WaPo reports in "Equality Act is creating a historic face-off between religious exemptions and LGBTQ rights."
WaPo wants to assure you that RFRA something only social conservatives cherish, but that is history rewritten. RFRA was a reaction to the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, which was written by Antonin Scalia, who articulated the strong, clear position that the Constitution does not require religion-based exemptions to laws that are written to be neutral and generally applicable. The dissenting opinions in that case were by the liberal Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun.
As I wrote on this blog a few years ago:
The RFRA bill was sponsored in the House by Congressman Chuck Schumer and in the Senate by Teddy Kennedy. (Each had a GOP co-sponsor). The Democrats controlled Congress, but the Republicans all voted for it too (with the sole exception of Jesse Helms).
From the NYT article in 1993 when President Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law:
President Clinton hailed the new law at the signing ceremony, saying that it held government "to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."...
President Clinton voiced wonder today at this alliance of forces that are often at odds across religious or ideological lines. "The power of God is such that even in the legislative process miracles can happen," he said.
It's absurd that it's so easy to forget what progressives valued in RFRA and why the liberal Justices dissented in Smith. It was about the rights of minorities. But there are minorities and there are minorities. You can't favor them all. RFRA chose religious minorities. The Equality Act favors gender identity and sexual orientation minorities.
Scalia's Smith allowed Congress to shift back and forth like that. It merely said that legislatures can get away with laws that don't discriminate against religion, that it doesn't have to favor religion. RFRA is just a statute — even if Clinton pronounced it the work of God Himself — and it only takes a statute to change it. The requirement of religious exemptions could have been found in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, but the conservative Court did not see it.
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
It all got screwed up with freedom of association was tossed out in the Civil Rights act, even in non-monopoly markets.
There followed exemptions based on other guaranteed freedoms that conflicted with it, none of them making coherent law.
Put back freedom of association except in monopoly markets and the continuing screw-ups will end.
Althouse writes: But there are minorities and there are minorities. You can't favor them all. RFRA chose religious minorities. The Equality Act favors gender identity and sexual orientation minorities.
For now
What the new Equality Act will require is enforcement which translates to a nation of snitches or put another way, Twitterculture writ large.
And all the mungo jumbo about Scalia is just pillow talk to the left. SCOTUS can be muffled if need be.
The requirement of religious exemptions could have been found in the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause, but the conservative Court did not see it.
Of course they did. Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen the "minorities" they did to have favor.
"The Equality Act matches Americans’ fast-moving rejection of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation." Whoa! This slope sure is slippery, isn't it?
I always love arguments for "rights" from the point of view that the majority supports it (if you believe the WaPo, which I don't).
Welp, I guess the majority of the South was right back in the day...
Idiots.
The idea that a "fast moving majority" of Americans agree with the far left wing of the Democratic Party's radical mandated transgender ideology is a manufactured fiction. The vast majority of Americans oppose it, which is why the left is desperate to shove it down the throats of ordinary Americans.
Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is a competing reservoir of ideological legitimacy to an all-power administrative state and radical social justice, and thus must be ruthlessly suppressed.
Every knee must bend.
The right to freedom of religious conviction and religious practice is enshrined in the constitution. The right to get buttfucked by other dudes, fist your lesbian girlfriend, and wrap yourself in aluminum foil while masturbating is not.
"The Equality Act favors gender identity and sexual orientation minorities."
The Equality Act favors marxism.
Which is the entire point.
Not a single right enumerated in our Constitution/Bill of Rights will survive this leftist/LLR-left onslaught because it is the individual rights of Americans that stands in the way the leftists/LLR-leftists achieving their global vision.
The Equality Act?
Remember the olden days? Back when words meant things (well, different things from today)
All people are Equal... it's Just that Some People are MORE Equal
So it’s not that we can’t agree nearly unanimously on legislation RESTORING freedoms the courts fail to protect, no the big problem is that within a few short years Democrats do a 180 and change their minds about rights we all thought we protected. This act will enshrine UNequal treatment under the law, compelling “correct” speech and actions.
(super) serious Question
How do Islamic People of Color feel about Trans folk and other LGBTQWERTYS?
I figure we've got maybe five years before tax-exemption for Churches is eliminated entirely. And that is going to get ugly.
Somehow the least trustworthy and ethical 535 people in this country are now in position to override our Constitutional rights.
It's weird; I don't think people should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. I also think that the government should have to clear a pretty high bar to be able to infringe on religious worship. I don't really see why to do one, we have to sacrifice the other.
Businesses that advertise their services to the general public should be required to serve the general public. But there should also be room for businesses that seek to cater to certain religions or religious views. And employers should be allowed to make hiring and firing decisions based on any legitimate business consideration, but some things are none of their business.
