Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 834 | Did SCOTUS Legalize LGBTQ Discrimination?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

Starting point is 00:00:19 We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Myths abound on social media regarding the latest decisions by the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to Christians now allegedly being able to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. So we'll debunk some of those narratives that you've seen floating around on Instagram and elsewhere. Also, I've got a monologue to close out this episode to commemorate the end of this year's Pride Month. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers.

Starting point is 00:01:11 Go to Go to GoodeRanchers.com. Use code Allie at checkout. That's good ranchers.com code Alley. Hey guys, welcome to relatable. Happy Thursday. Yes, Thursday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful week. First of all, I apologize. I'm a little bit more nasally than usual. I'm getting over a cold, but it's all good. But I am sorry to those of you who have to bear with me with the sound of my cold-ridden voice. We have a lot to talk about today. I hope you listen to Monday and Wednesday's episodes with Nancy Piercy. Isn't she just brilliant for those of you who listened? We talked about masculinity, about the body, why matter matters according to God. So go.

Starting point is 00:02:02 Listen to those episodes. We have a lot to get to today since we haven't been able to cover the news for the past few days. I hope everyone had a wonderful Fourth of July. Fourth of July is my maybe one of my favorite days of the year. It's always been one of my favorite holidays. I love the summer. I love all the festivities that come along with it. I love the fireworks. I love the hot dogs, all that good stuff. We had a very chill day just trying to escape the heat. I hope you had a wonderful celebration with your friends and fans. celebrating the privilege and the blessing that it is to live in the United States, even with all the craziness that we see on a daily basis here, there's really nowhere else in the world I would rather live. So thank you, Lord, for making me a born and raised American. All right, before we get into some of this stuff that you guys have been sending me and asking me about asking me to debunk some of these Supreme Court cases and then a couple things at the end. I just want to remind you that we've got new merch available at Alliemerch.com. So I've

Starting point is 00:03:06 been posting some clips where I'm wearing my The Rainbow Belongs to God shirt and you guys have been commenting. Where did you get that shirt? That's available at Alleymerch.com even though it's not quote unquote pride month anymore. That's true all year long. It will be true forever and ever that the rainbow belongs to God. But our newest stuff is just flying off the show. shelves. You guys had an amazing response to it, which I knew that you would. The do the next right thing shirts. And then on the back, it has a cool design that says do the next right thing in faith with excellence and for the glory of God, which is what we say a lot on this show. And we've got Relada Bro colors. Guys, you've been asking me for merch that you can wear Relator Bros. I'm

Starting point is 00:03:52 thankful for you. We've got a black and white and then a cream colored and black option for you related bros out there. Of course, related gals could wear this too. Um, so we've got a lot of options. And then our raise a respectful ruckus shirts, you guys are loving these. That's because they're super cute. I wear mine all the time. And just for sizing, I mean, I am seven months pregnant, but I like the XL. It's very loose. So just depends on what you want. Like I would, I don't even know. It just depends on the fit. It depends on the fit. I think if I weren't pregnant, I would probably be, I'd probably be wearing a lot. So it just depends on what you like. Yeah. So Alleymerch.com, check that out. All right. Let's go ahead and get into some of the stuff that

Starting point is 00:04:39 we have to cover. Today, I'm going to try not to make this like a mega, mega, mega long episode, but no promises. You guys know I'm very verbose. Let's first talk about this 303 creative versus Alenis case that was decided by the Supreme Court last week. This has to do with the graphic designer Lori Smith in Colorado who did not want to create a website celebrating homosexuality or celebrating gay unions. And so you've probably seen a lot of takes online that said, oh, the Supreme Court now says that businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ people. Oh my goodness, they're taking this country backwards. They got rid of affirmative. action? What are we going to do without affirmative action? Oh, they got rid of Biden's student loan

