Taking Away The Freedoms Guaranteed In Our Constitution

The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Laws passed by Congress and state legislators are supposed to be in line with the U.S. Constitution. However, there is a bill currently in the House of Representatives that not only undermines the First Amendment, it also cancels out The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. H.R. 5 is a nightmare for those who believe in religious liberty and freedom of religion.

The Heritage Foundation lists seven problems with the bill:

1. It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.

2. It would compel speech.

3. It could shut down charities.

4. It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.

5. It could be used to coerce medical professionals.

6. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.

7. It would enable sexual assault. 

All of these problems have already arisen. Please follow the link to The Heritage Foundation to view the details.

The Liberty Counsel posted an article on May 10 detailing one major aspect of H.R.5. The article states:

HR 5, in the U.S. House, and S. 788, in the Senate, misnamed the “Equality Act,” takes the unpreceded step of eliminating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) as a claim or defense to the application of many federal laws. This bill drastically alters religious freedom in all cases, not just those involving LGBT.

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits houses of worship to make employment decisions based on religion. This recognizes the essential right for houses of worship to employ those who align with their religious doctrine. The “Equality Act” would abolish this fundamental right. Catholic and Christian churches could be forced to hire atheists. If a synagogue preferred a Jew over a Muslim, it would not be able to raise RFRA as a claim or defense.

RFRA is a federal law that protects religious freedom. Specifically, it “prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person.” 

However, HR 5 clearly forbids raising RFRA as a claim or defense to the application to the “Equality Act” and many other federal laws that would be amended by this bill.

This “Equality Act” extends the federal protections to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy, i.e. abortion. HR 5 applies to employment, housing, rental, public accommodation and more. In addition, the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” will be defined to mean “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” In other words, under the terms of this bill, “pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition… shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.” The “Equality Act” also expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.”

After passing the House Judiciary Committee recently, the “Equality Act” will now go to the House next week and then be sent to the Senate, where the bill number is S. 788.

If you value religious freedom in America, please call your Senator and tell them to vote against this bill. It will probably pass in the House of Representatives, but needs to be stopped in the Senate. If you are not a religious person and don’t think this is a problem, remember that if the government can undo religious freedom, it can also undo other freedoms. You might not be impacted this time, but if this bill passes, there will be more to follow.

The Equality Act of 2019

One thing most of us have learned over the years is that the better the name of the bill introduced in Congress sounds, the farther from the truth the title is. We saw that with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) which should have been named the lose your insurance and your doctor and pay more act.

Last month the Democrats in the U. S. House of Representatives introduced The Equality Act of 2019. It should have been named the anti-free speech and anti-religion act of 2019.

On March 14th, The Heritage Foundation posted an article listing seven reasons why the law would not encourage equality.

The article lists the reasons:

1. It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.

We have already seen this attempted in the case of Jack Phillips’ battle with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. He is only one example.

2. It would compel speech.

Both federal and private employers could face costly lawsuits if they fail to implement strict preferred pronoun policies. Employees could be disciplined if they fail to comply, regardless of their scientific or moral objections.

3. It could shut down charities.

Adoption agencies that hold to a Biblical definition of marriage have been shut down because of their beliefs.

4. It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.

5. It could be used to coerce medical professionals.

Under state sexual orientation and gender identity laws, individuals who identify as transgender have sued Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who wanted to pursue gender transition. 

If these lawsuits succeed, medical professionals would be pressured to treat patients according to ideology rather than their best medical judgment.

6. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.

This has already happened. In Ohio, a judge removed a biological girl from her parents’ custody after they declined to help her “transition” to male with testosterone supplements.

After the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital’s Transgender Health Clinic recommended these treatments for the girl’s gender dysphoria, the parents wanted to pursue counseling instead. Then the county’s family services agency charged the parents with abuse and neglect, and the judge terminated their custody.

7. It would enable sexual assault. 

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would give male sexual predators who self-identify as females access to private facilities, increasing the likelihood of these tragic incidents. 

