Texas Heartbeat law survives first challenge at SCOTUS by 5-4 vote – AZ Planned Parenthood Chair Calls For Riots

While Wednesday’s decision stressed that it wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the law, many pro-lifers have taken the majority’s willingness to let the law stand even temporarily as an encouraging sign.

Featured ImageWashington DC.,USA, January 22, 1989. Hundreds of thousands of people participate in the Annual Right to Life March as it passes in front of the United States Supreme Court.Mark Reinstein / Shutterstock.com


Calvin Freiburger Thu Sep 2, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Supreme Court formally denied the abortion lobby’s request to block the Texas Heartbeat Act Wednesday evening, voting 5-4 to let the historic law take effect while arguments on the constitutional merits of abortion restrictions work their way through the judicial system.

Signed in May by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the Act requires abortionists to screen for a preborn baby’s heartbeat and prohibits abortion if a heartbeat can be heard (generally as early as six weeks), with exceptions only for medical emergencies.

The law relies on a unique enforcement mechanism. Instead of having the state prosecute violators, it “exclusively” empowers private citizens to bring civil suits against abortionists, punishable by a minimum of $10,000 in statutory relief per abortion plus whatever additional injunctive relief is deemed “sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this chapter or engaging in acts that aid or abet violations of this chapter.”

Texas Right to Life (TRTL) has set up a website where concerned Texans can anonymously report abortionists who commit abortions after finding a heartbeat or without testing for one.

Abortion organizations including Planned Parenthood Center for Choice and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance filed emergency motions with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay on enforcing the law. But last Friday night, the court canceled a hearing on the matter that had been planned for Monday, then denied the motions on Sunday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit’s denial cleared the way for the law to take effect Wednesday, September 1, which it did when the Supreme Court declined to intervene Tuesday evening in response to an emergency petition from the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR).

Now, the Court has formally weighed in, ruling 5-4 that while CRR and its allies “have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue,” they also presented “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.”

“For example, federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves,” wrote the majority, which consisted of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. “And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention…The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.”

“Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law,” the Court continued. “Finally, the sole private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application. 

The justices closed by stressing that they were not hinting at any long-term resolution to “any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, joined the Democrat-appointed Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent, writing that the “statutory scheme” of the Texas Heartbeat Act “is not only unusual, but unprecedented,” and that he “would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws” by delegating enforcement to private citizens.

Breyer, meanwhile, reiterated his view that a “woman has a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during” the “first stage of pregnancy.” Sotomayor attacked her colleagues for supposedly “bury[ing] their heads in the sand” when “[p]resented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny.” And Kagan blasted the law as “patently unconstitutional’ for empowering “private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf.”

While the Court’s final judgment on the Texas law remains to be seen, the justices are already expected to offer a more comprehensive treatment of abortion in their upcoming hearing of a Mississippi law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.

Various pro-life public officials, scholars, and activists have filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to not merely uphold the law but take the opportunity to directly overturn both 1973’s Roe v. Wade and 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which opened the door to some abortion regulations while reaffirming the “right” to abortion itself). 

Many pro-lifers see the case as the greatest test yet of the current justices, a majority of whom were appointed by Republican presidents yet have still disappointed pro-lifers and conservatives on various occasions.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas is explicitly on the record as anti-Roe, and only he and Justice Samuel Alito have established consistently conservative records over a significant period of time. Many have placed a great deal of hope with former President Donald Trump’s appointees, though conservatives have also been alarmed by Justice Neil Gorsuch voting to redefine “sex” in federal civil rights law last year, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voting not to hear several cases of concern to religious, conservative, and/or pro-life Americans.

While Wednesday’s decision took pains to clarify that it wasn’t a ruling on the merits of the Texas Heartbeat Act, many pro-lifers have taken the majority’s willingness to let the law stand even temporarily as an encouraging sign.

In the meantime, the new law has already begun to save lives. NBC News reported Tuesday evening that “all 11 of the Planned Parenthood health centers in Texas” have “stopped scheduling visits after Sept. 1 for abortions past six weeks of pregnancy,” and that Whole Woman’s Health claims that its “four clinics in Texas will also comply with the law and prohibit abortion at seven weeks or less depending on the ultrasound results and if cardiac activity is detected.”

