Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - REPLAY: "Equality" Act

Episode Date: November 29, 2019

The Equality Act passed the House and contains a direct assault on religious liberty under the guise of compassion.

Hey guys, what's up? Welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Wednesday is our news day, as you guys know. And there's a lot of news to talk about. We could go over the abortion stuff yet again, but we have spent what? The past four or five episodes, at least over the past couple of weeks, talking about everything that's going on with abortion legislation in Georgia and Alabama. Now Missouri is headed down that track as well. And the pushback and the victory. that a lot of you have gotten online or in the articles that you have seen. And every day it does seem like it just gets crazier and crazier and more and more callous from the pro-choice side. I would say that some of the posts that I've seen have made it extremely clear that many on the pro-choice side, I definitely won't say all, but many on the pro-choice side are not, in fact, pro-choice, but are pro-abortion. There is, I don't know how else to say it, except to keep using this word, which we know

is biblical we've talked about on this podcast, but a callousness that covers the hearts of a lot of people on that side. And we know it's not just an abortion issue. It is a spiritual issue that pervades all aspects of someone's life that robs them of any real direct compassion and any real softness and vulnerability that allows us to love those who are more vulnerable than we are. So I don't want to talk about all of that today. I want you to know that I'm thinking. I'm about that and I would love to talk about that, but I want to give us some kind of reprieve because there are other very important things that are going on. I won't say more important, but they're very important and they all kind of work together. We've talked a lot about the onslaught

of progressivism and really how that is part and parcel with a lot of things that simply aren't true. I am not trying to cast everyone on the other side as bad or not a good Christian or something like that, but the values that we are seeing popularized by the left, by the radical left, and by the socialist left are indeed morally wrong. They are untruthful, according to the Bible, and we have to make sure to recognize that when we see it. And one example of that that has been in the news lately is this equality act. You've probably heard about it. If you talk to someone on the left or probably even someone in the middle, they will say this is a monumental and necessary step for the protection of LGBTQ people. If you talk to someone on the right, they will probably tell you that this is a

major infringement on religious liberty. The reality is that it's probably some of both and it can be both. It can be an infringement on our religious individual liberty and it can also be a so-called protection for LGBTQ people. But the question is which one is going to give and which one should give in the kind of constitutional public that we live in right now. So the bill was passed on Friday in the House, this Equality Act. It's described as a piece of legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. So that means that it expands on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to do that. The Civil Rights Act, you probably know it outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration

requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, public accommodations. Now, a lot of states, 20 states, I think in particular, already outlaw any kind of LGBT discrimination, but this community is now seeking protection on the federal or the national level. So that's what the Equality Act is about. According to the Wall Street Journal, this Act provides protections in employment and housing and loan applications, education, and other areas. Now, we should ask ourselves, is this something that is happening? Or is this something that is extremely pervasive or prevalent that LGBT people are being systemically discriminated against? I don't think that there's any evidence to that. And in fact, there is a liberal professor that will quote a little bit later

who says the same thing, who says, this is probably not a widespread problem. Of course, discrimination of all kinds happens. It does. We live in an imperfect country. We live in an imperfect world. We are all sinful people and people unfortunately have biases against people of certain races, against women, against pregnant women, whatever it is. And that is simply going to happen. But does the level of discrimination that we are seeing towards this community necessitate the kind of legislation that the Equality Act seeks to put in place? The answer is, in my opinion, no. But this is even more than that to them. It's also symbolic. They want to be protected and recognized and legitimized in a way that is federal, in a way that is national,

I think, that also gives some kind of, in their mind, a peace and assurance that they are being taken care of. It's also symbolic in that way. But this particular act actually goes further than the Civil Rights Act does. The bill says that individuals cannot be denied access to a locker room or a dressing room, no matter their gender identity. So that's been a very real point of contention between Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals. Eight Republicans in the House did vote yes, along with all the Democrats that were

present for the vote. Now, this bill probably is not going to get past the Senate. You know that Democrats control the House. Republicans control the Senate. Of course, Republican Susan Collins in the Senate is supporting the bill. She's trying to get her Republican colleagues in the Senate to do the same. It's just a reminder of how truly non-conservative Susan Collins is. If it does get past the Senate, Trump said he's going to veto it. But it's still important to talk about, even if it doesn't get past the Senate, even if it goes to President Trump's desk, which is unlikely and he does veto it. That's not the end of this story. This is very clearly a piece of legislation that is going to be pushed for our entire lifetimes as well as the lifetimes of our children until it gets passed or until something drastically changes in the United States. This is going to be a piece of legislation that is pushed harder and harder.