Starting point is 00:05:26 plan. How are we ever going to survive this? You've probably seen a lot of drama over the past few days. Very little actual intellectual analysis. Very few on the left trying to rebut the constitutionality of the decision. That's what you see a lot, even with Roe v. Wade. You say, oh, my goodness, we're taking the country in backwards with this Dobbs decision. This is so terrible, but very few reasoned perspectives on why the decision was constitutionally wrong when Dobbs was decided last year. That's because the left in general, in general, thinks that judges and justices should be activist driven, that they should simply be ideologues that are carried by the whims of the loudest progressives in the country. They're not concerned about applying the law in accordance with the

Starting point is 00:06:26 constitution. They are concerned with what they want. And they would actually like justices and judges to be to be beholden to the will of the people. Whereas those of us over here, we say, okay, we might not always agree with the decisions that the Supreme Court justices make, who have been appointed by Republican presidents. But we want them to interpret the law in light of the Constitution, which means that they're not quite as predictable as the left-wing justices are and left-wing judges are. We always know which way they're going to rule. We don't always know, for example, which way Roberts is going to rule. And I think he's been wrong several times or which way Amy Coney-Barrid is going to rule or Kavanaugh is going to rule because they're not ideologues.

Starting point is 00:07:19 And so that's one difference between the left and the right. You're not going to see a lot of leftists saying, oh, here is why constitutionally and logically this case was decided incorrectly. It's all about the feels. And they just happen to be wrong in their analysis, by the way, especially of this 303 creative case, and we'll get into why. So let me give you a little bit of background. In September 2016, Lori Smith, the owner of a company specializing in graphic and web design called 303 Creative filed a complaint against various Colorado officials, including the members of the state's Civil Rights Commission because she wanted to explain her religious beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman on her website and in communications with prospective clients. But Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, the C-A, prohibited her from doing this, violating her First Amendment rights. This is according to National Review, by the way, this summary. The C-A-D-A, this is according to the SCOTUS filing of her case, prohibits all public accommodations from denying the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait. The law defines public accommodation

Starting point is 00:08:31 broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the state, either state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law and a variety of penalties can follow any violation. So instead of acting and waiting and waiting to be punished, this was a preemptive. case. So Smith filed a preliminary injunction to clarify her rights. This is called a pre-enforcement action. So you're seeing some people, like I saw that propaganda account. What is it like Matt XIV or something who just always just post misinformation about different political events and Supreme Court decisions said something along the lines of the central request in this complaint that apparently Lori Smith said, made a request on her website to create some kind of page that celebrated gay marriage. That that was the person that they said filed it is actually a straight man and he's been married and he has no idea who Lori Smith is. And so this was all centered on some fake request that the allegation from the left goes, Lori Smith and her team just made up. And so this case shouldn't even exist. But that wasn't central to the

Starting point is 00:09:52 case. Now, the request, they're saying, by the way, is legitimate. It really did come through. Now, whether this person was just trolling or not, we don't know. But that wasn't central to this case. This was a preemptive action saying that according to the CAA, she can't exercise her First Amendment rights in publicly expressing what she believes about marriage. and sexuality according to her faith. So the 10th Circuit ruled against Smith in July 2021, saying that CAA permissibly compels a graphic and website design company to offer wedding websites that celebrate same-sex marriages if it is going to offer wedding websites that celebrate opposite sex marriages.

Starting point is 00:10:38 So Smith just wanted in the state of Colorado to be able to exercise her First Amendment rights freely in the things that she creates. she realized that if she had a website design company, that she would eventually be compelled to create design celebrating that which she disagrees with, that which, according to her faith, may be sin. And so she was ruled against. It went to the Supreme Court. She's represented by Alliance to Fitting Freedom. So thankful for their work in other groups like them. And we'll get into what Skoda specifically ruled.

Starting point is 00:11:16 just a, just a spoiler. It is not that businesses can just discriminate universally against LGBTQ people. That's not what the ruling says. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

Starting point is 00:11:53 We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. All right. So last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 303 creative slash. Laurie Smith. So Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas, Alito Kavanaugh, Barrett ruled in Smith's favor, and then the three reliably progressive leftist justices filed a dissenting opinion. This is what they held. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Obviously, that is the heart of the First Amendment. That's the heart of Free speech that the state cannot compel you to say something that you don't want to say.

