Texas House Passes Amendment Allowing Student Clubs at Universities to Discriminate Against Gays

The Texas House yesterday passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Matt Krause prohibiting universities from mandating that officially recognized student organizations adhere to the school's non-discrimination policies, Equality Texas reports:

KrauseIf enacted, the amendment would allow officially-recognized student organizations who receive taxpayer funded support from a university to discriminate against a potential member based on race, religion, veteran status, HIV/AIDS status, gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression if any attribute of the student "demonstrates opposition to the organization's stated beliefs and purposes."

Equality Texas is appreciative of the bipartisan support of allies in opposition to the amendment – which included 13 Republicans.

The Krause amendment was one of 15 amendments added by the House to Senate Bill 215. It is likely that a conference committee will be needed to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of SB 215. Equality Texas will be actively engaged throughout that process working to strip the Krause amendment from the bill's final version.

You can read the amendment HERE.

Related…
Texas A&M Student Body President Vetoes Bill Allowing Religion-Based Discrimination Against Campus LGBT Center [tlrd]

Comments

  1. HadenoughBS says

    You can bet the ranch that this bill will become law here in the Great Bigoted State of Texas thanks to the right wing homophobic GOPer machine that runs state government.

  2. Michael says

    Wow, I’m totally confused. Who is the gay boy in the picture???

    btw, these “laws” passed by the religious reich ALWAYS backfires. This will allow any club to discriminate against anyone.

  3. says

    “It’s barely been TWO YEARS since Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. TWO YEARS. These people’s lack of awareness of how the legal system works should be a bar from them being allowed to hold public office.”

    Hear hear, Mike8787.

    An appalling waste of state taxpayers’ money.

  4. EchtKultig says

    What needs to happen is for some Texas university group actually composed of intelligent people – there has to be a few – to deliberately exclude someone to create a test case. So, the UT Austin Math and Physics Society could exclude an African American, because, well, they can, and he or she would file suit. That would force the State Courts in Texas to confront the inanity of this.

  5. JONES says

    Wow. Even for Texas this is scary.
    Not just ‘let me discriminate’ but ‘let me discriminate with state sanction and with public funds’. He’s a lawyer. Makes me wonder if he knows the difference or does and just doesn’t care.

    Krause
    Law degree from Liberty University. (Teaching from a Christian world view)

    ‘On Easter Sunday, 1987, Matt made what he calls the most important decision of his life. It was on that day that he gave his life to Christ, and has tried his best to live a life worthy of his Savior ever since.’

    Gotta love that … a life worthy of Christ.

    Jesus would call BS.

  6. Randy says

    Why is it that the closet cases are the one to pass these laws. They are in such fear of someone finding out that they’re gay, they put forth these hateful laws to advert from themselves what they truly are. And this guy is a closet case!

  7. jimstoic says

    The law would clearly be unconstitutional for the same reason Colorado’s Amendment 2 was unconstitutional: “It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection… The… disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”

  8. JONES says

    ‘Bias is primarily accomplished by exclusion. . . . Such a bias is much harder to observe than a positive vilification or direct criticism, but it is the essence of censorship.’

    This from Krause’s website ‘WallBuilders’, about their approach to teaching history.

    Where’s that ‘essence of censorship’ stance in your amendment Matt?
    No opposing views, no dissenting voices allowed because … religion.

    Yeah? Afraid of a little scrutiny?

    If somebody challenging your world view is such a detriment to it that you have to protect it by legal bias then maybe there’s something a bit off with it, eh?

  9. JONES says

    @jimstoic
    Yeah. But then you just might get a judge with a mindset like say, oh, Scalia, and then where are you? Tied up in courts for years while damage is done and textbooks are rewritten and the tentacles of theocratic lunacy spread like quack grass.

    This is why we have to be ever vigilant. Organize, share information, raise funding, and speak out whenever this crap happens.

  10. David Hearne says

    The policies of these universities, while well intended are nonetheless in no way practical. In theory, a student gay organization with 100 members could have 101 fundie Christians join and then take over the club, in the process changing the expression or message of the group.

  11. David Hearne says

    mike787 – In Christian Legal Society v Martonez it’s my read that the court said that Hastings (UC) could have a nondiscrimination policy. I can’t see where the court ruled that they could not change that policy if they chose to.

    This Texas law appears to be prohibiting state universities (because the legislature would have no authority to create policy at a private university ) from having a policy which prohibits exclusive clubs.

    Isn’t the purpose of a club to be exclusive? The Darwin Society presumably doesn’t admit Creationists, and Mensa doesn’t allow Little Kiwi to join.

  12. Brian says

    Never forget, LGBT people, that there are people in this country who want our demise. This man is evidence that fascism lives in the Texas legislature. His ‘boy next door’ countenance and faux Christianity is proof positive of the ‘banality of evil.’

  13. Victor says

    Wasn’t Texas the state that the Supreme Court passed the ruling stating that their Sodomy law was discriminatory and that caused the whole snowball effect across the country?

  14. rallyx says

    And this BS better work against straight white rich men as well. But the sad thing is, they are pretty much the majority that is going to take advantage of this.

    Damn Texas. I mean, it’s Texas, but damn. I have no words.

Leave A Reply