This is what the left sees as a requirement to legitimize transgenderism and the rights of the entire LGBT community by punishing anyone who refuse. is to hire them or treat them how the federal government says that they should be treated. And now all of that, to many of you might sound okay. And I understand that. Maybe you're even a Christian and you're thinking, well, okay, I don't personally agree with transgenderism or I, you might be saying, I don't agree with the LGBT lifestyle, but I don't want them to be discriminated against. I think it is wrong to discriminate it against them.

You discriminate against them, you might be saying. and maybe you think, okay, well, I'm for this. You know, separation of church and state, I think that this is all fine. Except what I would say, and this is what we're going to get into, this is not actually separation of church and state. This is state involvement in churches in religious organizations and parochial schools, demanding that these organizations operate how the government tells them to operate no matter their religious objections. What this really is, what this act really is, is separation of church in all public life. So you hear a lot from the left, separation of church and state, which is a very, very misunderstood phrase.

Of course, we know that there is no establishment of a state religion in the United States. You are free or should be free to worship who and how you see fit or to not worship any God at all. That is part of religious liberty in the United States. But the left often takes this idea, the separation of church and state, which is not, of course, in the Constitution. It's more a principle that was actually found in a letter. But that's kind of besides the point right now. They think that that means that your faith should not dictate at all how you see laws or how you see legislation, how you see policy whatsoever, that it shouldn't have any effect on your civic life. but of course it does. Any person of faith understands that faith is the hub in the center of the wheel. And so without the hub in the center of the wheel, all the spokes that are connected or supposed to be connected to a hub are just going to be, they're going to be irrelevant.

And one of the spokes in our life is the civic government or is our civic involvement, is our civic life. And so, of course, we see how the government operates through the lens of Christians. That does not mean that we're advocating for a theocracy. That does not mean I want to force you to worship God how I want you to worship him. That doesn't mean that I want to force you to live the life that I think that you should be living. Now, I might have religious opinions on that. I'm, of course, going to have biblical opinions on sin and which lifestyle is better.

But I am not going to enforce the government to force you or ask the government to enforce laws that tell you to be a Christian. I'm not going to do that. So that is a very, that's a point of confusion, I think, for a lot of people on the left, that they say that you shouldn't approach any kind of policy whatsoever, any form of public life with any kind of religious perspective. Well, that's stupid. Civic life for the Christian is downstream from your faith.

It is always going to be. Now, that doesn't exclude our promotion of freedom. Of course not. The founding fathers, here's another myth. everyone says that the founding fathers were just deists they were all deists and they really had no relationship with god they didn't really care about jesus at all they just thought that god was this this guy who was sitting back looking over everything maybe you know he was providential in some ways but not directly involved in the aspects of our lives but that's not true of all of the

founding father certainly not it wasn't true of our first president it wasn't true of george Washington, it was not true of all of the founding fathers at all. Some of them had more deistic views, but a lot of them were Christians. The American Revolution was actually known as the Presbyterian rebellion. A lot of them were Calvinist. This was a very religiously motivated rebellion from England to establish the United States. Again, that doesn't mean that they established a theocracy, but it was through their love for God and their love for Jesus Christ and their love for the Bible that they said we want to establish a country that is free. So all that to say, it is okay for us to approach this from a Christian perspective because

that does not exclude freedom. What we actually see is that the religion of progressivism is the religion that excludes freedom. The Christian religion doesn't do that. I'm talking on a civic level. So anyway, this is not the separation of freedom. church and state. That's not what the Equality Act is. This is an attempt to separate church from all public life, from your job, from anything that affects the public sphere, and even we'll see in a little

bit, even some of the private sphere, anything that goes outside of just you praying in silence in your head at home, this Equality Act has something to say about it. So when you hear people say on the left that, oh, we just want separation of church and state. No, they want separation of church in everything. They don't believe that the church should have any influence whatsoever. They don't believe that Christians should be able to insert their opinions anywhere or live by their opinions if they don't agree with it. That's why we always say progressivism as a religion is extremely intolerance. And as a political view, it's extremely tyrannical. So here are some of the implications, some of the consequences of the Equality Act. And you can

go online, you can read the Equality Act yourself. There are plenty of briefings. Make sure that you're getting it, you know, you can go on Vox and you could read that briefing. That's going to have a certain bent to it. You can go on National Review that's going to maybe have another bent to it if you are on the left. So you can go and read all about this if you want to. But here's what I've deduced from reading the Act and reading several analyses of it. It makes irrelevant any religious or conscience exemptions for doctors. So under this bill, a doctor is going to be required. to perform sex change surgery if they are in that particular field and provide hormone therapy even to children. And we already know this is happening in other countries. Now, they could maybe

find protection under free exercise arguments or other conscious objection legislation, but that's just unsure. So they just don't know. Religious schools are going to be regulated under this act, even if they take no funding from the federal government, meaning that they couldn't choose to not hire or fire a teacher, for example, who was in a gay relationship or who was transitioning. Now, you might be listening to this and say, well, good. But even if you don't agree with these religious schools' views, Christian schools operate under the Bible. And they are free to operate under the Bible. And the Bible is clear about marriage and gender. So by regulating these schools, by the federal government regulating these schools, they are forcing them to ignore and condone with

the Bible says is sin. That is the opposite of religious liberty. That doesn't, that's not good for anyone. Whether you're religious or not, you can still be a fan of freedom. That is tyranny. There is a Supreme Court case employment division v. Smith that held that religious dissenters are subject to generally applicable laws. It's probably not going to be overturned, which means under the Equality Act, there would be very little, there will be some, but very little recourse for religious people who object to these kinds of laws. So under this act, this also means that athletic teams would be forced to allow transgender boys and girls to compete on their athletic teams that correspond with their gender identity

rather than their biological sex. There could be some judicial interpretation, I'm told, that would rule in favor of objections to this. But in general, under this act, they would have this right. I saw Dan Crenshaw, who is a Republican representative from Texas, say that he just couldn't believe what his Democratic colleagues were saying about, oh, Republicans and conservatives, they're just fearmongering. This is not that big of a deal for a transgender girl, so a biological boy, to play on a girl's soccer team, for example. That's just fear mong green. That's not that big of a deal.

As if science doesn't exist or science doesn't matter. I mean, we could go through, this is kind of a different episode for a different day. and we have actually talked about this in the past. We talked about this on an episode when we talked about women being drafted and how stupid that is because men and women are so different. But men have a different biological makeup that even if they're on hormone therapy, even if they take estrogen, even if they look like a woman that doesn't change their anaerobic capacity, which is better than a woman's that doesn't change their bone density

that doesn't change their ability to gain muscle. It might change it a little bit, but it doesn't completely take it away. They are still going to be amazing. on the inside. And I don't care how big it did that sound. It's scientifically true. They are biologically a man. And as a biological man, you are different. You know, this is a side note, but I've read something really interesting the other day. You all know I'm pregnant. And so I'm always reading these different articles. Sorry if this is like just a tad bit inappropriate, but I don't think it is. So you're reading this, I was reading this article about breastfeeding. And there was this really interesting point that I read that

actually, depending on what sex your baby is, the composition of, of, okay, this is actually getting a little bit more graphic than I want, the composition of breast milk is different for a boy versus a girl. And so you have more protein if you are having a boy, you have less protein in fat, if you are having a girl. All of that points to the fact that there is a biological difference between boys and girls. There is going to be a different makeup between boys and girls that is not going to be changed by sex change surgery or by hormone therapy. And so these Democrats that are saying, well, this is just fear mongering. This, you know, this isn't really going to have any negative effect on women are lying to themselves.

They're completely lying to themselves. But this is what happens under the Equality Act, where gender identity actually completely obscure science and reality. According to National Review, under the guise of anti-discrimination protections, the bill redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women's spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender confused youth. That is a quote from National Review. Now, there are plenty of Republicans in the House who have tried to add amendments to ensure some more freedom for organizations and for schools. There is a representative Tom McClinton, talk, he's from California, he provided an amendment that I would have said that the bill would not be construed to require a health care provider to affirm the self-professed gender identity of a minor. So just of a minor, not of an adult, of a minor. So we're talking about someone, obviously a minor is under the age of 18, but say you've got someone who comes in who is eight or nine, which are the cases that we have heard, both here and

abroad. You've got an eight or a nine-year-old who says, mommy, daddy, I know that I was born a girl, but I really think I'm a boy and who insists. Maybe they've seen something on YouTube. They insist that they transition whatever it is. Or maybe they've got loony parents who say, you know what, we're just going to affirm you. They go to a doctor's office. Say that doctor is a Christian and that doctor does not want to affirm the gender identity and says,

you know what, I'm sorry. I'm not going to be able to take this case. Good luck to you. Under this bill, they apparently may not be able to do that. And I think that it is, that is proven by the fact that Tom McClintock offered an amendment that would have made sure the health care provider doesn't have to affirm the self-professed gender identity of a minor, and Democrats turned it down. So HR5, that's what this bill is, is a dangerous attempt. This is what McClintock says, by the Democrats to use the force of government to bend biology and human nature to their ideological whims.

