No federal grants for businesses, nonprofits, and schools that don’t support transgender inclusion
Proposed Rules Threaten First Amendment Rights
On the heels of linking parent support for children’s innate sex with child abuse, the Biden administration is poised to force every recipient of federal grants into transgender policies. The proposed rules would expand all federal laws that ban Americans from respecting the differences between men and women to include homosexual and transsexual privileges, or “sexual orientation and gender identity” preferences. More than 100 such laws exist.
The proposed rules would also delete existing language requiring all federal grants to adhere to the Constitution in “protecting free speech, religious liberty, public welfare, the environment, and prohibiting discrimination,” according to the Center for Political Justice (CPJ). If such rules pass, they would license government discrimination against religious Americans, which is unconstitutional.
Impact on Federal Grants and Contracts
- Federal contracts and grants employ more people than the federal government does directly. In 2022, federal grants were worth $700 billion, nearly what American taxpayers spend on the U.S. military.
This “sweeping overhaul” of Office of Management and Budget rules would “apply across federal agencies that describe how grants and cooperative agreements should be administered and audited,” CPJ says. In other words, these rules apply to every one of the hundreds of federal agencies.
This rules change is one of dozens the Biden administration has been making to apply the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision to every aspect of federal power. That 6-3 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom queer activists targeted as the likely swing vote, inserted “sexual orientation and gender identity” privileges into the word “sex” in a law banning “sex discrimination” in employment.
In that decision, the court overrode 60 years of precedents in 30 of 30 courts where such cases were tried to fatuously pretend that Congress in the 1960s meant to include queer entitlements in laws that resulted in female entitlements — years before the word “transgender” was coined and in a time when homosexuals could not get security clearances and were still being separated from the military due to their sexual attraction to fellow soldiers.
Threat to First Amendment Rights
- Even LGBT activists spent decades between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 2020’s Bostock demanding a queer carve-out in federal “antidiscrimination law.” That means not even queer activists believed the Civil Rights Act protected homosexual, transsexual, or any other queer identity — until it was expedient to lie about that because the Supreme Court would sanction it.
“The entire Federal Judiciary will be mired for years in disputes about the reach of the Court’s reasoning,” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote in their Bostock dissent. They were right.
This federal grants regulation that would void Americans’ First Amendment rights will be one of the dozens immediately sued in federal court as a direct result of the Biden administration’s Bostock-citing queerings of federal law. Courts could instead be hearing other cases that actually uphold Americans’ rights had the Supreme Court not violated the Constitution by legislating from the bench in Bostock.
CPJ notes that public comment on this regulation is open until Dec. 4, “and can be submitted easily via www.regulations.gov (type OMB-2023-0017-0001 into the search box to find this NPRM).”
Preserving Freedom of Association
- LGBT extremists’ goal is to use every lever of federal power to force Americans to do and say what LGBT activists want. That is un-American and totalitarian: It assumes the right to tell people that they may not act as if they believe anything other than what government officials tell them.
That’s why there should be no “antidiscrimination” laws: It’s none of any government’s d-mned business whom Americans choose to hire or fire or admit into clubs, or any other exercise of free association. That’s what freedom means.
People who want to be free have to accept that sometimes it results in speech and actions we don’t like but are perfectly within every human’s natural rights. Either everyone gets these freedoms, or we edge toward a totalitarian system in which government asserts the right to tell you what you must say, who you have to let into places women and children undress, and who you must be friends and neighbors with.
Americans aren’t racists anymore. It’s been 60 years since the Civil Rights Act. We should get our freedom of association back now before its erasure destroys the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution — our remaining bulwarks for preserving a free people.
What potential consequences could religious individuals and organizations face if they refuse to adhere to policies prioritizing “sexual orientation and gender identity” over their traditional beliefs?
Federal court if implemented, as it directly infringes upon the rights of religious Americans. The proposed rules would force recipients of federal grants to adhere to policies that prioritize “sexual orientation and gender identity” over religious liberty and free speech.
Under the proposed rules, religious individuals and organizations who uphold traditional beliefs on gender and sexuality could face discrimination and even lose their federal funding. This is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion and the right to express one’s beliefs without government interference.
The impact of these rules on federal grants and contracts cannot be understated. Federal contracts and grants employ a significant number of people, often exceeding the number directly employed by the federal government. In fact, in 2022, federal grants were valued at $700 billion, a staggering amount comparable to the defense budget.
The Office of Management and Budget rules that would be overhauled by these proposed regulations apply to every federal agency, making the potential impact widespread. These changes reflect the Biden administration’s efforts to apply the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court decision to various aspects of federal power.
In the Bostock decision, the court redefined the word “sex” in a law prohibiting ”sex discrimination” to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.” This controversial decision overturned decades of precedent and opened the door for the inclusion of queer entitlements in antidiscrimination laws.
Even LGBTQ activists themselves did not believe that the Civil Rights Act protected queer identities until the Bostock decision, as they had spent years advocating for a specific carve-out in federal law. The sudden change in interpretation by the Supreme Court has led to confusion and will likely result in a flood of litigation to clarify the scope of the court’s reasoning.
If these proposed rules pass, they would not only undermine religious freedom and free speech but also license government discrimination against those who hold traditional beliefs. This is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of religious Americans and a dangerous precedent for government overreach.
It is crucial that we protect the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs or their stance on controversial social issues. Preserving the freedom to express one’s beliefs and engaging in respectful dialogue is essential for a thriving democracy. The proposed rules threatening these rights should be vigorously opposed and challenged in federal court.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
