RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: The Equality Act - RightNation.US

Jump to content

The Equality Act How Could Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Affect Yo Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,819
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 15 May 2019 - 07:19 AM

The Equality Act
How Could Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Affect You?
Heritage.org

<More Here>

On Wednesday March 13, Nancy Pelosi introduced the so-called Equality Act, a bill that would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes under federal civil rights law. Where the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 furthered equality by ensuring that African-Americans had equal access to public accommodations and material goods, the Equality Act would further inequality by penalizing 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 5 groups who would be harmed if the Equality Act becomes law:

Employers and Workers

The Equality Act would force employers and workers to conform to new sexual norms or else lose their businesses and jobs. This is already happening on the state and local level. 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. He is not the only victim. Other cases involving disagreement over the meaning of marriage feature florists, bakers, photographers, wedding venue owners, videographers, web designers, calligraphers, and public servants.

Now citizens are being punished for their views on biological sex.

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, Jack Phillips found himself in court again after an activist attorney who identifies as transgender, requested that 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 own lawsuit against the agency. Even when victims win legal battles like Jack Phillips, 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. Take Peter Vlaming. This high school French teacher 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 addressing the student by their 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.

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. The 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 settled out of court when the ACLU sued them for declining to perform a double mastectomy on a gender dysphoric sixteen-year-old girl. These cases would multiply under the Equality Act. This 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.

Parents and Children

(snip)

<More Here>
0

#2 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,988
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 15 May 2019 - 08:22 AM

In the dystopian method of marxists, if it is named something it means the opposite.
0

#3 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 7,071
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 15 May 2019 - 09:09 AM

Yes, we need to create special classes of people so everyone can be equal.
0

#4 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,957
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 15 May 2019 - 09:26 AM

Let's roil society and piss off the vast majority of people for the fringe, tenths of a percent of the population. How "democratic."
0

#5 User is online   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,999
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 15 May 2019 - 11:16 AM

This is beyond anything the most gifted fiction writer could come up with. It's pure insanity just like the fact that the progressive/socialist traitor party now has 23 candidates.
0

#6 User is online   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,500
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 15 May 2019 - 02:43 PM

"Party of Science", indeed, democrats. You're all daft.
0

#7 User is offline   Bookdoc 

  • Daddy's little girl
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,270
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 15 May 2019 - 08:11 PM

I remember working in management when the ADA passed and all of us predicted the nightmare it has become. I had noticed that people with disabilities adapted and made their way in life. That opened the door to all the new "illnesses" like drug, alcohol, and sex addiction, disabilities from mysterious back ailments treated by a doctor in the hood (the same doctor for all of them) and every issue being a "disease". To my mind, most of those are choices, not sicknesses, and the government has given them a free pass.
This current idiocy is just another gift to the trial lawyers from lawyers in congress, just like the ADA. :soapbox:
0

#8 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 18,276
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 16 May 2019 - 06:23 AM

I do not support this as written.
0

#9 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,287
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 16 May 2019 - 11:59 AM

View PostLadybird, on 16 May 2019 - 06:23 AM, said:

I do not support this as written.

How should it be written? It simply recognizes everything the left, the transgenders, the gays etc want. So protecting thier rights to identify as they want is now wrong? Why don’t you want the transgender white guy that now identifies as black to be allowed the same benifits as a black woman? Are you homophobic, rascist or suddenly believe there’s a difference? Why are you trying to take away these peoples rights lady bird?

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 16 May 2019 - 11:59 AM

0

#10 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,287
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 16 May 2019 - 03:27 PM

No answer? Maybe it’s just a guess, equal grounds don’t work. Could it be when we take away special benifits it’s an issue?
0

#11 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,963
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 16 May 2019 - 04:38 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 15 May 2019 - 08:22 AM, said:

In the dystopian method of marxists, if it is named something it means the opposite.

Yup, some people are more equal than others. Even though the 1st Amd protects you in upholding your religious beliefs, will this now trump the 1st Amd?
0

#12 User is offline   Squirrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,287
  • Joined: 24-September 18

Posted 16 May 2019 - 06:14 PM

It’s not fair and equal if you allow everyone to play with the same advantages I guess. It’s sad the left thinks minorities and women can’t play on a level field with out advantages. That’s a bit rascist and everything else. Why do you feel they can’t play on a equal field? One of or left people, do you think they are less then or unable to compete?

This post has been edited by Squirrel: 16 May 2019 - 06:34 PM

0

#13 User is offline   MADGestic 

  • Trey Dae d’lea
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 13,780
  • Joined: 01-December 03

Posted 17 May 2019 - 12:49 AM

The Heritage Foundation has a well-deserved reputation of being anti-LGBT; ample examples are readily available. They often try to seem rational and intelligent (smartiness as Colbert might say), yet engage in rather blatant dissembling and prevarication. The provided topic-editorial is an excellent example of their rhetoric.

Quote

Where the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 furthered equality by ensuring that African-Americans had equal access to public accommodations and material goods, the Equality Act would further inequality by penalizing everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex…

No beliefs are at risk of being penalized, only invidious actions. Everyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. For example, does CRA-1964 penalize white supremacist beliefs? Nope; those are still remarkably and regrettably evident. Does it penalize the unfair treatment of fellow human beings? Yup, you betcha; that was and is the point of the legislation.

Incidentally, CRA-1964 proscribes unfair actions based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That Heritage opens with the "race card" is not a coincidence; the Anti-Gay Brigade (AGB) has long tried to drive a wedge between the gay and black communities.

Right from the get-go, Heritage is dissembling.

Quote

Here are 5 groups who would be harmed if the Equality Act becomes law:

Here come the ridiculous yet de rigueur victimization-of-the-majority "arguments"

Quote

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

No, it would require treating people fairly in schools, employment, and public accommodations; exactly like every person reading these very words expects to be treated. In typical anti-gay boilerplate, Heritage is deliberately (and creepily) sexualizing the debate. As you go about your daily routines, do you REALLY expect businesses and such to judge you on your sex life?! That's bizarre! What you might be doing behind closed doors is none of their concern; and even if service providers (weirdly) think about that, in no way should it affect their treatment of you. Right?

Quote

This is already happening on the state and local level.

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…

And SCOTUS did not rule on Phillips' actions, which were clearly in violation of local ordinance. They addressed apparent anti-religious bias exhibited by some members of the CO Commission, and ruled that he had not received FAIR TREATMENT. This was an ironic outcome but I have to agree with that ruling. Phillips' actions were wrong, and such are still proscribed. The salient point is that Phillips' BELIEFS were not punished, nor were they validated by SCOTUS.

Quote

He is not the only victim…

Phillips was a victim of Commission members who were perceived to be less than impartial. He was not a "victim" of the ordinance that required him to treat people fairly. That applies to everyone equally, just as everyone (including Phillips) has expectations of being treated fairly.

Heritage goes on to cite other isolated examples of folks who deliberately violated ordinances or policies regarding fair treatment of others. We can debate (likely re-debate) the merits of each but the pattern is sparklingly obvious: "I don't have to adhere to laws or policies that millions of others observe with no problem because I disapprove".

Also known as self-righteous exceptionalism.

Quote

… Even when victims win legal battles like Jack Phillips, 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…

If you try to go into business in the public sector with the intent of serving ONLY the kinds people of whom you personally approve, then I recommend that you not do it. And if my just-stated opinion has a "chilling effect", I'm okay with that. It probably will save you conflict, grief, stress, and money; and save your eventual victims the same.

A federal law will not preclude disagreements about beliefs, as is plainly obvious from CRA-1964. And turning people away for no good reason is not any kind of "compromise".

The Heritage dissembling continues.

Quote

… 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…

First of all, the Equality Act will not "force" any practitioner to engage in procedures or therapies for which he or she is not qualified; this is just hyperbole.

More importantly, in the context of this discussion, the phrase "best medical judgement" hides the highly subjective nature of such. The more appropriate phrase would be: "Best medical PRACTICE", which is based upon peer-reviewed research and objective facts. (Which, by the way, are not "political" in nature.)

Quote

… 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)....

A majority of folks who experience some degree of gender dysphoria do NOT transition; and of those who do, only a small minority elect for surgery. Distress is the hallmark of actionable gender dysphoria; if you learn to live with it, or the feelings subside, then it is not an actionable condition. The AGB (and Heritage) like to denigrate the proven best medical practice with comments like: "Yet activists continue to push their own radical protocol" (see directly above). Best treatment is not a "radical protocol"; it is providing care for those in need.

Notice how Heritage inter alia focus on the tiny proportion of the general population who happen to be transgender individuals. This is classic political (and sometimes religious) bullying, portraying a disfavored and politically powerless minority as the "evil other". It is the very reason why CRA-1964 and other non-discrimination are so popular.

Quote

… State and local sexual orientation and gender identity laws have shut down numerous faith-based adoption and foster care agencies across the country…

Actually, such closures are typically decided by the organizations once they learn their invidious practices will no longer be subsidized by the state. I'm okay with this because such organizations RESTRICT the pairings of needy children with loving families. I don't want my tax dollars supporting such unfair and heartless activity; think of the children.


In this topic-polemic, Heritage has gone off on a variety of tangents that have little (or nothing) to do with the Equality Act. Which, by the way, has virtually NO CHANCE of becoming law. Even if this passes in the House of Representatives, the Republican-controlled Senate will not agree; and in the unlikely event they do, President Trump will almost certainly veto it because he and his administration are so obviously beholden to anti-minority sentiments.

This means that Heritage is engaging in gratuitous prevarication. They just don't like LGBT folks (that much is obvious), and feel that self-righteous exceptionalism should supersede fair treatment of others.
0

#14 User is offline   Bad_Apple 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 220
  • Joined: 07-August 03

Posted 17 May 2019 - 06:04 AM

I cant help but think of the song by Rush *The Trees* who in the end were all made equal by Hatchet Ax and Saw.

This post has been edited by Bad_Apple: 17 May 2019 - 12:16 PM

0

#15 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,963
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 18 May 2019 - 07:40 PM

View PostMADGestic, on 17 May 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

...
Here come the ridiculous yet de rigueur victimization-of-the-majority "arguments"
...

Actually...

the ridiculous part is those supposed 'victims' that wring their hands, whine & moan, or stomp their poor widdle feet about how they've been so stressed, and triggered by not having their version of equality forced on those of us that don't bother or harass them, and really don't give a rat's patootie about them or their 'issues', and just don't want to be bothered with it, and just want to be left the hell alone. <_<
0

#16 User is online   Buckwheat Jones 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 8,959
  • Joined: 08-May 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:02 AM

View PostASE, on 16 May 2019 - 04:38 PM, said:

Yup, some people are more equal than others. Even though the 1st Amd protects you in upholding your religious beliefs, will this now trump the 1st Amd?

https://ih0.redbubbl...,550x550.u6.jpg
0

#17 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,888
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 12:49 AM

View PostMADGestic, on 17 May 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

The Heritage Foundation has a well-deserved reputation of being anti-LGBT; ample examples are readily available. They often try to seem rational and intelligent (smartiness as Colbert might say), yet engage in rather blatant dissembling and prevarication. The provided topic-editorial is an excellent example of their rhetoric.


No beliefs are at risk of being penalized, only invidious actions. Everyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. For example, does CRA-1964 penalize white supremacist beliefs? Nope; those are still remarkably and regrettably evident. Does it penalize the unfair treatment of fellow human beings? Yup, you betcha; that was and is the point of the legislation.

Incidentally, CRA-1964 proscribes unfair actions based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That Heritage opens with the "race card" is not a coincidence; the Anti-Gay Brigade (AGB) has long tried to drive a wedge between the gay and black communities.

Right from the get-go, Heritage is dissembling.


Here come the ridiculous yet de rigueur victimization-of-the-majority "arguments"


No, it would require treating people fairly in schools, employment, and public accommodations; exactly like every person reading these very words expects to be treated. In typical anti-gay boilerplate, Heritage is deliberately (and creepily) sexualizing the debate. As you go about your daily routines, do you REALLY expect businesses and such to judge you on your sex life?! That's bizarre! What you might be doing behind closed doors is none of their concern; and even if service providers (weirdly) think about that, in no way should it affect their treatment of you. Right?


And SCOTUS did not rule on Phillips' actions, which were clearly in violation of local ordinance. They addressed apparent anti-religious bias exhibited by some members of the CO Commission, and ruled that he had not received FAIR TREATMENT. This was an ironic outcome but I have to agree with that ruling. Phillips' actions were wrong, and such are still proscribed. The salient point is that Phillips' BELIEFS were not punished, nor were they validated by SCOTUS.


Phillips was a victim of Commission members who were perceived to be less than impartial. He was not a "victim" of the ordinance that required him to treat people fairly. That applies to everyone equally, just as everyone (including Phillips) has expectations of being treated fairly.

Heritage goes on to cite other isolated examples of folks who deliberately violated ordinances or policies regarding fair treatment of others. We can debate (likely re-debate) the merits of each but the pattern is sparklingly obvious: "I don't have to adhere to laws or policies that millions of others observe with no problem because I disapprove".

Also known as self-righteous exceptionalism.


If you try to go into business in the public sector with the intent of serving ONLY the kinds people of whom you personally approve, then I recommend that you not do it. And if my just-stated opinion has a "chilling effect", I'm okay with that. It probably will save you conflict, grief, stress, and money; and save your eventual victims the same.

A federal law will not preclude disagreements about beliefs, as is plainly obvious from CRA-1964. And turning people away for no good reason is not any kind of "compromise".

The Heritage dissembling continues.


First of all, the Equality Act will not "force" any practitioner to engage in procedures or therapies for which he or she is not qualified; this is just hyperbole.

More importantly, in the context of this discussion, the phrase "best medical judgement" hides the highly subjective nature of such. The more appropriate phrase would be: "Best medical PRACTICE", which is based upon peer-reviewed research and objective facts. (Which, by the way, are not "political" in nature.)


A majority of folks who experience some degree of gender dysphoria do NOT transition; and of those who do, only a small minority elect for surgery. Distress is the hallmark of actionable gender dysphoria; if you learn to live with it, or the feelings subside, then it is not an actionable condition. The AGB (and Heritage) like to denigrate the proven best medical practice with comments like: "Yet activists continue to push their own radical protocol" (see directly above). Best treatment is not a "radical protocol"; it is providing care for those in need.

Notice how Heritage inter alia focus on the tiny proportion of the general population who happen to be transgender individuals. This is classic political (and sometimes religious) bullying, portraying a disfavored and politically powerless minority as the "evil other". It is the very reason why CRA-1964 and other non-discrimination are so popular.


Actually, such closures are typically decided by the organizations once they learn their invidious practices will no longer be subsidized by the state. I'm okay with this because such organizations RESTRICT the pairings of needy children with loving families. I don't want my tax dollars supporting such unfair and heartless activity; think of the children.


In this topic-polemic, Heritage has gone off on a variety of tangents that have little (or nothing) to do with the Equality Act. Which, by the way, has virtually NO CHANCE of becoming law. Even if this passes in the House of Representatives, the Republican-controlled Senate will not agree; and in the unlikely event they do, President Trump will almost certainly veto it because he and his administration are so obviously beholden to anti-minority sentiments.

This means that Heritage is engaging in gratuitous prevarication. They just don't like LGBT folks (that much is obvious), and feel that self-righteous exceptionalism should supersede fair treatment of others.

The defender of everything deviant and demonizer of opposing thought is back.

If the LBTQEIEIO crowd were to normalize bestiality, you would be here defending screwing sheep and disparaging anyone or any group who didn’t applaud their actions.

“Self-righteous exceptionalism should supersede fair treatment of others?” You just types that because people don’t believe that they should be forced to lie simply to appease some self-indulgent or mentally ill person because they WRONGLY “identify” as the opposite sex.

A trans “man” is NOT a man, SHE is a woman. A trans “woman” is NOT a woman. He is a man. You support making it against the law to acknowledge those facts. Who is the “sel-righteous” one again?

And that is only one aspect of your desire to force your views on everyone. The obvious desire to sideline religious freedom is also noted.

This post has been edited by JerryL: 19 May 2019 - 12:53 AM

0

#18 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,230
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:27 AM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 15 May 2019 - 08:22 AM, said:

In the dystopian method of marxists, if it is named something it means the opposite.

:exactly:

And once again democraps openly embrace and promote these mentally ill deviant freaks and encourage yet more of their warped behavior because these are the people whom they prefer over normal law abiding productive working class Americans.
0

#19 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,230
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:30 AM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 15 May 2019 - 02:43 PM, said:

"Party of Science", indeed, democrats. You're all daft.

Their science being nothing about proven facts but instead just made up falsehoods based only upon the popular opinion (consensus) of proggy "scientists".
0

#20 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,230
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 19 May 2019 - 07:31 AM

View PostLadybird, on 16 May 2019 - 06:23 AM, said:

I do not support this as written.

Probably because it doesn't go far enough to defend and champion criminals and miscreants?
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users