This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The state Supreme Court in Texas has issued a critical decision that protects religious freedom in the state.
Leftists had demanded that to be "neutral," the state's judges were required to participate in the LGBT ideology by performing "weddings" for same-sex duos, and more.
But now with a simple rule change statement, the state's highest court has killed that agenda.
A report at the Washington Examiner explains the justice on the bench said that judges who "publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief" are not breaking any court system rules.
That comment was added to the state's judicial conduct code.
The move amended Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. It was filed with the secretary of state and sent to the governor and other officials.
The problem had been highlighted by a fight for religious freedom conducted by Waco Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley. She declined to perform same-sex weddings, instead referring people to another authority within walking distance, and who would perform the event in the same time frame and at the same price as Hensley.
The state Commission on Judicial Conduct has accused her of violating the rules, and she sued, explaining there were a number of constitutional and legal protections for her to live by her Christian faith.
The commission had claimed her adherence to her faith showed a "bias" against some Texans.
"For providing a solution to meet a need in my community while remaining faithful to my religious beliefs, I received a 'Public Warning.' No one should be punished for that," Hensley said.
The commission ultimately withdrew its admonishment to Hensley when the state Supreme Court confirmed her lawsuit had legal standing, but it has not yet been resolved.
Another case involved Jackson County Judge Brian Umphress, the Examiner noted.
"The North Texas judge says his religious beliefs constrain him to only officiate heterosexual weddings. He is also challenging the commission's application of Canon 4 that was used against Hensley, contending it is unconstitutional and expressing concern that he could face the same sanctions," the report said.
