Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
No on the "Equality" Act!
Amog bad laws the democrats want to impose on America, this ranks at the top of the list!
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the so-called “Equality Act.” It now goes to the Senate for consideration. (All 4 Republican Representatives from AZ voted "NO.") It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally need to hear from you!
The Equality Act adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This means that almost no area of American public life—including education, employment, public accommodations, housing, medical care, non-profits, and federal funding for example—will be left untouched.
The Equality Act:
We need your help! Contact Senators Sinema and McSally today to voice your opposition to the Equality Act, H.R. 5. Ask them to oppose the Equality Act. Make your voice heard!
This is just another way of giving government more control over the people and limiting Religious Freedoms at the same time, similar to the 501 C 3 which gives the IRS control over Religious Freedoms by controlling the purse strings, when you stray from Morality which this Nation has then soon you'll lose or limit Our God Granted Rights, simply once again a Battle of Good vs. Evil.
God Bless You All; Clair Van Steenwyk
Our Unalienable rights mentioned in The Declaration of Independence "endowed by our creator" are now inalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.
Is this the reason why the name of God was removed from the democrats party platform in 2012?
I'm sorry, but where is it that all the above listed concerns are written or even alluded to in the text of the proposed amendment? I'm not saying I agree we need an amendment since I believe it already exist as a right of women to be treated equally. What I am saying is if you read the text, which I've attached, it is a BIG stretch of the writer of this post to say all of what they are saying.
Read it and then justify the panic post with what the text says. My questions are these, so please give a break down of the issues that are being claimed.
Does the proposed legislation actually dictate to religious practitioners they have to do anything for same sex, gay or lesbian or transgender? If so please explain. The resolution says Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied based on sex.... The actual text is attached. Where does it say based on science altered gender? Does it say anything about science altered gender being considered equal to natures decided gender the person was assigned at birth? This amendment is specific to MAN & WOMAN. It is so poorly written if it was intended for this purpose expressed by the writer of this post claiming the all the rights expressed that will violate 1st amendment practice and mandating freedom of choice for bathrooms. It is basically modeled after the 1970's amendment and in the 1920's. So how is this now considering the issues being thrown by the "progressive communists" of today? I don't see it. The only issue that may come about is foster care, but even that is questionable. Is it really a right to adopt based on your sex only? Or is it based on the safety and healthy placement of the child? This I believe is a separate issue, not one based on same sex couples adopting. However, I see the court, also leaning more progressive as siding in favor of this practice. This is, in my opinion, another attempt of the progressive communist to destroy the traditional family unit. But many other issues relating to transgender and sex change individuals, is not addressed in this proposal.
Just my opinion but I believe the concerns expressed have no legal basis and could be easily challenged if it ever came about.
Read what the LEFT says:
“We’d like to thank the House Democratic majority, and especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for making the Equality Act a priority in this session of Congress,” Pride At Work executive director Jerame Davis said in an emailed statement. “The Equality Act is an essential step toward creating a just and fair society for all, but especially critical to our members, it will afford LGBTQ working people the dignity and respect they deserve on the job.”
“Today is a historic day—the first time a comprehensive LGBTQ civil rights bill has come to the floor of the House. This long overdue legislation will provide millions of LGBTQ Americans protections from being denied medical care, fired from their jobs, or thrown out of their homes simply because of who they are.
“Much of the history of the United States has been about expanding the definition of who is understood to be included when the Declaration of Independence says, ‘all men are created equal.’ When these words were first written, that phrase did not include black and Latino men; it did not include Native Americans; it did not include women; and it did not include LGBTQ individuals,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said on the floor as debate opened.
“At this moment, we have an opportunity to continue our march toward justice—to enshrine in our nation’s laws protections for marginalized communities to ensure that everyone can fully participate in key areas of life, and to provide them recourse in the face of discrimination.”
They can "Say" all and whatever they want. The amendment being proposed doesn't say that or grant authority to do anything outside what, if passed, the amendment authorizes by any law they pass. A law cannot do anything outside what is authorized in the constitution. This is where we all have failed to speak up on.