Starting point is 00:13:02 Can't compel you or prohibit you from saying something. And that, I mean, that's why we have the Constitution. That's why we have the First Amendment. That's a huge reason why this nation was even founded. I mean, just how crazy it is to think about how far Colorado has fallen. I mean, not so long ago, Colorado was a reliably red state. not so long ago, so was California, but especially Colorado and just the infiltration of progressivism and weaponized progressivism. And I just want to say, like, by the way,

Starting point is 00:13:38 this comes from the same side who is constantly fearmongering about how homeschoolers are taking over the world, how Christian conservatives are the ones just vying for power that Christian nationalists are going to finally exact dominion over the United States. states and it's going to turn into a fascist handmaid's tail, whatever it is. And you'll see Christians who identify as progressive or vote Democrat. They're like, oh, yeah, Republicans just want power. Democrats don't want power. Are you kidding me? They're constantly weaponizing the state to force people to say and celebrate the things that they believe in. This is the same state in which Jack Phillips has been harassed for over a decade by LGBTQ activists trying to force him to make a case.

Starting point is 00:14:26 not just for them as customers, but specifically cakes that celebrate things like gay weddings or celebrate so-called transitions, which he won't do because it's not in accordance with his faith and the state should not be able to compel him to do that. So here is the majority opinion or part of it written by Justice Gorsuch. It says here Colorado seeks to put Ms. Smith to a similar choice. If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the state demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation and remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports as officials deemed necessary and paying monetary fines.

Starting point is 00:15:07 He says that's enough to represent an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment's right to speak freely. Countless other creative professionals, too, could be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds and incurring sanctions for doing so. It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. When the dissent finally gets around to the question of whether a state can force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred messaging instead, the dissent reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom. The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge, but it ignores the Tenth Circuit's finding that Ms. Smith faces a

Starting point is 00:15:53 credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the states. So this is about the First Amendment. So ask yourself, ask your progressive friends. Like should a gay designer be forced by the state of Alabama to create a website that says gay people are going to help? Should Alabama be forced to, or should Alabama be able to force? a gay man to create a cake or to create a product or to write a song that celebrates or that affirms this message that homosexuality is an abomination. Why don't you think about it that way? Because it's not just the rights of Lori Smith.

Starting point is 00:16:45 It's not just the rights of conservatives. It's not just the First Amendment rights of Christians that we're talking about here. we're talking about the First Amendment applying to everyone. I don't think that a gay person, a Muslim person, a black person, a Christian person, a conservative, a progressive should be forced by the state to say something that they don't want to say or should be prohibited by the state from saying something. I believe that should be true for everyone, not just Lori Smith, but again, progressives have such a hard time seeing the principle of what's, going on. They only see how their feelings are affected, how one particular person is affected. They only have such a myopic and I think an inaccurate view of cases like this. As this court has long held, Gorsuch says, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our

Starting point is 00:17:39 most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution's commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider unattractive, misguided, or even hurtful. But, tolerance, not coercion is our nation's answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed. So this is not about being able to discriminate or to deny services in general to. To deny services in general to someone who is gay or someone who considers themselves transgender or someone who identifies as

Starting point is 00:18:27 whatever. It is about the state not being able to control someone's speech. I don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend about that. And by the way, like you should be free to associate with whom you want to associate. Like you should be able to say, I'm going to run my company as you see fit. I saw a lot of people on the left saying, well, what if I don't want to, what if I don't want to associate with a Christian conservative? Like, what if I don't want to sell products to them? Look, I disagree with that. I think that's stupid and wrong. And by the way, that's not what's happening in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. It's not what's happening in 303 creative case. But if, like, if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to deny me service because

Starting point is 00:19:15 I'm a Christian conservative, like you could, I mean, okay. Yeah, I do believe that there should be some freedom there. And I do believe that the market would take care of that. We already see that with the growing Christian conservative parallel economy that's cropping up right now. But that's not what's going on here. It is about a specific product and a specific message and the principle that the state should not be able to compel particular speech. So here's what the dissent said, which Gorsuch said is completely off base because it reimagines the facts of the case and doesn't even deal with. the case at hand and doesn't even care really about the question of whether or not this violates

