Anti-Discrimination, A Definitive Answer

Recently, the issue of “LGBT rights” has come to the forefront of the media. And I believe it is high time for a reasoned, logical response to the many erroneous and false assumptions that are made.

Anti-discrimination laws can, and should only protect citizens from discrimination that is against (1) their Constitutional rights or (2) their unchangeable characteristics.

So what does that mean? Discriminate means to “distinguish; to observe the difference between.” Nothing bad about that. In fact, we do it every day. (Check out Discrimination....A Good Thing? for more on this)

The question we must ask then, “....which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?” (Peter Sprigg)

The answer of course is discrimination that violates a Constitutional right or that is based on a person’s unchangeable characteristics. When I say Constitutional right I’m referring to religion. And in reference to unchangeable characteristics I’m talking about race, color, sex, and national origin.

If that list sounds familiar, it’s because it is taken from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that law, Congress laid out the things that were not proper basis for discrimination. Why? Because religion is a constitutional right and because race, color, sex, and national origin are things we can’t change.

Signing of the Civil Rights Act, 1964

To have anti-discrimination laws go any further is to begin protecting specific minorities which is a dangerous road to go down.

For example, there are many who want to expand anti-discrimination laws to include protections for so-called “gender identity” and “sexual preference.” These are not rights protected by the Constitution nor are they unchangeable characteristics. If this path is taken it will undoubtedly lead to further expansion of anti-discrimination laws which the world has shown to be a bad thing.
Take for instance Bolivia. In this country, the people’s freedom of speech, press and association have been tyrannically abridged by “The Law Against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination.” It lists 28 (28!) protected classes and gives this for a definition of discrimination: ”to arbitrarily and illegally obstruct, restrict, devalue, impede, or annul the exercise of individual or collective rights….” (read the whole thing here)
Membership in any organization that the government deems as ‘discriminatory’ based on the list qualifications is also a crime and public media is forbidden from making statements that are considered discriminatory. Offences are punishable by 1-5 years deprivation of liberty.

According to this Bolivian law, you, as an employer, would pretty much have to hire anyone (no matter if they’re qualified or not), you would have the government deciding which groups you could be part of, and the government would be controlling what the media is publishing. This is why it is necessary for any anti-discrimination laws to only protect Constitutional rights and prohibit discrimination based on a person’s unchangeable characteristics.

Another reason this is so important is because of the vagueness of the term “sexual orientation”. That is the word most often used in this argument, saying that it encompases all members of this so-called “LGBT community”.

Or perhaps I should say LGBTQ….Or maybe LGBTQI? Or LGBTQIH? Sexual orientation used to mean heterosexual or homosexual. But that is too narrow, some claim and the meaning continues to expand. The question becomes where will this stop?

For instance is not polygamy a “sexual preference”? Or what of the people with a so-called ‘love-bond’ with an animal? Shouldn’t their “sexual orientation” be protected as well? The best way to gauge the truth of an argument is to carry it to its full extent. What about the heinous idea of “adult-child love” (pedophelia)? (That’s a real thing, a real movement. If you don’t believe me, read this article)

According to this line of reasoning, shouldn’t their “sexual preference” be protected? Hopefully, you can see why this is such a dangerous road to go down.

Many may wonder how I can state unequivocally that homosexuality is not a Constitutional right, nor an unchangeable, inborn trait. It’s quite easy. Let’s look at some proof for this claim.

First off, is it a Constitutional right? The answer is no. There is nothing, anywhere in the Constitution that would point to sodomy being a “right.”

In fact, the practice of such behavior was nearly universally condemned during the time leading up to and when the Constitution was written. Such prominent names as George Washington, William Blackstone, Noah Webster, and Thomas Jefferson were very outspoken on the issue.

Washington, Commander and Chief of the Continental Army at the time, had a soldier dishonorably discharged (or “dismissed [from] service with infamy….”) for attempting to commit sodomy and for perjury.

General George Washington

Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined sodomy as, “‘A crime against nature.”

I could go on to cite quotes from others and several state laws from back then that outlawed sodomy. But clearly, homosexuality was seen as a crime against nature, not a right.

Secondly, is homosexuality an inborn, unchangeable characteristic? Again, the

answer is no. There is no data, scientific or otherwise, that could prove it to be so.

Plus, there is a plethora of people who engaged in a homosexual lifestyle that stopped. You do not have to look far to see this proved over and over - people who went from homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior. If your “sexual orientation” was a predetermined genetic trait, this phenomenon would not be explainable.

(check out these links for more info: Gay Gene Going, Going, Gone, Female Homosexual Development, Gay Gene, Myths and Misconceptions...)   

  

In summary we've found that anti-discrimination laws can only protect citizens from discrimination that is against (1) their Constitutional rights or (2) their unchangeable characteristics. We also found that sodomy is not a Constitutional right based on the writing and actions of those in and around the time of the writing of the Constitution. Neither is it an unchangeable characteristic based on the fact that no scientific data has yet to surface that would point in that direction and the fact that there are countless people who have escaped the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality.

Therefore, laws to prohibit discrimination must abide within these parameters in order for them to fulfill their true purpose.

Jonathan Paine
painefultruth76.blogspot.com
painefultruth1776@gmail.com
@painefultruth76