Federal Texas Judge: Religious Businesses Protected From LGBT Discrimination Claims

A federal judge in Texas ruled that businesses with sincerely held religious beliefs can be shielded from LGBT discrimination claims, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The decision carves out exceptions to sexual orientation and gender identity protections previously granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Morning Newsreported.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled Sunday that Braidwood Management Inc., a Christian healthcare companies operator in Katy, Texas, can avoid LGBT anti-bias protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, the Morning News reported.

The anti-bias protections stem from 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII, which says an employer can claim a religious exemption if it can show it is a "religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society."

The judge also said religious nonprofits, such as Bear Creek Bible Church in Keller, Texas, can refuse to hire and can fire LGBT employees under Title VII.






Read more: https://www.newsmax.com/us/lbgt-texas-judge-religious-businesses/2021/11/03/id/1043150/





This is the correct ruling. The religious freedom restoration act and the free exercise clause should give religious beliefs these protections. This judges ruling should be the national standard. No business owned by a believer should be coerced or compelled to violate the owners deeply held religious beliefs.

 

This will protect bakers, florists, stenographers, photographers, caterers, and others from having to violate their religious beliefs to protect their livelihood

 

I am a strong believer in freedom. My only issue with this is that religious people enjoy legal protection from "we don't serve/hire your kind here" based on their religious beliefs.

 

O'Connor is an Extremist-RW Judge, and this will be reversed on appeal.

 

Then don't give them your business. There are plenty of others...

 

If you are LGBT and there are five flower shops in your city, but you knowingly choose to go to the one that has religious owners, then sue them for not serving you, you're nothing more than a litigious ******bag looking for a payday...

 

Anyone who has a Bible that says you can’t hire or do business with gays can have an exception, nobody else

 

Considering businesses refuse service to Trump supporters, why should this be any different?

 

They also refuse service to people who don’t have on shoes.

 

Thats not the point. We are discussing legal protection for pointing a righteous finger at others saying "we don't serve/hire your kind here" Currently, discrimination based on ones religion is prohibited. That gives religious people legal protection to do what cannot be done to them.

 

Yep, so businesses can and should be able to choose whats important to them.

The lefts positions biting them in the ass again.

 

I agree. When a business tells you to wear a mask and provide proof of vaccination to be in their establishment, be a good American and do as the business asks.

 

As for the topic, this is just another example of dems being ok with Trump supporters being discriminated against yet are now taking issue.

If they had principle, they would have taken issue with it from the beginning regardless of the direction.

 

You know that the appeals court this is going to is the one that allowed the Texas heartbeat bill to stay in effect?

 

And they often do just that out of pure spite.

 

No. You just don't use them. You have free choice as an American.

Doing those things for CV-19 is for cucks, cowards, fascists, and communists. No real American bends over like that... only those brainwashed and weak.

I will say if it is a type of business where it is the only provider of that service or product around that I may have issues with the ruling.

 

I think most people don’t think religion makes discrimination ok.

 

It’s not discrimination. It’s living ones daily life in all things according to ones beliefs. Giving businesses religious liberty conscience clauses to avoid being coerced into violation of beliefs to be allowed to earn a livelihood is a reasonable accommodation.

 

So if my religious says only serve whites that should be ok? If it says I only serve christians?

 

I agree. It should be the call of a business and not a government mandate. If a business asks it we can either go along with it or patronize another one that doesn’t demand it.

 

Yet some states are denying businesses that power. Florida outlawed businesses requiring vaccines. Let me guess, that was somehow good?

 

There is no known or legitimate religion that believes that. There are many that believe that marriage can only be between one man and one woman and that any other arrangement is a mortal sin.

 

More rights afforded to the religious but not the nonreligious.

We should really just stop trying to control people in general.

 

It’s more about extending existing rights protected by the 1st amendment free exercise clause and the RFRA. Non religious people really have no grounds based on religious beliefs to do something or not do something.

 

Which ones say selling gays a cake is also a sin? Since when does Christianity say to have no contact with sinners? What branch is that?