I've told you many times that one of the biggest advantages the Left/democrats have over conservatives is that Democrats never, ever give up. When the Supreme Court overturns an unconstitutional law they passed, or an "executive order" (decree) issued by a Dem preznit, they simply roll out a new way of accomplishing the same thing but merely using a different method.
Eventually they find a way to accomplish whatever demonic goal they want, and at that point it's almost impossible to undo their win.
Latest example is a monster that you know absolutely nothing about:
In 1974 Democrats introduced the first Equality Act, changing the Civil Rights Act of a decade earlier (1964)--which had banned racial discrimination--to also ban discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, disability, pregnancy and religion or belief.
Seems pretty innocuous, eh? Hey, Americans love "equality," right, so who could possibly object to a law named "the Equality Act?"
Oh wait, I forgot: the Dems added one more "specially-protected" group: sexual orientation.
But Democrat politicians quickly learned that the public saw this as unlocking Pandora's box, with too many possible avenues for unintended (?) consequences once the lawyers smelled victory, so the bill never made it out of committee.
Democrats were unfazed, reintroducing it again and again. In 2017 they introduced the current version of the Equality Act, now adding "or gender" to the list of "specially-protected groups" in the Civil Rights Act. And 100 pages away from the first addition of "or gender" the bill explained (in *very* careful, innocuous terms) that this also included "gender reassignment"--i.e. trannies. The bill went nowhere.
Two years later (2019) they tried again, with trannies still a specially-protected group, just like race. This time it passed the Dem-controlled House, by a 236–173 vote, but again the senate, majority GOP, failed to act on it.
On February 18, 2021, just 4 weeks after biden was installed--with the courts having ignored the thousands of "irregularities" that put biden in the White House, and the Dems now controlling both chambers of congress--Dems tried yet again. Just seven DAYS later, with virtually no discussion or debate, the House passed the bill, 224 to 206.
The bill then moved to the Senate. And with the Democrats owning the senate, passage and duh preznit's signature should have been a slam-dunk, eh? So what happened? Good luck finding out. Wiki simply says "the senate did not act on it." But that's...odd, eh? Cuz the Dems controlled the senate, and were supposedly huge supporters of the bill. So what happened?
Google didn't help, but my recollection is that despite having majority control of the senate, Democrat senate majority leader Chuckie Schumer never brought the bill for a floor vote--because he didn't have the votes to pass it. Hmmm... Seems that a couple of Dem senators realized that voting for the monstrosity would be a career-ending move.
But again, Democrats never give up, and on June 21 of this year they introduced the bill yet again, as H.R. 15. It has the same language adding "gender identity" and "gender reassignment" to the list of specially-protected groups under the Civil Rights Act, meaning that every line saying "no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex or sexual orientation," the bill added "or gender," which is defined elsewhere in the bill as including what's cunningly called "sex-reassignment surgery."
If it passes, the ACLU would use the provisions of the new law to overturn state laws banning sex-change surgery and hormone treatments on 13-year-olds. The ACLU would also use the new law to overturn state laws banning biological males from competing against girls in sports.
It would mean conservatives couldn't prevent elementary school libraries from stocking books with pictures of kids having sex--even though it's never been legal for such libraries to have books or magazines with pictures of sex between men and women, let alone underage boys and girls.
You think I'm kidding?
>>Attorney for conservative parents: "Your honor, we object to these picture books simply because they're pornographic. The courts have never ruled that K-12 school libraries--or ANY library--must allow pornography."
Judge: "Yes but that was sex acts between men and women--so-called straights. And as you know, counselor, straights are NOT a 'specially-protected class' under the Equality Act."
Local cable-TV providers--required by law to allow public access--would be forced to allow pro-tranny activists to produce programs encouraging kids to change genders.
Cunning ACLU attorney: "You whiner! Nothing prevents your side from doing pieces on the joys of being cis!"
Really? Try it and they'll jail you for "hate speech"--as the ACLU well knows.
Decades ago the communists realized you could fool people by giving policies or things fake names that disguised their true nature. George Orwell brilliantly captured this trick in his famous novel 1984, in which the "Ministry of Peace" was the war department, the Ministry of Truth removed statements from old newspapers and so on.
As students of communism, the U.S. Left learned that lesson fast, and has been controlling how things are named in the U.S.
