DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
<
form action=&amp
;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; method=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;p
ost&
quot; target=&am
p;amp;amp;quot;_top&
amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;cmd&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; value=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot
;_s-xclick&a
mp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hidden&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; name=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;hosted_button_id&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; val
ue=&
quot;DKL7ADEKRVUBL&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;input type=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;image&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.payp
alobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; nam
e=&q
uot;submit&a
mp;amp;quot; alt=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;quot;PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
&quo
t;&g
t; &
lt;img alt=&
amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;quot; border=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;0&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; src=&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;https://www.paypalobjects.com
/en_US/i/scr/pixel.gif&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; width=&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; height=&amp
;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;1&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;&am
p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &a
mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/form&
amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;
HTML https://3169.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11958--------------------------------------------------
Social Heart Rot: BY SHERMAN @THEOLOGYONLINE (TOL)
By: Sherman Date: April 15, 2020, 11:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=Arial] I have decided to use this site to post my
theories. I have never done this on a forum before. Some of
you may think I am an ogre after reading this, but I have never
actually put this down in a paper since high school.[/font]
[font=Arial] I’ll begin by stating I tend not to debate over
things that are not salvic issues. Theories concerning the
shape of the planet is not a salvic issue. In this God is
concerned with the intent of the heart. That being said - it’s
controversial enough - that I believe a site that embraces it,
will embrace me. My views on the topic of LGBT are just as
controversial as flat earth cosmology in today’s culture.[/font]
[font=Arial] I used to live in the city of Lincoln Nebraska
15 years ago. The city is pretty old. The streets are lined
with old trees. Some streets are lined with Oak. These trees
live to a great age and grow to a great size. They possess a
preserving substance called tannin, the secret to their
longevity. The one of the trees that has the most tannin in the
green kingdom is the Giant Sequoia. The substance quite
literally preserves the wood and prevents rots. Of interest for
this essay, though, is the green Pennsylvania Ash that was
planted in abundance in Lincoln. It did not possess the
protective tannins. Over time when the Ash incurred a wound, it
would contract brown heart rot that would break the wood up at
the center of the tree into cubes. At first this disease is
invisible as it attacks the wood at the heart of the tree
weakening it. But then yellow conks appear up and down the
trunk. I saw one such tree a few yards from my neighbors house.
At its foot was a large showy yellow fungus tinged with orange.
It has the nickname ‘Chicken of the Woods, as it is said to be
edible. But it's status as a comestible is dubious. People have
sickened after eating it. Brown oozed from a wound in the
trunk. It smelled. Leaves yellowed early and fluttered down
from the thin crown. The tree was dying. I doubted that this
sorry specimen was half as old as one of the magnificent Oaks.
Every year while I lived there in October, when the cool air
moved in, the guady fungus would pop out and the tree would give
off a foul odor. Year by year the tree looked more sickly and
more of the fungus displayed. [/font]
[font=Arial] I then moved to a small town in Minnesota and
watched Ash trees sicken in the same fashion. One came crashing
down taking down power lines. I was without power for several
hours until the city was able to clear the shattered log and
repair the power lines. A fetid odor hung in the air when the
tree was being cut up.[/font]
[font=Arial] Now why do I talk about Pennsylvania Ash and
Brown Heart rot? Cultures go through a similar life cycle.
They start out vigorous and idealistic. Then they spread out
and grow in strength. Then a rot sets in, invisible at first.
This stage may last a century or more. The culture changes,
from ideals focused on the other person, to ideas focused on
self service and self pleasure. The government becomes corrupt
and toxic, marked by murders. Flamboyant sexual perversion
surfaces like a fungus, intruding on every aspect of public
life. Rome decayed in this fashion. It had become a fractured
society that pined away until it was replaced by Christian
culture.[/font]
#Post#: 11960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: Sherman Date: April 15, 2020, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I didn't get the whole thing when I did the paste. Oh well,
I am getting to learn the software on this site. Here's the
other half:
Unless the nation or organization stays anchored to God’s
laws and place Godly people in leadership, the organization is
going to rot within. God’s people something that preserves.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his
savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for
nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of
men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill
cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but
on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. - Matthew
5:13-16
When Christian do not act as salt - or tannin, the society
rots. In fact the rot may even stick to them. It can be seen
in what is happening in our culture today. Everywhere we turn
in the media and in the papers, there is discussion of sexual
immorality. It started out as fornication and adultery. It was
glorified in entertainment and books. There are porn magazines.
