Democrat state Representative Julie Johnson of Carrollton earned much praise in Texas press outlets for killing House Bill 3172 on a point-of-order last week. Johnson said it was “an honor to be fighting this fight” about her efforts to promote the homosexual political agenda at the expense of the freedoms of others.
The Dallas Morning News said of Representative Matt Krause’s bill: “It would have prohibited the government from taking any “adverse action” against someone for their “membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation or other support” to a religious organization.”
Homosexual activists were quoted as saying the legislation would give Texans a license to discriminate against them but does that claim fit with what the law would have done?
That protection would apply to those who apply alphabet-soup labels to themselves, whether homosexual or not, as well as everyone. How is that “discriminatory?”
The law would have prevented government from taking any “adverse action” against someone for their “membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation or other support” to a religious organization.”
It would protect from government taking “adverse action” against anyone for their affiliation with, or contribution to any religious organization (sort of what we thought being an American already ensured, but of late clearly doesn’t.) That protection would apply to those who apply alphabet-soup labels to themselves, whether homosexual or not, as well as everyone. How is that “discriminatory?”
What opposition to the bill actually exposes is what the LGBTQ-XYZ-WTF lobby intends to do to others who disagree with them: Specifically use government to penalize people who do not agree with and support their political and social agenda.
LGBT-WTF lobby lets cat out of bag on its intentions
The Dallas Morning News said of Representative Matt Krause’s bill: “It would have prohibited the government from taking any “adverse action” against someone for their “membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation or other support” to a religious organization.”
Homosexual activists were quoted as saying the legislation would give Texans a license to discriminate against them but does that claim fit with what the law would have done?
That protection would apply to those who apply alphabet-soup labels to themselves, whether homosexual or not, as well as everyone. How is that “discriminatory?”
The law would have prevented government from taking any “adverse action” against someone for their “membership in, affiliation with, or contribution, donation or other support” to a religious organization.”
It would protect from government taking “adverse action” against anyone for their affiliation with, or contribution to any religious organization (sort of what we thought being an American already ensured, but of late clearly doesn’t.) That protection would apply to those who apply alphabet-soup labels to themselves, whether homosexual or not, as well as everyone. How is that “discriminatory?”
What opposition to the bill actually exposes is what the LGBTQ-XYZ-WTF lobby intends to do to others who disagree with them: Specifically use government to penalize people who do not agree with and support their political and social agenda.