He says, I'm not surprised that my amendment to ensure that physicians cannot be sued for exercising their professional medical judgment towards minors. was rejected. Viewed along with the rejection of my colleagues amendment relating to protecting parents from being sued for discrimination for the act of parenting, the Democrat's radical agenda is on full display in the House. And that is absolutely true. The fact that these amendments have been turned down. So an amendment just saying, hey, if a physician has an objection to affirming the gender identity of a minor. So we're talking about a child or a young teenager who wants to get hormone therapy, that they would be protected from being sued by the parents or sued by whoever, the Democrats turn that down.

That means that they think that a doctor should be sued. They should be free to be sued if they turn down this kind of therapy for a minor crazy. Representative Greg Stube, I don't really know how to pronounce his last name. He's also Republican from Florida. he also proposed an amendment that would have ensured that the act would not be construed to require a biological female to face competition from a biological male in any sporting event. That's what we were just talking about. Democrats turn that down as well.

And this is what the representative had to say about that. I offered this amendment to ensure that our daughters are provided an equal playing field in sports for generations to come and that female athletes are not competing against male athletes for athletic scholarships and Title IX funding. I for one, don't think it's fair or equal to make young biological women compete against biological males. That's why I introduced this amendment in committee and again to the full House. Of course.

Of course, he's absolutely right for all of the reasons that we just listed. And Democrats say that that's fearmongery. That's basic. Isn't it crazy? I was just saying this to someone the other day that the longer we have gone throughout history, the more science we know, obviously, the more scientific knowledge that we have. We know the differences between. men and women between boys and girls. We know that boys and girls' brains actually start

developing differently inside the womb. Of course they do because boys and girls are inherently extremely different. We just talked about that even how they feed and the food that they naturally eat right after they're born is different. It's composed differently. Their chromosomes are different. And Democrats are saying no, no, no, in favor of identity, in favor of a feeling, in favor of a dysphoria, we need to deny all scientific reality. We need to, in essence, discriminate against girls who are competing in sports because of this small minority of people who think that they're the opposite sex and they actually are. That's insanity.

That is insanity. Another representative Republican from Louisiana, Mike Johnson, he proposed an amendment that said that the act would not be construed to deny parents' right to be involved in their minor child's medical care. Just think about how basic that is. A parent's right to be involved in their minor child's medical care. So again, we are talking about children or we are talking about teenagers, high schoolers. The act was rejected by, or the amendment was rejected by Democrats. He replied with this, the so-called Equality Act would actually eliminate sex-based protections for woman by forcing rape crisis centers, ladies locker rooms, female prisons, women's sports

leagues, and other sex-based organizations to admit biological males. Additionally, this bill would eviscerate constitutionally protected rights by empowering the federal government to force employers, medical professionals, parents, business owners, and all Americans to act in violation of their conscience. The federal government should not be able to dictate a belief system. And that last line is absolutely right. The federal government should not be able to dictate a belief system. I just want you to think about this, that under this act, possibly parents could be sued, parents could be sued for violating the civil rights of their child by saying,

look, Sally, you're not Johnny. And I am not going to take you to a gender identity affirming doctor to change your sex. I'm not going to do that. I'm sorry, I'm not going to do it. we are going to pursue other methods. We are going to go to counseling. We love you. And we want what's best for you. That is not what's best for you. Possibly, possibly parents could be put in trouble because of this Equality Act because now affirming one's identity is going to be seen as a civil rights. And they would

be saying that, you know, a parent would be violating their child's civil rights. We already saw this in Canada where a dad is getting charged for violence, emotional violence against his child for not saying that his biologically female child, biologically, yeah, biologically female child is a male. He won't call her by her by male pronouns because she is a girl.