It could also make victims less likely to report sexual misconduct and police less likely to get involved, for fear of being accused of discrimination

The proposed Equality Act could impose a nationwide bathroom policy that would leave women and children in particular vulnerable to predators. It actually would promote inequality by elevating the ideologies of special-interest groups to the level of protected groups in civil rights law. 

This is not a law that I want to see passed. It does not do anything to promote equality. In fact, it creates the kind of inequality that the ruling class pigs created in George Orwell’s Animal Farm where “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Insanity At One University

The Washington Times posted a story in June 2016 outlining some of the speech guidelines at the University of North Carolina. The inmates have definitely taken over the asylum.

The article reports:

Guidelines issued on the university’s Employee Forum aim to help staff avoid microaggressions in their interactions by cautioning against offensive phrases such as “Christmas vacation,” “husband/boyfriend” and “golf outing.”

The guidebook, first reported by Campus Reform, categorizes examples of potential microaggressions by “social identity group,” including race, gender and sexual orientation.

 Under the “Religion” tab, the guidebook says organizing vacations around Christian holidays further “centers the Christian faith and minimizes non-Christian spiritual rituals and observances.”

With regard to “gender” microaggressions, the guidelines discourage comments such as “I love your shoes!” to female colleagues or otherwise complimenting the appearance of women.

It gets worse:

Microaggressions against “sexual orientation” include using the terms “husband” or “boyfriend” when addressing a female colleague, or “wife” or “girlfriend” when addressing a male colleague, instead of the asexual “partner” or “spouse.”

This, the taxpayer-funded university warns, sets “the expectation that people do not identify as LGBTQ until they say otherwise or disclose their sexual orientation.”

At faculty award ceremonies, be sure not to ask honorees to “stand and be recognized” for their achievements, which assumes “that everyone is able in this way and ignores the diversity of ability in the space.”

To further complicate matters:

An editor’s note later amended to the University of North Carolina guidebook makes clear that it “does not represent University policy.”

“The piece was compiled from research and published scholarly works in response to Forum members’ interest in the topic of microaggressions,” the note says.

If the guidebook does not reflect University policy, why does it even exist? Where in the world did we come up with the concept of microaggressions? People are different–that is because we all have different backgrounds, different talents, different abilities, different taste, etc. When did noticing these things become microaggression? It is time for the rebirth of common sense. I guess I shouldn’t expect that rebirth to occur on college campuses. Meanwhile, how much are parents paying to have their children exposed to this junk?

Is This Really What We Want?

Today The Civitas Institute (a North Carolina conservative group) reported some interesting information on the recent bill passed in Charlotte regarding transgender use of bathrooms. The article posted on their website reported some information that was omitted by one of the major Charlotte, North Carolina, papers.

The article at Civitas reports:

For months, residents of Charlotte have been debating whether the city should (or in fact could) pass an ordinance allowing individuals who identify as transgender to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms in places of public accommodation. Those opposed to the ordinance have had serious concerns about its effect on public safety.

This morning, Breitbart News is reporting that Chad Sevearance, president of the Charlotte Business Guild, who has taken a lead role in promoting the transgender bathroom ordinance, is a convicted and registered sex offender.

The article goes on to explain that Sevearance was convicted in 2000 of one charge of sexual molestation of a minor. He was required to register with the police for a minimum of ten years.

The Civitas article concludes:

This is not about further condemnation of Sevearance for his sexual offenses. (Although his advocacy group also knew he was a convicted child molester and defended him by calling reports of his convictions “mudslinging.”) The justice system has dealt with him, and it is not my place to heap further condemnation on a man who surely has been thoroughly condemned. This is about the Observer‘s failure to report on how a major figure at the center of a debate involving sexual predators and children has been convicted of being a sexual predator of children. In this context, the Observer‘s failure is tantamount to concealment. It is unfortunately one more example of our media picking and choosing its causes, leaving the task of actual journalism up to Internet news outlets.

I wonder if having this information before the vote would have changed any votes.

Symbolism Over Substance?

