- Joined
- May 27, 2019
- Messages
- 1,238
- Reaction score
- 159
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
See Houses passes Equality Act to increase protections for sexual orientation and gender identity
“(CNN)The House passed legislation Friday that would protect those living in states where it's legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and other services as well as access to public accommodations such as restaurants.
The bill, known as the "Equality Act," would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics.”
Keep in mind the Equality Act states the following lie:
”Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
But the truth is, when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.
As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 19th Amendment, which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned in the Equality Amendment], but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”.
And then we have the Equal Rights Amendment which was rejected by the American People, but would have, if adopted, granted by its second section a power to Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” what the Equality Act attempts to do without this authorization in our Constitution.
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.
“(CNN)The House passed legislation Friday that would protect those living in states where it's legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and other services as well as access to public accommodations such as restaurants.
The bill, known as the "Equality Act," would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics.”
Keep in mind the Equality Act states the following lie:
”Discrimination by State and local governments on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
But the truth is, when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.
As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 19th Amendment, which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned in the Equality Amendment], but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”.
And then we have the Equal Rights Amendment which was rejected by the American People, but would have, if adopted, granted by its second section a power to Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” what the Equality Act attempts to do without this authorization in our Constitution.
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.
.