Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Open Letter to Breitbart News re: Gorsuch Opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County

Dear Mr. Pollak:

I read your article about the supposed co-existence of LGBT "rights" and religious liberties.
There are so many problems with this analysis, that I must push back on this.

Joel Pollak

First of all, the whole concept of homosexuality and transgenderism as "rights" because they are fixed genetic identities is deeply flawed, and fundamentally false.
Individuals are not born gay, nor are they born in the wrong body based on hormonal or biochemical differences.
Why should any government, let alone a court, recognize these behaviors as identities?
Secondly, Justice Gorsuch clearly departed from the doctrine of Originalism promoted by his predecessor Antonin Scalia. The word "sex" means ... sex. It does not mean "sexual behavior", it does not mean "sexual identity", and it does not mean "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" for that matter.

This is the grossest abuse of judicial power and authority yet, and with this ruling the Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, has turned itself into a lawless laughingstock. It was no joke or statement of hyperbole when former Justice Scalia warned that that the Supreme Court was turning into one of the greatest threats to American democracy.
Furthermore, your statement towards the end of the article requires a rigorous challenge:
There is room for disagreement in this case, which will likely affect relatively few people. Few employers, even those who are religious, care about employees’ private sexual lives.
This judicial decision can and indeed will affect countless numbers of people. Consider what has already been happening to the baker in Colorado, Mr. Jack Philipps. How about the bakers in Oregon, or the florist in Washington State? The challenges to individual liberty and freedom of conscience because of the legal fiction to prevent discrimination against so-called homosexuals and transgenders will become more prevalent and manifest because of this decision. The Court arrogantly took the position that they could redefine words in a statute, which in effect war against reality itself.  The truth is that natural rights like religious liberty cannot coexist with unnatural perversions like a predilection for sodomy and transvestism.

Perhaps Breitbart should be called "Bi-Bart"?

Also, I must remind you that one of the cases connected with the Bostock decision involved a man pretending to be a woman, who was working at a funeral parlor in Michigan. His insistence on going along with the mentally delusional notion that he could become a she was not a "private" matter, at all. He insisted on this perverse, false recognition being made in public, and being accepted by others in public. 

For the record, private behavior of all kinds, including sexual conduct between consenting adults, does indeed have public consequences. For that reasons, nations and governments have routinely criminalized incest, prostitution, as well as homosexuality. The spread of venereal disease, the long-standing harms to public health and public safety, and now the cultural demise which has been imposed on us in the wake of militant LGBT advocacy, have widespread, far-reaching consequences. In Singapore, the court wisely struck down attempts to remove Section 377a, the statute which criminalizes gross acts of indecency between men. The inhabitants of Singapore are well-aware of the horrific political, moral, cultural, and even biological consequences which ensue one homosexual conduct becomes decriminalized and normalized.
Former liberal, now conservative British historian Paul Johnson wrote about the inevitable threat of militant LGBT advocacy in his autobiographical work The Quest for God.  I would urge you to read it.

Paul Johnson

Joel, I know and believe you to be an educated and erudite journalist, but this article you wrote abandons many of these timely insights and intellect that you have displayed in other articles. I am astounded that Breitbart News continues to embrace this pro-LGBT stance, when clearly accommodation for such anti-family policies and ideas are as anti-populist, anti-nationalist, pro-globalist, and pro-establishment as they get.

Arthur Schaper, Organization Director
Website: MassResistance.org

No comments:

Post a Comment