slug.com slug.com

2 0

LINK What Is The Equality Act? Anti-Discrimination Law Explained : NPR

Very happy to see this legislation.
I was never comfortable with these protections being under a Obama era Executive Order: easy come, easy go.
But now, with the House and the Senate under democratic control and my not seeing any substantive obstacles to it being formalized, it will, hopefully, be law.

(PS: there are republican congresspeople claiming that this act would lead to males (ie transwomen) being able to participate in female sports. I read the and don't see it. Unless this is typical histrionic political grandstanding, can anyone point to where that might be in the ?

TheMiddleWay 8 Feb 25
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The place that it deals with educational environments is

SEC. 4. DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES.

Section 301(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000b(a)) 

is amended by inserting sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' beforeor national origin''.

SEC. 5. DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.

(a) Definitions.--Section 401 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. 2000c🍺) is amended by inserting (including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' beforeor national origin''.
🍺 Civil Actions by the Attorney General.--Section 407 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 2000c-6) is amended, in subsection (a)(2), by inserting
(including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' beforeor
national origin''.
☕ Classification and Assignment.--Section 410 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 2000c-9) is amended by inserting (including sexual orientation and gender identity),'' beforeor national origin''.

Segregation of children by sex (restrooms, lockerrooms, sports) can't be done under this if a complaint is made based on gender identity.

@TheMiddleWay Segregation of sports is not 'a separate but equal' proposition. As a matter of fact, your point about 'separate but equal' per se equality, but the PRACTICE was anything but - and if you think we learned and would therefore put into practice such segregation more equally now, you fail to understand society...as it is now.

@TheMiddleWay You do understand that in States that have the 'sexual orientation and gender identity' language, biological males that identify as girls, whom have been through puberty (or are in it) and have not been on hormones long, ARE ALREADY competing with girls and using facilities. This would just add a layer to the federal law to cover those states that do not have it in their code....

0

it's already illegal - unconstitutional - to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, sex...

this "legislation" is at best merely redundant and at worse intended to supersede The US Constitution itself. One might as well say that they are "creating new law whereby they are making it illegal to break existing law" LOL!!!

Really it is nothing more nor less than a PR / propagandized scheme designed to ingratiate the CPUSA (formerly known as the Democratic Party) to the terminally ignorant victim class.

@TheMiddleWay yes, well I guess all this nonsense was inevitable after it was determined to "normalize" all manner of mental emotional disturbance re sexual, gender personal identification.
Identify as opposite sex all you like if it makes you "happy" - but the scientific fact is that there are only 2 sexes each with its own set of unique chromosome arrangement.
And you leftists accuse the "right" of rejecting science in favor of made up or imaginary bullshite. LOL

@TheMiddleWay yes we could go round and round with this debate and never come to an agreeable conclusion. We have differing ideas about the law, the meaning of the system of mores and beliefs upon which law was initially founded and the definition of equal protection as to whom and where in society it applies.
I believe that as it is (or should be obvious and universally understood) "marriage rights" for example do not apply to same sex couples. But then I have that old fashion idea about what constitutes and is the purpose of Marriage itself. I don't like same sex marriage - I don't see it as having any foundation of logic and purpose but I have to live with the new made up set of "laws" providing for such perversion of the meaning.
So be it. I do not personally recognize such arrangements as having any validity whatsoever. So I guess I will have to live with the knowledge that god will punish me for my "intolerance" and send me to burn in hell for eternity for it. LOL
One thing is certain however - I will be punished here in the present when it is verboten to hold to any ideas, beliefs, traditions that run counter to the amoral dictates of a godless society. LOL!!!

@TheMiddleWay every human being / citizen of USA is already protected under the law. There is no need for creating new law. The question really is not about "equal protection for gays...etc" it is about the definition of equal protection and how and where that applies.

My problem with ANY attempt to legislate away discrimination is that it ALWAYS ends up being about what people THINK rather than what they do. I can't MAKE you be non-discriminatory. That is in your head. As you suggest, it is a mental aberration needing medical intervention..... 😉

@tracycoyle very nicely put - thank you for articulating it better than I was able to do

@TheMiddleWay it depends on what you call or how you define unequal protection - how have this group of people been harmed.

@TheMiddleWay Yes. I have opposed it for decades. I oppose affirmative action for many of the same reasons. I feel that society should impose penalties upon those that act like bigots, but that is the tyranny of the majority as much as tyranny of the government. I can't change how others think, I can only offer an example. Imposing MY beliefs, either in conjunction with others, or by my own imposes upon the rights of others - and it is the inherent rights of the individual that drives my principles more than anything else. Using government to 'fix' society will never do it.

@TheMiddleWay naming something "the civil rights act" does NOT mean that it is a good thing. The left is masterful with manipulative use of language...take "The Dream Act" for another example. Sounds all moral and righteous but it really is a work around - more like an affront really - to rule of law. NOT GOOD. Not good at all.

@TheMiddleWay I would put it in the same category as Lincoln and the Civil War. The United States was a VOLUNTARY association and if the people of a State wanted to leave, they could. That is inherent in the Founding, however, Lincoln was correct that such a divide within the physical continent would have destroyed the Country and it was imperative to remain as a whole. He did the right thing.

The Civil Rights Act(s) reduced people's freedom of association. All laws are an infringement - but I do not support the anarchists, or the libertarians: we NEED government because people WILL deny others their liberties. Society can not survive unfettered free will. We NEEDED to break the societal racism AND the institutional racism.

I think it could have been done differently but it is likely that the United States and the vast majority of it's citizens could not self break from that bigotry. I also have never figured out HOW it could have been done differently...and therefore, like Lincoln's actions, I accept the wrong act, for the right reasons even if it meant violating the spirit and the intent of the Constitution and Founding. Allowing slavery was WRONG at the Founding - but I can't disagree with the Founding Fathers that to force the issue in the 1700s was a losing battle. The failure to pass the Civil Rights Act(s) would likely have caused a similar breach at some time later...(ie the race wars some wanted in the 60s....would have happened eventually).

I don't need laws to tell me how to behave towards others because I stand on the sovereignty of the individual....there are far too few of us to have even a nice island community, let alone a nation...

@TheMiddleWay Cancel culture is the imposition of punishment for wrong-think. That is why free speech is under attack.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:191226
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.