I've harped on words forever, I suppose. Too much, some might say. But not me. And here's an example of why.
Have you heard of the Equality Act? It is, quite literally, coming soon to a House of Representatives near you. The goal of the bill is to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to change the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Yeah, yeah, I know ... lots of words. Which is the beginning of the problem. And it only gets worse.
The original Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Easy. We're in favor. Good to go. Are they changing that? Well, no ... and yes. Because they are redefining "sex" to include "sex stereotype, sexual orientation or gender identity, and pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." They are adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" where gender identity includes " appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual's designated sex at birth." Therefore, while we understood "sex" in the past to refer to "the gender you're born with" and, therefore, no reason to be discriminated against, now it's so much more.
They're not done. They're redefining that "places of public accommodations." It now includes exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays, and goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; and transportation services. Notice "gatherings." Is your church a "gathering"? Notice "services" and "programs." Does your bakery, flower store, photography business, or the like (you can see where I'm going with this) offer "services"? Does your Christian school have "programs"? This bill will redefine your life.
They're not done. I quote, "The bill prohibits 'establishment' from being construed to be limited to a physical facility or place." Is it online, at home, at church, anywhere at all?
They're not done. They're expanding "discrimination." If an organization receives federal financial assistance, it cannot consider the factors above. If an organization has 15 or more employees -- like a Christian school or a large church might -- they cannot practice such discrimination. Written right in the bill is the requirement that "Employers must recognize individuals in accordance with their gender identity." And, as I'm sure you might have guessed, "The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity."
On the face of it they're simply "clarifying," but at its heart they are codifying the sexual values and, frankly the incoherent perceptions of sex and gender of our current society. They are not calling for tolerance; they are demanding submission. They are not offering equality; they are requiring Christian views be subservient to the current LGBTQQIA (whatever) demands for embrace and permission. (I looked. Apparently the current "correct" acronym is LGBTQQIP2SAA. Seriously.) They are not saying, "Believe what you will." They are saying, "We don't care anymore about your so-called 1st Amendment rights to free exercise of religion or the prohibition of government to impose religion. We will eliminate your freedom where it suits us and impose the religion of sexual expression and you will concur or face the consequences." They are not allowing for disagreement; they are equating "I believe that certain behaviors are sin" and "I'd rather not participate" with bigotry and hatred. (There are no exceptions whatsoever in the bill for religious practice or religious organizations.) All of this is accomplished by an etymological sleight of hand. "You all agreed about not discriminating due to sex. So, we're make adjustments to what you already agreed to, call it the same thing, and give you what we want you to have." That's the approach. Redefine terms to mean what they want them to mean and feed them back to you because you liked those terms.
6 comments:
It's what comes from voting Democrat.
It's what comes from not voting.
You mention that "not voting" a lot. Is that because you think I didn't/don't vote? Because I did/do. Just sayin'. Or do you mean by "not voting" "not voting the way I think you should"? I don't think that's what you mean. Rhetorical questions. I will be out of town for a couple of days without the ability to moderate and okay comments, so I apologize to you and all for the upcoming delay.
I find it amusing that part of the new acronym is "QQ". In internet speak, that's for cry babies, people that get upset over things not going their way. And with them being such a vocal minority, it fits.
I've still never understood how a non-vote is a vote for the Democrats. Do Democrats say the same thing, if you don't vote, you're voting for a Republican? Isn't abstaining saying you're neither for nor against?
"You mention that "not voting" a lot. Is that because you think I didn't/don't vote?"
It's because not voting is a problem in this country, and a direct cause for all that ails us as a nation. It's only subordinate in harm to those that actually support and vote for those who propose evils such as what you describe in your post, and those who vote without really knowing who and what they're supporting with their vote. Thus, the types of bills you highlight here is the result of people voting Democrat and those who don't vote that could and should have voted for the other side.
"Or do you mean by "not voting" "not voting the way I think you should"?"
Well that goes without saying from anyone's perspective, isn't it? If I vote a certain way, quite obviously I believe it's the ONLY way to vote, or I wouldn't have voted that way. So both those who vote for Dems and those who abstain from voting aren't voting the way I believe (more often than not, "know") they should.
Everyone who is legally eligible should vote...after having done their due diligence in learning all they can in order to vote wisely. There's no "sit this one out" nonsense. Sure, it's not easy to be well informed on absolutely every candidate for every office on the ballot. But that's no reason not to do the best one can and make the most informed decision possible based on the options on the ballot. The outcome affects us all.
"I've still never understood how a non-vote is a vote for the Democrats. Do Democrats say the same thing, if you don't vote, you're voting for a Republican?""
No doubt. But who cares what they say? I'm concerned with those who would describe themselves religiously and politically in much the same way I describe myself. By not voting, one is most definitely providing opportunity to the least desirable candidate. I have no problem with committed Democrats not voting. I have no problem with immoral people not voting. When the time comes to vote, I expect those who claim to care about things like morality, the rule of law, the Constitution and what's best for the nation to make a choice, given that not choosing is the same as choosing the opposite of all that. BTW, I feel the same about those who vote for those with no chance of winning just because the two most likely are less than ideal. It's a worse than not voting.
"Isn't abstaining saying you're neither for nor against?"
I'm not concerned with what one believes it says. I'm concerned with the consequences of not voting. If one wishes to make a statement, that's what the primaries are for. Better still, that's what all the time between elections is for...to stay abreast of how things are going and to voice one's concerns then; to stay in touch with those now in office; to say in touch with the party that most closely allies with one's own beliefs; to donate in whatever way one can to the causes one favors; to publicly criticize or support (as in letters to newspapers, social media, rallies or political gatherings; to engage with those you know think differently in hopes of at least making them think, if not convert. By the time election day comes, it's too late for making statements. One must choose.
That doesn't answer HOW not voting is voting for the other side. Is that just how you perceive it, or do you have data to verify with? If both sides say not voting is a vote for the opposition, then a non vote is that, a non vote. And if voting for a third party is somehow worse than not voting, and you voted for that third party because that party more aligns with your values, how is one to do all you suggest, but be forced to vote for someone that absolutely don't want?
What makes the Republican party better than all the other available, if they are far more Left than me?
Post a Comment