Here, as in most areas of life, the Don't Be a Dick rule is sufficient for nearly any situation.
Matt Sablan said...It's weird; I don't think people should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. I also think that the government should have to clear a pretty high bar to be able to infringe on religious worship. I don't really see why to do one, we have to sacrifice the other.
Agreed. And with a bit of flexibility, both interests can be protected. For instance, if that cake maker were the only cake maker in town, then he has a monopoly and shouldn't be able to use his monopoly status to decide who does and doesn't get a cake at their wedding. But he wasn't the only baker in town. The people suing him had other options. They went to him not because they really wanted his cakes, but because he really didn't want to make their cake. As above, Don't Be a Dick and it all works itself out.
gilbar said...
The Equality Act?
Remember the olden days? Back when words meant things (well, different things from today)
They still do.
Every word uttered by liberals has the exact opposite meaning of the commonly accepted, obvious meaning.
The funny thing about the names democrats choose for their legislation: The legislation itself does the exact opposite of what the title says.
Beware of the coming "Desert Sands Conservation Act".
Wait! The WaPo used the term "sexual orientation", but didn't we all learn during Justice Barrett's confirmation hearing that it is "homophobic" to use that term? Shouldn't someone be cancelled for such heresy?
I don't think the WaPo used the term (I'm out of patience for jumping through paywalls this morning), I did. In all seriousness -- is it actually considered an offensive term? And if so, what is the preferred terminology? I'm actually serious here, as I don't see a reason to be deliberately or accidentally offensive when it is reasonably avoidable.
Another Serious Question
What IF we were talking about:
Americans’ fast-moving acceptance of discrimination based on Allah and Islam?
What IF
More than 6 in 10 Americans said business owners SHOULD be allowed to refuse services to Moslem people on the basis of religion."
Would THAT be OKAY? If Not, Why not?? I mean, if 6 out of 10 Americans Want something?
This is the hill I will choose to die on.
"Equality Act is creating a historic face-off between religious exemptions and LGBTQ rights."
Not quite. It is one maneuver in the prog effort to extinguish all opposition and scorch the earth.
"WaPo wants to assure you that RFRA something only social conservatives cherish"
At this point, it is.
I am generally okay with laws that prohibit me from doing something TO someone else.
Laws that require me to do something FOR someone else are another matter. We should be able to make that decision for ourselves.
mockturtle said...This is the hill I will choose to die on.
I will chose the 2nd Amendment hill to die on.
So, are Native Americans going to get fired now for smoking peyote?
So who can take peyote without being hassled - all trannies, or just tranny Amerindians?
Asking for a friend.
The Equality Act matches Americans’ fast-moving rejection of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
If true, then no law is needed. (Even if false, no law is needed, since freedom of association is a more important right than the right to not be disliked because of a small, select subset of one's personal characteristics).
More than 6 in 10 Americans say business owners should not be allowed to refuse services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion.
That's not evidence of any change.
not because they really wanted his cakes, but because he really didn't want to make their cake. As above, Don't Be a Dick and it all works itself out.
But which side has to not be a dick? I feel quite certain that the activist LBGTQ folks believe their representatives in that case were being not only reasonable, but noble.
And that's why the Don't Be A Dick rule doesn't work any more: it requires self-awareness, a sense of perspective, and a willingness to believe that your interlocutor is acting in good faith. Without these things, it's dead easy to convince yourself that you're the good guy, every time.
And these things are now subsumed in the all-important quest -primarily but not always on the Left, I believe - to feel grievance, find offense, and enforce conformity.
Heh, if you guys think the Equality Act is awful, just wait until you see the Equity Act. Brought to you by totalitarian leftists in the U.S. government and totally supported by our snowflake Generals and Admirals.
How come we didn't hear about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when all that wedding cake baker stuff was going on?
And if I were in Congress I would only vote for bills with the driest, most pedestrian titles. Don't put stupid PR spin and campaign slogans into the names of legislation.
that is history rewritten
Progressive are especially prone to
1). Reframing, rewriting, and/or reinterpreting history based on ever shifting narratives.
2). Then creating new standards based around those new versions of history.
3.) And then retroctively punishing those who failed to adhere to those new standards in the past.
The Equality Act matches Americans’ fast-moving rejection of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Which Americans is WaPo referring to here exactly?
Helms voted no? It's hard to track down why -- no news site lets you look at anything for free anymore, which is another topic -- but it seems he anticipated the bill being used for fringe purposes. Whacko religions getting a pass. Now Christianity is the whacko religion.
Concerning equity, I recently received an invitation to a complimentary seminar. Here is the description:
"A discussion with women of color and/or gender non-conforming individuals about the challenges of navigating a world established around cisgender heterosexual men."
