House votes to create sexual deviant rights, violates constitutional limitations

[johnwk]

See House approves sweeping bill to expand gay rights (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-approves-sweeping-bill-to-expand-gay-rights/ar-AABu1nN?ocid=spartandhp)


5/17/2019


“WASHINGTON — Democrats in the House approved sweeping anti-discrimination legislation Friday that would extend civil rights protections to LGBT people by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The protections would extend to employment, housing, loan applications, education, public accommodations and other areas.”



Well, if you are one who supports and defends our constitutionally limited system of government, and also support our federal constitution’s amendment process to accommodate change for alleged changing times, the Democrat controlled House has confirmed today it is more than willing to usurp powers not granted, and unwilling to be tied to observing our Constitution’s amendment process to gain consent of the governed prior to exercising new legislative powers.


The truth is, the proposed “Equality Act” as it is called, has nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with creating, under law, a privileged sexually deviant class with the government’s muscle behind it. Keep in mind, when the same type of legislation was advanced as a constitutional amendment in the 1980s ___ the Equal Rights Amendment ___ it was rejected by the people of the United States, and for good cause, as it would open a Pandora's Box with countless unintended consequences both disruptive and dangerous. In fact, if adopted, the Equality Act would subvert the people’s right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations which are both inalienable rights of mankind.


And here we are again, but this time the Democrat control House has decided to ignore our Constitution’s required amendment process, and has simply passed legislation usurping a legislative power not granted ____ a legislative power actually rejected when the Equal Rights amendment was defeated in the 1980s.



JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, [our constitution’s amendment process] would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[johnwk]

.
Well, this is very interesting. No remarks by the followers of Ron and Rand Paul. Do they not see what is really at play?


The Democrat Party Leadership despises rights associated with property ownership, and this bill is another attempt for folks in government to manage private property under the guise of sexual deviant rights.


JWK


Of course there is income inequality. Some of our citizens work at improving their station in life, while others expect the force and hand of government to transfer income into their pockets.

[acptulsa]

Yeah. "They" see the games being played. "They" aren't stupid. We see freedom of association and freedom of religion getting eroded, and possibilities for new lawsuits and even federal property seizures, being opened up. And all under the guise of protecting the downtrodden. They are using the oppressed as an excuse to oppress more people, as usual.

We also see people using this forum to make tolerant libertarians look intolerant by using exclusionary language--handy for making our big tent look small. That doesn't mean we have to play along, does it?

[tod evans]

Much better to remove the 'protections' given to those of different races, religions or sex than to bestow the same ones on ho-mos..

I don't see this as bestowing more or different "rights" than those granted to non-white/Christian/males by similar legislation.

[AngryCanadian]

It seems that the American liberals really don't care about the American constitution. I wonder how long before the American leftists start defending child rapists,pedos?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Okay, I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I spread around the message below. Any suggestions on its presentation are appreciated.


Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. There's no such thing as women's rights, gay rights, men's rights, rights, etc. Everyone has rights by virtue of being born. If you get government money or a marriage license, then you have been co-opted by "privilege."

Qualifying the noun "right" with an adjective like "gay" means it's not a right for everyone. That specifies a right for 1 particular group--as in only gays have these rights. If you want to claim equality, then the adjective qualifier would be "human"--as in, human rights.

[Anti Globalist]

Just wait until pedophiles end up being a protected minority.

[johnwk]

It seems that the American liberals really don't care about the American constitution. I wonder how long before the American leftists start defending child rapists,pedos?

I heard NAMBLA is a big supporter of the Equality Act.

JWK

[Danke]

6447

[oyarde]

.
Well, this is very interesting. No remarks by the followers of Ron and Rand Paul. Do they not see what is really at play?


The Democrat Party Leadership despises rights associated with property ownership, and this bill is another attempt for folks in government to manage private property under the guise of sexual deviant rights.


JWK


Of course there is income inequality. Some of our citizens work at improving their station in life, while others expect the force and hand of government to transfer income into their pockets.

The way I see it is it becomes a protected class which I oppose . I also support employers not hiring anyone they do not wish to . Now , if you want me to act surprised the Pelosi lead house would send this to the senate I cannot . It is actually normal deviant Dem behaviour .

[RJB]

Okay, I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I spread around the message below. Any suggestions on its presentation are appreciated.


Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. There's no such thing as women's rights, gay rights, men's rights, rights, etc. Everyone has rights by virtue of being born. If you get government money or a marriage license, then you have been co-opted by "privilege."

Qualifying the noun "right" with an adjective like "gay" means it's not a right for everyone. That specifies a right for 1 particular group--as in only gays have these rights. If you want to claim equality, then the adjective qualifier would be "human"--as in, human rights.

+ Rep. An example would be transgender rights = a person with a penis can't compete in a woman's league unless he is transgender.

[johnwk]

.

See:Taylor Swift urges GOP senator to support Equality Act: 'I personally reject the President's stance' (https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/446454-taylor-swift-urges-gop-senator-to-support-equality-act-i)

“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 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.