They can only get away with that because the Mainstream Media supports the trick, instantly parroting the fake names and never telling voters what the mis-named programs and bills really do. It works like a charm.
So the current Equality Act is now loaded with deliberately undefined terms: sexual orientation, gender identity, all the absurd LGBTQ buzzwords. Those terms are purposely either left undefined, or so vaguely defined that a good attorney can stretch their definitions to cover literally any sexual twist. After all, biden's newest black female appointment to the Supreme Court can't even define "woman," so it's no surprise that the other neologisms are left vague.
If you're not familiar with the law, vague terms in a law or contract invite legal abuse.
For example, right now pedophilia--adults having sex with kids--is against the law. But clearly it can be argued that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, which is explicitly a "specially-protected class" under the bill. Anyone wanna bet that a liberal judge won't rule that landlords must rent to known pedos, or that universities must hire them?
As noted earlier, the Democrats win because they simply ignore rulings they don't like, like the Supreme Court ruling the biden regime had no authority to force taxpayers to pay off student loans. They just try another way. But our side doesn't do that. Example: when the Supreme Court *ruled* that same-sex marriage was legal (Obergefell, 2015), no one challenged it.
When a six-foot 250-pound male funeral home employee started wearing dresses and stockings, the owners of the business said "We don't want to stress bereaved people, and we believe an obvious cross-dresser would do that, and that's not how we want our business to be run," and fired the employee.
The employee complained to the EEOC, which sued on his behalf, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled that the business owner couldn't fire the guy, and ordered the owners to pay $250,000. Seriously.
Our side never challenged that *ruling*--which of course now prevented *every* business from firing trannies or cross-dressers, even if the owner felt keeping the employee would hurt or even destroy his business. The ruling applied to all businesses, and if the Equality Act is passed it sets the stage for the raft of new court rulings noted above.
The few right-leaning media have simply stopped talking about those issues, because there's essentially no way to undo them. Unlike the Democrats, conservatives accept defeat.
If you think the GOP's tiny majority in the House will block the Equality Act, think again: after the SC *ruled* that same-sex marriage was now legal, congress then passed a *law* doing the same thing. Since the SC had already jammed that down our throats, you might wonder what the point was, eh? It was "virtue signalling," nothing more.
You knew that congress had passed that law, right? No? Yeah, didn't think so. And here's the kicker: 47 House Republicans voted for that meaningless bill, seeing it as a chance to curry favor with gays, trannies and leftists.
So if you knew about it, when was that law passed? Say it out loud and then highlight the area here to check: [December 2022.]
Now: Anyone know the current party makeup of the House? Yeah, didn't think so. 222 GOP to 212 Democrat (one seat is vacant for now.) And all 212 Dems have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. So *if just six Repubs vote for the thing, it passes.* And when it goes to the senate, the Dems now have the votes to pass it there too.
Starting to see why the 47 Republicans voting for the meaningless bill legalizing SSM are important? All the Dems need is just SIX to vote with the Dems and the new Equality Act will be the law of the land.
So barring a miracle, it's a done deal. Get ready for boys competing in girls' sports, books with pics of queer sex in grade schools and sex-change operations on 13-year-olds without parental permission becoming legal in all states.
If anyone is interested in betting, let me know.
Check to see if your congressman is one of the 47 House Republicans who voted for the federal gay marriage bill in December 2022. If so, you're welcome to asking him or her to oppose the bill. Let me know if that has any effect!
Now let's look at the "landmark case" recently announced by the Supreme Court: Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC & Aimee Stephens
(Stephens didn't even have to hire attorneys: the federal EEOC did all the legal work. Even so, the defendant was ordered to pay $120,000 in legal fees, and $130,000 in damages.)
Stephens was a male funeral director for Harris. After some years Stephens announced he was a woman (which biden's newest black female justice can't define) and would be dressing as such. The funeral home fired him. Stephens wailed to the EEOC, which sued on his behalf.
In 2016 a federal judge dismissed the case, ruling that although the EEOC had a viable sex discrimination claim, the owner of the funeral home was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because cross-dressing violated his religious beliefs.
The government appealed, and two years later the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case, saying the firing was unlawful, even before the new Equality Act making cross-dressers a "specially-protected group."
The "reasoning" supporting this ruling is absurd: The court ruled that the owner had failed to show how continuing to employ the cross-dresser would "burden its owner's religious practice." Of course that's not the test used in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--but the Supreme Court would later ignore that.
The owner appealed the portion of the 6th Circuit ruling holding that Title VII bars discrimination against transgender workers. The case was consolidated with two other lawsuits filed by gay workers who claimed they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
Before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General argued (for the EEOC) that under the existing Civil Rights Act, gay and transgender and cross-dressing employees were not designated a "specially-protected class" (which was true).
(Note that the Solicitor General was arguing *against* the EEOC's position. Interesting.)
Despite the clear, unambiguous fact that cross-dressers were not specially-protected under the CRA, the Supreme Court managed to rule for the cross-dresser by claiming "gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be separated from sex." Thus firing a gay, tranny or cross-dresser--or any of the 185 "genders" of the LGBTQ world--must be seen as "sex discrimination," which was specifically illegal under the CRA.
In other words, a law doesn't mean what it literally says--and meant to the people who drafted that law--but whatever the courts say it means today.
It's also telling that EEOC "officials" refused to sign on to the Solicitor General's briefs, and the agency has continued to pursue lawsuits on behalf of LGBTQ workers *even though "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are not included in the CRA as passed.*
A gay/trans-friendly "legal" website explained the case as follows:
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
Check. Do you see "homosexual," "cross-dresser" or "transgender" there? Nope.
Looking to the ordinary public meaning of each word and phrase comprising that provision, the Court interpreted to mean that an employer would violate Title VII if it fired an employee based, at least in part, on sex. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex—the very practice Title VII prohibits in all manifestations.
That last phrase is TOTALLY false: Go back and re-read the "specially-protected groups" in the actual, y'know, LAW. Are homosexuals or cross-dressers or trannies on that list. No, no, and hell no.
Although it acknowledged that few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons, the Court gave no weight to legislative history because the language of the statute unambiguously prohibits the discriminatory practice.
The stealthy re-writing of the actual CRA by this gay-friendly website is breathtaking--as was the Supreme Court's rewriting of the law. As noted earlier, the only way the court could achieve the ruling the majority wanted was by defining gay, tranny and cross-dressing as being equivalent to "sex." And in doing so the court did something that's virtually never done by courts:
In interpreting either laws or contracts, judges are usually constrained to look at how the legislators who drafted a law or contract defined terms at the time the law or contract was written. When a law is ambiguous, a court often turns to the legislative history.
There's a sound reason for this: If a court interprets terms of a law or contract in a way unintended by the drafters--because a modern definition was unknown to them--one cannot possibly claim the law will have the effect intended by the people who drafted it, eh? So by using definitions not contemplated by the drafters, a court is effectively writing a new law or contract with effects never contemplated or intended by the original drafters.
For the slow-witted: that's obviously an outrage. Legislatures write laws. Courts aren't legally empowered to do so--even though sometimes they do.
In this case the court paid lipservice to that solid legal principle, recognizing that in 1974 legislators envisioned "sex" as male vs. female, rather than including trannies or gays or cross-dressers. But then the court simply ignored that.
This is one of the ways societies implode: "Our laws say...", or "The Constitutions says...", but then 200 years later, to get a result the ruling party wants, a judge says, in effect, "Back then they may have meant X, but today us sophisticates say they really intended Y."
Fuck 'em. I'm done. I wouldn't start a business in this country doing anything, even something as seemingly simple as selling tomatoes in a farmers' market. The Founders designed the process of passing laws to be long and to involve extensive debate for a damn good reason. But when five un-elected judges can change any law without any public debate, only a fool would risk his own money and time on a venture that depended on the ordinary, time-tested meaning of laws.
Not one American out of 100,000 really understands what I just wrote. And from the standpoint of the destroyers that's great, since it means no one will make the connection between the end of the U.S. as we've known it and the process I've just described.
I have maybe 15 more years left, and I don't have kids, so I have very little stake in what happens. But if you're a young American, or have kids and/or grandchildren you should be furious. You should be waking up every day thinking how you can **** all the rat-bastards who have destroyed a perfectly great country.
But of course you won't, because it's easier to believe a) everything's really okay; and b) if it isn't, someone else will make the sacrifice to save us.
This is SO classic that I have to laugh. Sure, sheep, keep believing that that sheep over there will fix things. That'll work. It's gotta work, right? Cuz if no one else steps up...wait, don't go there. Lalalalalala! Let's watch TV or get high or something. Everything's FINE!
