Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - July 06, 2023


Ep 834 ｜ Did SCOTUS Legalize LGBTQ Discrimination？


Episode Stats

Length

47 minutes

Words per Minute

158.69391

Word Count

7,598

Sentence Count

444

Misogynist Sentences

15

Hate Speech Sentences

28


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Myths abound on social media regarding the latest decisions by the Supreme Court, especially
00:00:07.220 when it comes to Christians now allegedly being able to discriminate against the LGBTQ community.
00:00:16.220 So we'll debunk some of those narratives that you've seen floating around on Instagram and
00:00:21.820 elsewhere. Also, I've got a monologue to close out this episode to commemorate the end of this
00:00:27.580 year's Pride Month. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to
00:00:32.700 GoodRanchers.com. Use code Allie at checkout. That's GoodRanchers.com, code Allie.
00:00:46.040 Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. Yes, Thursday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful
00:00:52.620 week. First of all, I apologize. I'm a little bit more nasally than usual. I'm getting over
00:00:58.040 a cold, but it's all good. But I am sorry to those of you who have to bear with me with
00:01:04.820 the sound of my cold-ridden voice. We have a lot to talk about today. I hope you listened
00:01:10.560 to Monday and Wednesday's episodes with Nancy Piercy. Isn't she just brilliant? For those
00:01:16.560 of you who listened, we talked about masculinity, about the body, why matter matters according
00:01:21.780 to God. So go listen to those episodes. We have a lot to get to today since we haven't
00:01:26.120 been able to cover the news for the past few days. I hope everyone had a wonderful 4th
00:01:30.780 of July. 4th of July is maybe one of my favorite days of the year. It's always been one of my
00:01:37.540 favorite holidays. I love the summer. I love all the festivities that come along with it.
00:01:42.200 I love the fireworks. I love the hot dogs, all that good stuff. We had a very chill day just
00:01:47.560 trying to escape the heat. I hope you had a wonderful celebration with your friends and
00:01:52.840 family, celebrating the privilege and the blessing that it is to live in the United States.
00:01:58.660 Even with all the craziness that we see on a daily basis here, there's really nowhere else
00:02:03.940 in the world I would rather live. So thank you, Lord, for making me a born and raised American.
00:02:10.640 All right, before we get into some of this stuff that you guys have been sending me and asking me
00:02:14.500 about asking me to debunk some of these Supreme Court cases and then a couple things at the end,
00:02:20.560 I just want to remind you that we've got new merch available at alimerch.com. So I've been
00:02:27.480 posting some clips where I'm wearing my The Rainbow Belongs to God shirt and you guys have been
00:02:33.060 commenting, where did you get that shirt? That's available at alimerch.com even though it's not
00:02:38.240 quote unquote pride month anymore. That's true all year long. It will be true forever and ever that
00:02:44.120 the rainbow belongs to God. But our newest stuff is just flying off the shelves. You guys had an
00:02:50.100 amazing response to it, which I knew that you would. The Do the Next Right Thing shirts and then
00:02:56.600 on the back, it has a cool design that says, Do the Next Right Thing in faith with excellence and for
00:03:01.300 the glory of God, which is what we say a lot on this show. And we've got Related Bro colors. Guys,
00:03:08.120 you've been asking me for merch that you can wear. Related Bros. I'm thankful for you. We've got a
00:03:15.240 black and white and then a cream colored and black option for you Related Bros out there. Of course,
00:03:20.600 Related Gals could wear this too. So we've got a lot of options. And then our Razor Respectful
00:03:25.640 Ruckus shirts. You guys are loving these. That's because they're super cute. I wear mine all the time.
00:03:30.980 And just for sizing, I mean, I am seven months pregnant, but I like the XL. It's very loose.
00:03:36.540 So just depends on what you want. Like I would, I don't even know. It just depends on the fit.
00:03:43.140 It depends on the fit. I think if I weren't pregnant, I would probably be, um, I'd probably
00:03:49.740 be wearing a large. So it just depends on what you like. Uh, yeah. So AllieMerch.com, check that out.
00:03:57.660 All right. Let's go ahead and get into some of the stuff that we have to cover today. I'm going to try
00:04:01.800 not to make this like a mega, mega long episode, but no promises. You guys know I'm very verbose.
00:04:07.940 Let's first talk about this 303 Creative versus Lenis case that was decided by the Supreme Court
00:04:14.780 last week. This has to do with the graphic designer, Lori Smith in Colorado, who did not want to create
