LGBT

Congressional Democrats Reintroduce LGBT-Protecting Equality Act

But is it actually even needed?

|

Rainbow wall
Kmitu / Dreamstime.com

Congressional Democrats are again attempting to amend federal civil rights laws to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity with the reintroduction of the Equality Act.

The Equality Act would add the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of classes protected under federal law from discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This means it would be against federal law to discriminate in employment, public accommodations, housing, education, bank practices, jury service, and similar areas on the basis of somebody being gay or transgender.

There's more to the bill than that, but the antidiscrimination provisions are going to get the bulk of the oxygen.

The Equality Act dramatically expands what the federal government counts as a "public accommodation" under the Civil Rights Act. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, it specifically limited the definition to areas where African Americans were being denied service in wide and broad patterns—hotels, gas stations, movie theaters, and the like. The law was narrowly tailored. The Equality Act dramatically expands this definition of "public accommodation" to cover any business in the country that provides a "good, service, or program."

That matters, as far as this whole tiresome wedding cake fight goes, because under the current federal definition of public accommodations, services like photographers and florists do not qualify. So even if sexual orientation were added, for example, the federal government still couldn't force a photographer to shoot a gay couple's wedding.

And while the Equality Act doesn't alter the exceptions in the Civil Rights Act for religious organizations, it specifically notes that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 cannot be invoked as a defense for discriminating under these laws. The American Civil Liberties Union sees this as a selling point.

Every single one of the 500 estimated Democratic candidates for president are going to line up behind this legislation. There have been a handful of Republican lawmakers who have declared support for it as well, but so far, NBC notes, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is the only Republican on board. With Republicans in control of the Senate, the Equality Act seems unlikely to get much of anywhere.

It's possible that introducing this bill again (it was introduced in 2015 and 2017 without much luck) is not about changing the law so much as getting Republicans on record about LGBT issues in advance of a heated general election. And if that is indeed the case, it is its own kind of progress: Less than 20 years ago, Republicans were using LGBT topics as a wedge issue against Democratic leaders, and Democrats were trying to thread a centrist needle.

It's also worth reminding people that we used to have a bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a much less sweeping proposal than the Equality Act. For years, Democratic lawmakers tried (and failed) to pass the bill through both houses. While they were doing that, the culture continued to change in such a way that more and more citizens and businesses voluntarily adopted the practices mandated by ENDA: That employers shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Were it introduced today, ENDA very well could be passable. But it was switched out and replaced with the much further-reaching Equality Act, which serves as both a reminder that free exchange is a more powerful cultural force than fiat, and that Congress is always either two steps behind or overreaching.

The Equality Act has the feel of a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at LGBT voters. The campaign for the bill is heavily focused on how many people are technically "unprotected" because not every state covers sexual orientation or gender identity in its own antidiscrimination laws. But saying that 8.1 million people are "unprotected" from antidiscrimination laws (as The Williams Institute does here) is a far cry from saying that 8.1 million people are facing actual discrimination. Framing the number that way is intended to frighten LGBT people.

While such discrimination does still happen, it's abundantly clear that America's cultural attitude on LGBT issues has shifted in the direction of tolerance and inclusion. As a society, Americans now find those examples of employment discrimination shocking and pretty gross. We use cultural pressure to attempt to change these practices, and often it works.

That then leaves some deep concerns with why the bill so dramatically expands what counts as a public accommodation. Broadening the definition in the way this bill does will spur litigation against small businesses and employers, but it won't fix a problem that's getting better by the day.

Read the bill for yourself here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

105 responses to “Congressional Democrats Reintroduce LGBT-Protecting Equality Act

  1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Just4Work.com


  2. Congressional Democrats are again attempting to amend federal civil rights laws to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity with the reintroduction of the Equality Act.

    What possible harm could this cause? I mean, just because you’re applying civil rights based on mutable and impossible to gauge criteria doesn’t mean that suddenly white men can just claim to be transracial black women…oh wait. That is exactly what it does.

    One might expect to see most identity groups that don’t revolve around hole fucking preference to be adamantly against this measure if they gave any fucks about the people they ostensibly represent.