Starting point is 00:19:57 a person's free speech rights. So Sotomayor says this. Today, the court for the first time in its history grants a business open to the public constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. This is, again, debunked by Gorsuch. That's not what this is about. This is, again, about a specific message that the state is trying to compel or prohibit. And she says this is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public as a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of protected class by issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples

Starting point is 00:20:40 the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate symbolic effect of the decision is to mark, gays and lesbians for second-class status, of course, which is so ridiculous. Again, it's about what Gorsuch said, what the concurrence said over and over again. The state cannot compel you to say something. The state cannot prohibit you from saying something. You should be able to express the ideas that you want to express in your business. Yes. So here's what Sharon says so, says, who is, she is an Instagrammer.

Starting point is 00:21:22 She's gained a very large audience. And she claims to not be on the right or the left. She claims to be somewhere in the middle and as objective as possible. Only bringing you the facts, she says. Here's something that she said. She answered a question. The question is, does the 303 decision open the door slash set precedent for more LGBT plus discrimination? She says potentially, yes, expect to see more business owners refusing to work with same-text couples

Starting point is 00:21:56 are members of the LGBTQ plus community, citing free speech and freedom of religion and for more cases to be filed according to this issue. And then she says, okay, she answers this question, how is AA discrimination, affirmative action discrimination, but denying services to gay couples isn't? She says they are saying that the website's designers, designers write to free speech and to be free from government compelled speech is more important than an LGBTQ couple's right to be free from discrimination. So again, you're seeing a lot of this messaging, that this is going to set a bad precedent for LGBT people to be discriminated against in general rather than a focus on the issue at hand here. again, the question of whether a state should be able to force you to say something that you don't agree with or prohibit you from saying something. Of course, the Biden administration, very sad about this. They said that the LGBTQ community's dignity and equality are being threatened.

Starting point is 00:23:00 The promise of our democracy is being threatened by upholding the First Amendment, don't you see? Well, Kristen Wagner of Alliance defending freedom has a response to, some of these myths and this false narrative that is being pushed, that this is denying the dignity of LGBTQ people. Guys, like, there are so many website designers, so many cakemakers that you can go to, I'm sorry that someone doesn't agree with or want to affirm your lifestyle because of a faith that has been around for thousands and thousands of years that calls that sin. You're not going to be able to change that in trying to employ the power of the state. to compel someone to agree with you and affirm you, and then to say you're the defenders of democracy?

Starting point is 00:23:48 I'm sorry, but no. I mean, thank the Lord for the Supreme Court for protecting my free speech, but also yours. All of you who disagree with me, all of you who don't want to be compelled to create a message on your site or your cake that you disagree. You're not going to want to make a cake that celebrates a pro-life message. And I don't think the state of Texas should be able to compel you to. Like it's pretty easy to get here. And I think a lot of people, unfortunately, are playing dumb. But thankfully, Kristen Wagner, she, she corrects the record on a lot of this. So I'll get into that correction in just a second.

Starting point is 00:24:34 Here is what ADF attorney Kristen Wagner says. Disagreement isn't discrimination and the government can't mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it. Lori works with everyone, including clients who identify as LGBT. As the court highlighted, her decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never who requests it. The ruling makes clear that non-discrimination laws remain firmly in place and that the government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services. As stipulated in the SCOTIS filing, Smith is willing to work with all people regardless of classification such as race, create sexual orientation and gender and will

Starting point is 00:25:11 gladly create custom graphics and websites for clients of indisexual orientation. She will not produce content that contradicts biblical truth regardless of who orders it. Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow, two fellows, actually, Thomas Jiping and Sarah Partial Perry, a right that while most media outlets say that the case limits LGBTQ protections, the case wasn't about that at all. The Supreme Court held that the government cannot force you to say something that violates your religious beliefs. Lori Smith will not express a message that contradicts her personal beliefs and she won't do it for anyone,