00:04:22.320 a website celebrating, uh, homosexuality or celebrating gay unions. And so you've probably
00:04:28.860 seen a lot of takes online that said, Oh, the Supreme Court now says that businesses can discriminate
00:04:34.140 against LGBTQ people. Oh my goodness. They're taking this country backwards. They got rid of
00:04:40.620 affirmative action. What are we going to do without affirmative action? Oh, they got rid of Biden's
00:04:46.160 student loan plan. How are we ever going to survive this? You've probably seen a lot of drama over the
00:04:52.460 past few days. Very little actual intellectual analysis, very few on the left, uh, trying to
00:05:01.700 rebut, uh, the constitutionality of the decision. That's what you see a lot. Even with Roe v. Wade,
00:05:08.600 you saw, Oh my goodness, we're taking the country back with a backwards with this Dobbs decision. This is
00:05:15.080 so terrible, but very few reasoned, uh, perspectives on why the decision was constitutionally wrong when
00:05:23.940 Dobbs was decided last year. That's because the left in general, in general thinks that judges and
00:05:29.640 justices should be activists driven, that they should simply be ideologues that are carried by the
00:05:39.000 whims of the loudest progressives in the country. They're not concerned about applying the law in
00:05:46.380 accordance with the constitution. They're concerned with what they want and they would actually like
00:05:52.360 justices and judges, uh, to be, to be beholden to the will of the people. Whereas those of us over
00:06:00.460 here, we say, okay, we might not always agree with the decisions that the Supreme court justices
00:06:06.420 make who have been appointed by Republican presidents. Um, but we want them to interpret
00:06:15.560 the law in light of the constitution, which means that they're not quite as predictable as the left
00:06:20.460 wing justices are and left wing judges are. We always know which way they're going to rule.
00:06:26.120 We don't always know, for example, which way Roberts is going to rule. And I think he's been wrong
00:06:31.620 several times or which way, um, Amy Coney Barrett is going to rule or Kavanaugh is going to rule
00:06:37.940 because they're not ideologues. And so that's one difference between the left and the right.
00:06:42.660 You're not going to see a lot of leftists saying, oh, here is why constitutionally and logically
00:06:47.680 this case was decided incorrectly. It's all about the feels and they just happen to be wrong in their
00:06:53.400 analysis, by the way, especially of this 303 creative case. And we'll get into why. So let me give you
00:06:58.700 a little bit of background in September, 2016, Lori Smith, the owner of a company specializing in
00:07:03.680 graphic and web design called 303 creative filed a complaint against various Colorado officials,
00:07:08.680 including the members of the state's civil rights commission, because she wanted to explain her
00:07:13.120 religious beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman on her website and in communications
00:07:17.720 with prospective clients. But Colorado's anti-discrimination act, the CADA prohibited her from
00:07:24.180 doing this violating her first amendment rights. This is according to national review, by the way,
00:07:30.040 the summary, the CADA, this is according to the SCOTUS filing of her case prohibits all public
00:07:36.840 accommodations from denying the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services to any customer
00:07:42.120 based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other, uh, statutorily enumerated
00:07:48.700 trait. Um, the law defines public accommodation broadly to include almost every public facing
00:07:55.100 business in the state, either state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce
00:08:00.720 the law and a variety of penalties can follow any violation. So instead of acting and wanting and
00:08:07.480 waiting to be punished, this was a preemptive case. So Smith filed a preliminary injunction to clarify
00:08:13.460 her rights. This is called a pre-enforcement action. So you're seeing some people, like I saw that
00:08:19.860 propaganda account, what is it like Matt XIV or something who just always just post misinformation
00:08:26.060 about different, uh, political events and Supreme court decisions said something along the lines of the,
00:08:33.700 uh, central request in this complaint, um, that apparently, uh, Lori Smith said,
00:08:42.960 made a request on her website to create some kind of, uh, page that celebrated gay marriage that that
00:08:50.720 was, uh, the person that they said filed it is actually a straight man and he's been married and
00:08:58.740 he has no idea who Lori Smith is. And so this was all centered on some fake request that the allegation
00:09:06.620 from the left goes, Lori Smith and her team just made up. And so this case shouldn't even exist,