    1. Intersectionality!

      1. Honest question: how does the court intended to make you prove that you are gay or transgender? Can someone even prove that they are in the first place?

        1. Yeah…or how does that information organically come up while talking to a banker/job interviewer/real estate agent?

          “prattling on about evening plans at gay night club while banker submits info on computer”

          “sorry, sir, with your credit score we can’t approve the loan”

          “you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!”

        2. I can think of some ways. But they’d probably be considered too intrusive.

          1. Precisely Zeb. Not to mention that asking someone to prove it in court might even be considered to be a violation of the statute itself, thus the court would need to automatically assume that the individual is what they claim to be making the statute a club to beat anyone over the head with.

            I would expect to see law suits based on these categories to increase exponentially and they would be basically impossible to prove in favor of the defendant.

            1. Is having some experimenting with sodomy in boarding school make you “gay”? If not, then wouldn’t experimenting with women mean you were not “gay”?

              You make a great point. Biological sex and race are objecting things. Sexual orientation is entirely subjective. Plenty of people would say anyone who has done anything homosexual are “gay” and others would claim only those who only do that are “gay”. Neither one of them are necessarily wrong. It is a totally subjective term. How the hell you could administer a law designed to protect a class of people whose membership is entirely subjective is something that remains a mystery known only to the clowns who support this stuff.

              1. Yep. Frankly, there is no way to prove that you are or are not gay and there is also no way to prove you are or are not transgender. It’s pretty simple to prove you’re black, or prove you’re a woman.

                As a simple example, just because you’ve never fucked a member of your own sex doesn’t mean you aren’t gay. Maybe you just never acted on it. It’s civil rights based on preference, and that’s such a dangerous road it’s a wonder more people don’t notice.

                1. What about the guy who is married with three kids who decides he is gay? Does he to get a divorce to be a member of the protected class? I don’t see why he would.

            2. Look on the bright side – once Reparations become a thing we can all just claim victimhood status and get our money back.

            3. Wouldn’t their particular pathology be covered by the ADA, anyway?
              Isn’t a mental illness just as legitimate as a physical one?

        3. They tell you to make out with another dude in the courtroom.

          1. The jury has ruled that:
            “We won’t find on your behalf, if you don’t suck off the bailiff, right now.”

    2. Where’s the part about transracial? That would do a number on affirmative action programs, though.

      1. Fair point, although transgender itself means that the section on women’s civil rights is functionally meaningless. We’ve already seen this with women’s sports.

        I assume that transracial will be the next big rage among the left immediately upon passage of this type of legislation. Dolezal might as well have been a trial balloon.

        After all, one must keep the rage monster alive and the donations incoming. We already have plenty of evidence that there is always a ‘next time’ cultural divide issue.

        1. I have my doubts about the transracial thing. How is the left supposed to divide people into identity groups if people can be whatever they want? I suspect they will be bit in the ass by the trans-woman athletes thing sooner than later. I suppose things could be more insane than I think. But that’s pretty insane.

          1. If you have doubts about transracial, why then is transgender a thing when it already explodes the notion of dividing people by gender?

            It is insane, but so far there are no indications that this is losing steam. In fact, this act itself seems to indicate that it’s gaining steam.

            1. I should at least note that Scott is probably right regarding this legislation being a club to beat Republicans with rather than it being a serious attempt to protect the groups they claim they’re trying to protect. It’s a political ploy, not a serious attempt in all probability.

            2. Well, I think that transgenderism (gender dysphoria is probably a better term really) is a real (but poorly understood) thing, but I don’t think transracialism is. Not going to get into why right now, but it seems fairly obvious to me.

              1. I agree Zeb, but we’re not really talking about reasonable people. If someone can make the argument with a straight face that men should be considered as women under the CRA as-is than I don’t consider it much of a stretch. You’ve already abandoned reason, let alone common sense.

    3. I mean, just because you’re applying civil rights based on mutable and impossible to gauge criteria […]

      Like religion?

      Y’all act like this is unprecedented. It’s weird.

      1. I’m not sure what you’re babbling about, although I would note that the government already violates it’s own rules by officially recognizing religions for tax break status. So I’m thinking maybe we agree only from different angles?