I'm thinking of going just for the sake of learning how I established the world.
Matt: The term is in the quote at the beginning of Ann's post. (I don't bother with paywalls either.)
"More than 6 in 10 Americans say business owners should not be allowed to refuse services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion."
That is not the issue. No one is doing that, by and large. The baker would have been happy to bake a birthday cake for a gay guy. But requiring him to participate in the celebration of an event of which he, in good faith, disapproves is compelled speech and a different matter. And there are lots of bakers; no one is prevented from having a cake. I can see two sides to this, but let's at least get this issue right.
"I don't think people should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation. I also think that the government should have to clear a pretty high bar to be able to infringe on religious worship. I don't really see why to do one, we have to sacrifice the other."
You have out of date thinking. "should [not] be discriminated against" is no longer the actual target. Now it is we must ALL fully embrace any and all far left concepts or be punished.
Jamie said...But which side has to not be a dick? I feel quite certain that the activist LBGTQ folks believe their representatives in that case were being not only reasonable, but noble.
The people going out of their way to create a crisis where none was needed are being the dick. A dick will try to make it seem like it's not obvious who's being the dick, but most of the time it's obvious who's being the dick.
gilbar: "(super) serious Question
How do Islamic People of Color feel about Trans folk and other LGBTQWERTYS?"
Islam is the adopted "okay" religion for the left and the islamist supremacists knw full well that none of the laws (those in force now and those being proposed) will ever be enforced upon them.
Ever. For any reason.
These laws are meant only to be weapons to be used against Christians.
And everyone knows it.
You only have the right to live a nasty, brutish, and short life.
Any comfort and kindness that comes your way in this world is only a bonus.
" . . . unless it's for 'a compelling government interest.'" Gee, with that a criterion, what could go wrong?
WaPoo
Oh. I lost the quotation marks. Somedays, I do better at skimming than others. Today is not that day.
After the discussion regarding the Catholic Church; I started thinking about the 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment. I figured it wouldn't be long before someone argued that the 14th Amendment made moot the 1st Amendment's prohibition of creating laws limiting the free exercise of religion. And now, here we are but discussing it by statute.
I think the simple way to fight back is to push the debate discussion away from the Catholic Church and discuss the implications to the Islam. We can start with equality of men and women in the Muslim religion. That should build political pressure (and SCOTUS now seems very political) to retain and strengthen the Free Exercise Clause.
Since the Constitution only means what a majority of supreme court justices say it means, actual text notwithstanding, here's the "new and improved First Amendment".
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless some people disagree with any of a religion's tenets, then it's fair game; or abridging the freedom of speech unless someone wants to say something that others disagree with, or of the press unless they try to print something that others disagree with; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they're political conservatives (leftist riots are cool), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances but only from the left.”
And all the mungo jumbo about Scalia is just pillow talk to the left. SCOTUS can be muffled if need be.
Chickelit for the win!
You would think that Lefties would heed their own adage of "Think globally --- act locally", but it seems they never really do.
The push among the LGBTQ communities in the First World for "total" societal acceptance, even to the point of overturning the RFRA, an epitome of an established & bi-partisan law, can only be used as fodder for those in the 3rd world who wish to deny the LGBTQ even the most basic of legal protections.
In some places, e.g. in many African or Islamic countries, gays can't even assume that they can live safely. These gays would ask their persecutors "Can't we just be allowed to live in peace?" and their persecutors can say "No. Look at the US & Europe. When your kind gets power, you attack our faith. That can't be allowed to happen here."
I just don't see how the LGBTQ community can consider it a long-term win when they, who will always be a minority, get themselves in an existential struggle with basically every religious tradition on the planet, who are, in most countries, the majority.
Guys, half a loaf is waaaaaay better than ending up dead going for a whole loaf.
'a compelling government interest.'
According to the founding document there is no compelling government interest when it comes to my religion.
So. like. Fuck off.
The Equality Act explicitly follow ostensibly "secular" quasi-religious dogma that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, normalizes color blocs (e.g. "people of color"), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination, not limited to racism. It is an act put forth by the Progressive Cult under the Pro-Choice quasi-religion and liberal ideology.
The transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual) is notable for it inclusive exclusion. It spreads a quasi-religious belief that men and women's choice is normalized by social stigma and the wicked solution.
The Equality Act embraces the Progressive Cult's selective-child policy under Planned Parent/hood (e.g. clinical cannibalism).
Can leftists abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too?
Gilbar: Wait until they pass the “Cute Puppies and Fluffy Bunnies Act”. Whatever’s in that sucker we’re all screwed.
Sex: male and female. Gender is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation): masculine and feminine, respectively.
