Texas Legislature passed “license to discriminate” bill similar to Arizona’s in 1999

[TexasTowelie]

As battles rage over anti-gay “license to discriminate” bills in Arizona and elsewhere, it’s worth noting that Texas already has a similar law on the books.

It’s called the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it was passed by the Legislature in 1999. Although it is slightly less broad, the TRFRA is very similar to SB 1062 in Arizona.

Like SB 1062, the Texas law prohibits any state or local government agency from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion, unless there’s a compelling interest and the government action is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The “free exercise of religion” is defined as anything that’s “substantially motivated by sincere religious beliefs,” regardless of whether it’s “central” to those religious beliefs.

The TRFRA also states that, “A person whose free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened … may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.”

More at http://www.lonestarq.com/exclusive-license-discriminate-bill-similar-arizonas-introduced-texas-legislature-2013/ .

Cross-posted in the LGBT Group.

[TxDemChem]

1. Yikes.

While I have no religion, I feel strongly about my right to call bigots "fucking asswads." I think that's protected with this law.

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea.

[DonViejo]

2. 1999? George W Bush signed it into law. eom

[Downwinder]

3. That should cover "sacramental alcohol" pretty well.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. F/ck the Republicans. And f/ck the "God botherers."

[Gothmog]

5. This law is different in some major respects

I have been practicing law for a long time and I have never heard this law cited. After reading OP, I looked at the Texas law and think that the Texas law is different from the Arizona law. Here is a link http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.110.htm The Texas version only applies to governmental agencies and does not apply to private lawsuits brought by non-governmental parties. The Arizona bill goes further and applies to all lawsuits including lawsuits brought by individuals. The language quoted in the article cited in the OP leaves out the key qualifier that this only applies to actions by a governmental entity. The full language of Section 113.004 is

Sec. 110.004. DEFENSE. A person whose free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of Section 110.003 may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.

Section 110.003 states:

(a) Subject to Subsection (b), a government agency may not substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply if the government agency demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person:
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
(c) A government agency that makes the demonstration required by Subsection (b) is not required to separately prove that the remedy and penalty provisions of the law, ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority that imposes the substantial burden are the least restrictive means to ensure compliance or to punish the failure to comply.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.

This act does not apply to civil rights claims brought by an individual or a person other than a governmental agency. The Arizona law applies to all actions including actions brought by persons other than a governmental agency.

Again, I have never seen this law cited in any cases. This law really does not change anything in that the standard in 110.003 is the normal standard that has been in effect since I was in law school long before this bill was passed. I did not remember any major discussions of this bill when it was passed and the reason is that it does not really change things.

The Arizona law is shorter and does apply to individuals in addition to governmental agencies.

[TexasTowelie]

6. Thank you for that information.

I doubt that person that posted the article has any legal background, so I'm glad that we have attorneys on this site that can weigh in and correct information offered from people who are not versed in the nuances of the law.

[Gothmog]

7. The two laws are similar but there are key differences

I have been in practice for a long time and have never seen this law cited. The standard in 110.003 is same US Constitutional standard that has been the law since I took First Amendment and Constitutional law a long long time ago. I would not be surprised to see some member of the Texas legislature try to expand this law at the next session. We need to elect Wendy Davis so that this will not happen

[TexasTowelie]

8. Then there is a good reason for getting word about this law out to the public.

Hopefully Texas will avoid the same situation that Arizona and Georgia are facing.