House votes to create sexual deviant rights, violates constitutional limitations

[johnwk2]

@highroller

So if I don’t want to hire black people because I don’t like their race, I shouldn’t have to?

We are not talking about “black people” or what you should or should not be allowed to do. We are talking about a specific piece of legislation, the Equality Act, which attempts to assume legislative power over a subject matter, sexual deviant rights, not delegated to Congress.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

[Bodecea]

@johnwk2

@JayJay

But you did.

I’m stripping through the legalese crap and to the substance of your argument which is essentially “We have to be able to discriminate else our property rights are in HUGE jeopardy”.

Stripping that down leads to “LGBTQs are icky and I don’t want to have to deal with them”.

No. I did not! Your narrow minded notions are clouding your thinking.

Denying a homosexual shop owner who specifically caters to other homosexuals, the inalienable right to only hire homosexuals, is an affront to the homosexual’s inalienable right to hire who the homosexual chooses.

Likewise, denying a lesbian shop owner the inalienable right to hire who the lesbian chooses to hire, and intentionally chooses to only hire other lesbians, is a fundamental attack on the lesbian’s right to mutually agree in contracts and associations.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand and accept?

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

So…you are against PA laws…what have you personally and actively done to repeal PA laws in your state?

[Bodecea]

@johnwk2

@johnwk2

Taylor Swift urges GOP senator to support Equality Act: ‘I personally reject the President’s stance’

“Pop star Taylor Swift penned an open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Saturday calling on him to defend LGBT rights and support the Equality Act.

Swift released the letter early Saturday — the first day of Pride Month — asking for her home-state senator to “please, please think about the lives you could change for the better if you were to vote for the Equality Act in the Senate and prohibit this harsh and unfair discrimination.”

The singer pointed to a recent study that showed more than 64 percent of Tennesseans support laws for LGBT protections against discrimination.

“To vote against this bill would be to vote against the wishes of most Tennessean and Americans,” Swift wrote.”

What Taylor Swift needs to understand is, if Senator Lamar Alexander voted in favor of the Equality Act, he would be violating his oath of office to support and defend our Constitution.

Although Tennessee originally approved the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972, which, by Section Two of the amendment would have delegated a power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” what the Equality Act attempts to do without this authorization in our Constitution, Tennessee later withdrew its support for the Equal Rights Amendment when its citizens became aware of the “Pandora’s box” it would open, and how it would allow Congress to assume more power over private property, and impinge upon a fundamental right of mankind to be left free to mutually agree their in contracts and associations.

So, I don’t know if 64% of the people in Tennessee actually support the Equality Act, but it is clear that the good people of Tennessee rejected the Equal Rights Amendment, which the Equality Act attempts to achieve by legislation without the necessary delegation of power being granted to Congress.

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

@gooddad409

Taylor Swift has no political influence in Tn and should have figured that out when she endorsed Phil Bredesen for the senate who went on to a solid defeat by Marsha Blackburn.

I suppose she has an ego that will not allow her to see it.

Taylor Swift apparently forgot that Trump won the state of Tennessee in a landslide. As for Marsha Blackburn winning, that put the cherry on the cake!

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

That certainly tells us a lot about Tennessee and it’s education level…

[carpe_diem]

Should Felons be able to vote? Murderers and rapists? Bernie Sanders seems
to think so.

[JayJay]

@carpe_diem

Should Felons be able to vote? Murderers and rapists? Bernie Sanders seems
to think so.

Did you just compare trans and homosexuals to felons, murderers and rapists?

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Well… they do have in common that they were born that way. Isnt that all that matters?

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and...

[WorldWatcher]

@johnwk2

We are not talking about “black people” or what you should or should not be allowed to do. We are talking about a specific piece of legislation, the Equality Act, which attempts to assume legislative power over a subject matter, sexual deviant rights, not delegated to Congress.

JWK

This is a false statement, as we are talking about legislation that specifically addressed discrimination against black people (and others) involved with interstate commerce and the legislative power that was the basis for that act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was specifically based on and passed SCOTUS muster based on Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The Equality Act of 2019 is not assuming legislative power not in the Constitution. Section 3 of the act specifies that it amends (in part) Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which as already stated was based on, and passed SCOTUS muster because of delegated power to regulate interstate commerce.
.
.
.
.^^^^

[JayJay]

@Call_me_Ishmael

Well… they do have in common that they were born that way. Isnt that all that matters?

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice | ScienceDaily

The origins of the violent behaviour are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors – biological, cultural, social, etc.

I bolded the part for you that’s important since you obviously had some trouble reading your own link.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@JayJay

@Call_me_Ishmael

Well… they do have in common that they were born that way. Isnt that all that matters?

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice | ScienceDaily

The origins of the violent behaviour are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors – biological, cultural, social, etc.

I bolded the part for you that’s important since you obviously had some trouble reading your own link.

Same with ANY genetically based behavior … including your new cultural sweethearts… the sexually confused people.

All were born that way… predisposed to respond to the biological, social, and cultural factors in such a way that they behavior is aberrant…

[JayJay]

@Call_me_Ishmael

@JayJay

@Call_me_Ishmael

Well… they do have in common that they were born that way. Isnt that all that matters?

A new study identifies 40 genes related to aggressive behavior in humans and mice | ScienceDaily

The origins of the violent behaviour are multifactorial and respond to the interaction of several factors – biological, cultural, social, etc.