AZ Planned Parenthood Chair: Calls For Riots After SCOTUS Ignores Abortion Emergency Request “BE READY TO BREAK SOME S**T”

By Jordan Conradson September 1, 2021

The Chairwoman of Arizona’s Planned Parenthood Action chapter, Chris Love called for riots after SCOTUS ignored emergency requests to block the Texas Heartbeat Law.

The “heartbeat” law will effectively outlaw abortions in the state after 6 weeks and it also gives any citizen – including those outside Texas – the right to take legal action against anyone who ‘aids and abets’ the termination of a pregnancy after the cut-off point.

Love was absolutely triggered that SCOTUS had the gall to prevent unborn babies from being slaughtered.

Love: I mean, what exactly did you all expect? You’re devastated, but you consistently ignored every single sign. I’ll write something coherent in the morning, but just know that fighting back doesn’t mean pussy hats or petitions. Be ready to break some shit.

If you went to bed early last night, you’re waking up to news that SCOTUS did not to intervene in Texas, so SB8, a bill that bans abortion at 6 weeks, is now law. If you’re like me, your timelines is awash with folks being all varieties of upset as Roe is essentially done.

EZAZ.org called on patriots to counter these radical demands and those who made them in a peaceful way.

Planned Parenthood Action & Arizona Radical Left Elected Officials Call for Rioting

photo_2021-09-01_10-24-44.jpg
Chandler School Board member’s sister, Chris Love, Chair of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, tweeted out a call for rioting over SCOTUS not intervening on the Texas heartbeat bill. Love tweeted, “Be ready to break some sh*t.”

Rep. Daniel Hernandez (D-2) amplified the tweet with a LIKE, followed by Rep. Diego Rodriguez (D-27) retweeting the tweet thread.

Hernandez is running for Congressional District seat two, and Rodriguez is running for Arizona Attorney General.

diego hernandez.png

The call for rioting comes at a suspicious time as Biden’s DOJ is pursuing a punitive investigation against the Phoenix Police for stopping riots, and violent crime continues to surge.

Contact these radical left officials and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and tell them Hands Off Arizona! NO RIOTS!

Email Planned Parenthood Action

(602) 277-7526

Email Rep. Hernandez

602-926-4840

Email Rep. Rodriguez

602-926-3285

Email Minority Leader

602-926-3132

The radical left is calling for violence because they cannot kill babies with beating hearts.

These people are disgusting.


Texas Governor Abbott: Church an ‘Essential Service,’ Practice Social Distancing

The Rev. Alvin J. Gwynn Sr., of Friendship Baptist Church in Baltimore, sits in his church's sanctuary, Thursday, March 19, 2020. He bucked the cancellation trend by holding services the previous Sunday. But attendance was down by about 50%, and Gwynn said the day’s offering netted about $5,000 compared to …

PENNY STARR 1 Apr 2020

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed an executive order that makes churches an “essential service,” as protocols are being put in place across the country during the coronavirus pandemic.

Abbott included language to encourage online worship services and told church leaders and parishioners to practice “social distancing” to prevent the spread of the virus if they do gather for services.

Abbott said in an interview reported on by Click2Houston:

I’m unaware of a church that would want its constituents, its parishioners, to be exposed to COVID-19, and I think there’s enough public information right now for them to be aware of the practices that are needed to make sure that their members don’t contract COVID-19,

Click2Houston reported on a press conference Abbott held:

There has been controversy, particularly in the Houston area, over church closures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Pastors are in court challenging a stay-at-home order that Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo announced a week ago that restricts churches to online-only services.

To that end, Abbott’s latest executive order supersedes “any conflicting order issued by local officials.” 

At the news conference, Abbott said local officials can still issue more stringent restrictions than the statewide standard as long as they do not conflict with that standard.

Law360.com also reported on the legal battle over church services:

The executive order — which also extends school closures statewide through May 4 — comes one day after Fox News guest commentator Dr. Steven Hotze and three Houston pastors asked the Texas Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional a March 24 order from Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo barring in-person religious services.

“The circumstances presented by coronavirus do not excuse unlawful government infringements upon freedom,” Hotze argued in the emergency petition for writ of mandamus filed with the state’s high court on Monday. “Urgent First and Second Amendment issues of immense statewide significance, arising from the largest county in Texas and affecting residents throughout the Lonestar State, are presented here.”