Starting point is 00:25:47 no matter who they are. So if I go to Lori Smith and I say, please design this thing that this website that celebrates, I don't know, something that the Bible calls sin, anything. Or like if I say, please make a website celebrating premarital sex, she's not going to do it. She doesn't agree with it. You know, Jack Phillips at the masterpiece cake shop, like, he won't even make Halloween cakes. This is not about denying services to a particular community. This is about the what. Again, not about the who. It's about the what. They go on to say this case is not about the customer's civil right. It is about Lori's constitutional right. So that kind of goes back to the assertion that Sharon says so made that this is about a constitutional right. It's not just about Christian conservative. It's about everyone's right to free speech. Time and again, even when the Supreme Court has been faced with anti-discrimination public accommodations laws like Colorado's individuals subjected to those. laws are still protected under the Constitution from having to express messages contrary to what

Starting point is 00:26:56 they hold to be true. We don't have time to get into all of the affirmative action bad takes out there. There's a lot that I, there's a lot that I want to talk about with that. You're probably seeing how sad this is and how awful this is. We did talk about that a little bit last Thursday, So a week ago, so you can go back and listen to the summary of that. Of course, I think it's a very good thing. I think Clarence Thomas's concurrence should be read over and over again to understand why affirmative action is both not necessary. It doesn't actually write past wrongs.

Starting point is 00:27:34 It hasn't been very successful. And also it's not constitutional, which is what SCOTUS decides upon. Same thing when it comes to the student. debt plan. It's not constitutional. The president and have the power to do that. Go actually read the decisions. Read the decisions or at least parts of the decisions yourself before seeing all of this emotionalism on social media by saying that this is unjust and this is wrong. Is it constitutional? That's what the Supreme Court cares about. They don't, they're not deciding on whether something is moral or whether something is smart, whether something is wise, whether something should or shouldn't

Starting point is 00:28:15 happen according to what the voters say. They care about the Constitution. That's good. We have that check and balance for a reason. If President Biden, if he oversteps his balance by enacting something like the Supreme Court's or, I mean, the student loan debt plan, then the Supreme Court is a check on that power to say, you can't do that. You need to make it legislation. You need to go through Congress if you were going to do something like that. So before you say, oh, this is, so injustice is so terrible. All these bad things are happening or before you're, before you believe your friends who are saying that, just go read the decisions for yourselves. I saw this series of really bad takes from an account called the mom attorney and I guess just some progressive

Starting point is 00:29:04 activist. And so here's what she says. This is what just happened to the Supreme Court. Thursday, policy protecting equity and access for people of color. No, we can't do that because that's discrimination Friday, allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ community? Sure, go ahead. I mean, for an attorney, she shows such a profound ignorance and misunderstanding of what these cases actually decided, of why it is discrimination to say, I'm sorry, but you have to reach a higher bar if you're white or Asian and you wanted to get into Harvard versus if you're black, versus why it's not actually discrimination against a person for someone to, for someone to deny a particular expressing a particular message that is not in accordance with their beliefs.

Starting point is 00:29:54 She then uses the Bible to justify her reasoning, if you can call it that. She says, looks like universities will need to provide affirmative action policies based on their religious beliefs. Quoting the Bible uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed, Psalm 82, 3 through 4. And this really gets to the heart of like a lot of the so-called Christian responses to the affirmative action case, the Christian progressives, if you want to call them that saying that this is affirmative action was writing the wrongs against oppressed people. Well, this is something that Clarence Thomas addresses that you are making an assumption that someone is oppressed or that the current state that they're in has been affected by past oppression of people. people that looked like them and past discrimination of people that looked like them, rather than looking at that person as an individual and seeing what qualities they have, seeing what their background has been, seeing what has actually put them in that situation.

