Equality Act is stalled in the Senate. Good!

.

See: Equality Act faces uncertain future in Senate

Sun, June 27, 2021

“On Friday, President Biden once again urged Congress to pass the Equality Act, which has hit a roadblock in the Senate. The landmark legislation would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act and extend federal protections to LGBTQ+ Americans. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) and Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) joined NBC’s Joshua Johnson to discuss where the bill stands and their own personal connections to Pride.”

Those who support this legislation becoming the rule of law without our federal Constitution granting legislative power over the subject matter in question, certainly do not take “pride” in supporting and defending our federal constitution. If they did, they would not approve the “Equality Act” being forced upon the people without their consent, and would instead be supporting a constitutional amendment granting power to Congress to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter in question as other amendments have done, including the 19th Amendment, which grants power to Congress to adopt “appropriate legislation” regarding “sex”, as is limited by the first clause of the amendment, i.e.,

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

It is absolutely disappointing how our Fifth Column media and their Yellow Journalists fawn over adopting of the “Equality Act” and ignore Congress, nowhere in our federal Constitution, has been delegated power to enact and enforce the legislation found in the “Equality Act”.

Let us all remember that our system of government reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to the United States by our federal Constitution. In essence, our founders created a big tent system, intentionally protecting the right of the people within the various states to regulate “. . . all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” And under this big-tent system, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, confirming the system works, even for those wanting same sex marriages.

In addition, our founders also provided Article V, an amendment process in our federal Constitution to accommodate necessary change at the federal level, but only by consent of the governed as laid out in Article V.

But instead of embracing our constitutional system, those backing the “Equality Act” including members of Congress who took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution, are quite comfortable to allow, and even encourage, their will being imposed upon the entire population of the United States by enforcing legislation [the Equality Act] encompassing a subject matter [sex] not granted by the people to Congress in compliance with Article V, with the exception being the 19th Amendment which is limited to the right to vote.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

.
See Lankford: ‘The Equality Act Is Not About Equality’ - It’s About ‘Imposing and Prohibiting Disagreement’


June 25, 2021


“The Equality Act is not about equality. It's about imposing and prohibiting disagreement. We're Americans. We can respect each other and disagree. We can live next door to each other and disagree. Let's prove it in this body by not passing the poorly named Equality Act but actually demonstrating what this act says it wants to demonstrate. Let's treat each other with respect in our differences and honor us in that.”


.
Senator Lankford is absolutely correct about the deceptively named “Equality Act”. The Act is about its supporters imposing their will upon the entire population of the United States, and prohibiting the American people from exercising one of mankind’s most fundamental rights ____ the right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, and this includes their social and commercial activities.


Let us all remember that our system of government reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to the United States by our federal Constitution. In essence, our founders created a big tent system, intentionally protecting the right of the people within the various state borders, to regulate ". . . all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." And under this big-tent system, Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same sex marriage, confirming the system works, even for those wanting same sex marriages!


In addition, our founders also provided Article V, an amendment process in our federal Constitution to accommodate necessary change at the federal level, but only by consent of the governed as laid out in Article V.


Unfortunately, instead of embracing our constitutional system, those backing the “Equality Act” including members of Congress who took an oath to support and defend our written Constitution, are quite comfortable to allow, and even encourage, their will being imposed upon the entire population of the United States by enforcing legislation [the Equality Act] encompassing a subject matter [sex] not granted by the people to Congress as required by Article V, with the exception being the 19th Amendment, which does grant power to Congress to adopt “appropriate legislation” regarding “sex”, but limited as follows:


Amendment XIX



“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”


“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”



So, the question is, where in the Constitution has Congress been delegated power to adopt "appropriate legislation" to forbid distinctions made within the States based upon sex, and likewise forbid distinctions made based upon sex in the people’s social and commercial activities within the various state borders?"


And let us all remember the protection which our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment declares in crystal clear language: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”


And in regard to the above mentioned Tenth Amendment's protection, Justice Story warned us that: "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"


JWK

The Equality Act, if imposed upon the people as a federal “rule of law”, would not only subvert the human right of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities ___ it would allow our federal employees to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.

.
See: Hagedorn Sides with Parents in Defending Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience

May 17, 2019 Press Release

WASHINGTON – Rep. Jim Hagedorn (MN-01) voted against H.R. 5, liberal Democrat legislation to scrap the legal definitions of biological sex, force transgender curriculum on children, undermine parents and expand abortion.

H.R. 5 adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act as protected classes, revoking parental rights and consent for minor children. Legal protection under these classes would no longer require an objective standard, medical diagnosis or permanent intent.

