot of lawyers would say that the word ‘substantial’ has some real meaning to it, and that dropping it means that you’re going to give any litigant the right to say, ‘I feel burdened,’ and that will be that with regard to forcing the state to show the compelling interest,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas. “If that’s not what you’re out to do, then I’m not sure what the point of the amendment would be, because the state RFRA seems to be quite strong, so why do we need this?” 

The Texas Association of Business, the state’s chamber of commerce, opposed Krause’s measure last year and is already speaking out against any potential anti-LGBT legislation in 2017. 

“We certainly don’t want Texas to appear to be unwelcoming for future talent, and that’s what I think we’ll get if something like North Carolina’s bill is taken up by our Legislature,” TAB President Chris Wallace told The Texas Observer. 

Seven hundred of the state’s employers, including 30 from the Fortune 500, have joined the pro-LGBT coalition Texas Competes. 

“In how many states does this have to happen before it becomes clear that legislation that goes this far, that extremist legislation that specifically targets LGBT people for discrimination, is something that has negative consequences from an economic and a business standpoint?” said Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas. 

 

Image via Facebook 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

LGBT

Disney Shareholders Nix Proposal to Cut Ties with Human Rights Commission

Published

on

Disney, Paradise Bay, Disney California Adventure, Anaheim, California. 2016

Disney shareholders rejected a proposal that would see the company cut ties with the Human Rights Commission, a LGBTQ rights organization.

The “Request to Cease CEI Participation” proposal, if enacted, would see Disney end participation in the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies on their friendliness towards the LGBTQ community. Ratings are determined via surveys submitted to the HRC. Companies are rated on nondiscrimination policies, benefits for LGBTQ workers, corporate culture and social responsibility. The Walt Disney Co. currently holds a perfect 100 score, and has since 2007.

The proposal was submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, through its Free Enterprise Project initiative, according to Variety.

READ MORE: Tim Walz Mocks Anti-LGBTQ Book Bans During HRC Speech

“The threat of a bad score is wielded against corporations to force them to do the political bidding of HRC and others (like GLSEN, the Trevor Project and GLAAD, which Disney also has paid partnerships with) that seek to sow gender confusion in children, encourage irreversible surgical procedures on confused teens, effectively eliminate girls’ and women’s sports and bathrooms, and roll back longstanding religious liberties,” the proposal read in part, according to Deadline.

Only 7% of shareholders voted to approve the proposal, Deadline reported. The HRC celebrated the news.

“This vote gives us a clear statement of values from Disney’s shareholders. They know what we know – that despite all the noise, commitments to inclusion pay figurative dividends and help their literal bottom line,” Eric Bloem, Vice President of Corporate Citizenship at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, said in a statement.

Proposals like this are part of a anti-DEI campaign against a number of large corporations. Right-wing activist Robby Starbuck has been a particularly loud campaigner in getting companies to cut ties with the HRC, according to LGBTQ Nation.

“This group, the HRC, fuels the wokeness in Corporate America via their CEI scoring system where companies bend over backwards to get a 100% score. Many even hire a special health care concierge for LGBTQ employees and fund transitions for children of employees in order to get their 100% CEI score,” Starbuck wrote on X (formerly Twitter) last year.

“To get their 100% score, they essentially have to worship at the altar of left wing policy. Over the coming months, with the help of some great whistleblowers, we will expose every element of these disgusting practices. Now is the time to name and shame every single company who associates with this open hatred of conservative consumers.”

Though Disney did not make a particular comment beyond saying that the proposal was “not approved,” Costco officials had harsh words when they were faced with a similar proposal brought before shareholders by the same group.

“The proponent professes concern about legal and financial risks to the Company and its shareholders associated with the diversity initiatives. The supporting statement demonstrates that it is the proponent and others that are responsible for inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs. The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives,” Costco’s board of directors wrote in a statement urging shareholders to vote against the proposal.

Image by Eric Philbin via Wikimedia Commons, used under Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

CRIME

AG Pam Bondi Says Tesla Vandals Could Get 20 Years In Prison

Published

on

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Thursday that, if convicted, the Tesla vandals who lit the electric cars and charging stations ablaze could get up to 20 years in prison.

“The days of committing crimes without consequence have ended,” Bondi said. “Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.”

Bondi announced the charges against three alleged Tesla vandals. All of the defendants are accused of using Molotov cocktails. Two defendants, one in Salem, Oregon and another in Loveland, Colorado, allegedly attacked Tesla dealerships. A third allegedly burned Tesla charging stations in Charleston, South Carolina.

READ MORE: Fox News Reporter Challenges Trump on Promoting Tesla While Americans Are ‘Struggling’

Though Bondi’s statement did not identify any of the defendants or reveal the charges levied against them, the Department of Justice said the penalty ranged from five to 20 years in prison. Bondi has previously characterized the attacks on Tesla dealerships as “nothing short of domestic terrorism” according to ABC News.

The three anonymous defendants cited by Bondi are not the only alleged Tesla vandals. Earlier this week, a Tesla service center in Las Vegas was hit, as was a dealership in Kansas City, Missouri according to Electrek.

