First Amendment Outdated? Obama Nominates Homosexual Equivalency Advocate to EEOC
As I watch the appointment of radical social activists such as Chai Feldblum to significant positions I grow increasingly concerned.
'As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor’s office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.'(Chai Feldblum)
Ms. Feldman’s work to, in the words of the announcement, advance “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights”, places marriage and religious freedom in America at grave risk. She is prolific and has written extensively about her legal views concerning the Bill of Rights and its protection of religious freedom. The Administration had to have known about her radical views. In a scholarly article entitled Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion Chai Feldman discussed her novel legal theory concerning how what she calls “religious belief liberty” and “sexual orientation liberty” should interface in America. She proposes nothing less than a radical restructuring of American Constitutional Law. She does so with the seemingly innocuous language so often used in scholarly legal writing, when it is intended to advance a radical agenda. In fact, her style can make the dangerous impact of her proposal somewhat elusive to the casual reader.
Ms. Feldblum is a practicing Lesbian and an advocate for the Homosexual Equivalency agenda. She sees a conflict between the Religious "Free Exercise" constitutional claims of Christians and the “equal rights” claims of practicing homosexuals, at least as they are viewed by the Homosexual Equivalency movement. She writes in this article: “I want to suggest that the best framework for dealing with this conflict is to analyze religious people’s claims as belief liberty interests under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, rather than as free exercise claims under the First Amendment”.
As a constitutional lawyer, let me clarify what she is saying for my readers. This homosexual activist lawyer - who will soon have a significant role as an enforcer of “Equal Rights” at the Federal level - actually believes that the protections provided under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have become outdated. She does not think that the Free Speech, Free Association and Free Exercise Clauses are the best safeguard for the religious person or for religious institutions any longer. She wants the legal analysis of their claims in her new America to proceed through the application of the “Due Process” clauses under the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment as "belief liberty" interests and be balanced against what she calls "sexual liberty" interests. That seems to include an apparent right to choose your own gender and engage in almost any sexual activity or arrangement and have it recognized as a "right".
For example, an analysis of her legal writing makes it crystal clear that she believes that homosexual paramours should be granted legally equivalent status to married heterosexual couples. As a story below reveals she sees no place for a recognition of marriage as between a man and a woman, intended for life, as the first cell of society. In fact, she supporst polygamous arrangements and homosexual pairings as equally valid "families".Further, she believes that failure to recognize an equivalency between homosexual paramours and married couples constitutes a violation of their fundamental constitutional rights. If she is able to make this new analysis the prevailing policy of the EEOC, it will have a dangerous effect on Catholic and other Christian institutions which enter into the stream of commerce. Basically,that means engage in any business.
Think about this in light of the recent example of Government hostility to the Catholic Church in the United States, the threatened action of the EEOC (the very Institution she will soon lead), against Belmont Abbey College. Belmont Abbey College is an unabashedly and heroically faithful Catholic College in North Carolina which refused to include abortion, sterilization and contraception in the Health care coverage it offers to its employees. They expected that they would be exempt under State and Federal Laws when they received notice from the State EEOC that a claim of discrimination had been ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- Special Report from the Virginia Republican Nominating Convention: A Time To Choose - Life
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Hillary better be prepared, House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa says
- E.W. Jackson Wins Nomination as Republican Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
- 'Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was!' Virginia GOP nominee says
- Food stamps hang in the balance as lawmakers debate cost
- News to ruin your morning: IRS official who targeted conservatives for audit now oversees your Obamacare compliance
- Culture of Corruption, Obama pays Sarah Ingram extra for her harassment of conservatives
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?