    4. You already can’t discriminate against someone for being white or male. Or Christian.

      1. Haha, in some circumstances you are legally required to discriminate against them for those very traits.

        1. Which circumstances would those be?

          1. RE: Affirmative action in universities even while women are over-represented at those institutions.

            1. So universities are required by law to reject white males and Christians in a sort of quota system? Is that what you’re claiming? I think that’s what you said.

              1. By providing enhanced consideration to non-white non-males it must discriminate against white males. You could make an argument that it is a good thing to do so, but that doesn’t change what it does.

                1. The courts have sliced apart AA so much now that universities (if they choose) can consider race as a part of a range of qualities for the purpose of increasing diversity as a community good. There’s no right to go to a specific university anyway (unless you photoshop your face onto a rower, I guess).

                  1. I’m guessing you don’t notice how you just shot your own argument in the face, but that’s part of the fun.

                    1. AA is not required by law in universities. It’s only required by law at all in a couple specific cases: sometimes it’s required to do business with the government, and certain types of businesses are required to practice AA with respect to disabled veterans.

                    2. So, again, you’re conceding your point that it is in fact perfectly legal to discriminate against white men. No, it’s fine, you can stop now. I believe you.

                    3. I’m sure white men will be OK. I’m not sure which one of us has moved the goalpost where in this discussion.

                    4. You’re right, Tony, he didn’t just prove you CAN discriminate, he proved you sometimes HAVE TO!

    5. “If they gave any fucks…”

      I found the problem.

    6. The harm that this can cause is the eventual criminalization of Christianity, Judaism or Islam because they portray LGBT behavior as a sin or unhealthy, etc…It is already clearly the case in much of Canada & other supposed Free Nations!!

      “Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”
      -Barry Goldwater, 1963

      BTW, by the time Goldwater passed away in 1998 he violated his principles in defense of the LGBT agenda to FORCE everyone to bow to them & their way of life!

  3. The Equality Act would add the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of classes protected under federal law from discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This means it would be against federal law to discriminate in employment, public accommodations, housing, education, bank practices, jury service, and similar areas on the basis of somebody being gay or transgender.

    So which is it? You can’t discriminate against somebody on their basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, or only if they’re gay or transgender? And that’s the general problem the headline points out with the “LGBT-protecting Equality Act” – if you’re getting an extra dose of protection, that’s not really equality is it? “We want to be treated just like everybody else, only better” would be more accurate than “equal rights”.

    1. Is that what the law actually says, or is it someone’s interpretation? The first bolded part seems to indicate that it would also prohibit discrimination based on not being gay or transgender.

    2. I mean, you could just read the actual bill.

      That said, the chunk you highlighted makes it clear it’s the former. Quotes matter.

    3. I wonder if this would outlaw gay clubs?

      1. Are there any gay clubs that don’t allow heteros inside? I doubt it.

        1. We had one that charged a higher cover for women.

          1. What’s a “woman”, Tony?

  4. But is it actually even needed?

    of course….transphobia is so rampant that even 3/4 of the LGBT abbreviation are guilty of it every time they suggest that gender stereotypes shouldn’t be the foundation of one’s identity

  5. “It’s possible that introducing this bill again (it was introduced in 2015 and 2017 without much luck) is not about changing the law so much as getting Republicans on record about LGBT issues in advance of a heated general election. And if that is indeed the case, it is its own kind of progress: Less than 20 years ago, Republicans were using LGBT topics as a wedge issue against Democratic leaders, and Democrats were trying to thread a centrist needle.”

    I certainly can’t account for all Republicans, but as I recall, most Republicans simply didn’t want the government putting its Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on same-sex unions. Knowing what we know today, can we really say that it was the *supporters* of government-recognized SSM who were the libertarian champions, and the Republicans who wanted to take away freedom?

    1. Government support of marriage was always about encouraging the bringing forth of future generations. That’s why rewards were offered for married couples.
      Allowing those benefits to go to those, who cannot reproduce, was accepted for the fringe situations of elderly and infertile couples but granting them to those, who were never in the situation of reproductive pairing, was a step too far. Epecially since it could be misused as was the “domestic partner” gambit, by which AIDS sufferers could obtain health insurance by partnering up with someone already insured, who would not be denied of including a pre-existing condition addition to the plan.
      Remember, one of the first SCOTUS suits was filed because the pretend marriage was being used to avoid inheritance taxes.
      Homosexual activist Masha Gessen at Australian conference:
      “Gay marriage is a lie. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there,” she added.
      “It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry,’ she said. ‘But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. ? ‘Marriage equality’ becomes ‘marriage elasticity,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘marriage extinction.’ “

  6. Wait. You can get out of jury duty by saying you’re gay or trans?

    1. I think it means they can’t keep you *off* the jury because you’re gay or trans – if anyone knows of places where this sort of discrimination is rampant, I’d like to hear of it.

      1. so you can move there and try to get out of jury duty?

        1. No, because I’d like evidence that there’s a problem of keeping such folks off juries.

          Maybe in a case in which gay rights or trans rights feature prominently?

    2. You know how a lawyer can’t say “I don’t want this man on my jury, he’s black!”? It’s basically that, but instead of race it’s sexual orientation/gender identity.

      1. Given the fact that a lawyer can reject anyone from a jury and give no grounds whatsoever, this entire concept is a dead letter.

  7. And what happened to the “truce in the culture wars”? It seems the Republicans are increasingly trying to observe such a truce, but for some strange reason the Democrats aren’t observing it.

    1. To the social progressive, “truce” in the culture wars always meant “stop resisting”

  8. The right to discriminate might be the most fundamental human right there is, as humans are distinguished by being the most discriminating animal.
    How else could we make tools?

    Anyway, the issue – especially from a libertarian standpoint, which this publication claims to be – isn’t about how “effective” or “necessary” such laws are. The issue is that they’re entirely unconstitutional and fundamentally oppressive.

    1. “Discrimination” is just a fancy word for “association”. Without the right to discriminate, you do not have the right to free association.

  9. A legal brothel would not be able to decline services to a customer based on sexual orientation. A lesbian whore would be required to have sex with men. Equality!

    1. Seeing as the only state that has legal brothels is Nevada, we can answer this by looking at what Nevada actually does…

      And it says nope! Non-discrimination laws do not apply to brothels and prostitutes. The bar or lobby might be, but actual sex-services are not a public accommodation.

      1. I’m getting a bit suspicious of these “that would never happen, it would be too crazy” reassurances.

      2. The Equality Act dramatically expands this definition of “public accommodation” to cover any business in the country that provides a “good, service, or program.”

      3. Can you say that this law would not if someone got it in their heads?

        You have had porn actresses harassed for not wanting to do scenes with male actors who do gay scenes. So the mentality for that is out there.

      4. Wait! What?
        All a state has to do is say “NON-discrimination laws don’t apply to this kind of business”, and they don’t?
        Whoa, what other federal laws let that happen?
        Some conservative legislatures are missing out on not giving their citizens their liberty back.

  10. As Drumpf attempts to literally turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale, LGBTQ+ people endure brutal oppression. Disappointingly, even Reason.com occasionally publishes hateful, bigoted, science-denying, transphobic garbage.

    Today at “The Volokh Conspiracy,” for instance, a writer describes “male-bodied athletes who identify as women.” What an offensive thing to say in 2019. Transwomen’s bodies, by definition, are women’s bodies. The science is settled.

    Good for the Democrats for being on the right side of history here, as they usually are.

    1. As a white straight cis male I have no problem with The Handmaid’s Tale.

      1. Me neither; I want my ho’s.

  11. This article should have read “The Equality Act violates the NAP making it immoral therefore it should be opposed”. Done.

    1. Sure. You can get right ton that… once y’all get around to actually “opposing” the CRA (1964).

      But strangely enough, despite such sentiments being common every time any place talks about non-discrimination laws including SOGI, for decades now, there still isn’t any serious effort to repeal the CRA (1964).

      Makes me skeptical that, you or anyone else making this claim, is serious.

      1. It’s pretty obviously because anyone who attempted to do so would immediately be labeled a racist by the entire chattering head class for eternity. It’s perhaps a correct thing to do, but also a suicidal thing for any politician to attempt.

        In this way, one can say the Democrats are more willing to die on their swords than the Republicans are. They passed the ACA and suffered for it, whereas Republicans were not willing to really suffer by repealing it.

      2. I think the CRA needs to go. Forget the concerns about it exceeding the scope of federal power under the commerce clause. The real sin of the CRA is that it deprives people of the right to free association. There is no way in hell you can square the right to free association with the government requiring businesses to serve people they do not wish to serve. You just can’t do it. The government should have always been prevented from discriminating under the equal protection clause. But, once the government got into the business of forcing people to associate with each other, that was the end of both freedom of association and really freedom of religion since association is often imperative to living by your religious views. The idea that operating in the public sphere somehow vitiated your right to free association is nothing but a post hoc legal fiction.


        1. The idea that operating in the public sphere somehow vitiated your right to free association is nothing but a post hoc legal fiction.

          Or, while we’re on the subject, that going to a space like an airport means that you give up your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause and a warrant.

          1. Yes. Understand that the airlines could still demand to look in your bag as a condition of flying on an airplane. The government has no business in the airport security business. They do not have the power to search people without probable cause. The whole thing necessarily needs to be left up to the airlines and airport managers. Since killing your customers is a very bad business model, I see no reason to believe they would not do a perfectly acceptable job of it.

            1. I understand that, but what I don’t understand is how something can so flagrantly violate the rights of millions of American’s every year and no one blinks an eye. Truly, we live in a post constitutional era and the blame rests almost entirely on we the people.

        2. There is no such thing as a right to free association. The concept is ludicrous. You don’t get to choose who associates with you in a public space, and for various certain historically important reasons, you don’t get to kick blacks out of your sandwich shop either. Public accommodation laws came about as a result of a freedom calculation that tilted in favor of the law, because freedom was much more restricted before.

          You’re simply arguing in favor of a socially harmful freedom of business owners and rejecting a socially beneficial freedom of customers.

          1. No such thing as freedom of association? Really? Then I guess you are down with making homosexuality illegal again. If you have no right to freedom of association, then government has the power to control who you associate and certainly the power to ban associations they find contrary to the public good, like two men sodomizing each other.

            Tony, you are always good for an own goal.

            1. I think you people might be confusing the right to peaceably assemble with the made-up right to associate, which exists perhaps in a penumbra of rights, but not in the way you think. And if you think about it deeply for more than two seconds you’ll realize it’s ridiculous as well. Do I have the right to go to a bowling alley and kick out anyone I don’t want to associate with? Or is this perhaps simply a description of a business owner’s right to kick out customers for bigoted reasons?

              1. Peacably assemble means the right of freedom of association. You and your boyfriend in your house are peacably assembling. There is a long line of cases that overturned laws that did things like banned more than two single women from living in the same household on the basis of it violating the right to peacably assemble, AKA freedom of association.

                1. The freedom of association recognized in US case law is more tied to freedom of speech than it is assembly. For the time being it does not require that we do away with antidiscrimation laws in public accommodations–any more than it says restaurant owners are free not to associate with health inspectors.

                  1. No. It is tied to freedom of association. There are two types of freedom of association, expressive as you mention and intimate association. Things like the right to have children and the right to marry anyone you want spring from the right to intimate association. That is why bans on interracial marriage were overturned. They infringed upong people’s right of intimate association.

                    1. Call it whatever you want, you still don’t get to run hog wild and break laws because you own a business, no matter if if requires you to sometimes associate with people you don’t want to.

                      I don’t want to associate with half the people I work with. How do I get rid of them?

                    2. In a truly liberal country – where liberty is the guiding consideration – all you would have to do is buy the business and obtain the rights of occupancy.
                      Then you could kick out anyone you wanted to.
                      Where this nation went off the rails was when an emotional amendment, that was intended to reverse certain specific instances of misuse of power, after a bloody internal conflict, got re-interpreted, a hundred years after the fact, to let government’s guiding consideration become “equality” – a word never used in the original document.
                      Everything using that interpretation, since that time, has been subject of massive consternation, because no two people, or situations can ever be truly “equal”.

                    3. Can I determine who gets to be on my property or not?

                      Who owns my property?

                      If you say “You do”, then I can “discriminate”.

                      If you say “The State”, then they control everything you do, and can ban all kinds of relationships.

                      Logic isn’t hard, Tony.

        3. “The real sin of the CRA is that it deprives people of the right to free association.’

          Agree, repeal it.

  12. If they ever passed this, employers would then have the right to and indeed would be effectively required to ask everyone their sexual orientation. If they didn’t, they would have a very difficult time defending themselves against any charges of discrimination. I am old enough to remember when Democrats thought sexual privacy was important.

  13. The Equality Act has the feel of a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at LGBT voters.

    Like it serves any other purpose [besides more f’n virtue signaling by our legislature]?

    1. A lot of lesbians are rightly appalled by this nonsense. I really wonder if this is going to get the gay vote out as much as they think it will

      1. And as it becomes harder and harder to paint people to the right as motivated by anti-gay bigotry, and as being gay becomes more and more normal and boring, I imagine the left will start losing it’s grip on the gay vote. I feel like going all in on trans-issues might make that happen faster, but it’s hard to tell.

        1. The trans issue means kicking Martina Navratalova out of the movement. Martina is the first celebrity athlete to come out of the closet. In addition to being one of the five greatest women’s tennis players of all time, she is a no shit icon in many ways. Kicking her out has to get a lot of people, especially women, to start to think.

    2. This is precisely what ‘gender fluid’ means.

    3. Just took the UK women’s bench press record too…

      For reps.

      In the name of equality somebody get this brave transwoman some estrogen quick!

      L.O.L.

  14. There are straight florists?

    1. Dude, there are straight soccer players. I know, I was shocked too.

      1. *Gasp*

        I watch Ina Garten’s show sometimes, and she goes to her local gay florist a lot. I’m like, what a fantastic fucking job that would be. Just cut and arrange flowers all day. Make people’s lives more beautiful. Charge a shit ton for a plant. Where’s a florist school or whatever?

    2. Wow, funny and true. I didn’t think straight florists were allowed, same for wedding planners.

      1. It’s flight attendant that requires gay. Requires it.

  15. Were it introduced today, ENDA very well could be passable. But it was switched out and replaced with the much further-reaching Equality Act, which serves as both a reminder that free exchange is a more powerful cultural force than fiat, and that Congress is always either two steps behind or overreaching.

    I shouted at my children until they did what I asked and then I switched from abject shouting to calm threats of violence, which serves as both a reminder that free exchange is a more powerful cultural force than fiat, and that I’m always either two steps behind my kids or overreaching.

    1. Scott assumes that the culture will always move in a more accepting way. For him during his lifetime it has. But there is not is not true for other people and it is not gaurenteed to be true in the future even for him. Suppose the cultural forces decide Jews are not fit to live in polite society. Would Scott think that was wonderful?

        1. #icantbreathe

  16. No more protected classes (aka special victims groups) please.

    Actually repeal the CRA

  17. Everyone is equal, there are no special rights.

    Have a nice day : ^ )

  18. Fuck equality.

    Seriously, can you think of another political concept that’s created so much turmoil and still proven to be so intractably unachievable?

    1. So far my prediction that the modern trans-rights movement would destroy the identity politics industry is on track, at least insofar as there’s a bloody civil war going on inside the industry.

  19. The REAL problem is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Which entitled (i.e. ‘Empowered’) them according to inalienable factors and put that entitlement onto private property owners.

    CAN you even imagine what a “Sexual Orientation” is going to do? It makes “Sex Neutral” bathrooms MANDATORY. It makes all living facilities and schools coed…. What’s funny is I GUARANTEE female only schools won’t be affected AT ALL.

    Its time for the general public to step back from the wacko-train and admit that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. It was nothing more than a ‘Power’ grab (i.e. Entitlement) that violated individuals of their property rights and right to have prejudice. Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the “real” humane act “equal law protection…….. WITHOUT REGARD to……….”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.