Updated at 2:30 p.m. April 3, 2019, with details of the Texas Senate's final vote, at 3:55 p.m. with a statement from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and at 4:35 p.m. with a statement from Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo.

AUSTIN — The Texas Senate has approved a bill that would give legal cover to counselors, attorneys and other state-licensed professionals who deny services based on their religious beliefs.

Senate Bill 17 by Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, was passed Wednesday by a vote of 19-12. One Republican, Kel Seliger of Amarillo, voted against the bill and one Democrat, Eddie Lucio of Brownsville, voted in favor during the preliminary vote on the bill Tuesday.

The bill would prohibit the state's hundreds of occupational licensing boards from enacting rules or regulations that burden "an applicant's or license holder's free exercise of religion." It would also give those licensed by the state — including lawyers, social workers and therapists — the ability to fight to keep their license if it is threatened because of actions they took based on their faith.

Peace officers or those providing lifesaving services would be exempted from the bill, and it would not protect the license holders from losing their job or from other negative repercussions based on their actions, like lawsuits. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has made the bill a priority.

"Senate Bill 17 will ensure that no Texan will ever have to choose between their job and their faith," Patrick said in a statement Wednesday. "Preserving religious liberty has, and will always be, one of my top priorities, and I congratulate Sen. Perry on passing this important legislation. Senate Bill 17 will protect Texans of all religious faiths."

LGBT rights groups and businesses have criticized Perry's bill as a thinly veiled attempt to allow discrimination against groups not already protected in state or federal law, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But Perry, weathering 90 minutes of questions from his Senate colleagues on Tuesday, said his bill was not intended to target any group, rather to protect Texans from losing their license, and therefore their livelihood, for exercising their beliefs.

"It's unfortunate that we're living in a day and time that people of faith, that are very well balanced, can't practice their faith openly in the public square anymore. So that's the reason why I took this on," Perry said Tuesday during the final minutes of debate. "And I'll apologize to every senator on the floor, publicly, for any offense that I created. But it's that important to me because it's not about the here and now. It's about where we're all going to spend our eternity."

Lucio, the only Democrat to vote for the bill, did not explain his reasoning on the floor Tuesday. But before the Senate gave it final passage Wednesday, Lucio offered his colleagues these thoughts.

"My decision-making is based on my faith, but in that decision-making, I have always tried my very best to be inclusive of whoever it is we're trying to help, and never in my heart have I tried to impact anyone in a negative way," he said. But after reading a message from his local Catholic Diocese about recent attacks on "religious freedom" from the federal and state governments, Lucio added he felt he must support this bill "at this particular time the history of our country."

"The moral fiber of this nation will continue to deteriorate, and at one point in our history, it will be gone," Lucio said. "I hope I am not alive to see that happen."

Seliger, whose broke with his fellow Republicans to vote against the bill, questioned whether the measure was necessary since physicians and other professionals can already refuse to provide certain services, like abortions, without this bill.

Perry acknowledged that fact, but responded, "This provides a defense for the physician that says, 'I will not provide that service based on my deeply held [religious belief] that currently is not explicit or enumerated in the law.' "

Seliger then asked, "When do you tell the difference between 'firmly held religious belief' and 'bias'?"

"We can have a philosophical debate. That's way outside the scope of Senate Bill 17," Perry answered. "There's no real definition. It's what you practice and what you believe."

On Wednesday, Seliger issued a statement about his decision.

"While I believe the author's intent is pure, unfortunately SB 17 as written can also be used as a defense for discrimination," Seliger tweeted. "West Texans aren't like that. People have invoked religion to justify or excuse discrimination violence and even genocide. We must not have such short-term memory to forget history's atrocities justified by religious beliefs. True religion is founded on love. Period."

Perry has said he filed the bill in response to a number of cases he said showed people of faith were being targeted in the workplace, as well as a model rule from the American Bar Association. The rule, which the State Bar of Texas has not adopted, prohibits lawyers from discriminating against LGBT clients. Opponents have said the U.S. Constitution already protects Americans' religious freedoms.

Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, likened the bill to earlier civil rights debates when politicians cited their religious beliefs to enact racist policies, calling the bill "a subjective and not objective bill."

"I go on and on about how our religious beliefs have been perverted by some people in this country," West said Wednesday. "I think this is a perversion right now. This is going to be a seminal moment in the history of this state."

Perry was also questioned about the opposition to the bill.

When it was debated in committee, about 50 people spoke against the bill and just a handful supported it. But Perry chalked that up to his inaction, saying, "I didn't rally my troops." He said he did not read a letter penned by tourism groups, chambers of commerce and businesses like Amazon, Google and Facebook opposing his bill.

Several Republicans defended Perry's bill. Sen. Kelly Hancock, who represents parts of Dallas and Tarrant counties, said that while people have misused religious teachings to hurt others, they've also been used for righteous purposes.

"It's important to remind us of where it was used properly," said Hancock, R-North Richland Hills. "For the sake of tolerance, we've become very intolerant toward religion."

And Angela Paxton, R-McKinney, issued a stern warning: "The freedom of religion, if we do not protect that, there are severe unintended consequences and we will see an unraveling of our other freedoms like we've never seen before."

Three amendments were offered to Perry's legislation Tuesday. One, to exempt first responders, passed easily.

A second amendment to expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity failed by a vote of 18 to 13, with Seliger voting alongside the Democrats in favor. A third, to require license holders to report every time they refuse services to someone, also failed along party lines.

After the debate concluded Tuesday, Perry briefly spoke with The Dallas Morning News.

"It's one of those hard ones," he said. "Nobody wins."