“If religious services cannot be conducted from home or through remote services, they should be conducted consistent with the guidelines from the president and the [Centers for Disease Control] by practicing good hygiene, environmental cleanliness, and sanitation, and by implementing social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” the order reads.

Jared Woodfill of Woodfill Law Firm PC, which represents Hotze and the pastors, told Law360 on Tuesday that the ball is now in Hildalgo’s court.

“The big question now is what does Judge Hidalgo do?” Woodfill said. “Is she going to ignore the governor and his comments or abide by them and amend her order?”

Law360.com  reporte:

Woodfill said because this lawsuit presents a matter of statewide importance, he took it straight to the Texas Supreme Court, but should the court decline to take it, he’s already preparing several state court lawsuits to challenge the order in Harris County, as well as the orders in Dallas, Montgomery, and Fort Bend counties. 

The legal website reported the pastors that joined in the plea to the state’s high court are Juan Bustamante of City on a Hill Church, George Garcia of Power of Love Church, and David Valdez of World Faith Center of Houston Church.

Bustamante alleged in the Law360.com article that a Houston police officer threatened him with jail and a $1,000 fine “if he did not stop preaching the gospel to his congregation,” according to the petition.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/01/texas-governor-abbott-church-an-essential-service-practice-social-distancing/

Majority-Woman City Council In Texas Votes To Create Second ‘Sanctuary City For The Unborn’

Last Monday night, the City of Omaha, Texas, unanimously passed an ordinance outlawing abortion within city limits, making Omaha the second city in the nation to do so

Majority-Woman City Council In Texas Votes To Create Second ‘Sanctuary City For The Unborn’

Sept 17, 2019 By Georgi Boorman

On Sept. 9, the City of Omaha, Texas, unanimously passed an ordinance outlawing abortion within city limits, making Omaha the second city in the nation to do so, behind Waskom, Texas. The City of Naples quickly followed suit that same day in a 5-1 vote.

“To protect the health and welfare of all residents within the City of Omaha,” the ordinance reads, “including the unborn and pregnant women, the City Council has found it necessary to outlaw human abortion within the city limits.”

The text states that unborn babies “are the most innocent among us and deserve equal protection under the law as any other member of our American posterity as defined by the United States Constitution,” also asserting that “there is no language anywhere in the Constitution that even remotely suggests that abortion is a constitutional right.”

Both Men and Women Voted to Preserve Human Life

A majority-female Omaha City Council passed the ordinance on the heels of criticism that the all-white, all-male Waskom City Council was curtailing “the reproductive freedom” of a demographic that didn’t have a seat at the table.

“I hate abortion, and I don’t want to see an abortion clinic in our city,” Naples Councilwoman Sally Buford told the director of Right to Life of East Texas Mark Lee Dickson, who led the initiatives in Waskom, Omaha, and Naples. Naples Mayor Pro-Tem Jacob Wilson wrote in a Facebook comment relating to the decision that he was “truly proud to be the one to make the motion to pass this [bill].”

The Naples City Council is made up of four men and two women. The only opposition to the ordinance came from Councilman Danny Mills, an older, white male. “I just couldn’t see that we could tie up a mayor and cops tending to somebody else’s business,” Mills told Texarkana News.

Both Omaha and Naples are in Morris County in northeast Texas. Morris County voted overwhelmingly Republican in the 2016 presidential election, 69.3 percent to 28.7 percent Democrat.

Although national voters, who overwhelmingly support access to at least first-trimester abortions, might consider the ordinances radical, the city councils seem to have the support of their constituencies. During the 2018 Republican Party primary, voters had the opportunity to vote on Proposition 7, which gave voters the chance to voice their opinion if they were “in favor” of or “against” the following statement: “I believe abortion should be abolished in Texas.”

Out of 1,244 votes in Morris County, more than 75 percent were in favor of the statement.

The Ordinances Properly Define Abortion

The newly passed city ordinances define “surgical or chemical abortion” as the “purposeful and intentional ending of a human life,” classifying it as “murder ‘with malice aforethought.’”

“Rulings or opinions from the Supreme Court that purport to establish or enforce a ‘constitutional right’ to abort a unborn child, are declared to be unconstitutional usurpations of judicial power,” according to the ordinance, and are “declared to be null and void.”

