What Happened to “Live and Let Live?”
Never before in human history has a society forced and coerced changes in language standards, pushed the rejection of objective biology, or mandated that 96% of the population alter their worldview and reality for the 4%. Not only is the aforementioned being championed at Democratic debates and town halls, they are a pre-requisite to be a mainstream Democratic contender.
Last week we witnessed the blatant disregard and destruction of the Constitution at the LGBTQ Town Hall hosted by CNN. The timing of the town hall was fitting as it was two days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for cases arguing that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act also includes discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity. Policy and viewpoints centered around the gay rights movement, which now encompasses every gender identity and sexual orientation under the sun, has gone from “live and let live” to embrace, celebrate, and indoctrinate. Indoctrinate in law and personal beliefs.
At the LGBTQ Town Hall — also known as the Equality Town Hall, ironic as it had nothing to do with actual equality — Democratic presidential hopefuls took turns taking stabs at the Bill of Rights in the name of “tolerance” and “progress.” Beto O’Rourke argued that not only should churches lose tax exempt status if they don’t support gay marriage, but any institution – tax exempt or not – should face consequences. I always find it interesting that in the modern-day fight for LGBTQ rights (i.e. special treatment) Mosques are conveniently left out despite their radical stance on homosexuality, in which Muhammad calls for the death penalty.
Elizabeth Warren, now leading the pack for the nomination, has ramped up her radical progressive social policies to include my money and your money. The Massachusetts Senator called for taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries for inmates. As if the policy proposals weren’t outrageous enough, the town hall paraded out two nine-year-old transgender children, had a black trans-woman steal the microphone and go on an impassioned tirade, and included an audience member stating that saying a trans person’s name wrong is an act of violence.
Your comfort level, convenience, feelings and emotions, and subjective interpretation of what justice is does not hold any weight under law. Laws and the Constitution are not malleable to your feelings just as they are not malleable to the passage of time or change in culture. This is why a judge’s job is not to administer justice but to interpret the law as it stands and as it was meant at the time it was written. An objection to any law based on a subjective opinion or culture change warrants an amendment to the law, not a different interpretation.
The Title VII cases are a perfect example of manipulating the law and confusing convenience with rights. The cases in question argue that sexual identity and gender identity fall under the category of discrimination based on “sex” as prohibited by Title VII. The mere argument that in 1964 the authors of the law intended for sex to encompass transgender people and every sexual orientation in the book is a desperate stretch. This argument doesn’t even meet the left’s criteria by today’s politically correct standards that have extremely specific meanings for sex, gender, and sexual orientation. All we’ve been hearing is how different sex is from gender and that sexual preferences are fluid.
If sex is all encompassing, then nearly all types of discrimination is sexist. There’s no such thing as homophobic or transphobic because you’re merely being sexist by this logic. Another huge hole in conflating sex and identity is that sex is rooted in an objective measure. A doctor can easily check if you are male or female; with certain situations excluded such as intersex people but this is a statistical anomaly not the norm. In most cases you can simply look at someone and guess their biological sex with nearly 100% accuracy.
You cannot objectively measure someone’s sexual orientation. There is no “gay gene,” as the left reluctantly and painfully admitted in a recent study that looked at the genomes of a half a million people. Sexual orientation is therefore not an identity trait like skin color or sex, in that you cannot biologically or physically help these characteristics. Sexual orientation is a preference stemming from a combination of innate tendencies and environment. Again, you don’t base laws on urges and feelings, it’s essentially unenforceable because it’s arbitrary.
Regardless of making these rebuttals the very obvious fact remains, the word “sex” in Title VII was never meant or interpreted to account for gender identity or sexual orientation. The only constitutionally sound pathway is to make an amendment to include gender and sexual identity under anti-discrimination statutes. But then you must address the unconstitutional nature of such provisions. Religious liberty is still protected under the law of the land, even with the erroneous abuse it’s been subject to in recent years. Not to mention there is still the fact that no one has an inherent right to goods, services, or employment.
We all want everyone to be treated fairly and respectfully, that is a bipartisan agreement. However, the way to achieve equality is by maximizing freedom, which requires minimal regulation. A religious baker has every right to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake just as an atheist gay baker has every right to refuse to bake for a Christian ceremony. There may be an inconvenience of walking a couple blocks to the next bakery that will take your request but it’s a worthy price to pay for equality of liberty.
There is a reason we are one of the youngest countries yet have the oldest constitution in the world — it works. The Constitution is a suppression of government, not the arbiter of what we are “entitled to.” Therefore, it provides us with true tolerance. Our culture needs to get back to “live and let live.” The good news is, in order to do that we don’t need to amend a thing.
Published On: Alpha News