Nothing in H.R. 5 stops a biological boy from claiming to be a girl in order to compete against girls in competitive sports. It also would open the door to transgender curriculum in schools, even without parental consent. Schools would be forced to provide biological males with access to private spaces currently reserved for females, including restrooms, locker rooms and showers.

Ignoring religious rights of faith-based women’s shelters, H.R. 5 would force such shelters to house any man self-identifying as a woman. Speaker Nancy Pelosi also politicized these provisions in the Democrats’ version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Hagedorn voted twice for a clean reauthorization of VAWA to protect women.

H.R. 5 would revoke parental consent and normalize gender transitioning of minors, often a life-altering and irreversible procedure.

In other words, part of the "Equality Act" intentionally opens the door for government schools to brainwash innocent children, and fill their heads with sexual propaganda rather than limiting their teaching to the three Rs'


https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.3pxFC...5&pid=3.1&rm=2

.
.
The rascals behind this so-called Equality Act, certainly want a whole lot more than the equal rights they allege to want. They also want to use government power to propagandize innocent children into embracing sexual deviant behavior.

JWK

If the Equality Act were imposed as a federal “rule of law”, it would not only subvert the human right of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations ___ it would allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.

Our mainstream media:

https://www.bing.com/images/blob?bci...OljxKTy.....-E
https://www.alipac.us/image/png;base...AASUVORK5CYII=

.

Unfortunately, we have too many spineless “journalists” and news commentators, who are afraid or unwilling to address this notoriously evil attempt to usurp legislative power not granted, presumably because they will be called names [homophobe, racist, sexist, etc.] by the evil actors attempting to impose their will upon the entire population of the United States and deprive the American people of exercising a fundamental human right . . . the right to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities.

The “Equality Act”, if imposed upon the American people would:


• Assume legislative power over a subject matter not granted to Congress [excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”];


• Deprive American citizens within the various states the fundamental right to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities:


• Would forbid common sense distinctions being made between women and men such as all female sports events; women’s only and men’s only bathrooms and locker rooms and other gathering places; and would end the obvious truth that females have sex-based rights to privacy where males are not welcome.


• Allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.


The bottom line is the Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.


JWK


If the Equality Act were imposed upon the American people as a federal “rule of law” and without their consent, it would not only subvert the human right 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 peoples’ social and commercial activities .

See: Pride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate
July 1, 2021
.
“Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ people from workplace discrimination. This week, the court effectively handed a victory to a transgender student who sued his school for access to the boys’ bathroom.”

To be more accurate, last year a majority on the Supreme Court used their office of public trust in a manner which violates the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction [adhering to the documented legislative intent concerning why “sex” was added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act], [1], and also violated the irrefutable fact that Congress has never been granted power to adopt “appropriate legislation” over the subject matter “sex”, excluding of course the 19th Amendment’s specifically limited delegation of legislative power over “sex”, i.e., to adopt “appropriate legislation” forbidding the right to vote to” be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex”.

Finally, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, knowingly and willingly spat upon on our federal Constitution’s only lawful way to delegate legislative power to Congress. He did so by ignoring the American People’s specific rejection of the “Equal Rights Amendment”, which would have, if adopted, authorize Congress to legislate the broad and sweeping power over “sex” which Justice Gorsuch arbitrarily decided to allow by applying the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to “sex” in his written opinion:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that's all.”

And that describes the deceitful thinking of Justice Gorsuch and those who joined in his written opinion . . . they truly believe they are the master, regardless of what our Constitution states in crystal clear language, or legislation is specifically intended to mean.

[1]
In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates,110 Cong. Rec., February 8, 1964, 2577, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Representative Howard Smith, who initiated the amendment adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, did so saying: “. . . this amendment is offered to the fair employment practices title of this bill to include within our desire to prevent discrimination against another minority group, the women, but a very essential minority group, in the absence of which the majority group would not be here today.” Adding the word "sex", as the documented Congressional debates prove, had absolutely nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace as fraudulently imposed upon the American People by the majority opinion in Bostock. It was specifically intended to “… do some good for the minority sex . . .” as emphasized by Representative Smith.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

.
I was wondering if anyone can point to the wording in our federal Constitution under which Congress is delegated the legislative power to forbid the States, and people therein, from making distinctions based upon sex?


Seems to me this specific grant of legislative power was intentionally rejected by the States and people therein when they refused to adopt the "Equal Rights Amendment" which would have, if ratified, granted power to Congress to adopt "appropriate legislation" forbidding an abridgment or denial of rights based upon "sex".


The last rejection to grant such legislative power to Congress was in the 1980s, and the proposed amendment which was rejected by the States and people therein reads as follows:


'Article--




'Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


'Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


'Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.'