The near-identical Naples and Omaha ordinances later state, however, that the public enforcement part of the ordinances cannot go into effect “unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and permits states and municipalities to once again enforce abortion prohibitions.”

Although it would appear this clause renders the whole ordinance moot, Dickson says there’s no statute of limitations on this public act of enforcement: “This allows for those who break this law to be subject to these penalties at a later date — which is no laughing matter.”

“Do not be mistaken,” Dickson continued via electronic correspondence, “abortion really is outlawed in every city that passes these ordinances. If someone performs an abortion in a city that has outlawed abortion they have broken the law and there are both future (public enforcement) and immediate (private enforcement) consequences.”

Read the full Omaha ordinance here and the Naples ordinance here.

City Councils Demonstrate Farsightedness on Abortion

The Omaha vote was driven in part by Mayor Ernest Pewitt’s concern that an abortion business could move into the city and set up shop in an abandoned clinic, unless the city council passed a law to prevent it. The nearby city of Naples also has an abandoned clinic which could have been converted into an abortion facility.

The ordinances outlaw abortion within the city limits and ban the sale and distribution of “emergency contraception.” They define “emergency contraception” as “any chemical or substance which is manufactured for the express purpose of use after unprotected sexual intercourse and which may function as an abortifacient to end the life of an unborn child by preventing implantation of the zygote in the uterine lining. This definition includes Ella, Plan B, Next Choice One Dose, and My Way.”

Due to their inclusion of chemical abortion, these ordinances are more prescient than most other pro-life legislation, classifying “any remote personnel who instruct abortive women to perform self-abortions at home” as abortionists. Organizations dedicated to providing women access to and guidance for taking “DIY” abortion drugs are growing in popularity, particularly in areas and countries where abortions are banned or access is severely restricted. Without outlawing such efforts, many first-trimester abortions would continue undetected with the aid and guidance of “DIY” abortion activists acting with impunity.

The documents also named specific abortion-facilitating organizations and declared them to be criminal, including Planned Parenthood, Jane’s Due Process, The Afiya Center, The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity, NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and others.

Ordinances Include a ‘Life of the Mother’ Exception

The ordinance is also rare in its denouncement of “judicial usurpation” by the Supreme Court, although it simultaneously declines to enforce the laws until court precedent is overturned. In addition to these robust statements, the ordinances provide a “private enforcement mechanism” by which violators of the ordinance can be held liable in tort to any surviving relatives of the dead unborn child. Liability includes compensatory damages, including for emotional distress, punitive damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees.

Unlike the provisions that require public enforcement, these tort provisions can be enforced immediately and do not depend on overturning Supreme Court abortion precedent, according to Dickson. The ordinances contain a “life of the mother” exception, which is standard in virtually all anti-abortion legislation and is here written to proscribe abortion as a remedy where early delivery is the superior option.

The text states abortion is permitted “if the abortion was in response to a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.”

Pro-life medical doctors acknowledge that “previable separations,” but never abortions, are necessary to save the mother’s life. In previable separations, mother and baby are separated to protect one or both lives, but the baby is not willfully killed. According to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), in previable separations, health care providers try to “optimize the conditions of the separation so that the fetus has the best possibility to live.”

Executive Director of AAPLOG Donna Harrison told me via email, “The separation of the mother and her unborn child to save the life of the mother never requires the intentional death of the fetus,” even in cases such as chorioamnionitis (a bacterial infection which can turn lethal within a few hours), severe preeclampsia, or pulmonary hypertension. She believes the wording of the provision is sound.

Cities Are Sending a Big Message to Their States

The ordinances passed in Omaha and Naples were based on the ordinance passed in Waskom, Texas. The purpose of all three is to ban abortion services and prevent abortion organizations from building abortion facilities or converting old facilities into them. Dickson calls the ordinance template an “abortionclinic-ifacient,” which makes the city “uninhabitable to an abortion clinic and abortion services.”

According to Dickson, the Naples and Omaha city councils took proactive measures to protect what they view as the best interest of residents within the cities and in the surrounding areas, particularly those not yet born. Through these ordinances, these cities are “making a clear and definitive stand” for the preborn’s natural and constitutional rights.

