Is this Texas?
The San Antonio City Council proposed an ordinance to punish and ban from employment any Christian who does not believe in homosexual marriage. They even want men to be able to use a woman's bathroom.
they had so much backlash that they changed the proposed ordinance a little bit but it still punishes Christians
from TexasValues.org:
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate in their effort to pass their so called
“non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a
direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by
concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and
local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true
intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their
rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to
recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and
has attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing
opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and
unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change
the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and
practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a
section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed
officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending
person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the
ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and
sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section
that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or
deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action
be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could
prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes
homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible
calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as
it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share
the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities.
(Sec. 2-592)
As
we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially
contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal
to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is
given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress,
such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to
use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman.
The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed
by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for
sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council
should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption
for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec.
2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public
accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered
to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general
public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very
broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio
businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of
language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing
to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who
is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to
provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being
prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a
printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a
“gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky).
Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San
Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this
new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this
ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that
Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred
from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will
use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as
the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious
organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for
churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only
limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address
the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives
an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic.
The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The
ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as
Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in
good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to
define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not
give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s
operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom
Ordinance:
- See more at:
http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the
blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has
attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts
to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But
simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section
2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are
still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems
with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section
(2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials,
and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the
offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that
tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word
or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring
that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This
provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things
as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and
point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior
to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind
of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage
and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post,
the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender
bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because
of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in
which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a
locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man
desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he
believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and
children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent
testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain
easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on
protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places
of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith.
(Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to
provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the
general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the
general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or
facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large
amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being
used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to
provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex
“wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian
florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for
religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the
same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who
declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being
sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous
negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate
according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new
“non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with
this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This
means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious
beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city.
Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private
businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and
other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for
employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the
situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that
receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is
Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what
religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some
denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those
engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This
ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and
dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section
does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of
religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the
blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has
attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts
to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But
simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section
2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are
still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems
with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section
(2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials,
and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the
offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that
tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word
or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring
that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This
provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things
as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and
point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior
to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind
of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage
and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post,
the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender
bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because
of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in
which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a
locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man
desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he
believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and
children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent
testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain
easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on
protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places
of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith.
(Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to
provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the
general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the
general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or
facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large
amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being
used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to
provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex
“wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian
florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for
religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the
same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who
declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being
sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous
negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate
according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new
“non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with
this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This
means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious
beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city.
Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private
businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and
other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for
employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the
situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that
receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is
Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what
religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some
denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those
engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This
ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and
dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section
does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of
religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the
blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has
attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts
to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But
simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section
2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are
still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems
with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section
(2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials,
and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the
offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that
tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word
or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring
that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This
provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things
as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and
point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior
to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind
of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage
and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post,
the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender
bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because
of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in
which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a
locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man
desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he
believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and
children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent
testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain
easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on
protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places
of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith.
(Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to
provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the
general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the
general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or
facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large
amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being
used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to
provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex
“wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian
florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for
religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the
same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who
declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being
sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous
negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate
according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new
“non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with
this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This
means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious
beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city.
Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private
businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and
other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for
employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the
situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that
receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is
Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what
religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some
denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those
engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This
ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and
dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section
does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of
religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the
blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has
attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts
to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But
simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section
2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are
still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems
with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section
(2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials,
and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the
offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that
tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word
or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring
that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This
provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things
as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and
point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior
to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind
of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage
and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post,
the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender
bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because
of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in
which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a
locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man
desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he
believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and
children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent
testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain
easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on
protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places
of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith.
(Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to
provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the
general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the
general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or
facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large
amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being
used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to
provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex
“wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian
florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for
religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the
same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who
declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being
sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous
negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate
according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new
“non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with
this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This
means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious
beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city.
Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private
businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and
other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for
employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the
situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that
receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is
Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what
religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some
denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those
engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This
ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and
dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section
does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of
religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting
desperate
in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance –
an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians
and people of faith in San Antonio. With over
20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans
and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens
continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are
exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the
blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has
attempted to change the ordinance and
introduce new drafts
to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But
simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section
2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are
still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems
with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section
(2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials,
and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”)
homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the
offending person from office.”
Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:
1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))
As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that
tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city
government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word
or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring
that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This
provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things
as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and
point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior
to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind
of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage
and sexuality.
2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)
As we highlighted in an earlier post,
the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender
bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because
of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in
which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a
locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a
crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man
desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he
believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and
children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent
testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain
easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on
protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.
3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places
of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian)
businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith.
(Sec. 2-592)
The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to
provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the
general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business
within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the
general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or
facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large
amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being
used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to
provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for
discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a
Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex
“wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian
florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for
religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the
same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who
declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being
sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous
negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate
according to their beliefs.
4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual
Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination
protections from working with the city. (Section 7)
Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new
“non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business
pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with
this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This
means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious
beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city.
Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private
businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.
5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))
While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and
other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for
employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the
situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that
receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is
Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what
religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some
denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those
engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This
ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and
dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as
their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section
does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of
religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.
More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf
