via Family Research Council
The Equality Act has exposed just how important it is for some people to be able to discriminate. Those same uncivil people proclaim to be stationed on the moral high ground.
The underlying premise is that heterosexual, cisgender people are moral and LGBTQ people are immoral. As a society we have determined that it is discrimination and prejudice that are immoral. I think that Donald Trump is heterosexual and cisgender. Trump is an indecent sociopath who was widely supported by these same Christian conservatives.
David Closson is Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, an anti-LGBTQ hate group. Late Monday Closson authored: The Equality Act Demands Conformity to Moral Anarchy.
Among the hyperbolic bullshit is this:
…a careful analysis of the bill reveals that the Equality Act would codify into law the most extreme demands of the moral revolution while stigmatizing anyone who dares to dissent from the new orthodoxy.
With employment discrimination having been settled by the Supreme Court, HR-5 is mostly about discrimination in public accommodations.
Some Klansman who owns a store or a restaurant might not like servicing Jews but being required to do so is not an “extreme demand.” He might think it extreme because, after all, he is an extremist. Similarly, Mr. Closson is an extremist in the employ of a rabid hate group.
None of these folks are terribly bright. They tend to uncritically regurgitate the nonsense which springs from other people who are not terribly bright.
Breaking the law is not dissent. It is misconduct. Punishing people for breaking the law is not a means of stigmatizing people. As a society we would prefer that people comply with our laws. Potential punishment exists as an incentive to obey the law.
Our body of laws is not subject to individual approval. Some guy with a Lamborghini might have a vehicle capable of 120 per. If he goes over 55 he might be ticketed.
Furthermore, there is nothing new about treating people with civility. Decency is a welcome “orthodoxy.” I cannot think of any circumstance when it is moral to invoke “we don’t serve your kind here.” No religious belief requires people to discriminate.
If someone thinks otherwise then they are the exception at the fringes of society. He or she is the very reason why nondiscrimination laws exist. Service does not constitute approval. It is a business transaction; nothing more than the exchange of goods or services for money.
Always the victims:
While eradicating discrimination is a commendable goal, it is clear the Equality Act will do nothing to end discrimination. In fact, if enacted into law, the bill will accelerate discrimination against tens of millions of Americans whose beliefs on marriage and human sexuality are informed by science and religious convictions.
The above is true only if we define discrimination as the prohibition of discrimination. And save the “science” bullshit. Were FRC staffers informed by science then they would not promote 75% of the crap that they promote.
Most important though is the fact that nondiscrimination has no effect on beliefs. One might believe that a Jewish man wedding a Christian woman is a grave sin. Serving them in a public accommodation does not alter that belief.
At the risk of repeating myself, some of this is the result of arrogance. Their belief that their approval is important and necessary and that service is a form of approval. When they are informed that LGBTQ people do not seek or require their approval they get very upset.
Where is this abortion nonsense coming from? Closson apparently feels obliged to repeat:
For starters, the Equality Act would dramatically expand abortion access, remove religious liberty protections, virtually end women’s and girls’ sports, and threaten Christian seminaries, universities, and colleges.
There is nothing in the Equality Act that affects abortion access. Constitutionally, religious liberty™ is the right to worship and believe as one chooses to worship and believe.
I did some calculations yesterday regarding the impact of trans girls on collegiate sports. Even if trans girls have a competitive advantage (which is not the view of medical science), due to the scarcity of trans females the impact is minuscule. Irrelevant.
Claiming that the Equality Act means “virtually the end of women’s and girl’s sports” is dishonest hyperbole. In other words, David Closson is a liar.
Check out this convoluted nonsense, quoted in full:
On the issue of human life, the Equality Act effectively creates a legislative right to abortion. It does this primarily via changes to Title II of the Civil Rights Act regarding “Public Accommodations.” Health care would be added as a “public accommodation” and “sex” would be added as a protected class. “Sex” is redefined to include “pregnancy… or a related medical condition.” Courts have ruled that “related medical condition” includes abortion. Further, the Equality Act has no conscience protections for health care providers who morally oppose abortion or restriction on taxpayers funding of abortion.
Yes, the Equality Act does include, as a public accommodation: “establishment that provides health care.” Yes according to the Act sex “includes pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.;”
That has absolutely no effect on abortion. Women in this country already do have a constitutional right to abortion. The Act makes no change. The suggestion is — I suppose — that the Act will cause more women to have more abortions which is preposterous.
Health care providers are never required to perform services which they do not perform. The Act doesn’t change that.
The idea that the Equality Act will induce more abortions and require doctors who do not approve of abortions to perform abortions is just dishonest rhetoric. These religious zealots do not have an honest argument so they are floating abortion.
They are also focusing on the 0.5% of the population that is transgender because they cannot come up with a reasonable rationale for discriminating against gay people (which won’t make them cease floating ridiculous propositions).
Assuming average student populations, 10 colleges or universities are required to find just one transgender woman competing in track & field (which seems to be the greatest concern).
It gets more disconnected as Closson parrots the rubbish:
The Equality Act also severely undermines religious liberty. First, by expanding the definition of a public accommodation … churches that operate food banks, homeless shelters, and the like, could be compelled to comply with the Equality Act’s requirements … churches could be required to hire people for non-ministerial positions who do not agree with the church’s beliefs on marriage and sexuality.
Any church will tell you that they operate things like food banks with no discrimination whatsoever. There is the possibility that a homeless shelter would have to accept a trans woman as a woman.
Aside from the minuscule probabilities, so what? A homeless shelter operated by Christians has to accept Muslims and Jews who do not accept the doctrine of the shelter’s operators.
And, yes, they might have to hire LGBTQ people for non-ministerial positions. That is already required in numerous municipalities. Again, so what? What possible impact does that have on the religious beliefs of adherents?
Typically, the administrators of, say, Catholic schools have defended and supported their LGBTQ hires because they judge people based on job performance. Some of the bishops, on the other hand, force schools to terminate LGBTQ people, usually when a gay person gets married. It’s just petty vengeance because they lost that battle after investing considerable time and money in preventing marriage equality.
Closson reiterates the BS about trans females in athletic competition. Then the big lie:
Women’s safety and privacy are also sacrificed on the altar of political correctness by requiring the admittance of biological males who identify as female into bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and changing facilities reserved for biological females.
Is there one case in any jurisdiction in this country of transgender woman compromising the safety of a cisgender woman? I also get down to the numbers. Only about 0.25% of the population are trans females. It is not an everyday occurrence. Where do people think that trans women have been peeing all these years?
Oh, and this:
The financial impact of this would be devastating for Christian colleges and many would be forced to shut down.
Notre Dame hasn’t shut down and they voluntarily embraced equality many years ago without a problem. Father Jenkins, the president of the university welcomes LGBTQ students and recognized marriage equality long before Obergefell. Seven years ago Jenkins said:
… we recognize an urgent call to welcome, support and cherish gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, who have been too often marginalized and even ostracized, and many of whom bear the scars of such treatment.
All 22 Jesuit universities are completely LGBTQ welcoming. Around 2016, Holy Cross provided housing based on gender identity. Many others now do so as well.
In other words, Closson’s claim is baseless fear mongering.
How’s this for self-serving bullshit:
As those who believe that all people are made in God’s image and possess inherent value and dignity, Christians should oppose discrimination. But despite its clever name, the Equality Act does nothing to advance equality or stymie discrimination. Instead, the legislation would mandate conformity to an ideology antithetical to core tenets of the Christian worldview and codify a host of harmful social policies (detailed above) that touch on nearly every facet of life. Therefore, it should be opposed vigorously.
Closson is a liar. If he really believed the “inherent value and dignity” pablum then he would support the Equality Act. “Conformity to an ideology?” That might make some sense to residents of Neptune. For the rest of us, well …
Let us not forget that David Closson chooses to be employed by a vicious anti-LGBTQ hate group.