Transgederism is a state or process of divergence from normal (e.g. distribution) includes individuals with genderphobia, has been normalized under the Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. ethics) of the Progressive Church/Synagogue/Agency/Corporation/Clinic/Chamber etc.
the Equality Act is awful, just wait until you see the Equity Act
The Equality Act denies reality. The Equity Act denies history (e.g. sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up to slaver and diversity) and human rights (e.g. denial of individual dignity, individual conscience). Both get tangled in their internal, external, and mutial inconsistencies and liberated with the left's Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic quasi-religious dogmatic beliefs.
OldHegelian
Good analysis but I am surprised you ever took any of the professions of the activists at face value. This is primarily a battle for a positional good amongst white wokesters.
"Equality Act is creating a historic face-off between religious exemptions and LGBTQ rights."
The Pro-Choice religion? The Progressive Cult's religion or not, transgender rights are only limited at the interface to religious rights. Equal rights are limited by political congruence ("=") or inclusive exclusion and the Twilight Amendment that established the Progressive Church/Synagogue/etc. and Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic religion. Libertarians and conservatives had it right. The religious left got it wrong, again.
Expect the Democrats to push for anything that accelerates the dystopia as reality. Expect the LGBTABCs to celebrate their elevation from mentally ill to virtual majority by pursuing their attacks on Christianity.
Expect the Islamists to deal with them eventually.
Tim Maguire said, "Businesses that advertise their services to the general public should be required to serve the general public."
No. Business owners should be absolutely free to pick and choose whom they wish to employ, as well as whom they wish to do business with. "Freedom of Association" is right there in the Constitution, and it encompasses whom you choose NOT to associate with every bit as much as whom you choose to associate with. I'll assume the Civil Rights act was made in good faith (and not as a stalking horse for the leftist agenda), but the utter nonsense we're dealing with today is a direct result of empowering the government to overrule individual choice. Once you establish "protected classes" the inevitable result is the expansion of that privilege to an ever larger array of additional classes.
Better to empower the ultimate minority--every individual--with the absolute right to choose whom he wishes to work for, employ, buy from and sell to, date, marry, or invite over for a BBQ on a summer evening. Anything else just gives busybodies, governmental or freelance, too much freedom to meddle and fuck up everyones' lives.
We're a Republic, not a Democracy. As the people passing these laws insist they're something the people demand, which they aren't. Matter of fact, they've used the courts often to defeat Democracy- SSM being the prime example. With a homosexual judge in California overturning the people's will. If you want to see Democracy in action go to Switzerland. A referendum was held, the people voted for it- it's law the courts cannot overturn.
A popular preacher on aljazeera quradawi recommends the size and shape of stones to use, he never gets fined by any authority.
We're a Republic, not a Democracy.
A constitutional republic, with laws, less the Twilight Amendment (e.g. diversity, selective-child, cannibalized-child), to mitigate the progress of the democratic/dictatorial duality.
"Of course they did. Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen the "minorities" they did to have favor."
What are you talking about? Smith was about the federal govt's power to impose drug laws on everybody. No minority was favored.
Helms voted no? It's hard to track down why -- no news site lets you look at anything for free anymore, which is another topic -- but it seems he anticipated the bill being used for fringe purposes."
He said "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has less to do with our legal and historical notions of religious liberties than it does with the creation of new rights and employment opportunities for the nation’s lawyers. This legislation when enacted will make it easier for litigants with many different and singular religious beliefs to attack virtually all state and federal laws that somehow burden acts that individuals engage in as part of their religious practice.... Once again, the courthouse doors are about to fly open as thousands will demand protection for religious practices as varied as the use of hallucinogenic drugs and animal sacrifice.... As a result of a prisoner lawsuit, one state court has even recognized as a religion a group called the Church of the New Song which demands steak and wine for its religious practice every Friday."
Basically: he's predicting too many lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits and freaky sects with their special need to do things that most of us disapprove of.
Maybe he thought there was no threat to mainstream Christians, whose special needs are taken care of in the legislative process.
“Transgederism is a state or process of divergence from normal (e.g. distribution) includes individuals with genderphobia, has been normalized under the Pro-Choice quasi-religion (e.g. ethics) of the Progressive Church/Synagogue/Agency/Corporation/Clinic/Chamber etc.”
The problem really anymore is that transgenderism is most typically a mental illness, and not an innate situation, which most male, and much female homosexuality is believed to be. When you can hook contacts up to a guy, show him nude pictures of men and women, and tell from their physical response their sexual orientation (straight, bi, or gay), you have an innate condition. Not the case with the transgendered. A guy may be heterosexual, but decide he wants to be treated as a girl instead, and declare himself a trans lesbian. This act is going to force us all to treat him as if that were reality. We would be forced to accept his fantasy world as our reality. But he is still a guy who likes girls, but now gets to hang out in the women’s restroom to stalk them.
