The INEQUALITY of the “Equality” Act

On  05/01/2019 House Judiciary Committee Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 – 10  the Equality Act, H.R. 5, with the expectation that it will be considered by the whole House soon. The Equality Act was originally introduced in 1974 but was made popular in 2015 when former President Barack Obama announced his support for the legislation. The bill was crafted to protect individuals on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), but does not protect those who disagree with these lifestyles. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) was quick to make an emotional appeal in support of this bill by saying, “Everyone should have a fair chance to earn a living and provide a home for their families without fear of harassment or discrimination.” Of course, any American would want this type of freedom, however, this legislation does the exact opposite.

The Equality Act is crafted to only protect those identifying as homosexual. Americans have been told that the United States has a large LGBT population, however, this group only makes up 4.5% of our nation. Under the Constitution, the LGBT population has the same rights as you and I, but this legislation creates additional protections that undercut our privacy and religious freedom. For example, H.R. 5 includes language that grants any LGBT person full access to any bathroom or shower even in public education settings. A rejection of this policy could result in the federal government fining or jailing those individuals or pulling federal funds from public schools.

The Equality Act also has the potential to threaten religious liberty. Small business owners in case after case have been taken to court and attacked over their refusal to provide a service that violated their religious beliefs. These business owners and all Americans should be able to live without fear of harassment, a freedom that should not be reserved for only the LGBT population. The word “equality” has been warped to create a culture that caters to one group of people, and in this case, that group is the LGBT community.


Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Equality Act’ Would Be Disastrous. Here Are 5 Likely Victim Groups.

By Monica Burke 

Equality is a central value that unites us as Americans, and is enshrined in our nation’s legal motto, “Equal justice under law.”

It is egregious, then, to misuse that term, to use it to divide us and further inequality. But that’s what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done in naming her new proposal the “Equality Act.” Far from advancing equality, the bill would rob Americans of some of their most cherished liberties.

The Equality Act would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes under federal civil rights law. But whereas the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 furthered equality by insuring that African-Americans had equal access to public accommodations and material goods, the Equality Act would further penalize everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex.

Similar sexual orientation and gender identity laws at the state and local level have already been used in this way.
Here are five groups who would be harmed if the Equality Act were to become law.

1. Employers and Workers

The Equality Act would force employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs.

The most high-profile example involves Colorado baker Jack Phillips, whose case went all the way to the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission accused him of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when he declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.

Baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, manages his shop in Lakewood, Colorado. (Photo: Hyoung Chang/Getty Images)

He’s not the only victim. Other cases involving disagreement over the meaning of marriage have involved floristsbakersphotographerswedding venue ownersvideographersweb designerscalligraphers, and public servants.

Now, Americans are being punished for their views on biological sex as well.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Phillips found himself in court again after an activist lawyer who identifies as transgender requested that his Masterpiece Cakeshop create a “gender transition celebration” cake.

After the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated on the basis of gender identity, he sued the commission for targeting him for his Christian beliefs.

Ultimately, the commission dropped the case, and Phillips agreed to drop his lawsuit against the agency.

Even when victims like Phillips win legal battles, conflicts like these have a chilling effect. They discourage people from opening new businesses or entering into certain fields entirely.

A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would preclude compromise of any kind on disagreements about marriage and sexuality.

Far from advancing equality, the bill would rob Americans of some of their most cherished liberties.

Take Peter Vlaming. This high school French teacher in Virginia was dismissed under the school’s anti-discrimination policy after he refused to comply with administrators’ orders to use a female student’s preferred masculine pronouns.

Vlaming had tried to accommodate the student by avoiding pronouns altogether and by using the student’s preferred masculine name, but this was deemed insufficient by the school board.

The Equality Act would increase conflicts like these and put people out of work for their beliefs.

2. Medical Professionals

The Equality Act would force hospitals and insurers to provide—and pay for—these therapies against any moral or medical objections.

It would politicize medicine by forcing professionals to act against their best medical judgment and provide transition-affirming therapies.

That fight is already here. Catholic hospitals in California and New Jersey have been sued for declining to perform hysterectomies on otherwise healthy women who want to become male.

A third Catholic hospital in Washington state settled out of court when the ACLU sued it for declining to perform a double mastectomy on a gender-dysphoric 16-year-old girl.

These cases would multiply under the Equality Act.

The bill would politicize medicine by forcing doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals to offer drastic procedures—not in view of new scientific discoveries, but by ideological fiat.

3. Parents and Children

This politicization of medicine would ultimately harm families by normalizing hormonal and surgical interventions for gender-dysphoric children, as well as ideological “education” in schools and other public venues.

Some 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria no longer feel distressed by their bodies after puberty. Yet activists continue to push their own radical protocol: social transition as young as 4, puberty-blocking drugs as young as 9, cross-sex hormones as young as 14, and surgery by 18 (or, in some cases, even younger).

This protocol could become mandatory in the future.

Read More Here
%d bloggers like this: