Attacking the First Amendment Through Progressive Word Games

Here is an example of what happens when society embraces the foolishness of changing the meaning of words to suit political agendas:

U.S. city looks to penalize Bible believers

Critics charge ‘anti-bias’ requirement punishes people with moral convictions

The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”

Anyone in office who demonstrates a bias would be considered guilty of “malfeasance” and removed from office.

This is an unconstitutional ordinance.  It is nothing short of a back-door assault on the 1st Amendment, and it will likely succeed due to the ignorance and bias of the people who elected these council members (not to mention the members, themselves).

Look, we need to exercise some common sense here.  First of all, under these proposed terms, this ordinance would prohibit anyone from ever being able to hold a position in this town as it is literally impossible for a human not to have biases.  If you vote Democrat, you just exhibited a  political bias against all the other Parties.   If you marry or date a black person, you just showed a bias against all other races.  Heck, if you date a male, you have shown bias against females — and bisexuals and transsexuals and the celibate.  See how this works?

Now, before you object that I am making an absurd argument, consider this: this ordinance doesn’t define “bias,” so that leaves the definition open to all sorts of abuse.  And as we have seen in recent events, these sort of perversions of the intent of the law can and will be used as political weapons – which is exactly the intent of this ordinance in the first place. This ordinance is nothing more than another method by which intolerant and hateful people can force their will on those with whom they disagree while falsely assuming they can claim the legal and moral high ground in the process.  Well, when you write a law with deceit in your heart, neither is the case.  That’s like the burglar who claims the right of self-defense for killing his victim when his victim was trying to defend his home.  The principle is the same here: intentional and blatant abuse of the law and legal system to violate the 1st Amendment protections of conscience and religion.

4 thoughts on “Attacking the First Amendment Through Progressive Word Games

  1. The Mayor of San Antonio is the son of one of the founding members of La Raza, can’t remember her name, but she hates America & believes in Reconquista. La Raza is the epitome of racist, their motto is “all for those inside the race, nothing for those outside the race” and guess which race they are talking about.

  2. My understanding is Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish and Indians. My aunt is Lakota and she taught me that Indians, Eskimos, etc walked across the Bering Strait from Asia. Some stayed north, some went to Mexico and were eventually invaded by Spain.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.