Now it gets worse. There is homosexuality, bisexuality and
BDSM. This filth pops out like a gaudy fungus marring our
films, books, and even children’s programs. There’s the Drag
Queen story time at some libraries for children. Thirty years
ago no one would have thought of such a travesty. Immorality
like this marks rejection of God and his principles.
Decay in our society has been going on for some time. It
started with the introduction of Darwinism. Naturalistic
explanations eclipsed biblical explanations. More and more
members of our Western civilization turned away from
Christianity. This secularism entered our schools and
universities. Our society was left without the preserving
effect of a Biblical paradigm and the influence of Christians
grew less and less. Christian were scoffed at at the college
level. Then there was Roe V Wade. By the 1990’s and 2000’s
homosexuality and other perversions encroached on our
entrainment industry. The film Fried Green Tomatoes was
released in 1991. It included a lesbian relationship between
the two principal characters. Other films cast perversion in a
positive light. Bug’s Life by Disney in 1998 has a drag queen
lady bug, Francis. And not too surprisingly, most children hate
the toys of this character. The daughter of my friend would
tear it up with her teeth. Now it is hard to find a animation
by this company that does not have a character that is
transgender or gay somewhere in the film.
Before anyone gets up my nose about me criticizing
transgender and gay, let me say the Bible does not have anything
favorable to say about it. For the sake of this discussion I
will stick to the New Testament since we are under the New
Testament.
Romans 1 22-32
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
And 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom
of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
In old testament times reprobates who engaged in these
things were executed. That is what God thought of these sins.
A lifestyle characterized by these sins is a sign of a spiritual
state that separates a person from God. A society that embraces
them is diseased. I had a person ask me “What do you have
against gays?” I don’t have anything against them as persons.
I have everything against the lifestyle and the sin. I hate
anything that separates people from God and tears at the fabric
of America. This group is making demands that impinge on the
rights of families and Christians. But that is a topic for
another essay.
#Post#: 11972--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: patrick jane Date: April 15, 2020, 10:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sherman, I agree with you and we are basically forced to
"tolerate" these many perversions as just "part of life" or if
we express objection and /or disgust we are branded as racist or
that we discriminate. It is everywhere and promoted by
Hollywood, television and YouTube and every social platform in
fact.
Also, I should as you if you want discussion and commentary in
this thread. Great writing. How is A Culture Warrior? I miss
him.
#Post#: 11997--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: Sherman Date: April 16, 2020, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
He's still writing in his threads and members are still
denigrating him.
Member are free to comment on my threads. I am mostly a writer
of fiction so I don't know how productive I will be on writing
essays.
#Post#: 12136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: patrick jane Date: April 18, 2020, 1:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE5t8EBnOmg
#Post#: 14240--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: patrick jane Date: June 14, 2020, 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][b]Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump
Administration
[/center]
HTML https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration
The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would
remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it
comes to health care and health insurance.
"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have
shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and
enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted
by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, who
directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health
and Human Services, in a written statement announcing that the
HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by
mid-August.
It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump
administration that defines "sex discrimination" as only
applying when someone faces discrimination for being female or
male, and does not protect people from discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Supporters of the new rule said this is a necessary reversal of
Obama-era executive overreach and will reduce confusion about
the legal meaning of "sex discrimination." Critics argue the
rule could further harm an already vulnerable group —
transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic
unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of
police in Minneapolis.
"I can't help but wonder if the timing [of this rule] is by
design so that this is something that people won't pay attention
to," said Tia Sherče Gaynor, a political science professor at
the University of Cincinnati.
