God made them MALE AND FEMALE.
At creation, there was no LGBTQ. There was only:
M AND F
And a man shall cleave to a woman, his wife and a woman to a man. And the scriptures, should you believe them, make it clear that a man shall not lay with a man and a woman shall not lay with a woman. To do so was not only biologically unnatural, but morally and spiritually unacceptable, that according to the God of Abraham and our Lord Jesus Christ. It wasn’t up to us to decide or categorize differently. That was the way it was and that was accepted as the norm, the NORMAL, the right since the time of Adam and Eve. The definition of the term sex was clear, and accepted, and respected.
And that definition was understood by all, including our very own Congress when in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. That Right provided protection for male and female in Title VII, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin and:
SEX.
But then came LGBTQ and the definition of sex was challenged. And a new legal and constitutional question arose:
DOES THE TERM SEX IN TITLE VII OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT INCLUDE THE NEW LGBTQ DEFINITIONS OF GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION?
Strict constitutionalists whether Judicial or Congressional say no. No matter, nine men and women, the Justices of the Supreme Court will tell WE THE PEOPLE, our country and the world what is now the new (or the old) definition of:
SEX.
Does the word sex mean what it meant to the general public in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed or is the word flexible, subject to redefinition as the thinking and mores of current culture require? This Supreme Court will render perhaps some of the most historic and life changing decisions in the next 12 months.
Six men and three women will make those decisions. Four of those Justices are Roman Catholic. Three are Jewish. Two are Protestant. The moral and cultural landscape of America will be redefined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor, six men and three women. Ironic is it not that the rights, understanding, beliefs and morals of 330 million people will be decided by nine. Such is the way, the ultimate way in which democracy works.
The cases which the Supreme Court will decide will not only affect employer’s secular and Christian but perhaps every bit as importantly how women and girls are regarded in the law as it is meant to guarantee fair and equal treatment. The decisions will even affect religious organizations and potentially influence or negate their right to hire according to their stated spiritual missions and beliefs. The Court will decide a case which deals directly with public accommodation laws which pertain to gay and transgender rights. And, perhaps another case involving floral shop owner Barronelle Stutzman, a devout Christian who serves and hires LGBTQ people but declines to create custom arrangements for gay weddings on religious grounds. The decision in either or both would greatly affect Christian business owners, including their rights to sell and to hire.
There is also the case of R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, the Owners of which are strong Christians who fired a Funeral Director who had informed them in the letter that he would begin presenting himself as a woman when he was in fact a biological male as he tended to their business. And there are more such cases clamoring for Supreme Court adjudication. All these cases deal with issues which affect both religious freedoms and freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution in its very precious First Amendment, and the clash of these long respected and traditional rights with the newfound rights of LGBTQ. Historic times, my fellow Americans. As watchmen and women on the walls, the constitutional walls of our great country, watch carefully.
There is a process known as FRIEND–OF–THE–COURT which allows interested, competent and qualified parties to file on behalf of their very own beliefs the constitutional position the groups believe the court should take. In these cases, that includes Orthodox Jewish Groups, a long list of conservative Christian organizations and even Muslim Groups as well. Interestingly, the liberal even radical feminist group WOMEN’S LIBERATION FRONT itself has filed and its position is against the LGBTQ demands for the recognition of gender identity and sexual orientation. Women’s Liberation Front believes that any change in the definition of sex in the 1964 Title VII Civil Rights Act would destroy the gains made by women and girls under the protection of that Act. In Connecticut, it is cited, the state has allowed an individual to declare what he or she believes is their gender identity and sexual orientation and that declaration is conclusive. As such, biological men are entering sporting events for women and winning. These biological males have set state FEMALE track records and biological men can now compete with biological women in virtually everything if the traditionally held definition of sex is altered.
If the definition of sex is changed, biological men presenting themselves in a newly sexually oriented way as women could be found sleeping in women’s dormitories in schools, colleges and universities. They can also be housed in women’s shelters and of course, they would be allowed to use women’s bathrooms virtually anywhere. Small wonder that some of the most radical feminist groups aggressively oppose the redefinition of sex and find themselves against the demands of their once–ally LGBTQ.
It seems obvious that any ruling by the Supreme Court which expands Title VII would not only change that statute, but would affect virtually every federal statute which would be required to be interpreted in accordance with the new ruling and the new definitions. That would immediately place religious organizations in extreme jeopardy especially with regard to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I wonder the reaction of sincere Christian men and women, those who own businesses and sell products and services, those who operate nonprofit organizations by Christian principles and those who will not surrender to new definitions or federal requirements which impinge upon their consciences. I wonder if in fact, and at that time, they and we who likewise believe will stand and:
FIGHT THE FIGHT OF FAITH
Strict constitutionalists, those Justices which follow the law as it is and as it was would make no change. But those who are JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS who believe the Constitution to be organic, a living organism and subject to change could very well change the definition of SEX so as to include gender identification and sexual orientation concepts. If those activist Judges prevail, say goodbye to Judeo–Christian American values and mores.
Even when appellate court liberal, very liberal judge one Gerard Lynch took direct aim at the idea that Congress in 1964 meant anything other than male and female when referring to the term sex. Interestingly, Judge Lynch said the following about interpretation:
“WE ALL KNOW CONGRESS MEANT NO SUCH THING (GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION.”
Chief Justice John Roberts foresaw the current constitutional clashes, that so when the Supreme Court recently determined that lesbian and gay marriage was in fact a constitutional right. Roberts knew that there would be soon–to–come aggressive clashes between the newfound rights of LGBTQ and religious freedoms. He also predicted the growth of hate speech as a way and means to curtail religious freedom of speech. Those constitutional clashes are here, clear and present dangers to the norm, the constitutional normal for almost 250 years of the First Amendment freedoms and its protections. The question is whether or not government, federal or state, states like Washington, California, Colorado and New York can force a business owner to sell products or services to those he or she wishes not to and whether all organizations, including and especially Christian owned and run profit or nonprofit, can be required to hire LGBTQ and otherwise legally accept a proclamation by any such individual that he or she now wishes to change sexual orientation or gender identity. These governments can in fact require such conduct if the Supreme Court so allows and the refusal could lead to serious fines or even criminal prosecution and jail. That is so especially if any of these resisting individuals or entities took their beliefs to the public square in the exercise of freedom of speech. Here it comes, my fellow Americans. The fight of faith is on, big time.
So, WATCH AND PRAY. But watch. Become involved. Support the organizations which seek to protect basic and fundamental constitutional rights. Proclaim your beliefs loudly and publicly. Or, even as radicals do. Encourage all those who seek to protect YOUR rights and contribute to their causes.
And pray. Hardly any matters in this great country of ours needs more prayer than these incredible issues at work. It is so very interesting how the three letter word SEX and its definition, new definition and meaning will so radically affect the lives and lifestyles of 330 million people. If the Supreme Court expands the definition of sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, Americas norms, values and beliefs will change forever and the freedoms with them once held.
And remember, freedoms once lost are lost forever!