Starting point is 00:30:58 The assumption here is that black people in America are all poor and they're all oppressed. That is an assumption. That's the assumption of critical race theory. That's the assumption of people who say that all disparities. today are due to past discrimination or current discrimination. And that's not necessarily true. There are people who may be oppressed of different skin colors. There are people who are black and who are brown who are not oppressed at all. There are all kinds of factors that may affect disparities in someone's life, disparities between them and their neighbor, disparities between them and someone

Starting point is 00:31:38 of a different skin color, someone of a different gender, someone of a different skill set. And that, again, discrimination and disparities by Thomas Sol speaks to this really clearly, but so does Clarence Thomas in his concurrence. I also saw, I think it was on the Be the Bridge Instagram page saying, you know, mourning this decision against affirmative action and also mourning the fact that Asians are at the center of this case and therefore it's dividing Asians and black people. And that is the work of white supremacy. trying to, you know, divide these two marginalized ethnicities or races. So I've seen this a lot.

Starting point is 00:32:25 It apparently bothers some people on the left more that Asian people are allegedly being hoisted up by white supremacist to turn over affirmative action than they are bothered that Asian people are being discriminated against by affirmative action policies. Like that makes them more mad. They actually see it as like as Asian people being exploited by white supremacy by being at the center of this case. When in reality, look, Asian people have agency. That's something that I see on the left a lot is that they believe that the only kind of people who actually have agency, the only people responsible for their actions, the only people that could fight against progressive policies, like defunding the police or affirmative action,

Starting point is 00:33:23 that the only people that can be consciously really doing that are white people. And every non-white person who lands on the conservative side of issues is just being used as a token by white people, or maybe the Asian people in this affirmative action case, were tired of being. discriminated against. We're tired of being told, I'm sorry, you have a really high GPA and you have really high test scores, but you're not going to get in because we already have too many Asian people. That's what was happening. Remember the data set that we read on the show last week that an Asian person or a white person in, say, the 90th to 100th percentile when it came to their GPA when it came to their test scores were less likely to get into Harvard than the black

Starting point is 00:34:10 applicant in the 50th percentile. That's not fair. Of course, that's discrimination. And so, like, maybe Asian Americans were tired of being barred from opportunities. Maybe it had nothing to do with white supremacy at all. But you see how the left-wing ideology, how this progressive, race-central ideology actually blinds you to the truth. Like, it blinds you to reason. It blinds you to logic, it blinds you to reality so that you are forced to see things through a lens of partiality, which God hates partiality. I'm reminded again of James 3 that the wisdom that from, that is from above is impartial, is open to reason. Those that push this kind of critical race theory narrative constantly, which I'm over the phrase critical race theory, but it actually does have a

Starting point is 00:35:02 meaning that we've defined very many times on this episode, social justice, racial justice, whatever you want to call it, intersectionality, those that push that narrative and that hold on to that idea, they're not open to reason. They're not impartial. They're not bringers of peace. They cannot see things as they actually are. They constantly have to interpret everything through the lens of black and brown, oppressed, white oppressor. And when you see things like that and you're unable to remove that lens, you are actually unable to enact justice or see what justice actually looks like because you can't see truth. And there is no justice without truth. There's no justice without impartiality. And so, again, this person that I was just reading

Starting point is 00:35:50 is perpetuating that idea, the assumption that all black and brown people are oppressed and poor. Actually, if you go back to God's law giving and ancient Israel, you will see that he hates partiality that you are not to be partial either to the poor or to the great in a lawsuit. But in truth, but in truth, you are to enact justice. All right. So those are just some brief kind of general takes on some of these Supreme Court decisions. I know you've seen a lot of reactions going around. I hope that I've at least pointed you in the right direction. Okay, so it is the end of Pride Month and something that we didn't get to.

Starting point is 00:36:46 Something that we didn't get to was that crazy clip that was going around of the activists at a Pride parade saying, we're here, we're queer and we're coming for your children. So here's that. Okay, so here is how NBC responded to the backlash to that clip by conservatives on. social media. NBC said the coming for your children chant has been used for years at pride events. According to longtime March attendees and gay rights activists who said it's one of many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people. Oh, in that case, it's fine. Great. So there's a reason why you see more and more people saying,

Starting point is 00:37:52 huh, maybe this isn't just about love is love, which, as I've said many times, is stupid and circular. If love is just love, if it can't actually be defined as anything, then love can be lust, it can be predation, it can be a fantasy, it can be just a feeling, just a declaration. If it's not substantive, if it's not rooted in anything, anchored in any kind of reality, then you see that the slippery slope is not a fallacy. If you can define love as anything, and if you justify anything by love, then you can see how perversion then is accepted depravity, then predation, then is accepted as justifiable in the name of love, right? But thankfully, God's word gives us clarity.