What the final rule does
The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. That federal law
established that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of
"race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain
health programs and activities." In 2016, an Obama-era rule
explained that protections regarding "sex" encompass those based
on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither,
or a combination of male and female."
In June 2019, under Trump, the HHS Office for Civil Rights
proposed a rule (the one finalized this week) that reverses the
one from the Obama administration.
Severino said at the time, "We're going back to the plain
meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex." He
also said the rule could save hospitals and insurers and others
$2.9 billion over five years since they will be relieved of the
requirement to print notices of nondiscrimination in several
languages and include them with any "significant" mailings.
Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be
refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office, said Lindsey
Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family
Foundation. Other possible scenarios include a transgender man
being denied treatment for ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy not
being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure
is related to someone's gender transition.
The Trump rule makes changes to gender-based discrimination
protections beyond Section 1557 of the ACA; it affects
regulations pertaining to access to health insurance, for
example, including cost-sharing, health plan marketing and
benefits. The rule could also mean that those seeking an
abortion could be denied care if performing the procedure
violates the provider's moral or religious beliefs.
Even with the rule now finalized, an LGBTQ person who is
discriminated against or denied health care can still sue, and
courts may rule that their civil rights were violated in such a
case. But that's not an easy avenue, Dawson said.
"Because of limited access to litigation, I think that it's fair
to state that the ramifications [of this rule] could be pretty
significant," she said. Protections will also vary based on
where someone lives, she added, so the rule "creates a patchwork
of civil rights, compared to standardized protections."
For Severino, this move has been a long time coming. He joined
the Trump administration from the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank, where he wrote a paper on gender
protections in Section 1557. He's also a devout Catholic and, as
director of the Office for Civil Rights, has made protections of
religious freedom a key focus, including the right of doctors to
refuse to provide care that contradicts their religious or moral
beliefs.
The rule the HHS proposed on gender and discrimination in health
care garnered 155,966 public comments. The final rule is nearly
identical to the original version proposed last year.
Conservative groups, including the Christian Medical
Association, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Heritage
Foundation, applauded the new HHS guidance.
"Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on
biology and science, not ideology," Dr. Jeff Barrows, the
Christian Medical Association's executive vice president for
bioethics and public policy, said after hearing the
announcement.
"We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of
gender issues in health care back toward science and away from
politics and ideology, back to the protection of professional
medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed
ethical and moral standards."
Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation and former colleague of Severino's, submitted a
comment in support of the rule. Anderson said it simply reverses
what he sees as the Obama administration's executive overreach.
"Just for the lawmaking process, it's important that the Trump
administration clarify that that's not what Congress had in mind
when they used the word 'sex,' " he said.
Critics worry about access to health care, especially in a
pandemic
Mari Brighe, a freelance writer and transgender woman who lives
outside Detroit, called the rule "terrifying."
"I can relate a decade of stories about getting terrible health
care because I'm trans," Brighe said. "We walk into any given
health care situation not knowing whether doctors are going to
treat us well, whether we're going to get high quality care,
whether any given, random health care person is going to be
terrible to us."
Once, when seriously ill with the flu and having trouble
breathing, Brighe recalled, she was sent home from a hospital in
rural New York and ended up driving 90 minutes and crossing a
lake by ferry to get treatment at a hospital in Vermont.
She said worries now that the rule could make transgender people
— who are already reluctant to seek medical care — all the more
likely to avoid coronavirus treatment and testing.
"The way that [the rule] reads to me is that people could refuse
to collect your COVID specimen because they don't want to touch
a trans person," she said. "That's a recipe for spreading a
really terrible pandemic among a really, really vulnerable
population."
"I can't help but think about how this impacts black trans
people," said Gaynor, the political science professor, who noted
that African American transgender people are "arguably the most
marginalized group in our country."
African Americans who get COVID-19 are much more likely to die
from that disease than are white Americans, statistics show. A
recent report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that
hundreds of thousands of transgender adults may be especially
vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have an underlying
condition, are over 65, lack health insurance or live in
poverty.
