Austin-Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Pledged to “stop” the California travel ban. This prevents state-funded travel to other states that are considered discriminatory to the LGBTQ community.
After filing a lawsuit this week, Paxton told Fox News that the ban was “discriminatory” against the 11 states involved.
“We should not be hurt because we have different views,” Republican Paxton said in an interview. “This was an important issue for us. I think it was important for the whole population.”
CaliforniaTexas was subsequently added to the state’s travel ban after leaders passed laws allowing adoptive agencies to choose whether to allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Paxton argued that the ban was for one state to impose their opinion on another.
“In our view, we are a non-discriminatory state. California differentiates and reduces the number of institutions and groups that can actually help,” Paxton said.
Attorney General argued that California “restricted the opportunities for these children.” Paxton said it was the reason he felt that a Supreme Court action was necessary after he had been on the travel ban list for more than three years.
“I don’t want them to impose discriminatory opinions on us,” Paxton said. “We believe that by allowing more diverse organizations to participate, Texas will have more options for these children, which will allow them to be deployed.”
“In their case Religious In our opinion, we do not put or adopt children into same-sex couples’ marriages or partnerships. It’s up to them, and if other organizations decide they go, it’s up to them, “Paxton said. “California discriminates, they say religious groups can’t do it, and that’s good for California, but now they’re going to impose their opinion on my state . “
State Texas Ten people on the Travel Prohibited List, including Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
Oklahoma was the first state to retaliate against California with its own travel ban in January 2020. The ban grants an exception to the Oklahoma Department of Commerce and allows agencies to continue their efforts to “bring more job creators to Oklahoma’s business-friendly states.”
In a news release, Stitt said: “California and civil servants elected over the past few years have banned travel to Oklahoma in order to politically threaten and threaten the personal value of the Oklahoma people. If a civil servant does not want to travel to Oklahoma, I longing for a gesture that protects and guarantees the right to fetal life on behalf of Oklahoma law.
In 2018, Oklahoma added to the travel ban after a policy that allowed private foster and adoption agencies to refuse to have children with families on religious or moral grounds it was done.
The city of San Fransisco is the latest city to hit the province of Sooner. Citing laws that prohibit city travel to Oklahoma and protect and guarantee the right to fetal life. San Francisco bans that apply to all states that ban abortion before the fetus becomes viable include 21 states, including Texas and eight other states that are already state travel bans You.
The San Francisco ban came into force on January 1.
Texas is currently the first state to overturn California’s ban. Mr Paxton said the ban would also remove state revenues from the loss of local business spending from Texas.
“We are trying to protect economic retaliation from the state. It is not working well. We are not seeking it, we are going to stop it,” Paxton said.
The lawsuit states that the University of Houston professor of law, Emily Berman, said that it was different from what the Supreme Court had ever seen.
“Usually when states go to court with each other, it’s about a border dispute or struggle that has the right to get water from a particular river, but this is a new use of the court,” Berman said. “The way Texas sees this law is that it is a targeted attack on the religious freedom of Texas citizens, and these types of claims usually come up in the personal context and are usually raised by the state. Rather, indeed, one state is not suing another, so we entered the unknown territory in many ways here. “
“We are considering a complaint,” said California Attorney General Xavier Besella. “
Now that the first briefs have been submitted, California has the opportunity to submit their own answer briefs.
“Once California has filed, they will distribute these response briefs to the judge, and then they will consider whether to hear the case,” Berman said. “If the Supreme Court decides to hear this case, they seek a briefing from his political party, which has oral arguments as traditionally seen in Supreme Court cases.
Mr Paxton warned that the Supreme Court would not consider when to consider the case, but warned that legal disputes could take years, but it was not clear.