Starting point is 00:38:41 1.4.8 tells us that God is love. 1 Corinthians 13 says love is patient and kind. One of the characteristics that it gives is that it does not rejoice in. wrongdoing but rejoices in the truth. So love is love makes no sense. It makes just as little sense as trans women are women. If you're not defining these terms, it's just circular. It's just stupid. They can just mean anything, which leads to anarchy. It's why it's so important for us to define our terms and why Christians should love truth and understanding and knowledge and wisdom so much. But there's a reason why people are now kind of waking up to that. It's not just Christian

Starting point is 00:39:21 conservatives. But people are seeing, oh, this slippery slope, it really wasn't a fallacy that my grandmother who sat in 2012, this is the beginning of the end, or this is going to lead us down a bad path. Oh, she was right. Actually, she was more right than she realized, unfortunately, that we have slipped down the slope really quickly, that now they're just opening up with chance like they are praying upon your children. They're coming for your children at the very least trying to and doctorate your children. Like, you're going to get people who aren't just Christian conservatives having an version to that kind of thing, who don't really care anymore about being called a quote-unquote

Starting point is 00:39:59 homophobic or a transphobe who say, well, now that you're involving kids, now that you're trying to talk to kids about this stuff, now that you're putting kids on puberty blockers, now that you're just being open about the predation, whether or not you want to say it's some kind of 40 chess to take over the slurs that have been used against you, we're not comfortable with that. And still you see progressives calling people on the right transphobes or homophobes. Like it's something that really is supposed to make a big difference. And one of the craziest examples of that was this tweet by someone named Katie Montgomery. I don't know who she has, but this tweet, he, she, I don't know. This tweet got a lot of traction. Katie said, the rage at trans women. read men who dress up as women. Breastfeeding is just transphobia.

Starting point is 00:40:52 So the rage of trans women breastfeeding is just transphobia. There's nothing else to it. It's healthy. Not that rare for the non-birthing mother to do in lesbian relationships, for example. There are even still wet nurses, which they aren't all raging about. It's just because it's trans. It's just because it's trans. And so why is this person even tweeting this?

Starting point is 00:41:16 well, unfortunately, this is a thing that happens. Men who put themselves on estrogen and then take these very, very strong hormone-laced drugs to try to induce lactation. They are trying to breastfeed children. Now, I think that this is probably a small portion of the American population, but the fact that it even happens at all, the fact that it's legal is very troubling. And then there is this there's this person who apparently has some influence who posted on social media that, let's see, Gooseberry orca on social media, he posted himself trying to breastfeed an infant, but also has other posts saying that he actually has some kind of nipple fetish. Okay?

Starting point is 00:42:08 So he has some kind of nipple fetish he is opening up about. And then he posts another picture trying to breastfeed his partner's baby. So it's obvious here that this is a fetish. And I think in all cases, in all cases where men are using babies to try to affirm their so-called gender identity, it is a sexual fetish. There's something pedophilic about it. There's something autogynophilic about it. It has nothing to do with them actually thinking they're the opposite sex. It's seeing children as objects of kind of sexual and identity affirmation, which is perversive.

Starting point is 00:42:42 verse and should trouble absolutely anyone and does trouble a lot of people no matter how tolerant you think that you are. But here's my message to conservatives in the midst of all of this because I see conservatives objecting to being called things like transphobe. They'll defend themselves saying transphobia means fear and I'm not scared of trans people. I just don't believe that men should be going into women's bathrooms, et cetera. That's not transphobic. Well, number one, defending yourself against their accusations and name-calling is wasted time. The proper response to things like that is not, no, I'm not. It's, I don't care.