Keep that in mind - that transgenderism is a mental illness affecting a minuscule portion of the population, and this legislation would force the rest of society to cater to their delusions.
Lucien,
Wait! The WaPo used the term "sexual orientation", but didn't we all learn during Justice Barrett's confirmation hearing that it is "homophobic" to use that term?
Actually, I think that was "sexual preference." Which was absolutely bog-standard 20 years ago, and has been used by probably every politician in existence, not excepting the current President, But that's different b/c ACB! You know, the One In Whom The Dogma Loudly Lives.
The idea, apparently, is that you just "are" gay or straight, and nothing can ever change that. Which apart from erasing bisexuals entirely (as usual) is contrary to much lesbian experience. That there are "hard-wired" gay men I accept; that every sexual orientation in existence has zero choice involved, I don't.
There is no way to separate the development of the US Constitution from the history of the African slave trade, slavery, the defenses of slavery, its abolition through war, and efforts to make amends to its victims and their descendents. It necessarily colors the first amendment treatment of religious beliefs and practices that were warped over centuries since 1619. (I know, that's a dirty number to many commenters here.)
Readering wrote: “[Slavery] necessarily colors the first amendment treatment of religious beliefs and practices that were warped over centuries since 1619. (I know, that's a dirty number to many commenters here.)”
Actually, it may be a dirty number to the many reputable historians who have shot down the bogus NYT codswollop bearing that designation. To “many commenters here” it is merely representative of another example of lefty fabulists clearing the way to dystopia with fodder for dupes.
The problem really anymore is that transgenderism is most typically a mental illness, and not an innate situation, which most male, and much female homosexuality is believed to be.
Yes, I believe it was Johns Hopkins that conducted gender (e.g. breast augmentation, penis castration, psychiatric therapy) reassignment, and discovered that despite physical and mental corruption, genderphobia in some subset of the transgender spectrum is a progressive condition. There is a compelling cause to tolerate these individuals and couplets, but no reason to normalize (e.g. celebrate) the disorder, and the Progressive Church etc. normalization of stigmas and taboos to deter people from choice is beyond the pale. The paradox of inclusive exclusion that motivated the trans/hisexual assault on trans/homosexuals is lost on them. That said, if there is a pride parade, I expect to see lions, lionesses, and their cubs playing in gay abandon.
I'm not invested in the 1619 project but, alongside 1492, I do now know what happened that year. I don't think I learned it in school. How many remember past grade school the years white people started permanent settlements in VA and MA? (Maybe now a few more remember the latter date.)
"It's absurd that it's so easy to forget what progressives valued in RFRA and why the liberal Justices dissented in Smith. It was about the rights of minorities. But there are minorities and there are minorities. You can't favor them all. RFRA chose religious minorities. The Equality Act favors gender identity and sexual orientation minorities."
yes, there are minorities favored by the Left, and minorities hated by the Left
Since the Left has no principles, no morality, no ethics, and no human decency, the position they take last week gets dropped the second it inconveniences them in any way.
Which is why the only proper response to the Left is to fight to destroy them. Because you can't make principled agreements with people who have no principles
How many remember past grade school the years white people started permanent settlements in VA and MA? (Maybe now a few more remember the latter date.)
I remember 1620. The number was reinforced in later years because I used to live at that street number.
Along those lines
https://mobile.twitter.com/queens_parents/
status/1372235782283476994
"Congress shall make no law"
If only our Bill of Rights had stopped there.
Readering,
I'm not invested in the 1619 project but, alongside 1492, I do now know what happened that year.
Do you? Do you know, for example, where the errant slave ship was going before it was attacked by privateers? (Hint: It was not in the United States, but in a colony of a completely different colonial power, which had already developed a well-established slave trade decades prior.) Do you know how one of the privateer ships came to be at Jamestown? Do you know that the captives were "sold" (in exchange for food) as indentured servants, not slaves, and that some were afterwards freed?
I don't know about you, but to me the whole 1619 incident suggests that we (the US) originally embarked upon slavery practically by accident. At least, any account that leaves out the machinations of Portuguese and then Spanish colonials and pirates of no flag at all leaves out most of the evidence. The proper "true" beginning of slavery in the colonial US is probably not far afterward, and obviously slavery quickly became important here. But the "dirty number" is vital, b/c it's one year before 1620.
"It necessarily colors the first amendment treatment of religious beliefs and practices that were warped over centuries since"
Nonsense. No one has shown that it "necessarily colors" (I see what you did there, racist pig) the first amendment in any way. That's just America-hating leftist BS. Just like Readering.
Blogger Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
"Readering,"
Hitory is hard. Readering hasn't been told what to believe yet.
1492 is also the year that the Jews of Spain were told to convert or get out. many of my great grandmothers people were killed.
Blogger Readering said...
"There is no way to separate the development of the US Constitution from the history of the African slave trade,....."
That wins a prize for dumb.
They were going to brazil, hint hint.
OMG!
readering is once again dabbling in "history"!!!
(Pulls up chair, pops popcorn...)
Of course, Washington Post mischaracterizes the injustice of the Act and what is at stake -- just like Clinton, Biden, Schumer, et al., lied when they said that they supported the freedom of religious entities to be religious entities per RFRA.
Which freed the slaves 23 years after our civil war.
Before you gloat at the repeal of RFRA, realize that the "Equality Act" also repeals women and legal protections for women as women.
But in THIS country, freedom of religion IS different from freedom of sexual choice, because it is enshrined in the Constitution. So it has to be treated differently. You can pass a law affirming it, but if you pass a law limiting it, then the Constitution gets square in the way.
This really is not about refusing "services" -- although part of it definitely is about refusing the service of bathrooms and locker rooms in a way that destroys sexual privacy.
The bigger aspect of it is having the power of government to invade and undermine institutions and businesses as employees, forcing employers to hire and retain people that are opposed to the employer's interests and identity. For example, a current D.C. law prohibits pro-life health clinics from refusing to employ abortionists.
That is the kind of thing that the Equality Act would compel nationwide. It would be the equivalent of requiring Pelosi, Schumer and Biden to all retain on their staffs hard-line Trump supporters. It turns non-discrimination law on its head.
narciso,
Actually, they were going to Mexico, to Veracruz. Though they were initially sold (by Africans, in Angola) to the Portuguese, who then sold them to the Spaniards, who were then attacked by pirates, one of whose ships limped into Jamestown. They might actually have survived some time in Mexico; had they gone to Brazil, probably not. Though, again, note that only about half them were alive to reach Jamestown.
It's complicated.
Lay off Readering, guys. S/he hasn't said anything wrong on this thread that I can find, apart from that line about slavery "necessarily coloring" the First Amendment's position on religion, which as far as I can see is nonsense.
Mark: "Before you gloat at the repeal of RFRA, realize that the "Equality Act" also repeals women and legal protections for women as women."
Marxists dont care.
The Equality Act matches Twitter's fast-moving rejection of discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
There. Fixed it for you. I have an extremely progressive sister-in-law, whom despite their differences my wife loves dearly. Last year they had a conversation where my wife expressed concerns for some of the more radical planks in the LGBTQ platform and the sister told her that she need to reprogram her mind for the new normal. Flash forward to now and the seemingly endless capitulation demands from that same quarter and she's signing the opposite tune. It's not just the demands, some of which are perfectly fine...you do you...but it's the ideological, nay, religious righteousness and willingness to burn heretics at the stake that now concerns her.
Having emailed our new Dem Senator, Mark 'Mr. Astronaut' Kelly, about the Equality Act and urging him not to support it as it would ruin women's sports forever, he responded in part:
" Too many LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination, harassment, and violence due to their sexual orientation and gender identity. Without a federal law explicitly providing nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, LGBTQ+ Americans do not have legal protections against discrimination. Without protections, they live in greater danger of unemployment, eviction, insufficient healthcare, harassment, and violence. No one should be subject to discrimination for who they are. The LGBTQ+ community deserves to be protected by federal laws, and as Arizona’s senator, I cosponsored the Equality Act because I am committed to fighting to achieve true equality and safety for all Americans, including LGBTQ+ Americans."
I suspect this is their standard talking point. Didn't hear back from Senator Sinema about the bill although she responded to my nonexistent inquiry about election reform. So I assume that's another packaged talking point that they are sending out whether we asked about or not. I'm sure she probably knows that I am a registered Republican and doesn't give a rat's ass what I think, anyway. None of them do, now. They won. Elections [fair or not] have consequences.
Perhaps our hostess has never participated in competitive women's sports but she must realize what a disaster it would be allowing biological males to compete as 'women'. Though the anti-Christian undertones to this bill [along with Biden's statement about 'churches can't be havens for hate'] put me squarely against it from the get-go but the sports thing, with the Olympics coming up this year, is critical and immediate.
What really is dismaying is how, in the time of the snap of a finger, the entire Democrat Party adopted this irrational insanity, and at least half the country just went along with it.
Blogger Rusty said...
Blogger Readering said...
"There is no way to separate the development of the US Constitution from the history of the African slave trade,....."
That wins a prize for dumb.
Lefties know no history. It's why they are lefties. Ritmo was going on about slavery and had never heard of The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery north of the Ohio river.