There is a conflict in America right now as to the exact meaning of the First Amendment as regards to religious freedom. One of the questions being asked is whether or not Christians who choose to enter the business world still have the right to act according to their Christian beliefs. Does a Christian businessman have the right to choose who he does business with? In January I posted a story about a couple who is required to do re-education training because they refused to host a homosexual wedding. I had never considered re-education training as an American concept.

The latest chapter in the war against Christian ideas in the marketplace has occurred in Oklahoma. Eagle Rising posted a story on February 27th about a law proposed by an Oklahoma Democrat in the state legislature.

The article reports:

Democrat state Rep. Emily Virgin believes that Christian businesses should be forced to post a public notice that they will be discriminating against homosexuals, if those businesses are to be allowed to claim the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

That’s right, if you’re a Christian businessman in Oklahoma and you don’t believe that you should be forced to participate in a gay wedding, Democrats want to force your business to post a public scarlet letter detailing your “bigoted” beliefs!

This is the text of the law:

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites. The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.”

The law was suggested in response to a Republican bill that would allow Christian businessmen to operate their businesses in accordance with Biblical principles.

The article further notes:

The right to practice your faith as you see fit (as long as you aren’t infringing on the rights of others) is the cornerstone of our nation’s stability and health. Along with that, the right to choose who we do business with and when we do business is the very foundation of free market capitalism. The moment we allow the government (or some fascist group of rabid socialists) to force us to act against our religious beliefs, or force us to work as indentured servants at the beck and call of others… that is the moment that we have LOST our nation.

Something to consider as we approach this election season.

What’s The Magic Number?

Charlotte, North Carolina, just passed a law allowing transgender people the right to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Simply put, that means that regardless of what sexual equipment you were born with, you can choose the bathroom of the gender you identify with. It sounds harmless enough until you consider the risks of putting a man with all of his parts intact (regardless of who he identifies with) in a closed bathroom with women and young children.

If you wonder exactly what the risk is, The Toronto Sun posted a story in 2014 about a sexual predator who posed as a transgender in order to gain access to women’s restrooms.

The article reports:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

…He (Justice John McMahon) noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

“He has demonstrated from the age of 12 until the present an inability to control his sexual impulses,” said McMahon.

Hambrook served four years in prison for sexually abusing a five-year-old girl and while on bail for that crime, raping a 27-year-old intellectually-challenged woman in Montreal.

This man may be the exception, but the fact that he exists is cause for concern. What is the magic number? I know that we want to be kind to people who struggle with transgender issues, but what is the number of young children who will be sexually assaulted before we either set up separate restrooms for trans-gendered people or simply demand that they use the restroom corresponding to the equipment they have? Are we putting our children at risk to accommodate something that can be addressed in a way that does not endanger our children?

 

What Are We Doing To Our Children ?

CNS News posted an article yesterday about a recent report containing recommendations for sex education in our public schools.

The article states:

By the time they leave elementary school, children should be able to “define sexual orientation,” and by the eighth grade be able to “define emergency contraception and its use,” according to a report containing controversial new recommendations for sex education in U.S. public schools.

This is not a direction our schools should be taking. I have no problem with sex education being taught in schools, but I think we need to take a very good look at what we are teaching.

More gems from the report:

Recommendations for students by the time they reach age seven include that they [u]se proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy” and “[p]rovide examples of how friends, family, media, society and culture influence ways in which boys and girls think they should act.”

Starting in the third grade, and upon completion of the fifth – when most children are 10 years old – students should be able to “[d]efine sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender” and “[i]dentify parents or other trusted adults of whom students can ask questions about sexual orientation.”

By completion of the eighth grade, the report says, students should be able to “[d]ifferentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation,” “[e]xplain the range of gender roles,” and “[d]efine emergency contraception and its use.”

I realize that all children do not live in perfect families where they will get good sex education with moral values, but this is a bit much. The two-parent heterosexual family is the foundation of our society. When we seek to undermine that, we undermine our society. We need to teach children respect, but we do not need to confuse them about their sexuality at an early age, which I believe this program does.

 Let’s let our children be children for at least a few years.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta