WHITE HOUSE BACKS CHANGING CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TO BAN LGBT DISCRIMINATION
BY WARREN MASS
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Answering a question posed by a reporter at a press briefing on November 10, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed that “the administration strongly supports the Equality Act.” The reporter had described the legislation as “a federal anti-discrimination bill against anti-LGBT discrimination known as the Equality Act.”Earnest elaborated further:It is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act. That bill is historic legislation that would advance the cause of equality for millions of Americans. And we certainly are pleased with the many legislators in Congress that have stepped forward to try to advance a bill that would deliver comprehensive equal rights for LGBT Americans. And we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the legislative process produces a result that balances both the bedrock principles of civil rights, like those I’ve just described, with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country.Earnest also stated that “the Equality Act would have an impact on a substantial number of government policies” and that “the administration does look forward to working with Congress to try to advance this legislation consistent with the values that we have articulated about the importance of equal rights and making sure that people can’t be discriminated against because of who they love, while at the same time making sure that we can protect religious liberty at the same time.”Setting aside the ongoing debates abut same-sex “marriage” for a moment, it is important to note that the quest for “equal rights’ for homosexuals has now escalated to include also “transgendered” individuals — the “T” in LGBT. Though the definition of “transgender” may vary, it generally means an individual who views his "gender" as being different from his sexual orientation — for instance, a biological male who identifies as a female.Whichever one of the letters in the LGBT acronym (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) a person chooses to identify with, however, his biological gender is an integral part of his DNA and can never be changed, with all males having an X and a Y chromosome and all females having two X chromosomes. Nothing can change this — not even so-called sex-change operations.Therefore, Earnest’s statement that “people can’t be discriminated against because of who they love,” misses the point entirely. No one has ever presumed to discriminate against another person because of whom they love, although some people may choose to discriminate whether they want to participate in a person’s behavior that violates their religious principles. Earnest asserted that the Equality Act “balances both the bedrock principles of civil rights, like those I’ve just described, with the religious liberty that we hold dear in this country.”Many people doubt that religious liberty will be preserved if social engineering legislation such as the Equality Act is passed, however.The day after the legislation (“The Equality Act of 2015,”H.R. 3185 and S. 1858) was introduced in both houses of Congress on July 23, the Witherspoon Institute’s online Public Discourse published an online essay by Andrew T. Walker (the director of Policy Studies for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention) entitled: “The Equality Act: Bad Policy that Poses Great Harms.”In his essay, Walker wrote:The Equality Act represents the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed. Were it to pass, its sweeping effects on religious liberty, free speech, and freedom of conscience would be historic.Aside from the enumerated protections that give rise to conflict between sexual identity and religious liberty, by elevating sexual orientation and gender identity to the level of race, the law’s effect would functionally equate those who don’t agree with it with racists and label them perpetrators of irrational bigotry.Among the insightful points that Walker made to bolster his position were:• “To favor the Equality Act is to oppose and actively stigmatize the moral convictions that millions of Americans adhere to with abiding sincerity and deep religious precedent.”• “Passing anti-discrimination statutes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity lacks both the philosophical warrant and the cultural necessity of protections based on race.”• “Unlike race, sexual orientation and gender identity are known through conduct, which can and should be ethically evaluated.”• “There has never been a systematic regime of laws aimed at demeaning the existence of LGBT individuals comparable to Jim Crow.”• “Consider the cases of florists, photographers, and bakers who have had no problems serving gay customers for years, but have objected to providing their services for gay weddings. The Equality Act leaves these individuals defenseless by failing to accommodate their sincere religious beliefs and by failing to distinguish between the dignity of gay individuals and the particular conduct (such as wedding ceremonies) in which some cannot in good conscience participate.The Equality Act of 2015 would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) to replace the word “sex” with “sex,” “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” While some who object to the current proposed change still uphold the original 1964 legislation, a look back in history reveals that constitutional conservatives of that day did not accept that bill’s violation of states’ rights and increase in the power of the federal government without objections.Among the most famous opponents of the 1964 legislation was that year’s Republican nominee for the presidency, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.). Goldwater voted against the bill, explaining afterwards that the reason for his opposition to the bill was Title II of the legislation (which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce). The Arizonan said that, in his opinion, that section violated individual liberty and states’ rights. Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster to stop it. These included Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.), father of the future Vice President, J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), and Robert Byrd (D- W.Va,) who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.There are essentially two different issues at stake with this year’s Equality Act of 2015 under consideration. The first is the potential threat to religious liberty, as mentioned by Andrew Walker. The other is the historic assault on states’ rights by a federal government that strives to go beyond its constitutional bounds to regulate every aspect of life in the United States — the same reason constitutional conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Related articles:_______________________________________________________________Federal “Equality Act” Takes Houston’s “Bathroom Bill” National
BY MICHAEL TENNANTrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:Americans with common sense celebrated thesuccess of a recent Houston referendum repealing an ordinance that would, among other things, have forced private-property owners to permit an individual to use the restroom of his choice rather than the one assigned to his genetically determined sex. But those celebrants might want to put the corks back in their champagne bottles for the time being: A bill currently in Congress and endorsed by President Barack Obama could impose that same policy on the entire country.The Equality Act, a version of which has been introduced in both houses of Congress, “would add ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ (SOGI) to more or less every federal law that protects on the basis of race,”reported the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson. The bill vastly expands the number of establishments classified as “public accommodations” — and therefore subject to federal antidiscrimination law — to include “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services,” plus transportation providers and any “establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, gathering, or display.” That covers just about everything, with the possible exception of family dwellings.As if that weren’t bad enough, the bill explicitly states that “an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.” In other words, practically no one would be allowed to prohibit a man who claims to be a woman from using the women’s restroom or locker room (or a woman who claims to be a man from using the men’s facilities).“So it would be a bathroom bill on a national level being forced on all 50 states,” the Family Research Council’s (FRC) Peter Sprigg told OneNewsNow.This is not mere speculation or alarmism. Even the bill’s supporters proudly admit this to be the case.Lambda Legal, which advocates for special privileges for individuals with deviant lifestyles, states on its Equality Act: Frequently Asked Questions page: “Under the Equality Act, companies with sex-segregated facilities including restrooms and locker rooms must provide access to gender-appropriate facilities for individuals in accordance with their gender identity.”The bill also expressly prohibits people from claiming exemption from its provisions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. “Thus,” FRC wrote in an Issue Brief, “the Act would force people to affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, despite their religious objections in various situations, including the provision of public accommodations.”The ramifications of the Equality Act, which FRC more accurately dubs the “Inequality Act,” are enormous. As Anderson put it, laws such as the Equality Actthreaten small-business owners [and, for that matter, large-business owners] with liability for alleged “discrimination” based not on objective traits, but on subjective and unverifiable identities. They expand state interference in labor markets, potentially discouraging job creation. They endanger religious liberty and freedom of speech. And they mandate employment policies that, with regard to many workplace conditions, violate common sense.In short, SOGI laws regulate commercial decisions that are best handled by private actors, and they regulate educational decisions best handled by parents and teachers, not bureaucrats.If the Equality Act becomes law, schools will face the unenviable task of accommodating all varieties of confused students and employees, potentially introducing children to subjects they are not mature enough to handle or to which their parents might prefer they not be exposed — not to mention giving pedophiles easier access to children of the opposite sex. Moreover, observed Anderson, “an employer would be negligent to ignore the concerns of female employees about having to share a bathroom with a biological male who identifies as female. The same is true for students. The implications for the privacy rights of adults and children are extremely serious.”There are those such as Anderson and Sprigg who argue that there is nothing wrong with antidiscrimination laws per se. Such laws, Sprigg told OneNewsNow, should simply be restricted to protecting people with “characteristics like race which are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the U.S. Constitution.”Such an argument, however, yields too much ground. Once one agrees that the government has the authority to tell private citizens that they must associate with certain groups of people and acquiesce to those groups’ demands on their person, labor, and property, he has given up on the principle of private property. Henceforth, all property rights are exercised at the sufferance of those groups with political clout.There is also the matter that federal antidiscrimination law is largely unconstitutional. The feds have the power to ban discrimination by their own agencies, and maybe, under the 14th Amendment, by state and local governments; but they have no authority to interfere with the freedom of association of private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Most of the laws that the Equality Act amends ought to be repealed, not merely maintained in their present form, and they certainly should not be expanded to cover even more people.While dozens of bills get introduced into Congress each session only to die without attracting much attention, the Equality Act has a great deal of support among liberal lawmakers. The House bill, introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), has 170 cosponsors, all Democrats. The Senate bill, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley (R-Ore.), has 39 cosponsors, all Democrats or independents, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. In addition, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters last week that “the administration strongly supports the Equality Act.”The only thing standing between Americans and a national “bathroom bill,” therefore, is the GOP. Since Republicans control both houses of Congress, they can effectively block the Equality Act from ever coming to a vote, let alone being passed.Constitutionalists — and everyone else who cares about liberty and decency — must hope that Republicans prove equal to the task.______________________________________________________________Obama Administration Announces Support for Equality Act
CBN INTERVIEW WITH DR. ALVEDA KING:BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS NOT THE SAME ASLGBT "RIGHTS"FROM AN UNNATURAL QUEER POINT OF VIEW