On this date, the Confederation Congress approved “An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States, North-West of the River Ohio,” by a vote of 17–1. Better known as the Northwest Ordinance, it provided a path toward statehood for the territories northwest of the Ohio River, encompassing the area that would become the future states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. Drafted by Massachusetts Delegates Rufus King and Nathan Dane, the 1787 ordinance sought to revise Thomas Jefferson’s 1784 ordinance by designating the territories as one district which fell under Congress’s jurisdiction.
It banned slavery and it was passed BEFORE the US Constitution was adopted. They just don't know any history.
mockturtle said...Perhaps our hostess has never participated in competitive women's sports but she must realize what a disaster it would be allowing biological males to compete as 'women'.
It's not just that--Althouse is perfectly fine with women drifting back to non participation because that was what she experienced as normal: link
On the whole, I think this new legislation will alienate some women who might have previously been sympathetic to transgender males participating in or even dominating girl's sports. When this sort of thing is foisted, it alienates.
So it alienates some women. Big deal.
They will go and vote Democrat next time anyway.
This is why Cuomo ain't going nowhere.
Politicians are not afraid of voters anymore. They know they will vote for them no matter what.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which banned slavery north of the Ohio river.
The British, and other hostile factions before and after, then the slavers, and diversitists, too. The People, our Posterity, our forefathers and foremothers, did not take a knee.
Chickelit, yes, I remember that post. Don't know where she went to HS but, in mine, girls did participate in competitive sports. In junior high, too. And I competed in amateur women's golf for years and don't want to think of male golfers using the ladies' tees and competing against real females. So unfair! It makes my blood boil. And Olympic-hopeful female athletes spend much of their young lives preparing to be the best they can be in their sport but they are no competition for men in most sports.
Mark: "Before you gloat at the repeal of RFRA, realize that the "Equality Act" also repeals women and legal protections for women as women."
They're Pro-Choice.
It's ironic that, years ago, some female Russian athletes were stripped of their medals [and the US was the most angry about it] for using male hormones to enhance their strength and endurance. Now they want to allow this. Ridiculous.
The Equality Act: A Bill In Sheep's Clothing
If you haven't run across this guy yet, you should give him a view. He has ten pods out so far and his take on the crazy is very interesting. I've enjoyed everyone of them. (I might experienced dealing with a particular personality disorder up close so his premise resonates with me.)
Mark said...
This is why Cuomo ain't going nowhere.
Politicians are not afraid of voters anymore. They know they will vote for them no matter what.
Well. The mail in voters will anyways.
Blogger Karen of Texas said...
The Equality Act: A Bill In Sheep's Clothing
If you haven't run across this guy yet, you should give him a view. He has ten pods out so far and his take on the crazy is very interesting. I've enjoyed everyone of them. (I might experienced dealing with a particular personality disorder up close so his premise resonates with me.)
--
Hey, could Josh S take the Rush slot? Lacks the humor and low-brow touch, but sounds like he can keep going for 3 hours.
Well. The mail in voters will anyways.
Ironically, the needed undoing of Dem cheating via mail-in/absentee voting will probably occur during some Dem primary. It's one thing for corrupt California election officials to manufacture/harvest a few million extra votes against a Republican in a general; it's quite another for more liberal Democrats to stand by and get hijacked. Look what happened to Sanders in CA and elsewhere where primaries were "cancelled" because the DNC didn't like the outcome.
I once was able to make my point felt viscerally by a young woman who thought the Colorado baker was 100% wrong and bigoted to not want to create a custom SS wedding cake. She considered herself to be a Wiccan and supported herself doing various craft-y things, one of which was making custom T-shirts. I asked her if she realized that the same law would also compel her to print anything on T-shirts that a protected class asked for---including a Christian ordering the Bible verse from Exodus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." She got it. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.
@Althouse: "But there are minorities and there are minorities. You can't favor them all. RFRA chose religious minorities. The Equality Act favors gender identity and sexual orientation minorities." Not so.
RFRA doesn't say that a religious minority can impose its beliefs and practices on non-believers -- it says that (under some circumstances) the religious minorities have the right to be left alone to practice their beliefs and practices. The demands on behalf of the transgender community are not that they be left alone (which I would support btw), but that they be allowed to impose their views on those that don't share them. The most obvious example is women's sports: persons who are biologically and genetically male who "identify" as female would be allowed to compete with real (biological and genetic) females. That would effectively repeal Title IX of the 1972 education act, which assured female athletes an opportunity to participate in collegiate sports.
Maybe there's a constituency for disadvantaging girls and young women, and the Democrats want to wrap up the support of that constituency. My guess is that Republicans (and maybe any "moderate" Democrats that may still survive) could attract a lot of support by fighting this bill.