I bolded the part for you that’s important since you obviously had some trouble reading your own link.

Same with ANY genetically based behavior … including your new cultural sweethearts… the sexually confused people.

Except they aren’t killing or raping anybody, and if there’s any “confusion”, it’s on those who claim to be bastions of independent thought but are trying to make LGBTQ conform to the way they think people should be in society.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

The justification for normalizing LGBTQEIEIO has always been “born that way”. I made no other comparisons other than to say that “born that way” is not a reasonable nor consistent justification for other behaviors. Do you have any other justification for normalizing LGBTQ besides “born that way”?

[mobulis]

@carpe_diem

Should Felons be able to vote? Murderers and rapists? Bernie Sanders seems
to think so.

After they serve their time, why not?

[mobulis]

@Call_me_Ishmael

The justification for normalizing LGBTQEIEIO has always been “born that way”. I made no other comparisons other than to say that “born that way” is not a reasonable nor consistent justification for other behaviors. Do you have any other justification for normalizing LGBTQ besides “born that way”?

There’s no reason not to.

[johnwk2]

@WorldWatcher

@johnwk2

We are not talking about “black people” or what you should or should not be allowed to do. We are talking about a specific piece of legislation, the Equality Act, which attempts to assume legislative power over a subject matter, sexual deviant rights, not delegated to Congress.

JWK

This is a false statement, as we are talking about legislation that specifically addressed discrimination against black people (and others) involved with interstate commerce and the legislative power that was the basis for that act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was specifically based on and passed SCOTUS muster based on Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The Equality Act of 2019 is not assuming legislative power not in the Constitution. Section 3 of the act specifies that it amends (in part) Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which as already stated was based on, and passed SCOTUS muster because of delegated power to regulate interstate commerce.
.
.
.
.^^^^

My statement is factually correct. Whether you like it or not, the Equality Act makes the following “false statement”:

“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

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

[Paul_Thomson]

So, are any wealthy conservatives going to file an injunction against the House’s bill like leftist groups do to Trump’s executive orders? But I guess Trump needs to sign the bill, but I suspect he will veto it .

[Bodecea]

@Call_me_Ishmael

The justification for normalizing LGBTQEIEIO has always been “born that way”. I made no other comparisons other than to say that “born that way” is not a reasonable nor consistent justification for other behaviors. Do you have any other justification for normalizing LGBTQ besides “born that way”?

Let’s see…it’s always a worry to see those who cannot distinguish between those who hurt no one else with their actions, such as consenting adults and those who actually hurt others…whether it be physical or sexual violence or stealing of some kind.

It is my assertion that such people…those who cannot distinguish the difference…be kept away from children and animals and others easily victimized.

[Candyman]

#HappyPrideMonth

[Bodecea]

@johnwk2

@WorldWatcher

@johnwk2

We are not talking about “black people” or what you should or should not be allowed to do. We are talking about a specific piece of legislation, the Equality Act, which attempts to assume legislative power over a subject matter, sexual deviant rights, not delegated to Congress.

JWK

This is a false statement, as we are talking about legislation that specifically addressed discrimination against black people (and others) involved with interstate commerce and the legislative power that was the basis for that act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was specifically based on and passed SCOTUS muster based on Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The Equality Act of 2019 is not assuming legislative power not in the Constitution. Section 3 of the act specifies that it amends (in part) Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which as already stated was based on, and passed SCOTUS muster because of delegated power to regulate interstate commerce.
.
.
.
.^^^^

My statement is factually correct. Whether you like it or not, the Equality Act makes the following “false statement”:

“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

JWK

The Equality Act attempts to pass legislation authorized under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, is a usurpation of power not granted.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it provide an exemption due to sex? Could you highlight that part for us?

[WorldWatcher]

@johnwk2

That is a big fat…

Post flagged for saying I lied. The act specifically notes it is amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

" SEC. 3. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.

(a) Prohibition On Discrimination Or Segregation In Public Accommodations.—Section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”; and"

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by Congress under authority to regulate interstate commerce and it was upheld by the SCOTUS

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text

From the SCOTUS decision of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States:

" We therefore conclude that the action of the Congress in the adoption of the Act as applied here to a motel which concededly serves interstate travelers is within the power granted it by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court for 140 years. It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination. But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce [p262] may be removed – what means are to be employed – is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress. It is subject only to one caveat – that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution. We cannot say that its choice here was not so adapted. The Constitution requires no more.

Affirmed."

HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES et al.

.
.
.
.^^^^

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Bodecea

@Call_me_Ishmael

The justification for normalizing LGBTQEIEIO has always been “born that way”. I made no other comparisons other than to say that “born that way” is not a reasonable nor consistent justification for other behaviors. Do you have any other justification for normalizing LGBTQ besides “born that way”?

Let’s see…it’s always a worry to see those who cannot distinguish between those who hurt no one else with their actions, such as consenting adults and those who actually hurt others…whether it be physical or sexual violence or stealing of some kind.

It is my assertion that such people…those who cannot distinguish the difference…be kept away from children and animals and others easily victimized.

I agree. Those who think the behavior and consequences of men who have sex with men (MSM) is cute or harmless should definitely be kept away from normal vulnerable society. The spread of disease through that behavior is definitely dangerous.

New HIV Diagnoses in the US and Dependent Areas for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2017

HIV in the US | HIV Statistics Center | HIV | CDC

Once again, facts from medical science trump the social justice warrior.
Thanks for playing