00:09:11.660 but that wasn't central to the case. Uh, now we don't, the request they're saying, by the way,
00:09:17.220 is legitimate. It really did come through. Now, whether this person was just trolling or not,
00:09:22.700 we don't know, but that wasn't central to this case. This was a preemptive action saying that
00:09:28.240 according to the CADA, she can't exercise her first amendment rights in, uh, publicly expressing
00:09:35.720 what she believes about marriage and sexuality according to her faith. Um, so the 10th circuit
00:09:42.140 ruled against Smith in July, 2021 saying that CADA permissibly compels a graphic and website design
00:09:49.900 company to offer wedding websites that celebrate same sex marriages. If it is going to offer wedding
00:09:56.060 websites that celebrate opposite sex marriages. So Smith just wanted in the state of Colorado to be
00:10:01.660 able to exercise her first amendment rights freely in the things that she creates. She realized that if
00:10:08.020 she had a website design company, that she would eventually be compelled to create design celebrating
00:10:15.620 that, which she disagrees with that, which, um, according to her faith, uh, may be sin. And so
00:10:24.700 she was ruled against, it went to the Supreme court. She's represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.
00:10:30.880 So thankful for their work and other groups like them. And we'll get into what SCOTUS specifically ruled.
00:10:37.220 Just, uh, uh, just a spoiler. It is not that businesses can just discriminate universally against
00:10:45.580 LGBTQ people. That's not what the ruling says.
00:10:54.700 All right. So last week, the Supreme court, uh, ruled in favor of three Oh three creative slash
00:11:08.340 Lori Smith. So Gorsuch, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett ruled in Smith's favor. And then
00:11:16.460 the three reliably progressive, uh, leftist justices filed a dissenting opinion.
00:11:24.180 This is what they held. The first amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer
00:11:29.280 to create expressive designs, speaking messages with which the designer disagrees. Obviously that
00:11:36.160 is the heart of the first amendment. That's the heart of free speech that the state cannot compel
00:11:40.580 you to say something that you don't want to say can't compel you or prohibit you, uh, from saying
00:11:47.060 something. And, uh, that, I mean, that's why we have the constitution. That's why we have the first
00:11:52.980 amendment. That's a huge reason why this nation was even founded. I mean, just how crazy it is to
00:11:59.860 think about how far Colorado has fallen. I mean, not so long ago, Colorado was a reliably red state
00:12:07.520 not so long ago. So was California, but especially Colorado and just the infiltration of progressivism
00:12:14.240 and weaponized progressivism. And I just want to say like, by the way, this comes from the same side
00:12:21.700 who is constantly fear-mongering about how homeschoolers are taking over the world,
00:12:26.480 how Christian conservatives are the ones just vying for power. The Christian nationalists are
00:12:32.980 going to finally exact dominion over the United States. And it's going to turn into the,
00:12:40.020 a fascist handmaid's tale, whatever it is. And you'll see Christians who identify as progressive
00:12:46.260 or vote Democrat. They're like, Oh yeah, Republicans just want power. Democrats don't want power.
00:12:51.520 Are you kidding me? They're constantly weaponizing the state to force people to
00:12:55.320 say and celebrate the things that they believe in. Um, this is the same state in which Jack Phillips has
00:13:02.140 been harassed for over a decade by LGBTQ activists, trying to force him to make a cake,
00:13:07.660 not just for them as customers, but specifically cakes that celebrate things like, uh, gay weddings
00:13:14.640 or celebrate so-called transitions, which he won't do because it's not in accordance with his faith.
00:13:19.720 And the state should not be able to compel him to do that. So here is the majority opinion or part of
00:13:25.540 it written by Justice Gorsuch. Um, it says here, Colorado seeks to put Ms. Smith to a similar choice.
00:13:31.780 If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the state demands or face sanctions for expressing
00:13:37.260 her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation and remedial training,
00:13:42.500 filing periodic compliance reports as officials seem necessary and paying monetary fines. Um,
00:13:49.140 he says that's enough to represent an impermissible abridgement of the first amendment's right to
00:13:54.100 speak, to speak freely. Countless other creative professionals too could be forced to choose
00:13:58.960 between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs or speaking their minds and
00:14:03.260 incurring sanctions for doing so. It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude. We are looking at
00:14:08.160 the same case. Uh, when the dissent finally gets around to the question of whether a state can force
00:14:16.140 someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred
00:14:21.800 messaging. Instead, uh, the dissent re-imagines the facts of this case from top to bottom. The dissent
00:14:28.780 chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge, but it ignores the 10th circuit's finding that Ms.
00:14:33.680 Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the states. So this is about
00:14:41.880 the first amendment. So ask yourself, ask your progressive friends, like should a gay designer be
00:14:48.500 forced by the state of Alabama to create a website that says gay people are going to hell? Should Alabama
00:14:58.520 be forced to, or should Alabama be able to force a gay man to create a cake or to create a product or to
00:15:10.200 write a song that celebrates, um, or that affirms this message that homosexuality is an abomination?
00:15:21.320 Why don't you think about it that way? Because it's not just the rights of Lori Smith. It's not
00:15:26.860 just the rights of conservatives. It's not just the first amendment rights of, uh, Christians that we're
00:15:31.920 talking about here. We are talking about the first amendment applying to everyone. I don't think
00:15:37.100 that a gay person, a Muslim person, a black person, a Christian person, a conservative, a progressive
00:15:44.540 should be forced by the state to say something that they don't want to say, or should be prohibited by
00:15:50.160 the state from saying something. I believe that should be true for everyone, not just Lori Smith.
00:15:56.840 But again, progressives have such a hard time seeing the principle of what's going on. They only see
00:16:04.560 how their feelings are affected, how one particular person is affected. They only have such a myopic,
00:16:10.560 and I think an inaccurate view of cases like this. As this court has long held, Gorsuch says,
00:16:16.860 the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most
00:16:21.060 cherished liberties and part of what keeps our republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution's
00:16:26.320 commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider unattractive,
00:16:30.780 misguided, or even hurtful. But tolerance, not coercion, is our nation's answer. The First
00:16:36.420 Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think
00:16:41.740 and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise,
00:16:48.560 the judgment is reversed. So this is not about being able to discriminate or to
00:16:55.920 deny services in general to someone who is gay or someone who considers themselves transgender or
00:17:07.380 someone who identifies as whatever. It is about the state not being able to control someone's speech.
00:17:15.880 I don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend about that. And by the way, like,
00:17:23.740 you should be free to associate with whom you want to associate. Like, you should be able to say,
00:17:31.160 I'm going to run my company as you see fit. I saw a lot of people on the left saying, well,
00:17:35.180 what if I don't want to associate with a Christian conservative? Like, what if I don't want to sell
00:17:40.740 products to them? Look, I disagree with that. I think that's stupid and wrong. And by the way,
00:17:44.880 that's not what's happening in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. That's not what's happening in 303
00:17:50.380 creative case. But if, like, if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to deny me service
00:17:55.720 because I'm a Christian conservative, like, you could, I mean, okay. Yeah, I do believe that there
00:18:04.620 should be some freedom there. And I do believe that the market would take care of that. We already see
00:18:09.640 that with the growing Christian conservative parallel economy that's cropping up right now. But that's not
00:18:15.640 what's going on here. It is about a specific product and a specific message and the principle
00:18:21.220 that the state should not be able to compel particular speech. So here's what the dissent
00:18:27.140 said, which Gorsuch said is completely off base because it reimagines the facts of the case and
00:18:31.860 doesn't even deal with the case at hand and doesn't even care really about the question of whether or not
00:18:38.120 this violates a person's free speech rights. So Sotomayor says this, uh, today the court for the first
00:18:44.360 10 minutes history grants a business open to the public constitutional right to refuse to serve
00:18:49.220 members of a protected class. This is again, debunked by Gorsuch. That's not what this is about.
00:18:58.060 This is again about a specific message that the state is trying to compel or prohibit. And she says
00:19:05.680 this is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of
