Religious Liberties of Texas Public Officials Remain Constitutionally Protected

Silly sad bigoted bluster with no legal force from silly sad people

Embarrassing for all Texans.

 

It was, "yeah, ya'll go ahead on, I'll wait back here".
(don't sue me though bro!)

so brave!

 

They'll stick to their rights as long as it doesn't personally hurt them. Kinda like the guy who promised to set himself on fire when gay marriage was allowed, yet for some reason has now decided not to. I imagine these county clerks may decide to go ahead and issue licenses rather than volunteering for a lawsuit they have no way of winning.

 

Hissy fit.

No different than my 3-year olds, really.

 

This is like a vegan working at KFC who refuses to serve chicken to a customer.

As an employee of the government, your job is to carry out its laws. Guess what the law is now, as of Friday? You must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

If you don't like it, get a new job.

 

The Texas Attorney General (R) on Sunday advised any restaurant employee who has a religious objections to pork or shellfish that they may opt out of providing services to customers who want to eat items forbidden by the bible.

The AG said that his guidance was necessary to protect the religious liberties of thousands of people whose job it is to serve food.

"We find that the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights," he said in a statement.

In particular, opponents have stressed the necessity to protect people of faith from being forced to condone or participate in the ingestion of pork and shellfish, which are dirty food according the Old Testament. Traif-rights groups have called these efforts discrimination under the guise of religious liberties.

The opinion immediately drew criticism from traif-rights groups, which said it was not legally sound. They also plan to press their case in Brooklyn NY, which has held back broadly on providing pork and shellfish to customers.

"Restauranteurs have no constitutional or statutory right to discriminate in providing delicious pork and shellfish to those who want it," said the legal director for the National Center for Shellfish Ingestion. "This opinion is wrong on the law, and it does a disservice to servers who need clear, reliable guidance about their duty to follow the law and to provide delicious pork products and sea bugs to people across our glorious nation."

In his opinion, the AG acknowledges the legal vulnerability for local servers who decline to help hungry consumers. He suggests that staff who do not want to help customers violate the bible because of "sincerely held" religious beliefs about eating forbidden food to delegate that responsibility to others. But in cases where no server is available to assist customers demanding a shrimp cocktail or pulled-pork sandwich, they could face lawsuits.

"But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist waiters and waitresses in defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights," he said.

 

As I said in the other thread if I still lived in Texas I would be mad that the AG is wasting tax payer dollars on this.

Related to this I was listening to Huckabee citing Martin Luther King in his argument against the Obergefell decision. I find it sad that we are now arguing that Civil Rights is now about protecting bigotry.