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:

Buck Angel is a 58 year-old trans man who is speaking out against the mob mentality that has taken over the trans community. He and Bridget discuss his life before his transition, how he was essentially a human “guinea pig” in the early days of his transition, the long road and struggle for acceptance, and how the trans movement of today has developed something of a “cult-like” ideology where if you don’t speak and think in a specific way, they don’t want you as a member. He and Bridget discuss the “trans trenders,” the rewriting of factual information, why the label “cis” feels derogatory, how there’s no oversight and no system in allowing young people to self-diagnose as “trans,” being attacked by his own community, and why we should follow the money on the sudden push to enable sexual reassignment surgeries. As an elderly trans person whose own transition saved his life, Buck is passionate about the dangers he sees in the community today, and the fact that this push to transition will kill people.

Journalist and former academic Dr. Deborah Soh joined host Ben Domenech to discuss how she takes a scientific and research-based approach to debunking the most common misconceptions about gender identity. Soh compiled her research in her new book, “The End of Gender: Debunking the Myths about Sex and Identity in Our Society.”

Soh said she’s grateful to no longer be in the academic world, where everyone is required to accept so many scientific mistruths as facts. As a liberal herself, Soh said the evolution of gender identity has been used by the radical left to further a narrative that’s harmful to children and not based in science.

The Gorsuch Legal Alchemy


The United States Supreme Court has sent shockwaves through much of the nation with its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. By a six-to-three vote, the Court held in no uncertain terms that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to fire a person “simply” due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The basic statutory text of Title VII provides that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that his textualist approach compelled the novel conclusion that the term “sex” includes not only biological sex, but also sexual orientation and gender identity. “In the context of an unambiguous statutory text,” he wrote, “whether or not a specific application was anticipated by Congress is irrelevant.” His argument is misguided. It holds that the meaning of the term “sex” necessarily bears no relation whatsoever to the intentions of the Congress that passed the legislation or the public who endorsed it.

Member Post


There’s a story out of Seattle about Dick Clarke, an 85-year-old man who for the last 18 years rang a bell for the Salvation Army during every holiday season, collecting money for the homeless outside of Nordstrom’s downtown store. During those years he raised more than $100,000 for the cause. He also gained a whole […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and guest host Greg Knapp criticize Nike’s decision to yank Betsy Ross themed sneakers over objections from Colin Kaepernick. They discuss the dilemma facing Democrats with multiple candidates polling less than 1%. And they talk about Joe Biden’s most recent gaffe concerning gay waiters.

(Greg is a Speaker, Coach, and Talk Show Host. You can learn more about him and get a free gift at gregorybknapp.com. His podcast, Find Your Purpose-Live Your Passion is available on Apple Podcasts/iTunes.)

Gender Identity and Blood Donation


I am a long-time regular blood donor to the American Red Cross. I’ve always found it an easy way to “give back” to my community. Being tall, giving a pint is easy for me to do. I also used to enjoy the post-donation treats, but my revised way of eating has placed those snacks off-limits.

On my most recent visit, I had taken the “RapidPass” online, where one answers 30 or so questions on one’s lifestyle choices and how they may impact what I’m about to donate. I’m thinking with that out of the way, starting my donation should be quick. I sit down with my American Red Cross assistant interview, and he begins;

“How do you wish to identify? He or she?”

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for March 7, 2018, it is episode number 165 (!!) the Transgender Tariffs edition of the show with your stylish and classy hosts, Todd Feinburg, radio guy and Mike Stopa, nanophysicist. This week, as globalist Gary Cohn walks out the door at the White house, we talk about…transgender rights…but then we talk about Trump and the tariffs and the ascendency of the Forgotten Men and Women.

But topic number one: Delaware debates a bill that would allow children of age as young as five to obtain protection from their parents and would give them the right to choose their gender (and their race as well). Parental fascism has got to end! Let the state intervene! If the kid wants to make the transition who are the parents to be standing in the way. How on earth did this idea ever get to the point of even being a policy that is up for debate? Crikey!

A Three-Letter Word from LGBTQ


The title of this OP was a clue in my morning crossword puzzle. It made me angry. I can’t even escape the leftist propaganda with my morning coffee, Crunch cereal with almond milk, raisins, and bananas. I have to be reminded that this term (which now has many more letters nowadays) has become part of our everyday lexicon.

My reaction is not just about the term LGBTQ; it’s about everyone trying to normalize those lifestyles which once were considered out of the norm. Don’t get me wrong: I love the diversity of my crossword puzzle — What’s a port in Yemen? Name a Wall Street index? What’s a desert plant used to make tequila? Who was the screenwriter, James, who wrote “The African Queen”? (Tuesday’s puzzles are pretty easy.)

Member Post


From the Charlotte Observer: “Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort.” Shorter Charlotte Observer: If you see a penis, suck it up, Buttercup!   Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.