00:19:10.500 the United States declares that a particular kind of business though open to the public has a
00:19:14.100 constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class by issuing this new license to
00:19:18.260 discriminate. In a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal
00:19:22.720 enjoyment of its services, the immediate symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians
00:19:28.600 for second-class status. Of course, which is so ridiculous. Again, it's about what Gorsuch said,
00:19:38.600 what, uh, the concurrence said over and over again. The state cannot compel you to say something.
00:19:46.560 The state cannot prohibit you from saying something. You should be able to express the ideas that you want
00:19:53.200 to express in your business. Yes. So here's what, uh, Sharon says so says, who is, she is an Instagrammer.
00:20:03.460 She's gained a very large audience and, um, she claims to not be on the right or the left.
00:20:10.580 She claims to be somewhere in the middle and, uh, as objective as possible. Um, only bringing you the
00:20:19.780 facts, she says, um, here's something that she said. She answered a question. The question is,
00:20:26.540 does the 303 decision open the door slash set precedent for more LGBT plus discrimination? She
00:20:32.740 says, potentially, yes. Expect to see more businesses, business owners refusing to work with same-sex
00:20:37.460 couples or members of the LGBTQ plus community, citing free speech and freedom of religion and for
00:20:42.780 more cases to be filed according to this issue. And then she says, okay, she answers this question.
00:20:49.420 How is AA discrimination, affirmative action discrimination, but denying services to gay
00:20:53.520 couples isn't? She says they're, they are saying that the website's designers, designers right to
00:20:58.740 free speech and to be free from government compelled speech is more important than an LGBTQ couples
00:21:03.460 right to be free from discrimination. So again, um, you're seeing a lot of this messaging that this
00:21:13.180 is going to set a bad precedent for LGBT people to be discriminated against in general, rather than a
00:21:20.840 focus on the issue at hand here. Again, the question of whether a state should be able to force you to
00:21:26.900 say something that you don't agree with or prohibit you, uh, from saying something. Of course, the Biden
00:21:33.360 administration, very sad about this. They said that, um, the LGBTQ community's dignity and equality are
00:21:40.820 being threatened. The promise of our democracy is being threatened by upholding the first amendment.
00:21:45.580 Don't you see? Well, Kristen Wagner of, um, of Alliance Defending Freedom has a response to some
00:21:54.000 of these myths and this false narrative that is being pushed, that this is denying the dignity of
00:21:59.640 LGBTQ people. Guys, like there's so many website designers, so many cake makers that you can go to.
00:22:06.480 I'm sorry that someone doesn't agree with or want to affirm your lifestyle because of a faith that
00:22:13.380 has been around for thousands and thousands of years that calls that sin. You're not going to be
00:22:18.740 able to change that in trying to employ the power of the state to compel someone to agree with you and
00:22:26.140 affirm you, and then to say you're the defenders of democracy. I'm sorry, but no. I mean, thank the Lord
00:22:32.080 for the Supreme Court for protecting my free speech, but also yours. All of you who disagree
00:22:36.860 with me, all of you who don't want to be compelled to create a message on your site or your cake that
00:22:42.720 you disagree. You're not going to want to make a cake that celebrates a pro-life message, and I don't
00:22:48.860 think the state of Texas should be able to compel you to. Like, it's pretty easy to get here, and I
00:22:54.000 think a lot of people, unfortunately, are playing dumb, but thankfully, Kristen Wagner, she, uh, she
00:22:59.980 cracks the record on a lot of this, so I'll get into that correction in just a second.
00:23:15.700 Here is what, here's what ADF attorney Kristen Wagner says. Disagreement isn't discrimination,
00:23:21.040 and the government can't mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it. Uh, Lori works
00:23:25.620 with everyone, including clients who identify as LGBT. As the court highlighted, her decisions
00:23:30.280 to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never who requests it. The ruling
00:23:36.920 makes clear that non-discrimination laws remain firmly in place, and that the government has
00:23:40.600 never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services. As stipulated in the SCOTUS
00:23:46.540 filing, Smith is willing to work with all people regardless of classification, such as race, creed,
00:23:51.520 sexual orientation, and gender, and will gladly create custom graphics and websites for clients
