12 May 2019

Dear Friends and Patriots,

H.R. 5? What is that? It’s a bill registered in the U.S. House of Representatives on 13 March 2019. Its short title is the “Equality Act.” Is your curiosity piqued yet? If not, get it piquing! You need to understand what this act says and what it is intended to do.

I first want to make a personal declaration. I don’t much care what a person is, what they do, how they dress, how they talk, who their friends are, where they live or who they live with, what they do when they’re alone, or what they do with anyone else, as long as all of those things are done with free will and, when another person is involved, that other person is also exercising their free will. I’m a libertarian. Most of the things H.R. 5 is concerned with aren’t any concern of mine, nor any of my business. I’m also a Christian who’s mindful that Jesus declared as the second-most important of God’s laws, “Love thy neighbor as thine own self.” I’m also mindful of the many, many times in the Holy Bible where you find admonitions to leave judging of others to God.

Recall the so-called “open bathroom” Executive Order the Obama administration passed down through the Department of Education and other parts of government. It was the policy that essentially stated the choice of bathrooms to use was one any individual could make, depending not on what they were, but what they felt they were. In plain English, a male who “felt” female was legally allowed to avail himself of female facilities. One thing President Trump rescinded in his early days in office was the “open bathroom” policy. Well, H.R. 5 is an attempt to reinstate that policy by making it the law of the land. That’s just one aspect of the bill you need to know. There are others.

Below are some specifics from H.R. 5. Taking it from the top, these are a few curious aspects of the bill:

• Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib signed on as co-sponsors. Understand that Muslim traditions, Qur’anic teachings, and some aspects of Sharia conflict with several aspects of H.B. 5. Do you find that curious? It’s not, really.

• The purpose of the bill as stated is: To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and for other purposes. The specification of gender identity is one broad hint about the bill. Then there’s that “and for other purposes” part.

• Most of the bill refers to LBGT people, but there are several inclusive references to “ … and women.” Gender identity is prominently mentioned through-out.

• Finding #7 in the bill states: The discredited practice known as “conversion therapy” is a form of discrimination that harms LGBT people by undermining individuals sense of self worth, increasing suicide ideation and substance abuse, exacerbating family conflict, and contributing to second class status. If enacted into law H.B. 5 would intrude into the practice of psychiatric medicine. It would also legalize some very bad punctuation practices.

• Finding #11 states, in part: Individuals who are LGBT, or are perceived to be LGBT, have been subjected to a history and pattern of persistent, widespread, and per-vasive discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity by both private sector and Federal, State, and local government actors, including in employ-ment, housing, and public accommodations, and in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. An explicit and comprehensive national solution is needed to address such discrimination, including the full range of remedies available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• Findings #14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 contain statements that infer references not cited, inserted to bolster the arguments made by the “Findings.” All are easy to challenge on merit and accuracy.

• As a whole the “Findings” section of this bill is written more as a manifesto than a citation of objectively provable or proven facts.

• The majority of the bill is comprised of references to the various sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the changes cited to update it. In almost every case you find these words with indications for where they would be inserted into the existing text of the Act: sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity).

• In SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES, (a) Definitions, (1) RACE; COLOR; RELIGION; SEX; SEXUAL ORIENTATION; GENDER IDENTITY; NATIONAL ORIGIN, (2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth. And, (3) INCLUDING, (C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and (D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits. And, (b) Rules, (2) with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

• In SEC. 10. HOUSING, (a) Fair Housing Act, (1), (q) ‘Race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’), ‘handicap’, ‘familial status’, or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an individual, includes, (2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), handicap, familial status, or national origin, respectively, of the individual.”

Read the entire bill as proposed, then decide what you make of it. What I make of it is relatively simple. I’m reminded of The Green New Deal bill that was entered into the record this session of Congress. H.R. 5 is a progressive social policy statement. Like much that progressives do these days the intent is at least twofold. It puts out a progressive philosophy statement gussied up to give the appearance of an attempt to change the law of the land. With the Senate in Republican hands, the Democrats in the House understand the Senate equivalent of H.R. 5 will never get reported out of committee.

H.R. 5 is also an attempt to further solidify the legal concept that sexual orientation and such things as gender identity should be considered equal to race as far as minority status. If passed all LBGT (don’t forget the -QRSXYZ, too) will have full access to the same legal remedies as existing protected classes. The difference is, before recent times protected classes were people whose minority identity was a fact of birth or an unalterable physical circumstance, such as an accident or disease-related disability. In many instances, perhaps most, that just isn’t true with the LBGT community, and certainly those referenced under the “gender identity” category.

The most troublesome aspect of this bill relates to provisions regarding gender identity. You read above the requirement of access to “a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.” In other words if a male presents himself as female and insists on using facilities dedicated to segregated female use, he could not be denied. We’ve already seen this play out just as critics feared. Use your imagination on this one, if you haven’t already. You can be assured whatever scenario you can conjure up has happened already or will in the future.

There’s also the aspect of gender identity that involves reality. This bill would bolster the causes of those who deny science to promote their concepts of “gender fluidity.” Science identifies humans by sex. It informs us that sex is determined by DNA and physical attributes. Many of those physical attributes can be surgically altered, but DNA is forever. Those with Y-chromosomes are males. Those without Y-chromosomes are females. That’s science. That’s undeniable truth. Any other consideration is psychiatric, not physical. A person who is genetically one sex, yet insists they are the other suffers from gender dysphoria. It may or may not be a treatable condition, but it’s still mainly a psychiatric condition, not an unalterable reality.

Another facet of the bill that may not be clear relates to the rights of businesses to refuse service to clients whose requests offend them. Think of the cases of bakers who have refused to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages. This bill could make it impossible for future business people to refuse work that might put them in conflict with their religious beliefs and practice.

It seems reasonable to contend another purpose of this bill is to further the decline of morality in our nation. It’s no accident that the two Muslim women signed on as co-sponsors. They have no actual interest in the purported purposes of the bill, but they do have an interest in the predictable outcome. They understand the bill as one that serves their purposes. Even if it never gets to a floor vote you can be certain they will point to it in their own Muslim communities as evidence of America’s status as the most degenerate nation on Earth. We can certainly debate standards that might indicate how degenerate any society is, but from a strictly Muslim point of view America is already pretty evil.

We might want to argue each and every aspect of the various points of view, but that might cause the major point to be missed. H.R. 5 serves the interests of progressives who want to weaken America to further globalist interests. It serves the interests of fringe minority groups who assume the divisiveness H.R. 5 could engender would help their causes. It serves the interests of atheist and other anti-religious groups who seek to weaken or eliminate all aspects of religious expression in our society.

Think for a moment about whose interest H.R. 5 doesn’t serve. It doesn’t serve mine. I doubt it serves yours. I doubt it serves any interest of 95% of all Americans, and that includes those who are currently covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Do you think H.R. 5 was put forth in good faith? I personally believe it’s little but an attempt at manipulation. The progressives in Congress want to keep their anti-American agenda alive and keep people talking about it. They know this bill has zero chance of going to a vote. They know if it went to a vote it would never become law. Not today. But progressives don’t care. Today isn’t as important as “eventually.” Keep in mind there was a day when there were no progressives in Congress. They have always played the long game. H.R. 5 is yet another part of that game. One day, if we aren’t very, very careful H.R. 5 will pass through Congress with little dissent.

As with everything else in politics, this is actually up to us. Will we put a stop to this nonsense?

In Liberty,

Steve A. Stone