For black transgender people, Gaynor said, "it's layers of
oppression — it's transphobia on top of racism on top of
economic oppression." All of that could affect their ability to
get health care during the pandemic, she said, which in turn
could have public health implications for all.
Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University,
noted that the new rule could have another chilling effect.
"Even if no one actually does discriminate more because of the
rule, you've created a fear," Keith said.
She pointed to research documenting how the "public charge" rule
— which penalizes people who are seeking to become citizens if
they use public safety net programs such as nutrition and
housing assistance — affected people and programs outside the
scope of the rule itself.
"When they target these vulnerable populations, you see less
enrollment in health insurance," she said. "You see folks scared
to go to the doctor."
Although the Heritage Foundation's Anderson supports the rule,
he said the prospect that it could have a chilling effect is "a
very reasonable concern."
"I don't think any reasonable person wants to see transgender
people not enrolling in health care plans and not having access
to health care," Anderson said. What's needed, he said, is a
"finer grain" approach to this issue — such as a new law in
Congress that protects LGTBQ people from health care
discrimination generally but carves out protection for providers
to refuse to provide care related to sex reassignment.
What's next? a word from the high court and, perhaps, Congress
Now that it's marked "final," this rule — which was issued by an
agency of the executive branch — may now encounter hurdles via
the two other branches of the federal government.
This month, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh
in on two major cases on the meaning of the word "sex" in
employment discrimination. The two cases involve issues closely
related to the legal questions at play in Severino's HHS rule,
and the high court's decision might have major implications for
the rule's legal footing.
"It's wild that they're finalizing this rule before we have the
Supreme Court decision," Keith said.
Meanwhile, in Congress, House Democrats have already asserted
that they strongly disagree with the HHS rule. In early May,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that read, in part: "The
Administration must immediately abandon this outrageous,
un-American plan and give LGBTQ individuals the reassurance that
they will never be denied the health care they or their families
need."
Now that the final rule is out, Congress does have a way of
invalidating it, using the Congressional Review Act. That would
only happen in this case if — within 60 days that Congress is in
session — Trump were no longer president, and simple majorities
in both chambers of Congress voted to block the rule. Even if
Democrats win big in November, it's not clear if that's a
possibility given the tricky timeline — Congress is typically in
recess in August, and the COVID-19 pandemic may complicate
matters further
The date at which the final rule would be able to avoid this
congressional threat is a moving target, Keith said. "Folks are
watching the calendar now [wondering], 'When is that 60-day
legislative deadline?' "
What's much more certain, she said, is that there will be
lawsuits to try to overturn the rule or block it from going into
effect.
On Friday, less than an hour after HHS issued its press release,
LGBTQ activist group Lambda Legal said it would challenge the
new rule in court.
"Today's rule is a tragically failed public health policy and
just flat-out illegal," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal senior
attorney and health care strategist, said in a written
statement. "We will be challenging the rule because at a time
when the entire world is battling a dangerous pandemic, which in
the United States has infected more than 2,000,000 people and
killed more than 116,000, it is critical for everyone to have
ready access to the potentially lifesaving health care they
need."
Unless someone does file a lawsuit that results in a judge
putting the rule on hold, it is set to go into effect 60 days
from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register.
#Post#: 14304--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: patrick jane Date: June 17, 2020, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://www-images.christianitytoday.com/images/117827.jpg?w=940[/img]
HTML https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/june-web-only/bostock-supreme-court-ruling-religious-liberty-implications.html
LGBT Rights Ruling Isn't the Beginning of the End for Religious
Liberty
Social conservatives liked Neil Gorsuch before they didn’t.
Maybe they were right the first time.
The US Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County,
Georgia is not the last word on the conflict between LGBT rights
and religious freedom rights. In fact, Bostock could be the
first step in breaking the impasse.
The case will certainly have major implications for religious
exercise. But contrary to initial reactions, this decision
should not be read as a decision that dooms religious liberty in
America, but rather as an inevitable step toward something
Congress and most state legislatures have thus far been unable
to do: crafting a compromise that balances LGBT rights and
religious freedom.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia involved a man named Gerald
Bostock—by all accounts an exemplary worker with a decade on the
job—who was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a government employee
shortly after he had started participating in a gay softball
league. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the 1964
federal law barring employment discrimination “on the basis of
sex” protects people who are discriminated against because of
sexual orientation and gender identity. And by a 6-3 margin, the
court ruled that it does.
Social conservatives were distraught. Robert George described
the majority opinion as “sophistical” and the position it
endorsed “untenable.” “Hard to overstate the magnitude of this
loss for religious conservatives,” added Rod Dreher. Denny Burk
said the decision “eviscerated” religious liberty, while Andrew
Walker called the opinion “devastating,” adding, “If you're a
Christian higher ed institution taking federal monies, buckle
up.”
Denny Burk
✔
@DennyBurk
Indeed. Pray for Christian business owners. Their ability to
operate their business in accordance with their religious
conscience just took a major blow.
The Supreme Court just eveiscerated religious liberty.
Cannot overstate how disastrous this decision is.
HTML https://twitter.com/puredesigntees/status/1272542084789125121
…
From Twitter:
PureDesignTees
@PureDesignTees
Replying to @DennyBurk
Say a prayer for Christian business owners everywhere.
70
9:54 AM - Jun 15, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
64 people are talking about this
These reactions, while understandable, are premature. Bostock,
while a significant decision following 2015’s Obergefell v.
Hodges, is limited in what it can tell us about the future of
religious freedom. Its implications for future cases involving
religious organizations and institutions are real, yes, but for
people concerned about the future of religious liberty, there is
reason for cautious optimism.
It should be noted, for one thing, that the majority opinion in
the case was authored by Neil Gorsuch. His appointment to the
Supreme Court was lauded by many of the same people criticizing
his ruling now—and it’s possible they were right the first time.
Gorsuch ruled the way he did because of his commitment to the
conservative legal philosophy called textualism. This is the
philosophy famously embraced by the conservative justice Antonin
Scalia. The philosophy says that judges ought not extrapolate
principles from laws and rule based on these extrapolations. Nor
should they try to imagine the intents of the many lawmakers who
bargained and bartered their way to the passage of a bill. Those
approaches leave too much leeway for creative interpretation and
judicial activism. Judges should rather, according to Scalia and
Gorsuch, restrict themselves to the plain, ordinary meaning of
the text of the law. They should ask, what do the words say?,
and make limited rulings based on that.
David French notes that Gorsuch’s legal philosophy shaped the
whole case. Bostock’s attorneys appeared to make their arguments
expressly with Gorsuch in mind.
You can see how textualism works in Gorsuch’s opinion. He
dedicates pages of analysis to interpreting the meaning of “sex”
and “discrimination” when Title VII of the 1964 law was written.
The analysis is cautious and relies on the dictionaries of the
era to interpret the ordinary meaning of those terms at the time
the statue was being drafted. Gorsuch concludes that
“homosexuality and transgender status are inextricably bound up
with sex,” as “sex” was understood in 1964, so Title VII
necessarily protects sexual orientation and gender identity from
employment discrimination.
While other conservative justices disagree with Gorsuch’s
textualism in this case—Samuel Alito, notably, calls the
decision “preposterous”—there is little reason for people who
care about religious liberty to doubt Gorsuch is a legal ally.
He has a record, after all, of applying textualism in religious
freedom cases. Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in Masterpiece
Cakeshop, defending a Christian baker’s right not to make a cake
for a same-sex wedding, shows this. In the ruling, as Robert
George has explained, he critiques a colleague’s understanding
of what a wedding cake is and, importantly in that case, what it
means. In doing so, Gorsuch demonstrates that he understands the
crucial issues of conscience.
In the Bostock ruling, he writes: “We are also deeply concerned
with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion
enshrined in our Constitution.” He explicitly says that
religious liberty issues will likely come up for other employees
in other cases and there will need to be other rulings.
