Great News! The Equality Act still appears stalled in the Senate.

[johnwk]

.

See Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate

July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”

To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1] , and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “ appropriate legislation ” forbidding the right to vote to ” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex” .

Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA , knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Corsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.

[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, 110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577 , as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word “sex”, as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock . It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[justinacolmena]

“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination

The SCOTUS jackasses are parroting a Democrat/Socialist/Communist party line straight out of a law school frat house, like they never passed the bar or moved on from academia to real life.

None of them have any intention of treating us as human beings or respecting our right to possess and carry Firearms and other weapons or to remain secure in our homes against unreasonable government intrusions on our privacy.

 

[johnwk]

“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination

The SCOTUS jackasses are parroting a Democrat/Socialist/Communist party line straight out of a law school frat house, like they never passed the bar or moved on from academia to real life.

Some of the members on our Supreme Court are more than "jackasses", and are a very real threat to our Constitutional system. Take for example the majority in the Bostock case . . . GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

In BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, and referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Gorsuch writes: “There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

What Gorsuch intentionally ignores is, Congress had no delegation of power when authoring the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to outlaw, by legislation, distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”.

In fact, Congress has never been granted power to adopt any “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the Nineteenth Amendment which specifically limited that delegation to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.

As a matter of fact, the American people rejected the Equal Rights Amendment which would have granted power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" over an abridgment or denial of rights based upon "sex".

Gorsuch goes on to write:

“This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations.”

Of course, Justice Gorsuch neglects to write with reference to Congress’ usurpation of legislative power over a subject matter (sex) not entrusted to it by the Constitution: If Congress could add to, remodel, update, or detract from the text of our Constitution, we would risk amending the Constitution outside the provisions of Article V (our Constitution’s amendment process), and this Court, in closing its eyes to such a usurpation of power, we would be denying to the various States and people therein, their rightful expectation and protection that is articulated in Article V, and is the only lawful way by which Congress is delegated power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over a subject matter not mentioned in the Constitution.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[justinacolmena]

Some of the members on our Supreme Court are more than "jackasses", and are a very real threat to our Constitutional system

This much is true.

What Gorsuch intentionally ignores is, Congress had no delegation of power when authoring the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to outlaw, by legislation, distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”.

Sex segregated housing and workplace sex distinctions are profoundly immoral as well as illegal.

We don't do sex work for a living in America, and we do not need to be segregated according to others' dominant-submissive homosexual preferences of bondage and discipline.

There's too much Vice Lord Nation to that military barracks party line.

 

[johnwk]

What Gorsuch intentionally ignores is, Congress had no delegation of power when authoring the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to outlaw, by legislation, distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”.

Sex segregated housing and workplace sex distinctions are profoundly immoral as well as illegal.

We don't do sex work for a living in America, and we do not need to be segregated according to others' dominant-submissive homosexual preferences of bondage and discipline.

There's too much Vice Lord Nation to that military barracks party line.

It is absolutely stunning how Justice Gorsuch, in his written opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, totally misrepresented the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and lying that it was meant to protect against distinctions in the workplace based upon sexual activity, conduct and orientation.

All one has to do to see how Justice Gorsuch and his fellow members on the Court lied and misrepresented the specific purpose for which Representative Howard Smith moved to add an amendment to the Act to include “sex”, is to read the Congressional debates of February 8th, 1964, and scroll down to page 2577, ( 110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577 ) which is when Representative introduces the amendment with the word “sex” included. Here is what you will find:

“Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.

Now, I am very serious about this amendment. It has been offered several times before, but it was offered at inappropriate places in the bill. Now, this is the appropriate place for this amendment to come in. I do not think it can do any harm to this legislation; maybe it can do some good. I think it will do some good for the minority sex.

I think we all recognize and it is indisputable fact that all throughout industry women are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment.

That is about all I have to say about it except, to get off of this subject for just a moment but to show you how some of the ladies feel about discrimination against them, I want to read you an extract from a letter that I received the other day. This lady has a real grievance on behalf of the minority sex. She said that she had seen that I was going to present an amendment to protect the most important sex, and she says . . . “

Simply put, the very purpose for which the word “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to protect “women”, as distinguished from “men”, in the workplace who, as Representative Smith emphatically points out “. . . are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment.”

Not only did Justice Gorsuch lie as to the expressed and limited meaning and purpose for which the word “sex” was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Gorsuch goes on to ignore that Congress, in the first place, was never authorized to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the Nineteenth Amendment which specifically limited the delegation of power to adopt “appropriate legislation” in order to forbid the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, concluding as he did in his written opinion, brazenly and deceitfully makes a mockery of Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate new legislative power to Congress. Are we to believe that Justice Gorsuch and those Justices who joined in his opinion in Bostock, were unaware that a specific amendment was put before the various United States and people therein in the 1980s, the Equal Rights Amendment, which was specifically intended to delegate power to Congress to adopt “appropriate legislation” to insure that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”, and the amendment was wisely rejected?

The bottom line is, the question which Justice Gorsuch, and his accomplices in judicial tyranny, refuse to answer is, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt appropriate legislation forbidding distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”, “sexual conduct” or “sexual orientation”? A refusal to answer the question would indicate Justice Gorsuch believes the Supreme Court rightfully exercises legislative, executive and judicial powers.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[johnwk]

.

Is the Equality Act within Congress' delegated legislative powers?​

.
With all the brilliant minds here, I was wondering if anyone can point to the wording in our federal Constitution under which Congress is delegated the legislative power to forbid the States, and people therein, from making distinctions based upon sex?

Seems to me this specific grant of legislative power was intentionally rejected by the States and people therein when they refused to adopt the "Equal Rights Amendment" which would have, if ratified, granted power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding an abridgment or denial of rights based upon "sex".

The last rejection to grant such legislative power to Congress was in the 1980s, and the proposed amendment which was rejected by the States and people therein reads as follows:

'Article--


'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

'Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

'Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.'


So, the question remains, under what authority has Congress adopted "appropriate legislation" forbidding the States, and the people therein, to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?

JWK

If the Equality Act were imposed upon the American people as a federal “rule of law” and without their consent, it would not only subvert the human right of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities ___ it would allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.

 

[johnwk]

Why is a small, but very loud segment of the "gay community", so intent on using government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in unwanted activities with them?
.


I have wondered for a very long time, why would any identifiable group want to use government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in unwanted activities with them?

It seems a small, but extremely loud, segment within the "gay community" may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need to want the muscle of government [e.g., the "Equality Act"], being used to force the unwilling into associations and activities with them.


During the 1970s when I was doing a lot of work out in Fire Island, the Pines and Cherry Grove, where successful members of the “gay community” congregated, they seemed to not give two twits how others viewed their life style, and would never stoop so low as to want to force others to associate or do business with them. But then again, most in this group were successful and had no feelings of insecurity or inferiority. Almost all simply wanted to go about their life style as they saw fit, and without forcing themselves upon others.

JWK

The Equality Act, if imposed upon the American people as a federal “rule of law”, and without their consent, would not only subvert the human right of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities ___ it would allow our federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.

 

[badger2]

.

See Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate

July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”

To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1] , and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “ appropriate legislation ” forbidding the right to vote to ” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex” .

Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA , knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Corsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.

[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, 110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577 , as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word “sex”, as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock . It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Whether Alice can make it mean so many different things. Marxist-socialists knew that they could not add the word ‘too’ to their racist statement, ‘black lives matter,’ because it was too close to the word ‘all,’ which is not a racist statement. Nonetheless, the statement, with the help of the death of a fentanyl eater, caused many guilt-tripping Americans to bend and perform fellatio on opportunist baboonism, even going as far as doing passover imitations on their t-shirts and houses.

 

[johnwk]

.

See Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate

July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”

To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1] , and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “ appropriate legislation ” forbidding the right to vote to ” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex” .

Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA , knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Corsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.

[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, 110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577 , as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word “sex” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word “sex”, as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock . It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Whether Alice can make it mean so many different things. Marxist-socialists knew that they could not add the word ‘too’ to their racist statement, ‘black lives matter,’ because it was too close to the word ‘all,’ which is not a racist statement. Nonetheless, the statement, with the help of the death of a fentanyl eater, caused many guilt-tripping Americans to bend and perform fellatio on opportunist baboonism, even going as far as doing passover imitations on their t-shirts and houses.

Amazing. Simply amazing!

JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is absolutely stunning how Justice Gorsuch, in his written opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, totally misrepresented the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and lying that it was meant to protect against distinctions in the workplace based upon sexual activity, conduct and orientation.

All one has to do to see how Justice Gorsuch and his fellow members on the Court lied and misrepresented the specific purpose for which Representative Howard Smith moved to add an amendment to the Act to include “sex”, is to read the Congressional debates of February 8th, 1964, and scroll down to page 2577, ( 110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577 ) which is when Representative introduces the amendment with the word “sex” included. Here is what you will find:

“Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.

Now, I am very serious about this amendment. It has been offered several times before, but it was offered at inappropriate places in the bill. Now, this is the appropriate place for this amendment to come in. I do not think it can do any harm to this legislation; maybe it can do some good. I think it will do some good for the minority sex.

I think we all recognize and it is indisputable fact that all throughout industry women are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment.

That is about all I have to say about it except, to get off of this subject for just a moment but to show you how some of the ladies feel about discrimination against them, I want to read you an extract from a letter that I received the other day. This lady has a real grievance on behalf of the minority sex. She said that she had seen that I was going to present an amendment to protect the most important sex, and she says . . . “

Simply put, the very purpose for which the word “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was to protect “women”, as distinguished from “men”, in the workplace who, as Representative Smith emphatically points out “. . . are discriminated against in that just generally speaking they do not get as high compensation for their work as do the majority sex. Now, if that is true, I hope that the committee chairman will accept this amendment.”

Not only did Justice Gorsuch lie as to the expressed and limited meaning and purpose for which the word “sex” was added to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Gorsuch goes on to ignore that Congress, in the first place, was never authorized to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the Nineteenth Amendment which specifically limited the delegation of power to adopt “appropriate legislation” in order to forbid the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch, concluding as he did in his written opinion, brazenly and deceitfully makes a mockery of Article V, our Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate new legislative power to Congress. Are we to believe that Justice Gorsuch and those Justices who joined in his opinion in Bostock, were unaware that a specific amendment was put before the various United States and people therein in the 1980s, the Equal Rights Amendment, which was specifically intended to delegate power to Congress to adopt “appropriate legislation” to insure that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex”, and the amendment was wisely rejected?

The bottom line is, the question which Justice Gorsuch, and his accomplices in judicial tyranny, refuse to answer is, under what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt appropriate legislation forbidding distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”, “sexual conduct” or “sexual orientation”? A refusal to answer the question would indicate Justice Gorsuch believes the Supreme Court rightfully exercises legislative, executive and judicial powers.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

This whole topic area in dispute can best be resolved between individuals on a case by case, one on one basis, to accommodate diversity of beliefs and situations that have unique conditions which cannot always be collectively generalized.

For example, these types of conflicts that have come up are NOT the same in EVERY case:

1. Cases of discriminating against the PERSON versus choice of accommodating their actual beliefs, behavior or practices.

2. Discriminating against workers bringing a spouse or partner to an employee event because both partners were the same sex/gender.

3. Denying a transfemale student from participating in a girls' SWIM meet, if all the students and parents affected AGREED to include this student, and the student did not pose any unfair physical advantage in that sports category.

These issues could constitute "unfair discrimination against a PERSON" in ONE case, or a fair choice to prevent imposing beliefs or behavior that other people are not required to participate in.

In case 1: A. The business owner who lectured a customer singled out for same sex relations was NOT treated equally as all other customers. B. But wedding businesses that do not participate in same-sex marriage practices for anyone can be argued as not discriminating against customers but refusing that specific service to any and all customers equally.

In case 2: The issue has come up where refusing to let workers bring same sex partners was ruled a form of discriminating by sex/gender (and was not a fair choice based on excluding certain behaviors).

In case 3: In cases where contestants disagreed due to unfair or unsafe physical advantages, those cases are different from athletic events or fields where the transgender entrant in question either doesn't pose such an unfair biological advantage, and/or the affected students, school and parents AGREE to include that student.

In general johnwk
I agree with your objections as valid arguments, which I explain in terms of faith based beliefs: Govt can neither establish nor prohibit one faith based/personal belief or another.

All the arguments for or against LGBT involve either political beliefs about the role, authority, or limits of govt; or spiritual beliefs about gender identity or orientation. Where Govt has no authority to decide spiritual or political beliefs for other people.

If we treat all faith based beliefs or identity the same as Religious beliefs or Creeds, these are already protected as "equal free exercise" without "discrimination by Creed."

 

[johnwk]

This whole topic area in dispute can best be resolved between individuals on a case by case, one on one basis, to accommodate diversity of beliefs and situations that have unique conditions which cannot always be collectively generalized.

For example, these types of conflicts that have come up are NOT the same in EVERY case:

1. Cases of discriminating against the PERSON versus choice of accommodating their actual beliefs, behavior or practices.

2. Discriminating against workers bringing a spouse or partner to an employee event because both partners were the same sex/gender.

3. Denying a transfemale student from participating in a girls' SWIM meet, if all the students and parents affected AGREED to include this student, and the student did not pose any unfair physical advantage in that sports category.

These issues could constitute "unfair discrimination against a PERSON" in ONE case, or a fair choice to prevent imposing beliefs or behavior that other people are not required to participate in.

In case 1: A. The business owner who lectured a customer singled out for same sex relations was NOT treated equally as all other customers. B. But wedding businesses that do not participate in same-sex marriage practices for anyone can be argued as not discriminating against customers but refusing that specific service to any and all customers equally.

In case 2: The issue has come up where refusing to let workers bring same sex partners was ruled a form of discriminating by sex/gender (and was not a fair choice based on excluding certain behaviors).

In case 3: In cases where contestants disagreed due to unfair or unsafe physical advantages, those cases are different from athletic events or fields where the transgender entrant in question either doesn't pose such an unfair biological advantage, and/or the affected students, school and parents AGREE to include that student.

In general johnwk
I agree with your objections as valid arguments, which I explain in terms of faith based beliefs: Govt can neither establish nor prohibit one faith based/personal belief or another.

All the arguments for or against LGBT involve either political beliefs about the role, authority, or limits of govt; or spiritual beliefs about gender identity or orientation. Where Govt has no authority to decide spiritual or political beliefs for other people.

If we treat all faith based beliefs or identity the same as Religious beliefs or Creeds, these are already protected as "equal free exercise" without "discrimination by Creed."

I appreciate your post. My objective, although a very difficult one in such cases, is to support and defend what our constitution is intended to accomplish, as stated not only its text, but in the framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text!

Unfortunately, and more in the past sixty years than before, tyrannical judges and Justices have taken it upon themselves to give the finger to the defined and limited powers delegated to our federal government by the people, and have knowingly and willingly used their office of public trust to impose their personal feelings of social justice, fairness and reasonableness as the rule of law, and to hell with the Constitution.

Until a few of these scoundrels are severely punished, and made to pay for their notoriously evil doings, things will only get worse, and the United States of America will look more and more like the tyrannical governments of Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc.

Keep in mind we have been amply warned about allowing the above to occur:

"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation's ruin." ___ The Old Guard, a monthly journal devoted to the principles of 1776 and 1787.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968