It’s Not The Equality Act, It’s The Pedophile Protection Act By Bryan Fischer for Barb Wire
The hideously misnamed “Equality Act” begins its journey through Congress this week. It’s designed “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.”
Now the 1964 Civil Rights Act already makes it illegal for discrimination to occur on the basis of “sex,” by which the authors of the bill meant “male or female.”
One significant thing to note in passing is that the authors of this bill evidently agree – whether they realize it or not – that the CRA of 1964 does NOT provide special protections based on “gender identity” or “sexual orientation,” because if the term “sex’” was expansive enough to include both, there would be no need for the Equality Act.
Support Our Site
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
So, we should all be able to agree that, while “sex” in the 1964 CRA referred to the division of humanity into males and females, protections were not extended to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. Hence the felt need for the “Equality Act,” to address this lacuna in civil rights law.
Trending: Phoenix Muslim Kills Wife & 2 Daughters in Honor Killings Because Allah Told Him To
“Gender identity” contains a raft of problems all by itself, for the category seems limited only by the hyperthyroidal imaginations of gender activists. Facebook allows you to choose from no less than 71 – count ‘em – genders. The old “male and female” thing is so last century. Now you can adopt a veritable cornucopia of sexual identities, starting with “asexual,” “hermaphrodite,” or “intersex,” and working your way up to “gender variant” or “pangender.”
Mind you, there is no biological or genetic marker for these various departures from the norm – it’s all in your head. Which makes the whole concept enormously subjective and fluid, and allows you to slip into it just about anything you want.
But what is truly pernicious is that “sexual orientation” is nowhere defined in the bill. Now everyone has a working definition of “sexual orientation” in their heads, a definition that begins with “male” and ends with “transgender” or some such thing. But “sexual orientation” is not defined anywhere in the bill or anywhere else in federal law. Everyone, including off-the-reservation judges, will get to make up their own definition.