Tesla dealerships have seen an increase of protests as many left-leaning figures are calling for boycotts against the company. Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, is also the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Despite the name, DOGE is not an official department of the U.S. government, as it was not established by Congress. DOGE is behind the recent mass firings of government workers.

Outside of the peaceful protests, vandals have spray-painted anti-DOGE and anti-Tesla graffiti on Tesla cars and dealerships. The number of arsons at dealerships has also been increasing of late, leading Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner to suggest that arsonists could face the death penalty, according to Mediaite.

“What happens if there’s someone in one of these cars they blow up? That can happen! That becomes murder! Or worse. Terrorism plus! And I know that on January 20th, the president signed into law, into, through an executive order, restoring the death penalty. Do you think this sort of thing… And I hate to think it! People leave their children and pets in cars. I mean, you don’t know! This is deadly dangerous stuff these liberal protesters are playing with!” Faulkner said.

There have been no reports of Teslas being lit on fire with anyone nearby. The Teslas set on fire have primarily been at dealerships after business hours, times when no one would be in the cars, making Faulkner’s scenario unlikely.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

Josh Hawley Says ‘Only’ SCOTUS ‘Issues Rules for Whole Country’, Despite Constitution

Published

on

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) vowed to file legislation stopping federal district judges from ruling on orders issued by President Donald Trump. He claims it’s outside of their jurisdiction—but the Constitution disagrees.

On Wednesday, Hawley appeared on The Charlie Kirk Show to slam district judges who have issued injunctions against the Trump administration’s acts, including the mass firings of federal workers and the rollback of DEI initiatives.

“These are district courts, local federal courts, that are saying, ‘I’m not just going to issue an order that says what the executive branch can or cannot do in my district, I’m going to issue an order that binds the executive branch for the entire nation,'” Hawley said.

READ MORE: Conservative Rains Hell on ‘Dishonest’ and ‘Scummy’ Josh Hawley

“That is not a power that I think district courts have… what needs to happen is one of two things: Either the Supreme Court needs to intervene and make clear there’s only one court that can issue rules for the whole country, that’s the Supreme Court, that’s why we only have one of them. And or, if they won’t do that, Congress needs to legislate and make clear that district courts do not have the ability to issue these kinds of injunctions.”

On Thursday, Hawley vowed on X (formerly Twitter) to file legislation that would strip power from district court judges, keeping them from issuing these sorts of injunctions.

“District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good,” he wrote, declining to include any details on what that legislation may look like.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution lays out the American judicial system. While the Supreme Court is the final authority, it is primarily an appellate court—meaning that lower courts make initial rulings which are then appealed up the chain. The Supreme Court can only be the original court in cases involving “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,” the Constitution reads.

District Courts are the lowest level of federal courts, and there are 94 of them throughout the U.S., with each state getting at least one, as well as the District of Columbia. Much like the state courts, district courts hear criminal cases—when federal crimes have been committed—as well as civil cases. Civil cases deal with legal and constitutional conflicts; the type of cases Hawley is referring to here.

As an example, let’s look at the recent case involving Trump’s attempt to ban transgender people from serving in the military. In a case like this, the judge can issue an injunction, which puts Trump’s order on hold, until it can be heard by the courts.

It all starts with a lawsuit—in this case, Talbott v. TrumpTalbott was initially filed by six active service members and another two people who wanted to enlist. The plaintiffs said that Trump’s executive order would keep them out of the military illegally; the defendant, the Department of Justice, disagrees, saying the order is legal.

Whether or not to issue an injunction is up to the particular judge. If the judge declines to issue an injunction, the government could continue to act on Trump’s EO. In this particular case, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes put an initial injunction on the order earlier this week. This keeps everything in a holding pattern; transgender people can remain in the military until the case is decided.

Given Reyes’ comments, it’s likely that she will rule that the EO is illegal. If the Justice Department chooses not to appeal the ruling, it will stand just as if the Supreme Court ruled on it. Of course, this is unlikely—the DOJ will almost certainly appeal. The case then heads to one of the 13 appellate courts.

Appellate courts review the original ruling. Often, both sides are given a brief time to argue their case—usually 15 minutes, according to the official U.S. Courts webpage—but not always. Sometimes, appellate courts look only at the written briefs in the case. Unlike district courts, appellate courts are ruled over by a panel of judges rather than just one.

The judicial panel will decide whether or not the original judge made an error in legal reasoning. The appellate court can decide whether to let the decision stand, to overturn it, or to send the case back to the district courts.

In this case, if Reyes rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appellate court upholds her ruling, the injunction keeping trans people in the military still stands. If the appellate court overturns the ruling, the injunction may still stand, if the plaintiffs decide to appeal. If the plaintiffs don’t choose to appeal, then the injunction would be lifted and Trump’s EO would be reinstated.

Either party can file a “writ of certiorari”, which asks that the Supreme Court to decide the case. So, in Talbott, it’s likely that either way the appellate court rules, either the DOJ or the plaintiffs would ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The injunction would still stand until the Supreme Court either declines to take the case, or ultimately rules on it. At that point, whatever the Supreme Court decides would stand.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.