“These ordinances are not perfect,” Dickson admitted, “but they seek to do what can be done within the laws of the state in which we live.” They aren’t a replacement for state action, “but should send a message to the state that the cities in their state have had enough of the bloodshed,” he said.

“It is time for the state to seriously consider bringing this holocaust to an end at the state level,” Dickson declared. He anticipates several more cities will pass similar legislation.

America is witnessing enhanced indignation over abortion as communities organize in earnest opposition. Whether these ordinances lead to courts overturning abortion precedent or to states nullifying Roe remains to be seen, but legislators at the state and federal levels would do well not to ignore the grassroots momentum of those opposed to legal abortion.

Georgi is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist, host of The 180 Cast, and coauthor of “Clocking Out Early: The Ultimate Guide to Early Retirement.” Follow her on Twitter.
Photo ArkLaTex Homepage/YouTube

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/17/majority-woman-city-council-in-texas-votes-to-create-second-sanctuary-city-for-the-unborn/

Choose Life!

May 9, 2019 by Dr Michael Brown

More than three-thousand years ago, Moses urged the children of Israel to “choose life.” He said to them:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life—if you and your offspring would live” (Deuteronomy 30:19, NJPS).

But why would anyone choose death? Why would anyone choose to be cursed rather than blessed?

The answer is that God’s ways lead to life and blessing, but many people would rather die than follow Him.

They view God’s ways as restrictive. Oppressive. Antiquated. Harmful.

In reality, God’s ways lead to human thriving. To liberty. To freedom. To fullness.

As Jesus said:

“I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

To be sure, God’s ways require discipline. And obedience. And denial of the flesh.

But fleshly habits bring bondage. Discipline sets us free.

Indulging our earthly desires brings dullness and addiction. Obedience lifts us into a higher realm, far above our animal appetites.

God is a God of life, and in Him is life beyond description. That’s why Jesus could say:

“I am the resurrection and the life. . . . I am the bread of life. . . . . Whoever follows Me . . . will have the light of life” (John 11:24; 6:35; 8:12). And that’s why John called Him “the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).

Tragically, in recent decades, America has increasingly chosen a path of death, from abortion to violent video games, and from euthanasia to TV shows glorifying vampires and zombies. How can we turn the tide?

Here are some practical suggestions.

First, go about your normal daily activities, watching and reading and listening to what you normally watch and read and listen to, but this time take note of how much death is involved. How many images of the dead and dying? How many corpses? How much graphic violence? How much death are you seeing (by choice, not by necessity) over the course of a week?

Second, if you realize that you’re being influenced by a culture of death, then take a thirty-day break from all forms of death-related media entertainment, be it video games or favorite TV shows or gratuitously violent novels.

Third, immerse yourself in words of life. I would encourage you to read several chapters from Proverbs and the Gospel of John each day, noticing the constant emphasis on life. As the voice of wisdom says in Proverbs 8:

“For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death” (Prov. 8:35-36).

Fourth, when you spend time in prayer, ask God to flood your heart with His life and to give you the perspective of life, to see the world as He would have you see it.

Fifth, after thirty days, ask the Lord how He would have you to live. You might be surprised to see how your perspectives have changed. In the words of Paul:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable– if anything is excellent or praiseworthy– think about such things (Phil. 4:8, NIV).

If you’d like to take this even further, then consider three more steps.

First, get involved in the pro-life movement and work against abortion on demand in our nation. If Mother Teresa and others are right, this strikes at a major root of our culture of death, and by joining together as pro-life Christians, we can see the nation impacted.

Second, we can affirm the dignity of every human life by reaching out to the elderly, who are some of the most forgotten and neglected people in our society.

Third, get involved with another group that society discards, the poor and the hurting. Many churches have ministries to the poor and the needy, and every city has feeding programs and the like, and for the most part, they are greatly understaffed.

We celebrate life when we bring meaning and hope into the lives of the hurting, and we reaffirm that they too are created in the image of God, therefore of inestimable value and worth. It is something near and dear to the Lord’s heart.

The good news is that, across our nation, Americans are choosing life. In fact, already in March, a New York Times headline declared:

“Georgia Is Latest State to Pass Fetal Heartbeat Bill as Part of Growing Trend.”

The article noted that:

“The governors in Mississippi and Kentucky signed fetal heartbeat measures into law in recent weeks, and other states — including Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas — are expected to approve similar measures this year.”

