Vote “NO” On The Equality Act

he Democratic Party introduced a bill on March 13 popularly known as the “Equality” Act (H.R.5). The title of the bill sounds non-threatening. So, why should anyone be against equality?

The “Equality” Act would make possible a nationwide floodgate of government-sanctioned, religious discrimination against Christians and other people of faith by redefining the word “sex.” The bill would expand the definition of the word “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as legally protected classes.

Take action now by urging your U.S. representative to vote “no” on the Equality Act.

CONTACT YOUR REP.
CONTACT YOUR SENATOR

Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The “Equality” Act bans the use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as a legal defense from the government violating a person’s religious liberty. RFRA is a law that was passed in 1993 that placed stringent restrictions on government religious discrimination.

By government edict, business owners, employees, and customers alike will be subject to a radical liberal agenda while facing a guaranteed federal prosecution:

Business owners serving the public will be forced to open their restrooms and/or dressing rooms to men, who believe they are female, into the women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. The more commonly accepted restrooms based on fact become an area based on the feeling of identity.

Health care providers and professionals would be forced to perform gender transition procedures (sex changes) and provide medical services (hormone therapy) that would violate their moral and religious convictions.

Amusement parks, recreation centers, skating rinks, and daycare centers, etc. will be forced to employ people whose values on sexuality deviates from those of the employer.

Adoption and foster care agencies will be forced to place children into same-sex households and into homes of individuals suffering from gender confusion.

College and professional sports stadiums would be required to open its restrooms to either sex.

Sexual Liberty Vs. Religious Liberty

The Democratic Party’s platform states, “We support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”

The “progressive vision” of religious liberty for Democrats was recently made visible by Chai Feldblum, the former commissioner of the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Feldblum clearly staked out the “progressive vision” of the Democratic Party when she said:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win…Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner” (emphasis added). 

Chai Feldblum

As you can see, they’ve made progress advancing their vision by getting H.R.5, the “Equality” Act this far.  We need to stop it, and you can help by going here to sign the petition.

Separation Of Church & State

In the 20^th Century, it became politically mainstream that religious convictions on issues were not allowed in any area of government.  This idea took root with the unconstitutional ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education(1947).

This decision misinterpreted the Constitution as well as Thomas Jefferson’s statement on a wall of separation between church and state. The high court erred in judgment when they said the “First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

Jefferson’s original intent was for a “wall of separation” to restrict the government from interfering with religious liberty, NOT to restrict Christians’ involvement in government, as decided in Everson v. Board of Education.

The wall of separation is to protect individual Christians from the government– NOT to protect the government from Christians.

According to Jefferson, Christians could freely exercise their influence beyond the wall into the public realm at their discretion.  Had Jefferson intended a strict restriction of religion from government he would not have allowed and taken part in Christian worship at the U.S. Capitol.

In addition, he asked the rhetorical question, “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”  Jefferson believed that if anyone could violate one’s religious liberty, it could only be God.

The gospel message did not originate from man, but from God. No government or law will ever supersede the inerrant and authoritative word of God. Jesus said, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). The gospel and His bride belong to him—not the government. Christians’ allegiance is first and foremost to God.

Christians have given up much ground on religious liberty because they have remained silent. Let us be bold and courageous and reverse the trend of stepping away from our God-appointed, prophetic role of speaking on moral issues because we live in a world who increasingly calls evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). But above all, proclaim the gospel of Christ (Acts 2:14-41).

*Information for this article came from American Family Alliance, to r