https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/texas-gov-greg-abbott-signs-save-chick-fil-bill-n1031786 Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs 'Save Chick-fil-A' bill The legislation, known as Senate Bill 1978, prohibits government entities from taking "adverse actions" against businesses or individuals because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. But while proponents view the bill as a necessary measure ensuring religious freedom, critics say it's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine LGBTQ rights. The bill — which has no official connection to Chick-fil-A — received its nickname after the San Antonio City Council banned the fast-food franchise from opening a location in the city's airport because of the company's "legacy of anti-LGBT behavior."
This is actually quite an interesting topic from a legal and Constitutional stand point without getting into personal poltical biases. I tend to agree that the government should not take a stand and let the business operate and let the people decide with their dollars. Of course we can find common ground on what beliefs a business has that should not be allowed, like no doubt Nazi group looking to open a cupcake store in an airport to fund their Nazi propaganda should not be allowed to operate a store called Nazi Cakes. But Chik-Fil-A's stance though hypocritical from a religious standpoint from what I have heard does not affect the restaurants serving all who come in or even employing no matter what the owner says is his opinion. So I think San Antonio overreached from a legal standpoint. But then it becomes a thicket of thorns when a group states as a hypothetical, religious beliefs means hating all non-Catholics and refusing to serve or hire anyone not Catholic and it is called Bow to Pope Burgers.
or blacks, or Muslims, or Jews, or the easiest next target, women...sure it's just gays now, but the language does not read as "only gays" will be affected by religious protections. Plenty of scripture to leave women out of your business. It's a win for libertarians, but now you'll have things like "can't take their subsidies/tax breaks because the law says so", even thought they're discriminating against certain Americans. I do wonder how SCOTUS will rule on this.
I personally think the idea is right - but this isn’t about freedom. It’s about pushing his personal agenda of promoting hard right Christianity. Based on his tweet, I doubt he would sign this bill if it were related to a Muslim store that sent money to support refugees in Syria.
But with Chik-Fil-A the outrage was contained to opinions expressed by the OWNER and not actions of the actual stores, that is why I was saying this is a unique and interesting legal issue. But San Antonio went maybe too far punishing the store for opinions expressed by the owner. Then the question becomes which opinions of the owner cross a line that allows a State government to deny them a license to operate on government property. Now the examples were rasied, like mine for example, where the store's owner is not just expressing an opinion, but takes action with the money and policies of the store. Chik-Fil-A is a grey area because the store does not deny LGBT... from being served like a cake store owner who will no bake a cake for a gay wedding. I used the Nazi example to show an extreme case that could be easily decided but between Nazi Cakes and Chik-Fil-A is a wide grey area. I think claiming religious freedom as a means to discriminate though is a horrible shaky legal ground for Christians to deny gays access to their business or Muslims to deny women access or similar possible religious basis. Given the U.S. and its view on religious freedom, it was a means to allow you to practice your religion free from interference not allow your religion to interfere with others. Besides, bible thumpers claiming the Bible is against homosexuality while ignoring all the other parts is beyond hypocritical so they should not be allowed to dick-tate policy.