In an excellent example of bad assumptions make bad laws, the Equality Act will codify prejudice, discrimination, and inequality, making things worse rather than better.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, in today’s society there are quite a few representatives that have signed on to this legislation. Let’s face it, nowadays legislation that claims to support the rights of a minority by infringing on the rights of those who disagree, is a siren song few in Washington can resist. Setting aside the rhetoric and claims about what this legislation purports to do, lets look at the actual language and decide for ourselves. I apologize that this article is longer than my usual post, but it contains a lot of quotes I think are necessary for you to understand the legislation being proposed.
The Reason
The bill states that this legislation is to prohibit discrimination based on “sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation”. If this is true, then the language in this bill must protect the rights of all persons regardless of their categorization by this legislation.
Of course, the bill includes “other purposes” as a reason for its being. So let’s keep an eye out for what these “other purposes” might be.
Findings
Let’s start with what Congress claims are the reasons they need to enact such legislation.
Discrimination
(1) Discrimination can occur on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes. Each of these factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and each is a form of sex discrimination.
(2) A single instance of discrimination may have more than one basis. For example, discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples, the sexual orientation of the two individuals in the couple, or both. Discrimination against a pregnant lesbian could be based on her sex, her sexual orientation, her pregnancy, or on the basis of multiple factors.
Congress states that discrimination can occur based on many different factors and multiple factors can be the basis of a single act of discrimination. So let’s start out with answering a very important question: What is discrimination?
Definition of discrimination
1a: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing the film viewed by those with discrimination
3a: the act of making or perceiving a difference : the act of discriminating a bloodhound’s scent discrimination
b: psychology : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
Looking at this, we can see there are two types of discrimination: Recognizing a difference and a prejudicial view or action based on that difference. While I am loath the assume I know what is in another person’s head, I think it is safe to assume that in this context, Congress is trying to punish the idea of a prejudicial action. Then again, looking at the rest of this legislation, I may be wrong.
Did you notice that the only examples of “discrimination” listed in the reason for this legislation are those against homosexuals? Has Congress prejudged that heterosexuals and opposite-sex (traditional) couples are never discriminated against? What about the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop? The supreme Court found that the state of Colorado discriminated against him. And what about others, including florists, videographers, and T-shirt designers who have not had their cases heard by the top court yet? Is discrimination against their views about marriage acceptable? Is forcing them to create and participate in activities they find objectionable now considered a legitimate form of indenture? If Congress really wants to prevent discrimination, why don’t they list heterosexuals, opposite-sex couples, or others who are currently suffering discrimination in the name of non-discrimination?
Also notice that Congress claims that such discrimination “could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples”.
Stereotype: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern
especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
There are groups that hold to the common picture that marriage is between one man and one woman, but to call that oversimplified, prejudiced, or uncritical, ignores 10,000 years of recorded western history. In fact, before same-sex marriage was imposed on the nation by supreme Court fiat, the people in a majority of the states that had voted on it rejected the idea of same-sex marriage being legally recognized.
If Congress really wanted to eliminate discrimination, I would think they could start by not using discriminatory and derogatory language in their legislation.
Examples of Discrimination
Congress’ findings include many, many statements about discrimination, with no evidence or examples to support their assertions. Are we to merely accept the word of politicians, a group of people best known for their propensity to lie, that these acts are not only happening, but rampant enough to warrant federal intervention?
(3) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (referred to as “LGBT”) people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations—including restaurants, senior centers, stores, places of or establishments that provide entertainment, health care facilities, shelters, government offices, youth service providers including adoption and foster care providers, and transportation. Forms of discrimination include the exclusion and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment, harassment, and violence. This discrimination prevents the full participation of LGBT people in society and disrupts the free flow of commerce.
(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.
…
(6) Regular and ongoing discrimination against LGBT people, as well as women, in accessing public accommodations contributes to negative social and economic outcomes, and in the case of public accommodations operated by State and local governments, abridges individuals’ constitutional rights.
…
(8) Both LGBT people and women face widespread discrimination in employment and various services, including by entities that receive Federal financial assistance. …
(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. In many circumstances, such discrimination also violates other constitutional rights such as those of liberty and privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(11) Individuals who are LGBT, or are perceived to be LGBT, have been subjected to a history and pattern of persistent, widespread, and pervasive discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity by both private sector and Federal, State, and local government actors, including in employment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. An explicit and comprehensive national solution is needed to address such discrimination, including the full range of remedies available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
…
(14) LGBT people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBT people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name.
…
(16) As a result of the absence of explicit prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, credit applicants who are LGBT, or perceived to be LGBT, have unequal opportunities to establish credit. LGBT people can experience being denied a mortgage, credit card, student loan, or many other types of credit simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Here we have no less than eight specific claims of discrimination without a single example or referenceable documentation. If this discrimination is so rampant, why does Congress not provide a single example of it happening? And if this type of discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment, why has it not been prosecuted? If the law already exists guaranteeing equal protection under the law, why is that law not being applied? And since Congress lists federal programs as services where LGBT and women are being discriminated against, why do they not pass legislation requiring the prosecution of claims of discrimination in federal services? Again, I cannot see what these Congressmen are thinking, but it seems they are more interested in creating a new protected class and elevating them above the rest of Americans. Not exactly equal protection under the law, is it?
When they do reference evidence of discrimination, they provide no data so their claims can be verified or ignore basic statistical science to make their point.
(15) National surveys, including a study commissioned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, show that housing discrimination against LGBT people is very prevalent. For instance, when same-sex couples inquire about housing that is available for rent, they are less likely to receive positive responses from landlords. A national matched-pair testing investigation found that nearly one-half of same-sex couples face adverse, differential treatment when seeking elder housing. According to other studies, transgender people have half the homeownership rate of non-transgender people and about 1 in 5 transgender people experience homelessness.
…
(17) Numerous studies demonstrate that LGBT people, especially transgender people and women, are economically disadvantaged and at a higher risk for poverty compared with other groups of people. For example, older women in same-sex couples have twice the poverty rate of older different-sex couples.
…
(19) Numerous studies document the shortage of qualified and available homes for the 437,000 youth in the child welfare system and the negative outcomes for the many youth who live in group care as opposed to a loving home or who age out without a permanent family. Although same-sex couples are 7 times more likely to foster or adopt than their different-sex counterparts, many child placing agencies refuse to serve same-sex couples and LGBT individuals. This has resulted in a reduction of the pool of qualified and available homes for youth in the child welfare system who need placement on a temporary or permanent basis. Barring discrimination in foster care and adoption will increase the number of homes available to foster children waiting for foster and adoptive families.
…
(20) LGBT youth are overrepresented in the foster care system by at least a factor of two and report twice the rate of poor treatment while in care compared to their non-LGBT counterparts. LGBT youth in foster care have a higher average number of placements, higher likelihood of living in a group home, and higher rates of hospitalization for emotional reasons and juvenile justice involvement than their non-LGBT peers because of the high level of bias and discrimination that they face and the difficulty of finding affirming foster placements. Further, due to their physical distance from friends and family, traumatic experiences, and potentially unstable living situations, all youth involved with child welfare are at risk for being targeted by traffickers seeking to exploit children. Barring discrimination in child welfare services will ensure improved treatment and outcomes for LGBT foster children.
What are the “national surveys” they are referencing? What “numerous studies” is Congress using to justify this legislation? The bill claims that LGBT youth are overrepresented in foster care systems, but with no data to back that up. Did the analysis of these claims control for other factors like emotional disorders? How can we tell without the data to look at ourselves? Were these alleged acts of discrimination caused by the fact that those requesting services were LGBT or was it simply assumed that was the reason? (Correlation vs causation.)
Congress then goes on to invent rights to show discrimination.
(18) The right to an impartial jury of one’s peers and the reciprocal right to jury service are fundamental to the free and democratic system of justice in the United States and are based in the Bill of Rights. There is, however, an unfortunate and long-documented history in the United States of attorneys discriminating against LGBT individuals, or those perceived to be LGBT, in jury selection. Failure to bar peremptory challenges based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual not only erodes a fundamental right, duty, and obligation of being a citizen of the United States, but also unfairly creates a second class of citizenship for LGBT victims, witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
We have a right, under certain circumstances, to a trial by a jury of our peers, but there is no reciprocal right to serve on a jury. As the name implies, jury duty is a duty, not a right. If you were to exercise a so-called “right” to serve on a jury, wouldn’t that be at the expense of the defendant’s right to an impartial jury? If my experience or opinions are prejudicial to the defense, do I have a right to serve on the jury over their objection? No, this is another attempt to create a right for a protected class by infringing on the rights of all Americans.
Now I’m not saying that there isn’t any discrimination against people with a non-traditional view of sex and marriage relationships. What is evident, not only from the lack of evidence for their grandiose statements and their lack of scientific rigor with their statistics, is that they have no proof this is a pervasive problem in America. Worse than that, many of the examples they use show they wish to discriminate against those who do not agree with or do not wish to support these lifestyles. Otherwise, why would they would push to enforce existing law rather than inventing fake “rights” for the LGBT community?
Outcome
After the finding section, the legislation goes on to list where in federal law Congress wishes to add “sex” (including sexual orientation and gender identity) as a specially protected class. You will not only have to allow others to act that way, but support and promote those lifestyles if you don’t want to run afoul of federal law. In other words, if you disagree with those in the LGBT community, you can be discriminated against and your rights trampled because your representatives in Congress say so. Rather than the elimination of discrimination, this bill is attempting to further codify it into federal law.
Discrimination vs. Discrimination
What we see here is an attempt to codify discrimination in the name of eliminating it. I don’t want to see anyone denied their rights, whether I agree with them or not. If we are to live in a free country, we must allow others to disagree with us. Still, if Congress wants to enforce the 14th Amendment, then they need to make sure everyone’s rights are being protected.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We have a right not only to our lives, but to the products and services we create. We have the right to sell goods and services, but you do not have the right to buy them from me. We have the right to associate with those we want, and to not associate with those we do not want, without federal interference. If our desire to associate is not supported by a significant number of others, it will wither and die. But to tell people that they must work for certain others is indentured servitude at best and slavery at worst. The only place where any government should be making sure there is no discrimination is with the services they provide. If Congress is correct, and can provide evidence, that the federal government is discriminating against people due to their sex or sexual orientation, they should fix that rather than dictating to everyday Americans who they can and cannot do business with. With all the federal regulations not only banning such discrimination but actually giving special preference to these protected classes, I doubt very much there is much federal discrimination against those in the LGBT community. Rather, there appears to be quite a lot of discrimination in their favor.
In fact, if we think about this rationally, there are times when discrimination is not only allowed, but required. Remember the definition of discrimination?
the act of making or perceiving a difference
If recognizing a difference in someone is necessary to protect the rights of others, should we make such discrimination? We discriminate by sex in public facilities where people may need to expose their bodies, such as restrooms and locker rooms. At least we used to do this in order to protect others, but more and more these protections are being swept away. In fact, we did this primarily to protect women from men who may be voyeuristic or worse. We discriminate by sex in many athletic programs because we recognize the scientifically proven fact that, in general, men’s bodies are faster and stronger than women’s. Yes, I said “in general”. There are examples of women who are faster and strong than me, but does that mean I should be allowed to compete in a group where I am much more likely to dominate? Is that fair to those who are competing against someone with a biological advantage? What we are seeing are protections, especially for women, being destroyed in the name of a small yet vocal group who disagree with them. Is that equal protection under the law?
Conclusion
As I said, I do not wish to see anyone’s rights violated. However, Americans today, especially our elected aristocracy, have a warped and twisted view of rights. They seem to believe it’s OK to punish those who disagree with them. They also act as if it’s OK to violate individuals’ rights if it’s beneficial to the right group. In short, the people we’ve hired to protect all our rights act as if they are in Washington only to protect some of us and some of our rights. Don’t you think it’s about time we hire a better class of agent to do our business?
