|Criticism of “gay pride” could be illegal.
[Only sexual perversion is covered.]
Friends, it was obvious. There are many additional orientations that would have had to be included in sexual orientation. Also, they would have to agree to a definition of gender identity and they did not want that. They obviously did not want to define gender identity to include [or exclude] she-male, cross-dresser, drag queen, transgender, transsexual, etc.Republican Congressman Randy Forbes from Virginia stated that since it has been proven and established that our military are targets of hate and physical attack, many facilities are recommending that soldiers not wear their uniforms in large adjoining cities. He mentioned several groups by name that are vehemently spitting on them and abusing them, only because they are US military personnel.
So Forbes offered an amendment to also include military personnel as a protected class and thus to attack them would also be a hate crime. It was defeated.
The Republicans offered many good amendments to add categories that would be covered by the bill. They did a very good job trying to clarify the bill and hold the democrats accountable.
Senior Citizens should be a protected class as old people are being beaten up and robbed. Rosa Parks got mugged in Detroit. Another suggested protected class was Pregnant Women who are battered by boy friends, live-in boyfriends or husbands because they are pregnant. Republican Congressman Tom Feeney of Florida offered an amendment to add the “homeless.”All were defeated.
Republican Congressman Louis Gohmert of Texas moved to remove “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from the bill. It failed on a recorded vote of 19 to 13.
Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana offered the important amendment on Freedom of Religion. “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”
A number of Republicans spoke in support of it. But the Democrats Jerrold Nadler, Tammy Baldwin and Chairman John Conyers kept evading the issue.
Finally, Congressman Gohmert asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Gohmert was attempting to clarify and emphasize that the legislation would have an effect on the constitutional right to religious freedom and thus the Pence amendment was needed to protect religious speech.
The Democrats continued to explain why they could not accept the amendment. Lundgren continuously shot down their answer. He said, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”And finally Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama spoke up and said, “Yes.”
Friends, that is what we have been warning you about and our legal advice was correct. It is evident what HR 1592 is about. It is not about homosexuals and cross dressers suffering with no food, shelter or jobs, it is about preventing Bible-believing people and pastors from speaking the truth.
It is about punishing them so they will not dare to speak the truth.
It is about threatening them with prison so they won’t dare speak the truth.
The Judiciary Committee could easily have accepted the amendment, “Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the constitution.”
Rev. Lou Sheldon stated,