And now he is being found guilty in court of mistreating his daughter. It's insane. And if you think that that's not coming to the United States, You should just read this Equality Act. That's exactly what this would do. The fact that Democrats shot this amendment down to give parents any discretion, any right to be involved in a minor child's medical care, tells you exactly what they think.

They don't believe in parental rights. They don't. They believe that you, that I, that our children should be agents of the state. Because apparently bureaucrats, many of whom don't have any kids, by the way, and don't really care about their families, apparently, well, I shouldn't make that judgment. I shouldn't say that. Don't care about our families. I will say that. Don't care about our families think that they can parent better than we do. That's what they believe. They think that religion, they think that morality, they think that any kind of principle that goes against what they think, that it is, that it should be outlawed, basically.

Or it should be as outlawed as humanly possible. It should, your views should have to be kept as private as possible. and then if they step outside of the tiny circle of what's allowed by the federal government, the federal government is going to punish you. That's what this bill is about. And I want you to think for a second, when you think about the fact that this bill could open up parents to being sued for not going along with their child who's a girl wanting to be a boy or vice versa, think about how stupid you were when you were young. Think about that. I'm thinking about it myself. think about how stupid you were. Think about how stupid you were when you were a teenager. And when I was a teenager, we didn't even have all of this stuff. Like my husband and I talk about all

the time, all of the things that we're going to have to teach our daughter that we didn't have to be taught, that boys are boys and girls are girls. We didn't have to be taught that. It was just like, yeah, duh, obviously, obviously. But we're going to actually have to teach our daughter that. We're going to have to teach her, no, this is the only way that babies are made. No, this is a boy has different biological, a different biological makeup than a girl does. This has different implications. No, no, no, no. There are only two genders.

I know this is all confusing because you're learning all of these different things. But I was like kids are already really dumb in so many ways. They're just made like that. They're supposed to be dependent on their parents. Their brains aren't fully developed. Our frontal lobe is it fully developed until we're 25? Think about all the dumb stuff you believe. Like I remember, let me tell you a story just to tell you a story about how dumb kids are.

When I was eight years old, I went to the dentist and I was getting sealants for the first time because they found a cavity for the first time. So I get, yeah, I was eight. And the lady told me, the lady told me we are going to put stickers of, of instinct or the back street boys on on these ceilence. They're going to be invisible, but they're going to be on there. It was years before I realized that she was lying to me. Years!

It was years before I realized that she was just trying to get me to be excited about my first dental procedure and that I didn't actually have invisible stickers of the backstreet boys on my molars. Like, that's just kids just believe things. We believe in Santa Claus. We believe in the tooth fairy. We are not capable of making decisions about our gender and especially kids now that watch YouTube and get so much misinformation from public schools and sometimes even private schools. And when

you're a teenager, you're dumb too. You think that you're going to marry the guy that you dated in high school. You should not be free to make these monumental decisions, especially if you are seriously suffering from gender dysphoria, which is a dysphoria that is something that is wrong with your brain, should be treated with compassion, should be treated with love, but also should be treated with counseling. not affirmation. And this bill is opening up parents who simply want discretion and want discernment over their child's lives who don't even have developed brains yet, opening them up to possibly being sued for not going along with their gender affirming therapy.

It's very sad. So obviously there are a lot of First Amendment objections here. They're medical objections. They're moral objections. Morical, what? Moral objections. There are objections also from a feminist perspective. I don't consider myself a feminist, but I think it's interesting that this whole, the transgender

movement truly is eating the feminist movement because men are becoming better at being women than women are. And so what happened to feminism? Transgenderism is really just a tool of the patriarchy. When you think about it, there was an article titled, Why the Equality Act Means a Setback for a Woman. This is written by Mary Vought. It points out that these protections of the Equality Act actually are going to harm the access

that women now have to various freedoms that they have developed over time. She pointed out that there is a lot of harm in the language that the bill uses when it defines gender because the bill states that gender is all gender-related identity, its appearance, its mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual's designated sex at birth. That means that a biological male, even a guy who hasn't even started his transition, just a guy who looks like a guy is a man, could say, Hey, I'm a female today. I want to compete against a woman in this wrestling match. Now,

do I think that's going to happen very often? No, I really don't. I don't think that a lot of guys have that desire and I think that's going to be very rare. The point is that that still could happen. And the point is also just how ridiculous and fanciful this whole conversation has become about sex and gender, that it's just something that you wake up and decide. No, sex corresponds with gender and there are only two biological sexes. That doesn't mean, that a biological male can't have more traits that are seen as feminine. That doesn't mean that he can't like dance, that he can't be soft-spoken, that he can't, you know, like things that women typically like or that he has to be this gun-toting,