Starting point is 00:43:19 I don't care. That's the proper response. And then number two, here's the thing. We actually should feel fear. Like, we should fear men going into women's bathrooms. We should fear the female prisoners being forced to incarcerate, forced to be incarcerated with men, many of whom have actually raped women. We should fear for the rape victims.

Starting point is 00:43:40 being forced to share space and abuse shelters with men. We should fear a world in which girls are forced to suppress their instincts and smile as males infiltrate their sororities, their teams, their locker rooms. And also, yes, like, we should feel aversion too. We should have a strong aversion toward men trying to breastfeed babies. We should be averse to the idea that female is a costume to be donned or an identity to declare. These fears and aversions are healthy. They're normal.

Starting point is 00:44:13 They're logical. What they are not is irrational. And that is why the term transphobe isn't accurate. Because phobia means an irrational fear or aversion. But the fear and aversion felt in this case, they're extremely rational. So whether you believe that we are a product of evolution and we have the instincts that we do, the instinctive fears that we do because they were passed down from our ancestors to help us survive, or whether you know as I do, that we were made in the image of God, given by God,

Starting point is 00:44:49 the ability to discern obvious observable truths like differences between male and female. The fear and aversion people have to men trying to be women and enter their spaces, or the fear and aversion that people have to a group of a bunch of confused and lost, and unstable people marching down the street and saying they're coming for your children. These are very innate and understandable fears and aversions. This doesn't mean that people who are confused about their gender are any less inherently valuable than anyone else. They're made in God's image like the rest of us.

Starting point is 00:45:25 They're in need of Christ like the rest of us. I mean, I feel such pain in hearing the story specifically of these transitioners who were victims of manipulation and negligence. I rejoice when I hear that they have heard the good. news of the gospel and they believe, but the insistent denial of reality, particularly at the expense of women and girls when it comes to this movement of men identifying as women is a thing to be feared and disdain. We can, and we should, hold all of these facts in mind at the same time. You can call it transphobia, whatever phobia you want, it's just the truth. And conservatives

Starting point is 00:46:05 and Christians just need to be able to stand firm on that. You can call it whatever you want to. It's not an irrational fear. It might be a fear in aversion, but it's not irrational. It is completely logical. It's completely rational. It's completely reasonable because it is based on truth. And we should never shy away from truth.

Starting point is 00:46:26 Honestly, it's the most loving thing that we can do. Because remember, love isn't just love. Love rejoices with the truth. truth, never in wrongdoing, as 1st Corinthians 13 says. And so that's what we remember and double down on all the time, but especially every year, is just the depravity is shoved into our faces and we see what the movement with the activist movement actually is. Now, what we're talking about isn't characteristic of every single person who identifies

Starting point is 00:46:58 as part of LGBTQ. That's not what we're saying. but the movement as a whole, the activist part of this, the push for this, is absolutely representative of something that is even darker than just sexual immorality and gender identity, but really, really comes from a place, I think, of yes, demonic oppression, but also just perverse predation. And it is something that you should have a fear of and an aversion to, it shouldn't steal your joy because you trust in a God who has promised to come back and to make all things right. And one day there will be no more sin, no more sadness, not just this

Starting point is 00:47:43 kind of sin, but our own sin of whatever it is, of pride, of distrust, of the Lord, of selfishness. All of these things one day will be gone and God will rule in perfect peace and enact perfect justice forever and ever and ever. So speak the truth and love, doing the next right thing, because that's all we can do, especially in the face of this chaos. All right. That's all we've got time for today. Next week, I'm going to be in a different location. We're going to have all, you know, our normal episodes that we usually have. We have a couple interviews that are exciting that will be recording next week. And then our normal, you know, current events, culture type episodes that'll be coming out next week too. But I will be in a

Starting point is 00:48:47 different location. So it might look and sound a little bit different, but same great, relatable content. As always, if you love this podcast, please leave us a five-star review. That would mean so much. And subscribe on YouTube if you haven't already. And let us know if there's anything in particular you want us to discuss next week. All right, thanks so much for listening. We will be back here on Monday. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality.

Starting point is 00:49:35 We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 834 | Did SCOTUS Legalize LGBTQ Discrimination?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.