The "Fairness For All" act, introduced by Republican Congressman Chris Stewart of Utah, is a bill intended to bring about a truce between Bible-believing Christians and antichrist LGBTs. Its objective is supposedly to protect religious freedom while ensuring that LGBTs are not unfairly discriminated against. Sounds good on the surface until you actually read the text of the sixty-nine page bill itself; some of those pages being a load of redundancy.
The bill promises religious exemptions for the following:
1. Appointment of and the duties performed by clergy
2. Religious camps and retreats
3. Places of worship
4. Religious academic institutions
5. Online operations conducted by a religious institution
6. Any property owned by a church or other religious institution [1]
But if any religious institution engages in any kind of commercial activity that are not perceived to have anything to do with a religious purpose, any potential persecutors could argue that religious exemptions do not apply to them at that moment in time [2]
But those religious exemptions do not extend to Christian owned businesses with more than fifteen employees and while the First Amendment rights of small businesses may be protected under the FFA act, larger businesses may not be. [3]
It also fails to protect marriage and family educational/strengthening programs and entities, including religious ones. [4] Even faith-based marriage and family strengthening entities would still have to affirm LGBT behavior and relationships.
Furthermore, while the bill promises protections for religious institutions, its ability to deliver on those promises is undermined by section 601 of the bill which amends the 1964 Civil rights act [5] to include LGBT behavior among characteristics that are unchangeable, [6] thereby making LGBTs a protected class. [7, 8] Passage of this law could essentially sabotage and eliminate progress made by the Trump administration to protect religious freedom [8] and leave religious entities open to persecution and penalization.
Faith-based foster care and adoption agencies receiving government aid in any form would be made especially vulnerable despite the promises of protection in the bill because if it is determined that they are in violation of section 601, if they should turn away LGBTs from adopting a child or participating in the foster care program, they could lose that aid [9] and that goes for any faith-based organization for that matter that is receiving any form of government aid. [10]
Proponents of the legislation have promised also that the FFA would not undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) but when we view section 4705 which lists the laws and rights that are not affected by the FFA, RFRA does appear to be listed. [11]
And when it comes to the use of public facilities such as locker rooms, restrooms, and public accommodations such fitness centers and spas, and occupations that are best carried out by one gender or another, it does not forthrightly tell us as to whether or not "gender" is in reference to biological gender or gender identity [12] though section 4 in subparagraphs (c) and (d) seem to suggest that employers hiring those of a certain gender for jobs requiring performance by a certain gender cannot refuse non-binary and transgender applicants. [13]
This has caused major concern about the public safety of girls and women among opponents of the bill [14, 15] who fear that sexual predators could easily exploit Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) protections to their own ends. After all, how is anyone supposed to tell the authentic non-binaries and transgenders from the pretenders? You can't, since anyone can claim to identify as being a gender not corresponding with their birth gender.
The LGBTs at large do not care how many people get victimized by sexual predators as a result of SOGI protections demanding that businesses, schools, and other public venues allow non-binaries and transgenders use whatever facilities they choose, even if they are gender-designated facilities that do not correspond to their biological gender.
If as a result of these extended SOGI protections your child gets molested, the LGBT don't care.
And men, if your sister, girlfriend, fiancé, wife, mother, daughter, or any woman whom you hold dear gets raped, kidnapped, or murdered, the LGBT don't care.
They want to be able to walk into a women's restroom or girl's locker room if they so desire, no matter how many people get victimized by sexual predators exploiting SOGI protections to their own ends. That is how self-centered and evil the LGBT agenda is.
Now granted, there are some LGBTs who understand what tolerances is and just want to live their lives and who also understand the harm that could come from the overreach of SOGI protections [16] but sadly, they are in the minority and not the majority.
The vast majority of the LGBT are antichrist and will not rest content until everyone affirms and celebrates their way of life. As some have already noted [17, 18] the LGBTs are not interested in any kind of truce or compromise and therefore, it is pointless to even try.
LGBTs have every right to preach what they want, have their gay pride parades, celebrate what they will, establish and run their own businesses, produce whatever kind of entertainment and media they want, and make up whatever religion they want. They have the same basic freedoms as everyone else and they are not being systematically imprisoned, beaten, tortured, or killed in our country like they are in Islamic ruled countries. And yet they are not content with being entitled to the same basic liberties as the rest of us because they want to crush all dissenting viewpoints, regardless of what basis the dissenting viewpoints are founded on and impose upon society a systematic LGBT sexual ideology.
But in spite of the dangers of this legislative piece, a number of religious organizations and religious freedom groups have come out in support of the law because of its promises to preserve First Amendment protections. Among those who support the legislation have been:
The Seventh Day Adventist Church
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (a.k.a the Mormon Church)
The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities
The Center for Public Justice
First Amendment Partnership [19]
One has to wonder whether or not any of the people representing the aforementioned entities even took the time to read the legislation before endorsing it. If they did not, then how irresponsible of them, but what I fear more than foolishness is that the representatives of these organizations may know exactly what they are doing and are attempting to deceive their followers and supporters into thinking that this bill will protect their religious freedoms while satisfying the demands of LGBTs.
