Istook’s Insights: Unfair and Unbalanced, Religious liberty at risk, destruction of democracy
Published: July 5th, 2015
Even when you’re innocent, government can find you guilty.
By 5-4, the Supreme Court says you can be punished for civil rights violations, even when you never intended to discriminate illegally. They don’t want equal opportunity; they want equal results.
They call it disparate impact.
You can be perfectly fair and neutral, but if a minority claims they did not get a fair share of jobs, raises, housing, or loans, then the reasons why don’t matter.
You can base decisions purely on poor education, lousy credit, bad job performance, even a criminal record, but it doesn’t matter.
Unless your results show the approved ratios, you must pay.
You also can be punished in advance if a statistician or some expert predicts unequal results will eventually occur.
The mortgage meltdown that collapsed our economy occurred because lenders were required to make bad loans.
With disparate impact, the Supreme Court may make another meltdown happen.
And, if you like your religion, can you keep it?
President Obama said in 2008 that too many Americans cling bitterly to their guns and their religion.
He recently repeated his calls for gun control. Now Obama seems to want people to give up their faith as well. At least the part that conflicts with his politics.
The President made the remarks shortly after the Supreme Court proclaimed a new Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The document has no clear language that says so, unless it’s written in invisible ink, like something out of a National Treasure movie.
Obama noted how religious people often oppose gay marriage. Then he called for activists to “help them,” presumably help to overcome our faith.
Obama once wooed the faithful by saying he believed in one-man, one-woman marriage. Now he brags like he supported same-sex marriage all along. Maybe, just maybe, he lied to get elected.
We lose the democratic process when courts make our biggest decisions for us.
Our Constitution provides clear limits on the powers of government. Instead, the Supreme Court uses the Constitution to reduce our ability to make our own decisions through elections.
By ignoring public votes and duly-enacted laws, the Supreme Court has given America a new definition of marriage that ignores biology and contradicts the natural marriage of a man and a woman. We are told that centuries-old standards must fall if someone complains that their dignity is at stake.
It’s the same word games as when Bruce Jenner claims to be Caitlin Jenner because he ‘feels’ like a woman.
We have to wonder what a woman is, if biology means nothing. Now it’s the same for marriage.
But this new ‘tolerance’ does not permit dissent. They’re already cracking down on anyone, including churches, that fails to celebrate same-sex marriage.