- About Us
- Community Guidelines

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR


We're Counting On You.

Burnt Orange Report is redeveloping our website for the first time in almost a decade.

We're counting on your support to continue providing you free and frequent coverage of progressive issues that matter to Texans.

Help us build a website that is as great as the content we publish on it.

Greg Abbott Opposes San Antonio LGBT Protections; Beats Retreat to Safer But Not Higher Ground

by: Edward Garris

Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM CDT

Poor Greg Abbott. Every time he gets around to smacking down a law designed to give the LGBT community the same rights as everyone else, another one pops up.  He just can't win what is now the country's hardest game of whack-a-mole since the boardwalk in New Jersey burned down two weeks ago. Rather than a carnie, however, Abbott is facing down laws from San Antonio, the home field for Democratic mayor Julian Castro.  

As Burnt Orange Report writer Omar Araiza reported on September 5, the San Antonio City Council voted to pass a non-discrimination ordinance (NDO) that specifically condemned discrimination against members of the LGBT community.

To see Greg Abbott's strategic problem with LGBT protections, read below the jump.


On September 6, according to Texas Public Radio (TPR), Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott claimed that San Antonio's non-discrimination ordinance (NDO) violated the Texas Constitution and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on speech and religion grounds. TPR also stated that Abbott had raised the possibility of a legal challenge to the NDO - if not by his office, then by another party with standing to do so.

TPR reported Wednesday that San Antonio slightly modified the language of the NDO and passed it (still with the LGBT protections), and that in light of the new language, the Attorney General's office changed its tune:

In a statement, Lauren Bean, Abbott's deputy communications director, praised city leaders for removing the language that many felt to be in violation of the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.

"We are pleased the city council heeded our advice and deleted this provision, which surely would have been grounds for a constitutional challenge to the ordinance," Bean said.

"We will continue to review the ordinance and monitor the situation," she said.


It's not clear precisely what the Attorney General's office is going to monitor.  Government entities are free to establish that they will not discriminate against persons on the basis of immutable characteristics - such as race, ethnicity, or gender.  They're even free to prohibit discrimination on the basis of characteristics that are not immutable - such as religion.  In fact, in any of these cases, not only are they allowed to declare that a city and its employees will not discriminate on such bases, they are constitutionally prohibited from actually engaging in that discrimination.  

Religion, race, ethnicity, and gender are part of protected classes - groups of people that constitutional jurisprudence has seen fit to protect from the historical demons that have haunted us as a nation.  Sexual orientation and gender identification, however, are not yet protected classes under constitutional law, though the movement to make them so is gaining traction, and a growing body of law supports this position.

In the meantime, however, while the law is not yet well-settled and few - if any - court mandates necessarily command (or prohibit) public officials to accept the LGBT community as a protected class, then how an official interprets his duties or rights under the law betrays less his fealty to the law than his personal preferences - the very problem San Antonio's ordinance was designed to defeat.  A person who obstructs laws designed to halt discrimination against a disenfranchised and alienated class of their fellow citizens does so not under the protection of the law but under the impulse of personal belief or an eye to certain constituents.

This is not the first time Greg Abbott has tangled with a home-rule Texas municipality concerning equal protection for members of the LGBT community.  

In April, Abbott responded to an inquiry from State Senator Dan Patrick concerning domestic partnerships.  Patrick had asked if the Texas Constitution prohibited cities such as Austin from recognizing and providing domestic partnership benefits to their employees.  

In a non-binding, six-page opinion, Abbott had written that the Texas Constitution did, in fact, forbid such domestic partnership benefits, such as those found in Travis County, the City of Austin, Pflugerville ISD, El Paso, Fort Worth, the City of San Antonio, and El Paso County.  

And of course, Abbott's office is opposing same-sex divorce before the Texas Supreme Court.

Texas - small government; big interference.  

Copyright Burnt Orange Report, all rights reserved.
Do not republish without express written permission.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Amazon Referrals
Buying Back-to-School Books?

Use BOR's Amazon Referral and we'll receive a share of your purchase, at no cost to you!

Click here to shop.

Connect With BOR

2014 Texas Elections
Follow BOR for who's in, who's out, and who's up.

Candidate Tracker:
-- Statewide Races
-- Congressional Races
-- State Senate Races
-- State Rep. Races
-- SBOE Races
-- Austin City Council

Click here for all 2014 Elections coverage


Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Texas Blue Pages

Texas Blue Pages
A career network for progressives.


Shared On Facebook

Burnt Orange Reporters
Editor and Publisher:
Katherine Haenschen

Senior Staff Writers:
Genevieve Cato
Joe Deshotel
Ben Sherman

Staff Writers:
Omar Araiza
Emily Cadik
Phillip Martin
Natalie San Luis
Katie Singh
Joseph Vogas

Byron LaMasters

Blogger Emeritus:
Karl-Thomas Musselman

Read staff bios here.

Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings

Powered by: SoapBlox