May our nation choose life, that we and our offspring might live!

(Some of the material in this article was excerpted and adapted from my book Saving a Sick America: A Prescription for Moral and Cultural Transformation.)

 

Original here

Texas Backs Chick-fil-A, Come What Mayo!

Chick-fil-A may cater, but not to the demands San Antonio liberals care about. Now, three weeks into the city council’s decision to ban the restaurant from the local airport, Texas conservatives know: this case for their religious liberty bill was made to order.

“Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport,” City Councilman Roberto Treviño told the media after the council’s 6-4 vote to boot the chicken chain from opening a shop in the terminal. Why? Because the owners dare to donate to charities like the Salvation Army. “Ridiculous!” Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) responded on Twitter. “That’s not Texas,” he argued.

Unfortunately, the state’s conservatives worry, that will be Texas if something isn’t done to protect religious freedom. “With this decision,” Treviño insisted, the council “reaffirmed the work [San Antonio] has done to become a champion of inclusion.” Until, of course, that “inclusion” applies to people who support natural marriage and sexuality. Where’s the equality for them? That’s a question the Lone Star State is trying to answer with the introduction of SB 17, the Free to Believe Act and the First Amendment Defense Act.

Chick-fil-A may be a private company, but that doesn’t mean it has to surrender its beliefs at the dining room door. And the same goes for any American trying to live out their faith in the public square. The San Antonio City Council thinks it can’t, “in good conscience,” sign an airport agreement with a business owned by Christians. But isn’t that exactly what this debate is about — conscience? Just because the Cathy family owns a national restaurant chain doesn’t mean they’re excluded from the First Amendment. Regardless of what liberals say, religious freedom isn’t just for churches. It’s for every business, wedding vendor, adoption agency, charity, doctor — every citizen. And that’s what SB 17 is hoping to remind Texans.

“We’re waking up in an era where Christian faith, specifically, seems to be under attack,” said state Sen. Charles Perry (R). In the current political climate, he’s worried Christians can’t practice their faith openly without facing consequences — including the loss of their jobs and livelihood. Under the Free to Believe Act, government officials can’t punish Texans for thinking differently than the radical Left. That’s just “a license to discriminate,” LGBT activists argue.

Not true, Republicans like Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (Texas) fired back. No one is trying to create a religious excuse for businesses to turn people away. No believer I know would want that — let alone lobby for it. As even Chick-fil-A has said, everyone should feel welcome at its restaurant. This debate has never been about Christians discriminating against anyone — it’s about stopping the government from discriminating against them!

Even in some of the more high-profile wedding vendor cases, where the Left is trying to paint Christians as intolerant monsters who want to slam the door shut on same-sex couples, you’ll find that — to a person — each shop owner was more than happy to sell the activists something off their shelves. In fact, Barronnelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers, considered the man who sued her to be one of her best customers. “I knew he was in a relationship with a man and he knew I was a Christian. But that never clouded the friendship for either of us or threatened our shared creativity — until he asked me to design something special to celebrate his upcoming wedding. If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have provided them. If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings have a particular significance.”

In Chick-fil-A’s case, the Left’s overreaction is almost comical. The Cathy family hasn’t done any overt lobbying on natural marriage for years. In fact, they’ve intentionally backed away from taking a stand on issues of biblical morality — yet still, they’re a target. That ought to show everyone that there’s just no appeasing the Left. Simply being a Christian in the workforce — even a polite and politically silent one — is enough to draw the liberals’ wrath.

But the Democrats’ new terrain, where your personal views disqualify you from participating in society, is a dangerous precedent. If liberals choose not to eat Chick-fil-A, that’s their right. Just like it’s our right not to shop at Target until they stop putting women and children in danger with their bathroom policies. What isn’t our decision — or theirs — is to exclude these businesses from the market altogether. If you agree, join our friends from Texas Values in Wednesday’s Save Chick-fil-A Day! Come to the state capitol for the House hearing on the Free to Believe Act, and then drive-through your local chain on the way home. Help Texas leaders show the country that there’s always an appetite for real religious freedom!

As seen here at Family Research Council. Posted here with permission.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Original here


Related

https://narrowpathministries.wordpress.com/2019/04/05/chick-fil-a-derangement-syndrome/

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: