Texas Joins the GOP's Religious Freedom Frenzy

what eye thynk:   What is it with the GOP and its current, rabid campaign to "Save the Christians!"?  Red state after red state is either considering or has passed some form of religious freedom legislation--bills that are "not meant to be discriminatory," blah, blah, blah, but are "only to protect the faithful,"  blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.  

Last week it was Indiana and Arkansas.  This week it's Texas where State Representative Matt Krause (R) has refiled a proposal to amend Texas' constitution to prohibit "the state...or any political subdivision of the state (from) burdening in any way a person's free exercise of religion."  HJR 125 interprets "person" to include homeowners' associations, essentially opening the gates for discrimination in housing opportunities.  This new filing is identical to the one Mr. Krause proposed previously but which was pulled from the House agenda after strenuous objections were voiced by the Texas Association of Business.

When asked why he refiled his proposal over the Association's objections, Mr. Krause said, "I honestly don't see how it hurts the business community." 

Mr. Krause is apparently the only person in America unable to see the damage a bill like this can cause.

Mr. Krause believes his proposal is needed because religious liberty is "the bedrock of what Texas, and even America, was founded on...I've yet to talk to somebody who thinks the protection of religious liberty is a bad idea."  

Considering the Republican Party's habit of conversing only with those in their own closed-off echo chamber, this does not surprise me. 

In an interview on KVUE-TV, he said he had not found "one instance in the last 16 years where (the state's current religious freedom law) hurt business."  

So why, if they already have a working religious freedom law, does Texas need a new one?  Unless, of course, the current law doesn't specifically spell out religious protection for straight people who don't like gay people?

"A lot of people are saying this is a license to discriminate, people are just going to quit serving gay individuals or gay couples.  I'm not aware of one business that says, 'We don't serve gay couples.'

Well, not yet.  First they need the power of a constitutional amendment like the one that Mr. Krause proposes.

Mr. Krause explained that adding his amendment to the Texas' constitution, "elevates (religious freedom) in level of importance."  He acknowledged that his amendment "could" lead to discrimination, but said it probably wouldn't.

Phew! I'm sure glad he cleared that up.  

A similar bill has been proposed in the Texas Senate by Donna Campbell (R).  SJR 10 goes beyond Mr. Krause' proposed amendment by defining "burden" as including "withholding benefits, assessing penalties, and denying access to facilities or programs." 

So will LGBT Texans who dare to live life outside the closet find that company-paid benefits are for straight employees only?  Will they be told the lunch room is off limits to them?  Should gay men in Dallas expect to see "Straights Only" signs on the gym equipment?  Will Houston's lesbians be told they are no longer welcome in their gym's yoga classes?

I can come up with only one reason to explain why people like Texas lawmakers Mr. Krause and Ms. Campbell insist on ignoring the negative effect these bills have on their states' reputations and economies and that is that they are taking a chapter out of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner's playbook.  I am referring to the chapter where Mr. Boehner explains that he called for votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act at the beginning of each new Congress because there were newly elected Representatives who had not had the opportunity to record their dislike of the ACA into the annals of legislative history.  Or maybe it's the chapter where he explains that he kept calling for even more repeal votes because yet another Republican had written yet another anti-"Obamacare" bill, that needed to be paraded before his constituents. 

It's as if the GOP has developed some strange cultural fixation with "If he has one, I have to have one too."  If he gets to vote on "Obamacare," I have to get a chance to vote too!  If he writes a bill, I have to write another one!  If their state defends conservative cake bakers, so must we! Anything less would make me/us less-Republican.

Because nothing says "Republican" like having your name inscribed in both the GOP's official "We Hate Health Care" AND the official "We Heart (Conservative) Christians" tomes.

I wonder if they get a certificate (Personally Signed by Reince Priebus! Perfect for Framing!) if they provide proof they were quoted in their hometown newspaper saying "We don't discriminate?"