Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Nomination of Chai Feldblum and the Death Of The First Amendment

Here's the title of a new article on Catholic Online written by Deacon Keith Fournier: First Amendment Outdated? Obama Nominates Homosexual Equivalency Advocate to EEOC. While the entire article is highly disturbing I've included a few highlights and then printed the most atrocious parts in red (my thoughts in blue).
"In a scholarly article entitled Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion Chai Feldblum 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."
This is what we've all been expecting, isn't it? The law won't let the far left completely banish those with religious convictions from public life, because that wasn't what the founding fathers intended. Since twisting the constitution doesn't appear to be working it looks like we should just throw out the parts that "we" don't like.
"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”."
She sees a conflict because a conflict exists. The Homosexual Equivalency movement would like to force us all to accept gay marriage. Our religion does not allow that. Her answer to the conflict, however, is entirely unconstitutional (although that only seems to be a minor problem to Ms. Feldblum, which can be easily solved by throwing out the old, dusty, outdated, first amendment). Ms. Feldblum would like to change the constitution to meet her own goals. Apparently it doesn't matter if doing so violates the rights of others. As long as Ms. Feldblum is only violating the rights of practicing Christians, which conveniently enough is rather trendy right now in mainstream American culture, she's okay with it.
"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” clause under the 5th Amendment, which would then be enforced against all of the States through the 14th Amendment."
Now remember that the agency that she will heads is the same one that is currently violating the religious freedom of Belmont Abbey. The EEOC found the school to be at fault for refusing to cover abortion and contraceptives for their faculty and staff. Ms. Feldblum should get along well with the person who made that decision. After all, the school should be free to refuse to fund the slaughter of innocent children under the first amendment. It would really simplify things for the EEOC if we just threw that whole amendment out.
"“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. This is essential so that an individual who happens upon the enterprise is not surprised by a denial of service and/or a directive to go down the street to a different provider. While I was initially drawn to the idea of providing an exemption to those enterprises that advertise solely in very limited milieus (such as the bed & breakfast that advertises only on Christian Web sites), I became wary of such an approach as a practical matter. The touchstone needs to be, I believe, whether LGBT people would be made vulnerable in too many locations across society.”"
In her own words folks: If you run a business, leave your religious convictions at the door. After all we wouldn't want anyone to be unpleasantly "surprised."
"I use that phrase intentionally to get the real issue across to people. This is not about discrimination against anybody. These folks insist that all Americans recognize a legal equivalency between true marriages and cohabitating practicing homosexuals or face legal punitive consequences."
I think my husbands description of the entire situation as "very disturbing" pretty much sums it up. And that's why today's subject gets a Sadie frown.

2 comments:

  1. Good grief, these people never stop.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know! I was so surprised when I saw this one. And lately I haven't been surprised by much!

    ReplyDelete

I love comments and I read every single comment that comes in (and I try to respond when the little ones aren't distracting me to the point that it's impossible!). Please show kindness to each other and our family in the comment box. After all, we're all real people on the other side of the screen!