Evangelicals tend to not vote for the Democratic Party. The LBGTQ community in theory mostly does. Though in the last election cycle Republicans seemed to make a little bit of headway with some in the gay community. You had things such as an openly gay man founding the #WalkAway movement and that type thing. You had commentators like Dave Rubin become more open to conservative viewpoints though he still considers himself a classic liberal. As we also know Evangelicals and the LBGTQ community have some issues. I think it's slowly getting better but many issues are still there. So here is the scam. There are things in the Equality Act that seem to violate the Constitution as well as attack religious liberty. Don't get me wrong there are also some really good things in the Equality Act as well that should've been rectified a long time ago and I'm going to talk about them. So if the Equality Act passes and becomes law then democrats will appear as heroes to an oppressed group and will have diminished their perceived oppressors. In doing so they will consolidate their power in the gay community and gain votes in the next election cycle, in their minds of course. If the bill fails in the senate then democrats can claim republicans are bigots the way they always do and use that for more fundraising and fear mongering. In doing so they will consolidate their power in the gay community for the next election cycle. Do you see the scam? I think I laid it out plain enough. You see it actually benefits them more if it fails. It benefits them more because they can continue to dangle the carrot. If the bill were merely about civil rights it would most likely pass. If it were to pass and they finally give up the carrot then what are they going to do? What else are they going to use to string people along? They'll have to think of something else and that thing may not work as well.
So the Equality Act is billed as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If that were all it was then there probably wouldn't be a problem with it. The thing is that it does much more than that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 never attacked religious liberty. This is not the first time one right has overlapped with another one. It happens more than you realize. The main one that comes to mind for me is the First Amendment vs Property Rights. In most court cases other than a single case many years ago, property rights wins that fight by a huge percentage. Before we move forward let's take a look at a quick wiki version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
An Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
-The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The original act was used to stop discimination in employment, desegregate schools, and fight discrimination in public schools. It also kept the government from barring access to public facilities. It also ended discrimination from federal programs. It enforced the constitutional right to vote. It worked to end discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. These are all great things and none of them attack religious liberty. Before I get into that though I want to talk about some of the less controversial things in the Equality Act
Some people looking at what I talked about in the contents of the Civil Rights Act and think that I left out a couple things. In the above paragraph I didn't mention the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is simply because I wanted to spend more time on them specifically since they are at the cruxed of this commentary. The Supreme Court has ruled 3 times over a 41 year period the the use of the word sex in the Civil Rights Act includes protections for gay and transgender people. The first case was back in 1989 and that last one being in 2020. With the high court already clarifying this issue it honestly makes me suspicious on why they need to have it in a new bill. In May of 2019 Forbes magazine did a good story on this exact thing and listed some of the court cases. I'm going to mention a few of them here from the article What is the Equality Act and What Will Happen If It Becomes Law by Eric Bachman. In the next paragraph before we move forward I just want you to look at some of these cases and see how long this thing has been going on. In fairness I'm sure these people don't memorize every Supreme Court case that ever happened but they should at least due their due diligence in studying previous decisions. I don't know if they thought maybe the Supreme Court would reverse its past rulings or what they were thinking but it didn't happen.
In the case of Macy vs Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in 2012 the judge ruled the Civil Rights Act did include sexual orientation and gender identity. However in 2017 the Department of Justice supported an employer's motion to dismiss a claim because sexual orientation was not covered in the Civil Rights Act. That case would've been Zarda vs Altitude Express Inc. There was another case in Georgia in May of 2018 where a Court of Appeals had ruled that it wasn't covered then it was actually upheld by the 11 Circuit. This case, Bostock v Clayton County, was later consolidated with the previously mentioned Zarda v Alititude Express Inc and another case before the Supreme Court in 2020. I mentioned in an earlier paragraph what the result was so that should be no surprise. The Supreme Court delt with this much earlier. The first case being all the way back in 1989 with Price Waterhouse vs Hopkins then again in 1998 with Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services. You would think that would put a nail in it but apparently not since people are still taking a swing at it. So anyway, we know there were 3 cases consolidated and the verdict was handed down again in 2020 that echoed earlier rulings. I want to now take a look at that third case I think some things can be learned from it. That case was R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc vs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a 6-3 decision the court upheld that discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation was prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.So if it's already covered in the Civil Rights Act then why do you need the Equality Act to amend it so that it is covered? Well there's that clarity I mentioned earlier but it could also just be political theatre. I don't really believe the Equality Act was really meant to just be an amendment to the Civil Rights Act. To claim that is just flat out lying. That not withstanding, just so you know, I support the Supreme Court decision and I actually agree with it. I want to take that funeral home case and talk a little more about it and flesh out some things. I want you to understand why I think the Supreme Court got it right.