Gorsuch also indicates his understanding of the issue in some
sublte ways. He favorably cites the Hosanna-Tabor case, in which
the court unanimously exempted ministers from employment
discrimination laws. Gorsuch also calls the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act a “super statute, displacing the normal
operation of other federal laws,” suggesting that it protect
religious liberty in the hypothetical cases worrying religious
conservatives post-Bostock.
While defenders of religious freedom have reason to be more
concerned after Bostock than before, there is more reason for
optimism. Case after case in recent years—Hosanna-Tabor, Hobby
Lobby, Holt, Trinity Lutheran, Masterpiece Cakeshop—have
protected religious exercise. There is no reason to believe the
court is poised to roll back protections for religious liberty.
If anything, the appetite exists to expand them.
The controversy at the heart of Bostock has been foreshadowed
for decades, intensifying in the years since the court’s
landmark gay rights decisions. As a result, there have been
efforts at all levels of government to balance LGBT rights with
protections for religious freedom. Utah is often held as a
standard for such a compromise, as a bipartisan bill of this
sort was signed into law in 2015, just months before Obergefell.
At the federal level, however, these measures, commonly called
Fairness for All, have stalled. Democrats appear to have
consolidated around the Equality Act, which grants legal
protections to LGBT Americans without any religious exemptions.
At the same time, many religious conservatives do not support
Fairness for All, saying any law protecting someone like Bostock
from getting fired because of his sexual orientation is
unreconcilable with religious liberty. And now, opponents of the
Fairness for All proposals are citingBostock to justify their
opposition, saying that once sexual orientation and gender
identity are protected, there is no guarantee that religious
freedom protections will be maintained.
Given larger cultural trends favoring LGBT rights, recognizing
sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act may have been inevitable. But the court’s
opinion here does not mean it is game over for religious freedom
arguments in these disputes. It means that the debate rages on,
most likely through the courts.
Despite some of the initial reactions, Bostock could conceivably
be the first step in breaking the impasse. Those praising the
court for its decision in Bostock will probably criticize
related decisions in the future, and those upset today could
very well be praising the Court in future cases involving
religious freedom. While Fairness for All has not fared well in
the legislative process, it is not difficult to see how the
basic ideas of the proposal could be enacted via a series of
judicial rulings, especially under the current composition of
the court. Legal protections for LGBT Americans balanced with
religious liberty exemptions may win the day after all.
Our pluralist society guarantees conflict and is dependent on
compromise. While this process isn’t always comfortable,
Christians should nevertheless come away from Bostock hopeful
for the future. This does not deny the necessity of strategic
engagement moving forward; such engagement is needed now more
than ever. But our engagement must be paired with hope—not a
naďve hope in a flawed and fallen political and legal system,
but hope in him who has overcome the world.
Daniel Bennett is associate professor of political science at
John Brown University. He is also assistant director of the
Center for Faith and Flourishing, and is president of Christians
in Political Science.
Speaking Out is Christianity Today ’s guest opinion column and
(unlike an editorial) does not necessarily represent the opinion
of the publication.
#Post#: 15001--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: Firestarter Date: July 10, 2020, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In 2012, Donald Trump donated $20,000 to homosexual activists of
the [I]Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network[/I] (GLSEN)
that promoted: 1) "fisting" to middle school students; 2) books
excusing homosexual paedophilia; 3) “homosexuality" to children
as early as kindergarten.
“Fisting” is stuffing a fist up the “anus” for sexual reasons.
Kevin Jennings founded GLSEN in 1990. He and (other) homosexual
teachers (including Jaki Williams) began indoctrinating children
about the LGBT lifestyle from the age of 5.
This included teachers “casually” showing that a “mother a
father” for “parents” is just as “normal” as “two dads” or “two
moms”.
