The Equality Act Will Guarantee Inequality for Almost Everyone

 

‘Every American deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. With today’s vote, the House has again affirmed that LGBTQ people should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as all other Americans,’ said Democratic Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who led the push for the bill.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? The truth is that every American does not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; rapists, murderers, illegal immigrants, and many Leftists have not earned respectful treatment, for starters. And the Equality Act H.R.5, which was passed by the House 224 to 206 votes on February 25, is not only deceptive but opens the door to abuses of the rights of most Americans.

The Equality Act, no matter what it says, is not intended to make sure that everyone has equal rights. Specifically, it would very likely show favoritism toward LBGT groups, and discrimination against religious groups, girls and women, businesses, medical professionals, and others. The Heritage Foundation describes the bill in this way:

The proposed Equality Act (H.R. 5) turns sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) into protected classes under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. The bill creates obvious liberty, equality, privacy, and safety concerns. H.R. 5 would empower the federal government to impose civil and criminal punishments on citizens who dissent from SOGI ideology, including medical professionals, parents, women and girls, businesses, and charities. The bill would violate their rights to freedom of conscience, religion, and speech. The bill would also take away basic authorities of local communities to determine who is allowed in single-sex facilities and whether biological men and boys are allowed to join women’s and girls’ sports teams.

A major issue with the bill is that it expands the meaning of “public accommodations,” which is another way of saying they have muddied the waters in defining those locations. It does include exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings or displays, as well as goods, services, programs, and transportation. It does not say that the Act is limited to those venues or specifically which facilities would be included.

The impacts could be widespread and discriminatory:

  • Medical professionals could be forced into providing hormonal treatment or surgery for people who have gender dysphoria. They will be prohibited by law to insist that patients seek out psychiatric attention before surgery, or refusing treatment.
  • Any person must be allowed access to facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, or dressing rooms based on his or her gender identification.
  • Parents could be charged with child abuse for refusing to let their child receive hormone treatments or surgical treatments for gender dysphoria.
  • Schools could be forced to teach sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) as part of their curricula.
  • Men and boys who identify as women will be permitted to compete against women and girls.
  • Insurance companies could be forced to comply with the transgender mandates.
  • Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples.

There are several other requirements that abuse the values, beliefs, privacy, and safety of other groups, too. Many of these practices have already been mandated at a state or local level. Now they would be federal law. The bill will also need to pass the Senate, which some say is unlikely—at this time. But the Left has been relentless in pushing its agendas, and it may only be a matter of time before the Senate gives in to their demands.

* * * * *

Another solution that’s been offered is called “Fairness for All”:

The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance outlines a ‘Fairness for All’ approach that would make ‘changes to federal civil rights laws to ensure that LGBT people can enjoy the same basic rights as other Americans,’ but ‘be carefully designed so as simultaneously to protect the legitimate rights of people and organizations that hold to a traditional sexual morality.’ The organization says alternative draft legislation to this effect is forthcoming, and assuming the proposal holds to these principles, it’s something that conservatives should support.

Our laws can mandate that secular employers and public venues treat LGBT people fairly, yet also maintain exceptions for bona fide religious claims.

In the past, this kind of approach might have worked. But in these times, the Left is in no mood to be fair, reasonable, or to compromise. It has already made several inroads into violating religious, traditional, and mainstream beliefs.

Why would they try to compromise now?

We can only hope that the Senate rejects this law for the sake of all Americans.

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    “Why would they try to compromise now?”

    Indeed.  In “The Age of Entitlement”, Christopher Caldwell mentioned that a “Tomorrow-Belongs-to-Me” attitude has crept into our national conversation.  They have a simple message for us older (and whiter) Americans:  Die.

    A CNN commentator, back in 2014, more or less cut to the chase when he said, “We often talk openly about the different generational views…and how we cavalierly say, as the older generation die off, so does that hatred and perspective die off in our country as well.”

    So, an ill-educated (and increasingly indifferent) public sits by and legislation such as this becomes the law of the land.  Mention the “Equality Act” to someone and chances are you’ll get a blank stare.  Their little minds simply aren’t able or willing to process it.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    So, an ill-educated (and increasingly indifferent) public sits by and legislation such as this becomes the law of the land. Mention the “Equality Act” to someone and chances are you’ll get a blank stare. Their little minds simply aren’t able or willing to process it.

    @cacrabtree, who knows what awful laws will be passed right under our noses. Good grief.

    • #2
  3. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    When I was a kid (even in high school) I couldnt even change classes without a parent’s signature. Missing an elective that you may later need is a fixable problem…

    Also doesnt this render Tittle ix – moot?

    • #3
  4. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    The Democrats seem to live in an alternate reality- an incredibly insane  land of make believe where there are no consequences that hurt people. 

    Or ………at least some Democrats really do know that this act will hurt a lot of people but those are exactly the people they really, really want to hurt, namely the religious and people who believe in saner values and this act is just another dose of chaos meant to overturn society as we know it. 

    Either way one has to consider that Progressives who back this crap at least are certifiably insane. 

    Thanks for the post, Susan. 

    • #4
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Unsk (View Comment):
    Either way one has to consider that Progressives who back this crap at least are certifiably insane. 

    The sad part is that they are probably not insane. @unsk. Just ignorant and hateful. I remember thinking the Islamist terrorists were insane. But they weren’t, either.

    • #5
  6. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    I think the solution is going to be to expand the alphabet of protected classes until we all fall into one of them.  

    • #6
  7. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    • #7
  8. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    I don’t believe it’s supposed to help anyone.  Any shot they can take against anything having to do with religion; they’re going to take it…

    • #8
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    I don’t believe it’s supposed to help anyone. Any shot they can take against anything having to do with religion; they’re going to take it…

    Thank you, CA. I wasn’t sure if Dr. B was asking a rhetorical question, so I hesitated to say just what you said very well. Thanks.

    • #9
  10. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    I don’t believe it’s supposed to help anyone. Any shot they can take against anything having to do with religion; they’re going to take it…

    Thank you, CA. I wasn’t sure if Dr. B was asking a rhetorical question, so I hesitated to say just what you said very well. Thanks.

    Aw, you never know with Doc; anyway, I always go back to Little Sisters of the Poor.  Birth control pills cost anywhere between 0 and $50 per month (from what I understand Planned Parenthood sells them for much less) and yet Biden and his henchmen just have to go after the Sisters because they don’t provide birth control in their medical plans.  It doesn’t matter what the issue is.  The faith-based organizations must be slapped down…

    • #10
  11. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    If you haven’t seen it before, this should show you the danger of anti-discrimination laws.  Freedom of association is a very important thing.  I believe that there were Republicans who opposed the original Civil Rights Act on this ground.

    As seems to be the case so often, what we thought was a slippery slope turned out to be a greased pole.

    Sexual deviants, cross-dressers, and self-mutilators should not have the right to force themselves on people who would rather not associate with them.

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    If you haven’t seen it before, this should show you the danger of anti-discrimination laws. Freedom of association is a very important thing. I believe that there were Republicans who opposed the original Civil Rights Act on this ground.

    There is every reason to believe that the blacks were progressing very well on their own, and would continue to make headway. Many were part of the middle class before the Civil Rights Act passed. We destroyed the progress they had made and only made them dependent rather than self-reliant. I agree, Jerry. The Act was a travesty.

    • #12
  13. Dr. Bastiat Member
    Dr. Bastiat
    @drbastiat

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Thank you, CA. I wasn’t sure if Dr. B was asking a rhetorical question, so I hesitated to say just what you said very well. Thanks.

    Aw, you never know with Doc

    Honestly, I’m not sure either, recently.  When events become too absurd for satire, then rhetorical questions can paradoxically become earnest efforts to clarify the clear, which is clearly insane.  

    Such events can also make my thinking, and my writing, as clear as that last sentence.  So I do need clarification, clearly.  I think. 

    Well, I’m not sure, recently…

    This comment was written while sober.  It’s the subject matter that’s drunk out of its mind. 

    • #13
  14. oleneo65 Coolidge
    oleneo65
    @oleneo65

    Certainly would like to see all legislation contain a built in end date. Prior to the end date, to salvage and continue the legislation, a through examination of the effect, + / -, has had on society. Realize the need for an after action review is a pipe dream, just had to get it off my chest.

    • #14
  15. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Newspeak lives!

    • #15
  16. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    No law can make me respect someone that I don’t respect.  No law will keep me from expressing my opinion of perverts.  I will forever act as though this is still a free country and I will speak my mind.

    I hope there will be enough others who remember the same.

    • #16
  17. JennaStocker Member
    JennaStocker
    @JennaStocker

    Very good, and important post, Susan. Thank you.

    • #17
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From YouGov (June poll):

    Liberals (78%) are especially likely to support such legislation, while conservatives are more split: 36% are opposed, 30% are in support, and 28% say they’re neutral on the topic. A majority of moderates (52%) also support this legislation.

    Women (54%) are more likely than men (47%) to support legislation like the Equality Act. Nearly a quarter (24%) of men — and 19% of women — are opposed to this legislation.

    Across generations, regions, and races, people are generally more likely to support this legislation than to oppose it. For many, the topic may just not matter much: 29% of those living in rural areas and 28% of Republicans say they’re neutral about this legislation

    • #18
  19. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Hope and pray, Susan. And call your Senator if you think he’s likely to go wobbly. And prepare for civil disobedience if it comes to that. 

    • #19
  20. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Both my female “senators” totally support this legislation.  Should we be reaching out to organizations of women athletes?  They may have some clout in opposing this law.

    • #20
  21. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From YouGov (June poll):

    Liberals (78%) are especially likely to support such legislation, while conservatives are more split: 36% are opposed, 30% are in support, and 28% say they’re neutral on the topic. A majority of moderates (52%) also support this legislation.

    Women (54%) are more likely than men (47%) to support legislation like the Equality Act. Nearly a quarter (24%) of men — and 19% of women — are opposed to this legislation.

    Across generations, regions, and races, people are generally more likely to support this legislation than to oppose it. For many, the topic may just not matter much: 29% of those living in rural areas and 28% of Republicans say they’re neutral about this legislation

    Thanks, @zafar. I also believe that most people don’t know the details of the legislation, nor its implications.

    • #21
  22. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Some things seem obvious yet normal liberals, not radical marxists who set the tone, don’t see it because their media tells them what to think and they don’t question anything.  If we can’t reverse some of the media it’s over. 

    • #22
  23. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Some things seem obvious yet normal liberals, not radical marxists who set the tone, don’t see it because their media tells them what to think and they don’t question anything. If we can’t reverse some of the media it’s over.

    The media is a huge concern for me, too, @iwalton, and I see no way to rein them in.

    • #23
  24. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Some things seem obvious yet normal liberals, not radical marxists who set the tone, don’t see it because their media tells them what to think and they don’t question anything. If we can’t reverse some of the media it’s over.

    The media is a huge concern for me, too, @ iwalton, and I see no way to rein them in.

    Me neither.  We can’t wait however.   If the next election is rigged it’s over, and if they could rig it when we had the white house, why do we think we can prevent it next time?  Maybe we can, but we can’t just wait.  We have to prepare to pull Republican led states into a union, under the constitution, let them have Democrat run states, or the main cities in them.  If nothing else it should get the  attention of non radical democrats prior to the next election.   We would have to do it before they stack the top of the military.    Sounds really crazy, but our system was the first of its kind,  transformed the world and if it comes to an end, and it is doing just that, it’s over.

    • #24
  25. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    The purpose of it isn’t to help anyone. The purpose is not to right a wrong or to make anyone’s life better. Like the depublishing of Dr. Seuss books, it’s not meant to rectify an injustice or prevent people from feeling hurt. The purpose is to demoralize you. To make you slowly submit to the suggestion that your moral compass is defective and inferior. To make you believe that you’re a bad person.

    We need to stop responding to these insane measures by merely arguing against them as if they are being proposed in good faith for any of the reasons they say.

    • #25
  26. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    Good question. It’s amazing that Biden calls himself a Catholic because this bill will curb every institute affiliated with it. Apparently, Planned Parenthood and very rich people pushing the transgender dialogue gave a ton of money to the Biden campaign and I guess it’s payback time, and the devil is asking for payback too:

    The Equality Act: Anti-Woman, Anti-Catholic (crisismagazine.com)

     

    • #26
  27. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    Good question. It’s amazing that Biden calls himself a Catholic because this bill will curb every institute affiliated with it.

    The Leftists must have a chronic case of brain dysfunction. What’s amazing is that they don’t even know it, FSC.

    • #27
  28. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: Faith-based adoption organizations will no longer be able to place children with only heterosexual couples

    Who on earth does this help?

    Good question. It’s amazing that Biden calls himself a Catholic because this bill will curb every institute affiliated with it. Apparently, Planned Parenthood and very rich people pushing the transgender dialogue gave a ton of money to the Biden campaign and I guess it’s payback time, and the devil is asking for payback too:

    The Equality Act: Anti-Woman, Anti-Catholic (crisismagazine.com)

     

    Mockery is to a progressive as garlic is to a vampire. As basic economic theory is to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As a real job is to Barack Obama. As modus ponens is to CNN.

    • #28
  29. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Thanks, @zafar. I also believe that most people don’t know the details of the legislation, nor its implications.

    Susan, there were more ‘coulds’ on your list than not (4 out of 7).  Will this be like Marriage Equality? A few years later it’s less disruptive to the definition of marriage than so many people were sure it would be?  Just a thought. 

    • #29
  30. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Thanks, @ zafar. I also believe that most people don’t know the details of the legislation, nor its implications.

    Susan, there were more ‘coulds’ on your list than not (4 out of 7). Will this be like Marriage Equality? A few years later it’s less disruptive to the definition of marriage than so many people were sure it would be? Just a thought.

    It depends on who is voicing an opinion on marriage. The Right still is not accepting. But the Right is likely to be attacked this time. And I hope I’m wrong. But the Left is aggressively pushing its agenda.

    • #30