The National Evangelical Association also supported the bill but withdrew its support after facing a backlash. [20]
What is even more troubling is that The Center for Public Justice and First Amendment Partnership with American Unity Fund which is an LGBT behavior affirming organization despite is professed conservatism. [21]
But praise God for the organizations and notable persons who at least had the good sense not to endorse the legislation:
Robert P. George of Princeton University
Albert Mohler
Russell Moore
Jeff Myers of Summit Ministries
Several top Catholic Bishops
Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse
Heritage Foundation
Family Research Council
Concerned Women for America
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission [22]
As Answers In Genesis founder Ken Ham reminds us, things are not always what they appear:
Beware of names. For example, Separate but Equal in the US was anything but equal. The Affordable Healthcare Act was anything but affordable. So, should the Fairness for All Act as proposed by the US Congress be taken at face value? Actually, it is another attack on biblical Christianity. [23]
We know that the Democrat party is clearly an antichrist organization, but that this bill was written and proposed by a Republican Congressman should remind us that the spirit of antichrist is not confined to any political entity, but it can also infiltrate those organizations and entities not perceived to be hostile to Christianity and which are even known to be defenders of the faith which is why it is important to keep a look out not only for what is coming from those whom we recognize to be our enemies, but also to keep watch on what is happening within our own ranks because the most dangerous adversary is not the adversary whom we can easily recognize but the adversary who is the most dangerous is the one who infiltrates our ranks, pretends to be one of us, and yet attempts to destroy from within what he could not destroy from without.
The destruction from within is very subtle and slow; a process that can take place over a number of years and generations. That is why it is important that every place of worship, religious organization, and political entity hold its members accountable for what they say and do. Without accountability, that institution becomes removed from the core principles and creeds upon which it was founded until it becomes completely unrecognizable from what it originally once was and led far away from the mission and purpose for which it was established. It eventually loses its identity and relevance.
History is full of examples of movements, organizations, and institutions that started off well on good and beneficial principles and established for a good purpose but sadly, because their members neglected to maintain their base from within, those movements, organizations, entities, and institutions became far removed from their intended purpose for which they were established and from the sound principles and creeds upon which they were built.
That is why we must hold accountable not just any Democrats who support this legislation, but also the Republicans who have authored and endorsed this deceitful legislation. We cannot just assume that our enemies are confined to just the left. We also need to keep watch for enemies even within the ranks of the right as well.
Some would like to give Republican Congressman Chris Stewart the benefit of the doubt in that the legislation is a misguided attempt to strike a reasonable compromise between the LGBT community and Christians concerned about the attacks on their religious liberties, and as much as I would like to believe that, I fear that the author of the FFA may be deliberately trying to craft a deceptive piece of legislation for the purpose of lulling concerned Christians into a false sense of security by having them believe that the FFA will safeguard their religious liberties.
The antichrist Equality Act, because it lacked religious exemptions, was a blatant attack on religious liberty, but the FFA is an attack that is more subtle and though undetectable on the surface, becomes revealed when one takes the time to read the fine print.
If Chris Stewart's intentions behind this bill are well meant, then it should be expected that he is open to reforms in the legislation so as to close any loopholes that could be exploited by antichrist forces, but if he is not open to revisions in order to assuage the concerns and skepticism within the Christian community, then there can be no other conclusion drawn except that he is an antichrist under the title of Republican, only his attack is more subtle than the attacks coming from the Democrats who clearly are antichrist.
One reform that Stewart should consider making is an alteration to the abbreviated title of his bill. FFA not only stands for the "Fairness For All" for all act, it also stands for "Future Farmers of America," which has been around long before the "Fairness For All" act had even come to the congressman's mind. How long until Stewart runs afoul of a possible trademark violation?
End Notes:
1. Chris Stewart, Republican Congressman, "H.R. 5331; Fairness For All Act; Sec. 2 Prohibition Against Discrimination or Segregation In Places of Public Accomodation," pg. 3; subparagraph (C), pp. 4-6, House of Representatives, 116th Congress; First Session
https://stewart.house.gov/sites/stewart.house.gov/files/FFA_5331.pdf
2. Ibid. pg. 4 subparagraph (9)
3. Ibid. pg. 5 subparagraph (B)
4. Ibid. Section 608, pg. 11 subparagraph (d)
5. Ibid. Section 3, pg. 9
6. "The Unfairness of the 'Fairness for All Act,'" Family Research Council
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF19L21.pdf
7. Ken Ham, "Is the 'Fairness for All Act' Fair for All?" Answers In Genesis, December 16, 2019
https://answersingenesis.org/religious-freedom/is-the-fairness-for-all-act-fair-for-all/
8. "Letter to the Hill: The Fairness For All Act," Heritage Action for America, November 20, 2019
https://heritageaction.com/blog/letter-to-the-hill-the-fairness-for-all-act
9. Stewart, Section 610, pp. 14-19
10. Ibid. Section 608, pp. 10-11, Section 609, pg. 14
11. Ibid. Section 4705, pg. 58
12. Ibid. Section 2, pg. 6, Section 611, pp. 31-32
13. Ibid. Section 4 subparagraphs (c) and (d) pp. 42-43
14. Family Research Council, "The Unfairness of the 'Fairness for All Act,'"
15. Heritage Action, "Letter to the Hill: The Fairness for All Act,"
16. Family Research Council, "The Unfairness of the 'Fairness for All Act,'"
17. Ibid.
18. Ham, "Is the 'Fairness for All Act' Fair for All?"
19. Harvest Prude, "Controversial Compromise," World, December 6, 2019
https://world.wng.org/2019/12/controversial_compromise
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ham, "Is the 'Fairness for All Act' Fair for All?"
No comments:
Post a Comment