Democrats in congress introduce what they've cunningly named the "Equality Act." But what it really does is...

A week ago Democrats in the Dem-controlled House introduced "H.R.5," a bill they've called the "Equality Act."

Yay!!  I mean, who wouldn't be all for "equality," eh citizen?  I mean, wasn't there some document written by old white guys a thousand years ago that said "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."  (And that was back when "all men" really meant "all people.")

So, the Democrat party claims to be all about equality.  They cleverly imply that the only people who could be against "equality" would be...Republicans and conservatives.

Okay then.  Let's take a look at the "Equality Act."  Clicking on the above link will go right to the House website with the actual text of the bill.  So, hard to fake that.   And what do we see?

After you strip out all the boilerplate language, you'll find that the sole purpose of this bill is to make "transgenders" a specially-protected class.

"Wait," you may say.  "Isn't it already illegal to assault people?  Why do men calling themselves women (and vice-versa) need a new law if its only purpose is to protect them from something that's already against longstanding law?

Ah, I see you're new to this planet!  Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

Among the effects of the bill will be to make it illegal for anyone to use the wrong pronouns to or about a man claiming to be a female, or vice-versa.

Oh, and to make it legal in every state for men claiming to be female to use womens' restrooms and similar facilities.  And to make it illegal for any state legislature to pass any law saying genetic men must use mens' facilities.

Oh, and to allow the federal gruberment to fine you if you use a male pronoun to refer to a man who claims to be female.

"Wait," I hear my liberal PhD friend saying.  "The bill doesn't say that at all!

That's because you're deliberately ignoring the history of how cunning legislators are at writing statutory language that says X but which everyone with an IQ over room temp knows will always be expanded by the courts to do things the writers absolutely ridiculed people for saying while the bill was being considered.

For example:  The stated purpose of Title 9 of  the Civil Rights Act was to ensure schools didn't discriminate against girls in sports.  But corrupt federal judges have now expanded that, claiming congress actually intended that language to apply to homosexuals as well.

Now that's...odd.  I'm absolutely certain that they had gays way back in 1964, and that if congress had intended the phrase to apply to gays they would have said so.  But the original language didn't.

No matter, citizen:  Your wonderful unelected judges will fix that for ya!  Stroke of a pen and done: the law now says something it never said when they wrote it.

Is this a great system or what?

Now:  In the text of what the Dems have cleverly called the "Equality Act," we see the authors repeatedly invoking the threat of discrimination against "women" and "pregnant women" to support their bill.  Example:

(4) Women also have faced discrimination in many establishments such as stores and restaurants, and places or establishments that provide other goods or services, such as entertainment or transportation, including sexual harassment, differential pricing for substantially similar products and services, and denial of services because they are pregnant or breastfeeding.

Or this:

(8) Both LGBT people and women face widespread discrimination in employment and various services, including by entities that receive Federal financial assistance.

But the law has already made all this illegal vis-a-vis women and homosexuals.  So why do the bill's authors mention women so often? 

Because it generates support for their new bill, despite the fact that their new bill doesn't do anything new for those classes.  The only new class the bill protects is...transgenders--which the bill's authors cunningly cloak as "LGBT."  Because that's so widely used in the press that no one actually takes the time to examine it.

Then a bit further down, the authors make a totally unsupported claim:  That the Constitution requires that anyone who "discriminates" against transgenders is guilty of violating their Constitutional rights.

(10) 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 what do they mean by "discrimination"?  Could that mean referring to a male-claiming-to-be-female by the correct term "man," or using brutal pronouns like "his" or "him" when referring to said tranny?  Could you be fined for doing that?

"OH NO, citizen!  That could NEVER happen!"

Except it already has.  And yes, right here in the U.S, in "regulations" and "ordinances" in shit-hole cities like NYC, and "prog" states like Colorado.  You can be fined into bankruptcy.

"Free speech?  Oh, of course, citizen!  We're all for "free speech."  But your speech is NOT free speech.  It's "hate speech," which is banned.  Says so right there in the Constitution."

That's bullshit, of course.  But the courts haven't overturned a single one of these regs or city ordinances.  Hmmm.....

The actual changes the Dems propose to the Civil Rights Act clearly show what's up here.  Here's one example of about 100:

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”;

This exact language is repeated another 100 times, under sections like "Public Accommodation" and "De-segregation of Education."  The real beneficiaries of this act are transgenders.  Well, and plaintiffs' attorneys, who stand to make additional millions from claiming violations.

Oh, and way, WAY down in the so-called Equality Act is this little bomb:

“SEC. 1107. Claims.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provided that ordinary people working in certain fields--like baking custom cakes--couldn't be forced to do things that violated their sincerely-held religious convictions.  This act has been used many times to defend against claims by gays that some baker violated their rights by declining to bake a custom-decorated wedding cake for their gay marriage.

Well guess what, citizen.  The Democrats just repealed RFRA--but without saying so. 

"Come now, citizen: We Democrats would NEVER try to repeal RFRA!  Cuz we really, really support religious freedom.  All we did here was simply insert a provision into our new Equality Act that will prevent deplorable, bigoted haters from using RFRA as a defense against a claim of discrimination under this faaabulous new Equality Act."

What does it tell you that the cunning authors buried this total gutting of the Religious Freedom Restoration act in the 200th paragraph of their cunning "Equality Act"?

==
The Democrat authors of the "Equality Act" cite three cases in which the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission--long ruled by left-wing Democrat appointees--ruled that "gender identity" is entitled to specially protected status.  Except that's not what the EEOC did.  But what that corrupt cesspool DID do is instructive:

In Baldwin v. Foxx, a federal sector employee alleged he did not receive a promotion because he was gay, and that that violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. 

The EEOC allowed the employee to move forward with his claim, ruling that “sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” 

To reach this conclusion the EEOC declared that sexual orientation discrimination “is premised on sex-based preferences.  ‘Sexual orientation’... cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex.”

This is too, too precious!  The "progressive" totalitarians at the EEOC ruled that because "sexual orientation cannot be defined...without reference to sex," then any action based on "sexual orientation" was ipso facto illegal...because discrimination on the basis of SEX was illegal!

How's that for great legal reasoning, eh?

For those reasons, and despite [sexual orientation] NOT being explicitly listed as a protected class in Title VII, the EEOC nevertheless ruled that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII because “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ so a claim of discrimination because of sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.”  According to the EEOC, a “complainant alleging that an agency took his or her sexual orientation into account in an employment action necessarily alleges that the agency took his or her sex into account.”  The EEOC also held that sexual orientation discrimination is unlawful because it is associational discrimination based on sex, and because it “necessarily involves discrimination based on gender stereotypes.”

Because the EEOC’s holding purportedly is based on the extension of an existing protected class under Title VII, rather than the creation of a new covered class of individuals, Congressional action is not required to implement this decision.  Following this decision, there will likely be an increase in the number of charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation filed with the EEOC.

See how neatly they did that?  Define "sexual orientation" as a protected class "because" being homosexual is related to the word "sex," and sex discrimination is already barred by Title bullshit of the Civil Rights Act.  Too clever.

In "Lusardi v. McHugh" a male civilian Army employee decided he was female, and demanded the right to use female restrooms.  Army supervisors declined.  The guy sued, and the EEOC forced the Army to let the man use female restrooms.  So everything the Dems want in this bill is already being done-- but the outrageous mandates are being imposed by a Democrat-ruled agency.  The Dems want the demands to be imposed by federal law.  Which is the entire, exact purpose for the so-called "Equality Act."

Go read the bill.  See for yourself that the real thrust is adding trannies to the list of specially-protected groups.