San Antonio: Out, Damned Christians! Out, I Say!

The Left is all about tolerance and free speech, right?

Heh.

If you have even a sliver of a doubt that the Left is out to destroy Christianity in America, explain this (emphasis added):

The San Antonio City Council voted to consider a city ordinance disqualifying anyone who believes homosexual conduct is wrong from serving, ever, on a municipal board. The ban is to be applied “if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed” against various protected classes, and for the first time to include sexual orientation and “gender identity.”

Such bigots, for bigots is what they are, have no qualms about using such power as they have to bully anyone who holds views rooted in tradition or religion. The first draft of the San Antonio proposal would also have forbidden the city from doing business with anyone who fails to espouse politically correct views [more on this “first draft” assertion at the conclusion of this post], and could, theoretically be used to remove anyone from office with a traditional view, or even a view not believed fervently enough, for “malfeasance.” Such discrimination is proposed under the cloak of a “non-discrimination” ordinance. George Orwell is alive and hiding in Texas.

You might have to be careful calling a male person a “man” if San Antonio actually enacts such malignant drivel. The ordinance says that “Gender identity means a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” What if a man doesn’t feel manly when he’s called a man? Would subscribing to Playboy be prima facie evidence of offending gender identity, as practiced in San Antonio? Would it be against the law? The Alliance Defending Freedom, which litigates on behalf of religious tolerance, says it has never before encountered such an expansive ordinance.

Before I go off on a rant about this charming little story, some confirmation of its veracity is probably in order. Unfortunately, the MSM seems disinterested in the story, so don’t complain about the absence of MSM sources.

See CNSnews.com for perhaps the most concise and calm summary of the story (somebody should have a word with the headline writer, though).

Newsmax:

A proposal being considered by the city of San Antonio, Tex., would prohibit anyone who opposes homosexuality from holding public office or getting a city contract, Fox News Radio reports.

The proposal would add the phrases “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to San Antonio’s discrimination ordinance, protecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. It also includes military veterans.

But the measure would not add a religious exemption, which could affect Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin from serving on the city council, according to Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes.

The ordinance reads: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds … [they have] engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability.”

“It’s extremely dangerous. This is a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution and the San Antonio City Council looks like a bunch of anti-Christian activists,” Ken Klukowski, of the Family Research Council, told Starnes.

“If it’s passed, any person who has either expressed any belief in favor of traditional marriage or in terms of Judeo-Christian morality regarding sexuality in general, verbally or in writing, could be barred from participating in public life on that city council”…

San Antonio’s City Council will begin debating the proposal on Friday.

Oh to be in San Antonio Friday.

San Antonio Business Journal:

The Liberty Institute, an evangelical Christian legal organization, wrote a letter to San Antonio leaders opposing a proposed ordinance that would ban individuals who hold anti-homosexual views from holding public office or performing city contracts.

Attorneys for the institute claim such an ordinance, if enacted, would violate the U.S. Constitution, Texas Constitution and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Backers of the proposed ordinance, however, insist that the intent behind the measure is to prevent discrimination of individuals based on their sexual orientation.

What about this “Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act”? The long form designation is “Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Title 5. Government Liability, Chapter 110. Religious Freedom.” I’ll spare you the statutory language and refer to this summary:

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 110, prohibits a government agency from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

And, of course, the pro-homosexual/transgender and/or anti-Christian crowd will argue that effectively banning from the public sphere those who don’t play along with their agenda, is motivated by a compelling governmental interest (and will no doubt invoke the Civil Rights Movement in the bargain).

TexasGOPVote.com’s article, “San Antonio Christians need not apply,” provides another handy link to the actual bill.

WesternJournalism.com has a short, fire-breathing piece on the story: “Policy Would Bar Social Conservatives From Seeking Office In San Antonio.” (Unfortunately, I’m not getting any search hits on the ADF website.)

See also, “‘Unprecedented’ language targets those with traditional values.”

Here’s a predictably condescending pro-homosexual/transgender piece on the issue, but more detailed than most of the conservative takes on the story.

I could link to a slanderous and dishonest piece of crap by Media Matters (they’re really good at that), but won’t.

One interesting side-note to this story is the fact that I can’t seem to find anything (aside from the Washington Times piece linked and quoted at the beginning of this post) about that purported first draft. Hmm.

The beat goes on.

Out, damned Christians! Tolerance does not allow us to tolerate your intolerance something something…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: