Well, it would be helpful if you were a bit clearer.
Aside from that, is it not sickening to have the leadership of the Democrat Party attempting to make deviant sexual behavior, expressions and proclivities a federally protected class, and forbidding the the States and people therein from making distinctions based upon these characteristics in their daily social, commercial and religious activities?
JWK
Sickening? No. An argument could be made that it is redundant and perhaps an overreach, yes. What do you think is the motivation behind the initiative?
If the Equality Act should ever become a federal ârule of lawâ, it would not only subvert the human right of the majority 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 peoplesâ social, religious and commercial activities, and compel the public at large to not only make every space open to the public a âsafe spaceâ where offensive sexual deviant displays are allowed, but it would actually compel the public at large to endure and even embrace, morally offensive sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities, i.e., inclusiveness for our sexual deviant crowd, but not for those morally offended by sexual deviant behavior and expressions.
There is no âlive and let liveâ and âfreedom of choiceâ thinking in the Equality Act. It is designed to compel total submission to sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities, regardless of how offensive they may be, religiously or otherwise.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the âEqual Rights Amendmentâ which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.
As I said, John, you have a Constitutional argument that may have merit. My takeaway is that the Constitution is the Constitution and when/if its guarantees fail or are perceived to fail, added measures are often taken. Sometimes these added measures are tested for Constitutionality. I think thatâs what weâre seeing here.
Democrats have no agenda to deprive oneâs rights; that may, however, be the effect, but not the intent. The intent of the initiative, as I read it, is to provide protection against discrimination. In fact the word discrimination is used 47 times in 31 pages.
So what we have is the most beautiful and elegant aspect of our nationâs Justice system: tests to Constitutionality. Such tests have happened in the past and will happen in the future. I hope. Balancing individual liberties with security needs (different cases) and individual freedoms with the protection others is a distinctly American endeavor. I love it.
Correction: Judicial system, not Justice.
The Equality Act lists dozens of instances in which the people at large are forbidden to exercise the fundamental and inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities. Of course the word âdiscriminationâ is used multiple times as a reference when the people at large are forbidden to exercise âfreedom of choiceâ to avoid subjecting themselves to sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities which they find offensive.
As I correctly pointed out, There is no âlive and let liveâ and âfreedom of choiceâ thinking in the Equality Act. It is designed to compel total submission to sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities, regardless of how offensive they may be, religiously or otherwise.
The Equality Act is about inclusiveness for sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities, but not for those finding such activities, behavior, expressions and proclivities offensive.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the âEqual Rights Amendmentâ which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.
Is it not sickening to have the leadership of the Democrat Party attempting to make deviant sexual behavior, expressions and proclivities a federally protected class, and forbidding the States and people therein from making choices in their daily social, commercial and religious activities based upon sexual behavior, expressions, and proclivities?
The democrat party leadership once stood up for the average working family in America. Today, it appears the democrat party leadership is becoming the American familyâs worst nightmare.
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the âEqual Rights Amendmentâ which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.
List them and show how they would do what the above paragraph claims. Otherwise it is just accusations.
From your above post it appears you have not actually read the text of the Equality Act ___ its objective being summarized as follows:
In case you missed it, the Equality Act is intentionally designed to forbid the States and people therein from making choices in their daily social, commercial and religious activities based upon sexual behavior, expressions, and proclivities. If you doubt my word, download the Act study it, and you will come to the conclusion there are dozens of instances in which âdiscriminationâ [the freedom to choose] is forbidden.
Are you really, in front of all those who read this thread, suggesting this is not the purpose of the Act, and its author(s) were joking when saying its purpose is âTo prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposesâ?
JWK
The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the âEqual Rights Amendmentâ which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.
Libs certainly donât tolerate gay people wanting to be straight.
EXAMPLES! Your accusations are empty without specifics. What will you in particular be forced to do?
I donât think they can be turned straight anymore than you can be turned gay. They have always said that and I see no reason not to believe them.
Thatâs merely your individual opinion. If a gay person wants to be straight, who are you to tell them they canât be?
Not me. The many that have been put through so called conversion therapy. It doesnât work.
Youâre the only one who mentioned conversion therapy.
Is this a theory of yours?
We are not talking about your conversion therapy theory. We are talking about if someone is attracted to same sex, then changes his or her mind. I understand in prison for example, because there are not opposite sex parners available, (some not all) same sex are attracted to each other. When they are released they go back to opposite sex attraction.
There are probably psychological reasons why some cross the same sex barrier. It could be they were molested or may have acceptance issues. Some may be people pleasers. Some like Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, and a psychotic disorder.
In saying that, others are good people who have found love and acceptance with same sex partners and are model upstanding citizens.
Prison is kind of an extreme example, and in your scenario , they ultimately did not change who they are anyhow. Like I said.
There is nothing âemptyâ about the Actâs purpose which is to force the American people to not exercise freedom of choice in their daily activities and discriminate in a manner to avoid sexual behavior, expressions and proclivities which they may or may not find offensive.
Again, let me ask:
JWK