So, the question remains, under what authority has Congress adopted "appropriate legislation" forbidding the States, and the people therein, to make distinctions based upon sex in their social and commercial activities?


JWK


If the Equality Act were imposed upon the American people as a federal “rule of law” and without their consent, it would not only subvert the human right 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 peoples’ social and commercial activities.

.

I have wondered for a very long time, why would any identifiable group want to use government force to compel the unwilling to associate and engage in unwanted activities with them?

It seems a small, but extremely loud, segment within the "gay community" may be suffering from a deeply rooted inferiority complex . . . and thus, the need to want the muscle of government [e.g., the "Equality Act"], being used to force the unwilling into associations and activities with them.


During the 1970s when I was doing a lot of work out in Fire Island, the Pines and Cherry Grove, where successful members of the “gay community” congregated, they seemed to not give two twits how others viewed their life style, and would never stoop so low as to want to force others to associate or do business with them. But then again, most in this group were successful and had no feelings of insecurity or inferiority. Almost all simply wanted to go about their life style as they saw fit, and without forcing themselves upon others.

JWK

The Equality Act, if imposed upon the American people as a federal “rule of law”, and without their consent, would not only subvert the human right of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social and commercial activities ___ it would allow our federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.

.

I still wish someone who supports the Equality Act, would provide the wording from our federal Constitution under which Congress has been delegated power to adopt appropriate legislation forbidding distinctions being made in the workplace based upon “sex”, “sexual conduct” or “sexual orientation”

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.

This is really getting out of hand. Now it’s “transphobic” to make a factual correct comment.


See: Marjorie Taylor Greene makes transphobic remarks about Illinois congresswoman's daughter

July 9th, 2021

“Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene made transphobic remarks against Illinois’ Democratic Rep. Marie Newman’s transgender daughter Thursday — and it's not the first time she's made Newman's child a target.

“(Newman’s) so-called daughter is a trans, biological adult son, approximately close to the same age as my two, very much biological real girls – daughters,” Greene, R-Ga., said Thursday at a fundraiser for another GOP congresswoman, according to WBEZ Chicago.”


What on earth is “transphobic’ about Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene’s factual comment?


In addition, keep in mind the Equality Act, if adopted as a "federal rule of law", is intentionally designed to allow federal bureaucrats to dictate acceptable aspects of sexual behavior, activities and expression.



JWK

.
SEE: The Equality Act Poses a Grave Threat to Religious Liberty


July 6, 2021


The so called “Equality Act” is a top priority of Congressional Democrats, reportedly slated for a vote sometime this summer. The bill constitutes one of the most significant pieces of social legislation in decades, and it poses a grave threat to religious liberty. Here is what every American needs to know.


The bottom line is, if the Equality Act, should ever become a federal “rule of law”, it would not only subvert the human right of the majority of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social, religious and commercial activities ___ it would allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social, religious and commercial activities, and compel the public at large to not only make every space open to the public a “safe space” 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 “live and let live” and freedom of choice 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.

Forewarned is forearmed!

JWK


The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” 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 the States and people therein from making distinctions based upon these characteristics in their daily social, commercial and religious activities?

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 family's worst nightmare.

JWK

There is no better way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled and criminal populations of other countries.

.

See: Southern Baptist Convention Opposes the Equality Act
.
June 25, 2021
.
”If passed into law, the Equality Act would undermine religious liberty by gutting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and elevating the contested categories of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under federal law. Given the Biden administration’s aggressive support for the legislation, Southern Baptists believed it was necessary to go on record in opposition to one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation proposed in Congress.”


JWK

The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative power proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was wisely rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Act is an attempted usurpation of legislative power not granted.

.
The ringleaders behind the Equality Act are very clever in presenting the Act as legitimate federal legislation similar to that adopted to end distinctions in law based upon race. But unlike the Civil Rights Act of 1875 ___ intended to assert an equal treatment of all men before the law ___ the Equality Act is not about asserting equal treatment among mankind before the law. The Act is a bold attempt to normalize sexual behavior expressions and proclivities and forbid the public at large to make distinctions in their daily social, religious and commercial activities to avoid sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities which are found to be offensive by some, and participated in and enjoyed by others.



The absurd and obnoxious idea is to elevate and classify sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities as a “federally protected” subject matter, and forbidding the States and public at large to make distinctions in their daily lives based upon sexual deviant behavior, expressions and proclivities, found to be offensive.

Why is there so much support tor this?

JWK


If the Equality Act, should ever become a federal “rule of law”, it would not only subvert the human right of the majority of American citizens to be free to mutually agree in their social, religious and commercial activities ___ it would allow federal bureaucrats to dictate almost every aspect of the American peoples’ social and commercial activities.