Joe Smith - "You only have the right to live a nasty, brutish, and short life."
Needs saying.
-----
GoSpace - "We're a Republic, not a Democracy."
Once upon a time. Never a democracy, no longer a republic.
-----
Ann Althouse - "Basically: he's predicting too many lawsuits, frivolous lawsuits and freaky sects with their special need to do things that most of us disapprove of."
Does God ask what most of us disapprove of? Or what we approve of? Is there a God?
-------
Mock - "...allowing biological males to compete as 'women'."
"...preparing to be the best they can be in their sport but they are no competition for men in most sports."
We allow biological women to compete as 'men' in the military.
Women, preparing to be the best they can be in their Military Branch, but they are no competition for men in most Military Branches.
Sports is a confection. Military service is Life or Death.
Tell me again how females cannot compete against neutered males in Sports, but become fierce, war fighting Warriors in combat against enemy men. Jessica Lynch?
For those who've forgotten: In 2003 a Transportation Convoy drove into an ambush in Iraq. Normally, a unit would advance into the ambush, with all rifles laying down a field of fire.
The convoy had 6 women, because 'equality'. 6 rifles.
Every man in the unit engaged the enemy. Every woman cowered in the cabs of the trucks they drove and did not engage. Never touched their rifles. 6 Rifles left untouched.
No man can fault them. They should not have been there.
The men were killed. Jessica got a Bronze Star for being a plaything for the enemy.
We hold mens' lives cheap in the service of Progressivism.
We used to have Military auxiliaries for women to serve. WACs, WAFs, WAVES.
Hillary and her feminists infested the Pentagon in the '90s to demand that women be allowed to 'serve' in the Regular Military. Here we are. Grlll Power.
Hercules, I agree. Women should not be serving in the military alongside men. Apart from the differences in physical and emotional makeup, it creates distractions and dangerous relationships. The same should be said for women on the police force.
Keep that in mind - that transgenderism is a mental illness affecting a minuscule portion of the population, and this legislation would force the rest of society to cater to their delusions.
Do you think that this law was due in part to Rand Paul being so mean to the Quaker Oats Guy?
Women should not be serving in the military alongside men. Apart from the differences in physical and emotional makeup, it creates distractions and dangerous relationships. The same should be said for women on the police force.
One of those "distractions" that nobody likes to talk about. I've never met a fellow serviceman that was able to get sent home soonest by getting pregnant while on deployment. Can't say the same for the fairer servicepeople, as I've know two personally that did so and have heard it's fairly widespread otherwise. There are sooooo many jobs in the military that get the same bennies, job-training, etc, etc, that don't require being in a front line combat arms unit. In fact, most of the training one gets in a rear-with-the-gear has far more civilian world counterparts than the combat troops.
"(I know, that's a dirty number to many commenters here.)"
Actually, Readering, most commenters here just laugh at what an ignorant, poorly-educated moron you are.
"I asked her if she realized that the same law would also compel her to print anything on T-shirts that a protected class asked for---including a Christian ordering the Bible verse from Exodus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.""
-- I somehow doubt that would actually work. I don't mean that I don't think it should *logically* follow. I just don't think that it would get upheld. There'd be a penumbra or something.
Readering said...
"There is no way to separate the development of the US Constitution from the history of the African slave trade,....."
You mean like the part where the US Constitution explicitly mentioned slavery as something that was going to be abolished? (That's the whole "can't stop the slave trade until" clause, which any non-moron recognizes as saying "you CAN stop the slave trade after")
You mean like the part where the US Constitution cuts the power of slave States WRT free States (free blacks get counted as fully for representation. Hold the same person as a slave, and you get 40% less representation)?
Got any national charters that were as or more anti-slave, written then or earlier? No?
As for 1619, those were indentured servants, not slaves, And were freed after their indenture was over. Which kept on happening until one of the freed formerly indentured servants went to court to demand that his indentured servants be slaves.
Sadly, he won.
The slaves were captured and sold on the sending side by blacks, and were converted from indentured servants to slaves by a black on the other side.
But slavery is all the fault of "white people", especially those for whom non of their ancestors were even in the US until after teh end of the Civil War.
Because Leftists, and Readering, are historical ignoramuses, idiots, and liars
tim maguire said...
Businesses that advertise their services to the general public should be required to serve the general public.
Let me know when FaceBook and Twitter and YouTube are not allowed to censor conservatives.
Let me know when Amazon isn't allowed to censor "trans" books they don't like.
IOW, let me know when all four of those companies have been taken to court, sued for huge sums of money, lost, and been forced to pay up, as well as to stop all their political discrimination.
Until then? No, no one else is required to serve anyone the Left likes
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा