Happy Hour News Briefs
Christian Post goes long and tells us all the reasons why Congress should not add Sexual Orientation to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you know, because it is a choice.
“On April 2, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the “Equality Act”—better termed the “Inequality Act”—a piece of legislation masquerading as a civil rights protection that would actually increase inequality and harm women and children. This bill has been introduced before, but has new life because of the Democratic majority in the U.S. House. It would amend virtually every area of federal civil rights law to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” not only in the area of employment, but also public accommodations, housing, credit, and a raft of other areas.
“The Equality Act would begin by amending the granddaddy non-discrimination law of them all—the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was the law passed at the height of the African-American civil rights movement of the 1960’s in order to break the back of the pervasive Jim Crow racial segregation laws in the deep South. Without much debate, Congress also prohibited discrimination based on “sex.” What both race and sex have in common is that they are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous—and in the U.S. Constitution. None of these criteria apply to “sexual orientation” (or “gender identity”). Yet the Equality Act would add these “categories” to federal law nonetheless.”
Oh dear. My spidey senses are telling me we’re about to get a heapin’ helpin’ of Conversion Therapy…
“The truth is, “sexual orientation” is a multi-faceted concept, involving a combination of attractions, behaviors, and personal identity. These four studies all demonstrate that significant change in each of the elements of sexual orientation is possible. The percentage changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality ranged from 13% to 53% (while the percentage changing from heterosexuality to homosexuality ranged only from 1% to 12%). In one survey of “same-sex attracted respondents,” up to 38% of men and 53% of women “changed to heterosexuality” in only a six-year period.”
OK, so if I understand the Xristian Post’s argument correctly, they are saying that if you can be converted, then whatever the protected class is is NOT really innate and therefore should not be protected.
Religion then should not be protected a protected class according to their argument. I know plenty of people who have flickered between faiths, dropped faiths, picked up faiths. It is not innate, you are not born that way.