Yeah, but nobody discriminates against heterosexuals, so they don’t need a law to protect them.
What is even more alarming is, the proposal passed by the House is not being offered as a constitutional amendment, which is the only lawful way to make such nonsense the law of the land. It is another attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government.
JWK
The Federal Reserve System of 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment, also of 1913, have provided the necessary tools to spread the evil tentacles of democratic capitalism into almost every corner of our once free market, free enterprise system.
You aren’t paying attention. This was tried in the 1980s under the ERA and rejected by the American People. One reason for rejection was the American People would lose their inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.
The bill violates the limitations of our Constitution.
JWK
No one thinks that Homosexuals or the genderqueer would also lose their right to free association.
Why is that?
No, everyone is protected.
Under this law, you can’t discriminate against straight people either.
Phyllis Schlafly traveled across the U.S. throughout the 1970s calling for opposition to the ERA because it would supposedly lead to a reversal in gender roles, same-sex marriages, and women in combat, which would weaken the military’s combat strength. Opponents of the amendment also speculated that it would result in taxpayer-funded abortions, unisex bathrooms, and remove laws that depend on gender to define a sex crime.
Phyllis was right about the potential misuse of the ERA, which ended in the defeat of the amendment. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has been pretending that the ERA actually is in the constitution and proving her right about scenarios that were dismissed as scare tactics by supporters of the ERA.
1 Like
Shouldn’t rights be protected regardless of “class”?
The Equality Act states the following lie:
Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
That is a big fat lie! The irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that the 14th Amendment does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was invented by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.
In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an “exceedingly persuasive justification” In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”
But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions based upon sex.
The unavoidable truth is, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this prohibition because time and again during the debates when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue…to inherit, purchase…property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume…to adjust what may be called the social rights of men…but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.
As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
It should also be noted that Senator Bingham the Amendment’s principal author, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292
Bingham goes on to say:
“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.”
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)“No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.”, (c) “[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination as the court falsely pretends today, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to enlarge the prohibition against race-based legislation __enlarging it to forbid discrimination at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“ ___ while the Constitution was still silent with regard to forbidding distinctions based upon sex.
The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions based upon sex, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”
If the 14th Amendment prohibits every kind of discrimination as alleged in the Equality Act including discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation then why was it necessary for the above mentioned amendments [the 15th and 19th] to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibits discrimination based upon sex and sexual orientation, as alleged in the Equality Act?
The bottom line is, the assertion in the Equality Act, that “Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States” is a big fat lie ___ a lie which is made to pretend the Act is within the four walls of the Constitution, which it is not.
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
What is your problem with your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying Americans having their equal rights affirmed?
Sexual deviants…like those who brag openly of assaulting women by grabbing them in the ■■■■■■
1 Like
So…you have an inherent problem with fairness and equality, eh?
I have to say, it’s not often that I hear people actually cite the Civil Rights Cases as correct precedent.
Are you gonna cite to Plessy next?
Or using an intern as a humidor?
This law shouldn’t even be necessary since we’re supposed to have Equal Protection under the Constitution, but here we are. That being said, I can’t see how this law isn’t in line WITH the Constitution.
I’ll also add this law won’t make a difference with employers who will simply make up a different reason to publicly fire someone, just as they already do when practicing age discrimination which is already illegal with or without this law.
1 Like
By violating others?
Just another law the left imposing their morality onto society.
Is barring discrimination on the basis of race a violation of other’s rights?
It establishes “classes” and ignores others.
You’re imposing your morality onto others that violating their own morality.
Stop it.
Yes…