Jennings has stated that he was “inspired” by Harry Hay, who
publicly stated that homosexual statutory rape is “[I]precisely
what 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old kids need more than anything else
in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming
the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of
experience that they would need[/I]”:
HTML https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/donald-trump-donated-to-group-that-promotes-homosexuality-in-kindergarten-f
(
HTML http://archive.is/11tpF)
Trump defended this donation, by telling that it wasn’t his own
choice. These donations were part of Trump's role in his reality
television show, in which Trump would make a matching donation
to charities of the choice of the guests on the show.
Aubrey O'Day appeared on “[I]Celebrity Apprentice[/I]” and was
playing to benefit GLSEN. That show was executive produced by
Trump’s friend Jeff Zucker, who has since become CNN president
with the help of the Donald
See Zucker, Donald and Melania in 2004.
[IMG]
HTML https://archive.is/b9Sr3/1cc41b3935b596fa5e44cc4fc10b2f0688b04bdf.jpg[/img]
HTML https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trumps-donations-to-lgbt-groups-were-part-of-reality-tv-show-not-private-ph
#Post#: 15421--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: Firestarter Date: July 20, 2020, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The associate of Steve Bannon (who was really the mastermind
behind the 2016 Trump campaign) Trump supporter Milo
Yiannopoulos has been advocating gay paedophilia, between adult
men and 14-year-old boys.
HTML https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg
Yiannopoulos said: [quote]We get hung up on this sort of child
abuse stuff, to the point where we are heavily policing
consensual adults.
In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those
relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of
‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which
those older men help those young boys discover who they are and
give them security and safety and provide them with love and a
reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.
But you know what? I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t
give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.[/quote]
HTML https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite
(
HTML http://archive.is/wmhdo)
[quote]On July 19, 2016, Gays for Trump hosted a party, called
"Wake Up!", at the Wolstein Center, in Cleveland, Ohio, United
States, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. Speakers
at the party were Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller and the VIP
guests at the party were Ann Coulter, Amy Kremer, Lisa De
Pasquale, Genevieve Wood, Geert Wilders, and Roger Stone.
Richard B. Spencer also attended the party.
On January 20, 2017, Gays for Trump hosted an inauguration
party, called "Gays for Trump DeploraBall Gala", was held at the
Bolger Center Hotel in Potomac, Maryland, United States. The
party celebrated the inauguration of Donald Trump to the
presidency of the United States.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_for_Trump
#Post#: 15434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Social Heart Rot
By: guest8 Date: July 20, 2020, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Firestarter link=topic=897.msg15421#msg15421
date=1595260780]
The associate of Steve Bannon (who was really the mastermind
behind the 2016 Trump campaign) Trump supporter Milo
Yiannopoulos has been advocating gay paedophilia, between adult
men and 14-year-old boys.
HTML https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg
Yiannopoulos said: [quote]We get hung up on this sort of child
abuse stuff, to the point where we are heavily policing
consensual adults.
In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those
relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of
‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which
those older men help those young boys discover who they are and
give them security and safety and provide them with love and a
reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.
But you know what? I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t
give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.[/quote]
HTML https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/19/video-surfaces-of-milo-yiannopoulos-defending-pedophilia-acu-board-reportedly-not-consulted-on-cpac-invite
(
HTML http://archive.is/wmhdo)
[quote]On July 19, 2016, Gays for Trump hosted a party, called
"Wake Up!", at the Wolstein Center, in Cleveland, Ohio, United
States, during the 2016 Republican National Convention. Speakers
at the party were Milo Yiannopoulos and Pam Geller and the VIP
guests at the party were Ann Coulter, Amy Kremer, Lisa De
Pasquale, Genevieve Wood, Geert Wilders, and Roger Stone.
Richard B. Spencer also attended the party.
On January 20, 2017, Gays for Trump hosted an inauguration
party, called "Gays for Trump DeploraBall Gala", was held at the
Bolger Center Hotel in Potomac, Maryland, United States. The
party celebrated the inauguration of Donald Trump to the
presidency of the United States.[/quote]
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_for_Trump
[/quote]
Like the days of Naoh, we are in...A little faith will go a long
ways.
Blade
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page