well lets take a look at the claims here
[/quote]
Myth 1: The Equality Act Simply Punishes Discrimination Against People Who Identify as Gay or Transgender
Fact: The Equality Act—introduced as H.R. 5 in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2021—makes mainstream beliefs about marriage, as well as basic biological facts about sex differences, punishable under the law. [/quote] well that is just a lie. Unless you can cite the actual section of the Equality Act that criminalizes belief.
Every person should be treated with dignity and respect and no one should face discrimination.
except LGBT individuals
But the Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties.
Lie. the Equality Act does not have anything about government mandated beliefs.
Unless you can cite the actual section of the Equality Act that criminalizes belief.
It forces every American to agree with controversial government-imposed ideology on sexuality or be treated as an outlaw.
nothing about imposed ideology just equal rights.
Unless you can cite the actual section of the Equality Act that criminalizes belief.
The Equality Act guts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and threatens constitutional freedoms by eliminating conscience protections from the Civil Rights Act.
here is the
Civil Rights Act can you please cite the "conscience protections" it contains
If enacted, H.R. 5 would force employers, medical professionals, educators, and religious organizations to allow men into women’s shelters,
since when do medical professionals decide who enters a homeless shelter?
pay for or perform sex-change operations,
whopper of a lie
Faith-based adoption and foster care agencies would be forced to violate their belief that every child deserves a mother and a father.
it's sad when children are used as game pieces in the pursuit of discrimination.
Section 2(a)(2) of the bill refers to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman as a “sex stereotype.”
Lie
Section 2(a)(2) reads: "A single instance of discrimination may have more than one basis. For example, discrimination against a married same-sex couple could be based on the sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples,"
"Could" is not the same as "is"
This section is not part of the actual legislation but part of the findings and definitions.
Does the Heritage Foundation think no one is going to actually check their claims?
Myth 3: The Equality Act Does Not Expand the Scope of Federal Civil Rights Law
Fact: By expanding the definition of “public accommodations” under Title II of the Civil Rights Act to include “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services,”
here is the definition of public accommodation from Title II of the Civil rights act
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
You might want to note that all of the above business cited by the Herriatage Foundation are covered including online retails. the courts rules that the relevant sections pertaining to mail order commerce covered online shopping.
I could go on if anyone is interested in the truth
