TX governor signs bill allowing providers to deny LGBTQ youth child welfare

[GoTfan]

This is just cartoonishly evil

[HAnnA MArin County]

Jesus would be so proud of these deplorables.

[Brittain33]

I love that the defense of this bill is "no one will actually use it" or "if you read it carefully, it doesn't allow anyone to do anything different," as if it isn't actually a law that was passed to effect policy.

[afleitch]

I love that the defense of this bill is "no one will actually use it" or "if you read it carefully, it doesn't allow anyone to do anything different," as if it isn't actually a law that was passed to effect policy.

Yet same sex marriage or other LGBT legislation will absolutely, definitely force all ministers to march in gay parades with cakes, under pain of death.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I love that the defense of this bill is "no one will actually use it" or "if you read it carefully, it doesn't allow anyone to do anything different," as if it isn't actually a law that was passed to effect policy.

Laws are often written to codify current normal practice in order to preempt change. 

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I am fine with Abbott and to be fair he doesn't really care about this stuff. The problem is the Tea Party basically rules the Texas GOP and Texas in general, if he vetoed these things he'd be taken out in a primary by Dan Patrick or some other theocrat.

[Green Line]

Texas Legislators are out of touch with their constituents.  This is heartless.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It won't happen, this is just fearmongering by people who are hellbent on fighting against an imaginary threat of a Christian Theocracy that much of the left believes is real.

Don't deny the power of the Dominionist movement in the American Right.

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Why should corporations take socially conservative stances? Businesses have to expand their consumer bases. That means selling to people that the God-botherers might sometimes find distasteful. Why should businesses lose money just to appease the fragile sensibilities of the superstitious?

You people want to turn Western civilization into your own safe space. In the process, the social conservatives will reveal themselves to be the collectivists they always have been.

I was not making a moral judgment on corporations' support of socially liberal policies, I was just pointing out reality.  And because of the undeniable fact that most corporations support socially liberal policies, socially liberal organizations can outspend socially conservative organizations.  And because of their financial advantage, social liberals tend to win more often than social conservatives.

In addition to the support from corporate America, social liberalism is overwhelmingly supported by academia, the media, and the entertainment industry.  Fox News, which defended the War in Iraq even when only a quarter of Americans still supported it, quickly distanced itself from opposition to SSM when over 40% still opposed it.

With the inherent advantages social liberalism enjoys in America, I'd say that out of all the authoritarian ideologies out there, Christian Theocracy is the one you should be the least concerned about.  There's money to be made from passing fiscally conservative legislation, but no money to be made from passing socially conservative legislation.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Jesus would be so proud of these deplorables.

Jesus would be unhappy with the GOP for a multitude of reasons, but a bill that is probably meant simply to ensure that religious organizations don't have to pay for contraception is not one of them.

[Cory]

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Please reference the original post of this very thread.

Your argument about corporate donor power is reductionist and fails to take into consideration the nuances of American politics. Target allowing gender-identifying based access to it's restrooms is not a setback for the Dominionist movement, if anything it actually is good for them.

If you honestly think the Dominionist movement isn't a big deal in GOP politics, you just don't know what you're talking about. Or perhaps are being willfully ignorant.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Please reference the original post of this very thread.

Your argument about corporate donor power is reductionist and fails to take into consideration the nuances of American politics. Target allowing gender-identifying based access to it's restrooms is not a setback for the Dominionist movement, if anything it actually is good for them.

If you honestly think the Dominionist movement isn't a big deal in GOP politics, you just don't know what you're talking about. Or perhaps are being willfully ignorant.

Dominionists and Theonomists are maybe 1% of the population.  I've met only a handful of these people in real life.  America becoming a Christian Theocracy probably has a similar chance of happening as Sharia Law coming to Oklahoma.

There is nothing that social conservatives are arguing today that wasn't the law of the land in 1960, and for the faults of 1960s America, no one would label it a Theocracy.  Going by the same definition of Theocracy commonly used by many on the left, we would have to label Chile, Poland, Malta, Jamaica, Haiti, and many other nations as Christian Theocracies.

[Torie]

What religion or religious sect believes that providing assistance to LGBT youth is a sin? Just asking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am fine with Abbott and to be fair he doesn't really care about this stuff. The problem is the Tea Party basically rules the Texas GOP and Texas in general, if he vetoed these things he'd be taken out in a primary by Dan Patrick or some other theocrat.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. If there were sane, good-hearted Republicans willing to stand up to those who say "Lord, Lord" but by their actions prove they will be among those who Jesus will say he never knew them, then I would still be an Independent instead of a Democrat.

[Sir Mohamed]

Textbook bigotry and unconstitutional. Hope a court strikes it down.

[RINO Tom]

It won't happen, this is just fearmongering by people who are hellbent on fighting against an imaginary threat of a Christian Theocracy that much of the left believes is real.

Don't deny the power of the Dominionist movement in the American Right.

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Why should corporations take socially conservative stances? Businesses have to expand their consumer bases. That means selling to people that the God-botherers might sometimes find distasteful. Why should businesses lose money just to appease the fragile sensibilities of the superstitious?

You people want to turn Western civilization into your own safe space. In the process, the social conservatives will reveal themselves to be the collectivists they always have been.

Social conservatives have always been collectivists?  That will be news to every historian ever.

[The Self]

It won't happen, this is just fearmongering by people who are hellbent on fighting against an imaginary threat of a Christian Theocracy that much of the left believes is real.

Don't deny the power of the Dominionist movement in the American Right.

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Why should corporations take socially conservative stances? Businesses have to expand their consumer bases. That means selling to people that the God-botherers might sometimes find distasteful. Why should businesses lose money just to appease the fragile sensibilities of the superstitious?

You people want to turn Western civilization into your own safe space. In the process, the social conservatives will reveal themselves to be the collectivists they always have been.

Social conservatives have always been collectivists?  That will be news to every historian ever.

Absolutely. Social conservatism is inherently collectivistic, and that encompasses an imagined social conservatism which wants to 'preserve Western liberalism' (as if that's ever actually existed).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It won't happen, this is just fearmongering by people who are hellbent on fighting against an imaginary threat of a Christian Theocracy that much of the left believes is real.

Don't deny the power of the Dominionist movement in the American Right.

It has no power.

Corporations and wealthy donors have the power in both major parties.  And corporations, whether they support Republicans or Democrats, almost unanimously take liberal stances on social issues.  That's why social conservatives haven't been very successful.

Why should corporations take socially conservative stances? Businesses have to expand their consumer bases. That means selling to people that the God-botherers might sometimes find distasteful. Why should businesses lose money just to appease the fragile sensibilities of the superstitious?

You people want to turn Western civilization into your own safe space. In the process, the social conservatives will reveal themselves to be the collectivists they always have been.

Social conservatives have always been collectivists?  That will be news to every historian ever.

Absolutely. Social conservatism is inherently collectivistic, and that encompasses an imagined social conservatism which wants to 'preserve Western liberalism' (as if that's ever actually existed).

Sure, Metternich was a collectivist. Why not?

[Dr. MB]

I never liked Abbott's positions but I at least respected the guy (and still am glad it's him and not Dan Patrick). But now, I'm starting to question that..