The proposed amendment grants authority to congress to pass legislation to exercise the amendment. So, I go back to my first points. They cannot expand what is said in the constitution with creative interpretations, it is law as written, simple and complete. No real room for expansion just because we find ways to do so. This is the problem with lawyers, they argue to win and not based on morals of nature. Politicians argue to influence the majority who fail to employ reason. This is where we are to come.
The amendment grants no authority to define what is gender outside the defined natural understandings. If this were true, then what would be next, define what is a right? What is theirs and what is ours?
We place the limits on government and not the other way around. WE decide when they overstep their legal and granted authorities since they come from us. Therefore, it is up to us to call out BS when it is there an not legitimize their rhetoric with posts that give an indication that proposed actions of government will mean our end of rights. This in itself says, "you have all the power and we are useless". Say the opposite. Say what are you talking about, this doesn't give the the authorization to include this or include that. Additionally, you can't have anything that is in direct conflict with other rights of the people. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
You said: "A law cannot do anything outside what is authorized in the constitution."
Just for the sake of argument: Where is it in our Constitution, for example, separation of church and state or right for a mother to kill her child in the womb?
And our laws???
Separation of church and state isn't in the constitution. Jefferson wasn't at the convention, he was in France. But he wrote a letter during the time they were talking about the 1st amendment giving his opinion. In his letter, he said something to the effect of there needs to be a high wall between the central government and religion. He was dead set against the government "establishing a religion". Interesting on this, it didn't pertain to the states. After the 14th amendment, the courts started to broadly interpret the "Privileges and Immunities" clause.
It wasn't until 1947 that in a U.S. Supreme court case, sorry I don't have it with me at the moment, I'm on vacation, where they quoted the letter on the issue. At that time is the first time an opinion was made about "Separation of church and state". It was during a time when the progressive/communist movement was getting started and they wanted to remove prayer in schools I think. Anyway, it isn't in the constitution.
You said: "Anyway, it isn't in the constitution."
That's why I brought it up.
And neither the right to privacy a.k.a. mother can murder her child in the womb.
Conclusion: It doesn't matter what is in the Constitution and what are the Laws.
The LEFT is winning disregarding them.
If it doesn't matter, then why are you talking about it? Also, what does right to privacy have to do with murdering a child in the womb? I don't recall that being part of their argument.
You said: "If it doesn't matter, then why are you talking about it?"
In your first post you expressed your opinion that we shouldn't oppose the Equality Act, H.R. 5. That's wrong.
You said: "I'm not saying I agree we need an amendment since I believe it already exist as a right of women to be treated equally. What I am saying is if you read the text, which I've attached, it is a BIG stretch of the writer of this post to say all of what they are saying."
Your opinion was that do not worry just rely on the Constitution. That's why I gave you two examples when our Constitution was disregarded by the LEFT without consequences.
By the way, you should've known that abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court based on the Right to Privacy. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone."
Finally, repeating my point from the beginning: We should oppose the Equality Act, H.R. 5. That's the right thing to do.
The left is using the Cloward-Piven Strategy and Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. This article says it better than most can ... https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinsky-rules-for-radicals/ ... "The main goal of Alinskyites is to cause social instability through subversive and divisive rhetoric. One method is to control the outcome of the education system by lowering the standards of education so that it creates a dependent class. As adherents to the Cloward-Piven strategy, they use their political platforms to overload a society with social spending programs and class warfare to the point that hatred and division cause social panic. Once they've created a problem, they propose themselves as the answer and use wealth transfers and the trumping of rights as the method to bring about “equality”.
We need to examine very closely why all the SWAMP GOP Managers haven't passed good legislation when they had the ability, it's not all Dems as I believe many have finally learned since President Trump both ran and then won hasn't had the support of the old line GOP and still doesn't, so why not find New Blood in the GOP as we can't do anything to stop the Dems but have the ability if exercised to deal with GOP. As for Church and State only reason any real mention is to prevent the State from setting up the church as was done in Europe and as they've done here with the Tax Code and the Church's Love of Money vs. Truth.
God Bless You; Clair Van Steenwyk