mud-slinging, four-wheel driving football player. That's not what it means to be a man. And it doesn't mean that biological women can't have more traditionally masculine traits or like things that men do. That doesn't mean that. In that sense, sure, you could say that gender is fluid. But coming up with all of these different genders that may or may not correspond to sex, that is when we get out of the realm of the nuanced conversation that is actually based in reality,

and we get into some kind of fairy tale where we base science on people's feelings. And now we base legislation on people's feelings, which is really just crazy. And so you've got all of these high school. college women who have worked really hard in their sport to be the best that they can be, maybe to get scholarships for women's sports. I mean, we didn't even talk about that, that women who have been working hard for scholarships to go to college, to play tennis, whatever it is, to play soccer, now have to be also competing against men for that.

That really sucks. And I, I'm not an athlete. And so I can't empathize exactly with that. But I can imagine working so hard to be the best. in your field, I mean, in order to get a scholarship, especially to, like a D1 school, to play a sport is really hard. You have to be the best of the best. And now the best of the best is going to be a completely different scale because you're going to be competing against people that are always going to be, if you're a woman, biologically faster than you, biologically stronger than you,

biologically have a better anaerobic capacity than you do, is going to be able to endure a lot longer than you can. It's going to be able to hit a lot harder than you can. And so it's not fair. And I don't always believe in fairness as Democrats do or as liberals do. They believe in equality of outcomes. But I do believe in equality of opportunity. And this is no longer equality of opportunity. You're obscuring opportunities for people who have worked hard simply because they are what the left called cisgender. So you are punishing people who don't have gender dysphoria. But that's exactly. what cosmic justice and social justice always does. It uplifts who they believe are oppressed, always at the expense of who they believe are not oppressed. And I actually have an episode

on social justice coming out this summer that explains all of that really in depth. So this is, as we've already talked about, scary for parents. They could potentially be found guilty of violating their children's civil rights. We already noted that if they declined to consent to sex transition surgery. So this is a violation of a lot of privacy. So the same people that say that the Constitution grants a right to privacy for women who want to get abortions and who say, hey, get the government out of my doctor's office, get the government out of my health care, now actually want the government directly involved in their health care, directly telling doctors what treatments they can and cannot give a child and what parents or what can what parents can do with

their children as far as treatment goes. And so that's just another example of how the whole privacy, how the whole this is a doctor's choice argument that we hear about abortion from the left is all, it's all a lie. They don't really care about freedom. They've never cared about autonomy. If your autonomy gets in the way of theirs, they don't care about any of that. What they want is their agenda pushed at all costs. And you cannot have any kind of objection to that whatsoever without being called the bigot.

But this is what happens. Again, we've talked about this so much. This is what happens when you exchange the God of Scripture with the God of self. The God of Scripture is the giver of all truth. He is the giver of all wisdom. He defines what sex is. He defines what is right and what is wrong. And even if you reject God, even if you say that you're not a Christian, but you align with what the Bible says, whether you know it or not, you are going to find yourself in a place of truth, at least in a temporal way. But on the other side of that, you've got the God of self. You've got, you know what, the only value, the highest value that I have is authenticity. The highest value that I have is individuality and being special.

And everyone has to bow down to the God of self. And the God of self that we are glorifying now is the kind that the left sees is typically discriminated against typically oppressed and all of us have to sacrifice our freedoms, religious, moral, and otherwise on the altar to the God of self of the people that they deem more worthy of protection than us. The reality is that the left, many on the left don't see Christianity as any kind of legitimate objection to have or any religion as any objection to have. They believe that it really shouldn't matter, that we should embrace self secularism that we should embrace their ideology and in that way you see who the real tyrants are

who the real bigots are so i just wanted to give you a brief rundown on all of that we didn't even touch all of the topics that we could have about the equality act but you need to know that this is happening you need to be aware if it does go to the senate you need to look at who's actually voting for this stuff and you need to uncover the headlines to see what this really is this is violation of religious freedom. So that's all we're going to get into today. But I will be back Friday. We're probably going to do a rundown of other stuff that has happened this week on Friday rather than an interview just because there's a lot that I still want to cover that happened this week. So I hope that you have a great few days and I will see you back here on Friday.