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.

News

Liz Cheney Predicts Many Republicans Will Secretly Vote For Kamala Harris

Published

on

Former Republican Representative Liz Cheney predicted Sunday many Republicans will actually end up voting for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The former Wyoming representative appeared on ABC’s This Week to urge her fellow Republicans to dump former President Donald Trump and endorse Harris as she has.

“Given the closeness of this election, particularly if you’re going to find yourself voting in a swing state, you’ve got to take the extra step if you really do recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses. Then it’s not enough to simply say, ‘I’m not going to vote for him,’” she said.

READ MORE: Liz Cheney Stomps Mitch McConnell for ‘Political Calculation’ to Ignore Trump’s Election Crimes

But she also said that even if many Republicans don’t follow her lead and denounce the former president, they’ll take advantage of the privacy of the polls to secretly support the Democratic candidate.

“It’s a secret ballot,” Cheney said. “At the end of the day, you just have to wrestle with your own conscience when you’re there in the voting booth. And I would expect that you will see far more Republicans and independents, you know, when the time comes, and they’ve got to make that decision, make the right decision.”

This would be the opposite of what some believe happened in 2016. Polls at the time generally showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the lead over Trump. But when the election happened, though Clinton won the popular vote, it wasn’t enough to tip the Electoral College in her favor.

Over 70% of Republican insiders felt the polls underestimated Trump’s support, according to a Politico article from October 2016.

“I personally know many Republicans that won’t admit that they are voting for Trump. I don’t like admitting it myself. It won’t matter if Hillary is up more than 5 points, but we might be in for a surprise if Hillary’s lead is less than 5 points on Election Day,” an unnamed Virginia Republican told the outlet at the time.

In a 2016 interview conducted before the election, Trump’s then-campaign manager Kellyanne Conway pointed out that Trump polled better in anonymous online polls than in more traditional polling, according to WJLA.

“It’s become socially desirable, especially if you’re a college-educated person in the United States of America, to say that you’re against Donald Trump,” she said.

A 2019 study found that this was indeed the case. The study found that 54% of those polled voted for Trump but kept their preference a secret publicly. When broken out by gender, 57% of men and 50% of women polled kept their Trump vote a secret.

Continue Reading

News

Trump Calls for Government Shutdown: ‘CLOSE IT DOWN!!!’

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump urged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to cause a government shutdown unless the House passes the SAVE Act.

“If Republicans in the House, and Senate, don’t get absolute assurances on Election Security, THEY SHOULD, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GO FORWARD WITH A CONTINUING RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET. THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO ‘STUFF’ VOTER REGISTRATIONS WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN – CLOSE IT DOWN!!!” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social Tuesday.

Johnson has paired the continuing resolution, which would fund the government for another six months, with the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship in order to become a registered voter. The SAVE Act was originally introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and passed in the House on its own in July. Every Republican voted for the SAVE Act, along with five Democrats.

READ MORE: GOP Congressman Admits ‘Most of What We Do Is Bad’ as McCarthy’s Republicans Push for Federal Government Shutdown

The standalone version of the SAVE act is stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It is unlikely to pass, and has yet to be brought to a vote in that chamber. President Joe Biden has promised to veto it should the bill make it out of the Senate.

Attaching the SAVE Act to the continuing resolution has not made it any more popular outside of the House. In fact, at least five House Republicans said they’re against the pairing, according to Roll Call. Republicans’ majority in the House is slim, meaning that providing no absences and a united front against it from Democrats, five Republicans are all that are needed to sink the resolution.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said in the House Monday that even if the continuing resolution passes as-is, the Senate would remove the SAVE Act and send it back to the House. Even in the unlikely situation where the Senate lets the SAVE Act part stand, Biden’s reiterated that he would veto it, according to The Hill.

Critics of the SAVE Act point out that it’s irrelevant. Only American citizens are allowed to vote by law, and it’s very rare for noncitizens to try to vote illegally.

“This is a crime where not only are the consequences really high and the payoff really low — you’re not getting millions of dollars, it’s not robbing a bank, you get to cast one ballot,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, told MSNBC. “But what also makes this somewhat unique is that committing this crime actually entails the creation of a government record of your crime.

“It’s very easy to catch, and you will get caught.”

Morales-Doyle said that on the other hand, the SAVE Act would make it more difficult for actual citizens to vote because many do not have passports or access to their birth certificates. There is also a law against requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections, MSNBC reported.

Threatening government shutdowns has become a common ploy from the Republicans, and there have been 10 shutdowns since 1981, according to History.com. All but three of the 10 shutdowns were led by Republicans. One exception was in 1982, when both parties of Congress missed the deadline despite agreeing on terms. In confusion, some agencies sent employees home, but the shutdown only lasted three days, between September 30 and October 2.

The remaining two shutdowns were the result of Democrats protesting Trump’s policies. In January 2018, there was a four-day shutdown over Trump’s plans to phase out the DACA program allowing children of undocumented people to remain in the United States. The end of 2018 saw the longest shutdown in history. The issue was over funding Trump’s planned wall along the border of Mexico. The shutdown lasted over a month, until Republicans backed down.

Continue Reading

CORRUPTION

JD Vance Says in 2020 He Wouldn’t Certify Election: ‘Let the Country Have the Debate’

Published

on

Ohio Senator JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, said Monday that if he were in former Vice President Mike Pence’s place, he would not have certified the election on January 6, 2021.

Speaking as part of a panel on the All-In Podcast, Vance told cohost Jason Calacanis the issue wasn’t necessarily Pence deciding not to “overturn the election results,” but rather that “Mike Pence could have done more to sort of surface some problems.”‘

Calacanis replied by asking Vance directly if he would have certified the election.

READ MORE: ‘BadgerPundit’: Top Trump Attorney in Fake Electors Plot Hid Secret Twitter Account

“I happen to think that there were issues back in 2020, particularly in Pennsylvania. Even some of the courts that refused to throw out certified ballots did say that there were ballots that were cast in an illegal way. They just refused to actually decertify the election results in Pennsylvania,” Vance said. “Do I think that we could have had a much more rational conversation about how to ensure that only legal ballots are cast? Yes. And do I think that Mike Pence could have played a better role? Yes.”

Calacanis asked Vance again if he’d have certified the election, and Vance appears to back the plan to send fake electors to cause confusion in the certification process.

“I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate about what actually matters and what kind of an election that we have. That’s what I would have done,” Vance said. “The important part is we would have had a big debate. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the results would have been any different, but we would, at least, have had the debate in Pennsylvania and Georgia about how to better have a rational election system where legal ballots are cast.”

Democrats heavily criticized Vance’s statement.

“Donald Trump picked JD Vance as his running mate because he knows that Vance will do what his last vice president wouldn’t—undermine our democracy and help him try to overturn election results. Now, Vance is making it clear: instead of certifying the 2020 election, Vance ‘would have asked the states’ to send slates of fake electors and throw our election into chaos to help Trump stay in power. Vance is clearly laying out the stakes of this election for our democracy and our basic freedoms, and showing voters that if given the chance, he’ll try to replace the rule of law with the rule of Trump,” Alex Floyd, the rapid response director for the DNC, said in a statement.

Vance’s claims of there being illegal ballots in Pennsylvania appears to be based on a claim from former President Donald Trump in 2022. Trump said that a then-recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that ballots sent in undated envelopes will not be counted in that year’s election meant that the 2020 election was “rigged, but they’ll let that result stand.”

The Associated Press debunked Trump’s claim, reporting that not only did Trump misrepresent the court’s ruling, but even if his claim was accurate, throwing out these ballots would not have mattered in the election.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.