00:23:55.620 of indie sexual orientation. She will not produce content that contradicts biblical truth, regardless
00:24:00.780 of who orders it. Heritage Foundation senior legal, uh, senior legal fellow, uh, two fellows, actually,
00:24:08.120 Thomas Jiping and Sarah Partial Perry, write that while most media outlets say that the case limits
00:24:14.820 LGBTQ protections, the case wasn't about that at all. The Supreme Court held that the government
00:24:19.980 cannot force you to say something that violates your religious beliefs. Lori Smith will not express
00:24:25.400 a message that contradicts her personal beliefs, and she won't do it for anyone, no matter who they
00:24:30.220 are. So if a, if, if I go to Lori Smith and I say, please design this thing that, this website that,
00:24:38.720 uh, celebrates, I don't know, something that the Bible calls sin, anything. Or like, if, if I say,
00:24:45.160 please make a website celebrating premarital sex, she's not going to do it. She doesn't agree with
00:24:52.200 it. You know, Jack Phillips at the Masterpiece Cake Shop, like, he won't even make Halloween cakes.
00:24:57.780 This is not about denying services to a particular community. This is about the what. Again, not about
00:25:02.880 the who, it's about the what. Uh, they go on to say this case is not about the customer's civil right.
00:25:09.160 It is about Lori's constitutional right. So that kind of goes back to the assertion that Sharon
00:25:15.400 says so made, that this is about a constitutional right. It's not just about Christian conservatives,
00:25:20.360 it's about, it's about everyone's right to free speech. Time and again, even when the Supreme Court
00:25:24.880 has been faced with anti-discrimination public accommodations laws, like Colorado's individuals
00:25:29.880 subjected to those laws are still protected under the Constitution from having to express messages
00:25:35.460 contrary to what they hold to be true. Um, we don't have time to get into all of the affirmative
00:25:46.820 action bad takes out there. There's a lot that I, there's a lot that I want to talk about with that.
00:25:51.640 You're probably seeing how sad this is and how awful this is. We did talk about that a little bit
00:25:56.900 last Thursday, so a week ago, so you can go back and listen to the summary of that. Of course,
00:26:02.660 I think it's a very good thing. I think Clarence Thomas's concurrence should be read over and over
00:26:07.760 again to understand why affirmative action is both not necessary. It doesn't actually write past
00:26:14.220 wrongs. Um, it hasn't been very successful and also it's not constitutional, which is what SCOTUS
00:26:23.380 decides upon. Same thing when it comes to the student debt plan. It's not constitutional. The president
00:26:31.180 have the power to do that. Um, go actually read the decisions, read the decisions, or at least parts
00:26:37.520 of the decisions yourself before seeing all of this emotionalism on social media by saying that this is
00:26:43.880 unjust and this is wrong. Is it constitutional? That's what the Supreme Court cares about. They don't,
00:26:50.120 they're not deciding on whether something is moral or whether something is smart, whether something is
00:26:54.860 wise, whether something should or shouldn't happen according to what the voters say. They care about
00:27:01.500 the Constitution and that's good. We have that check and balance for a reason. If President Biden,
00:27:07.480 if he oversteps his balance by enacting something like the Supreme Court's, or I mean the student loan
00:27:12.980 debt plan, then the Supreme Court is a check on that power to say, oh, you can't do that. You need to
00:27:20.200 make it legislation. You need to go through Congress if you're going to do something like that. Um,
00:27:25.320 so before you say, oh, this is so unjust, this is so terrible, all these bad things are happening, or
00:27:30.680 before you're, before you believe your friends who are saying that, just go read the decisions for
00:27:35.820 yourselves. I saw this series of really bad takes from an account called the Mom Attorney,
00:27:42.360 and I, I guess just some progressive activist. And so here's what she says. This is what just
00:27:49.140 happened in the Supreme Court. Thursday, policy protecting equity and access for people of
00:27:53.560 color? No, we can't do that because that's discrimination. Friday, allow businesses to
00:27:58.240 discriminate against LGBTQ communities? Sure, go ahead. I mean, for an attorney, she shows such a
00:28:05.040 profound ignorance and misunderstanding of what these cases actually decided, of why it is discrimination
00:28:12.720 to say, I'm sorry, but you have to reach a higher bar if you're white or Asian and you wanted to get
00:28:17.480 get into Harvard versus if you're black versus why it's not actually discrimination against a person
00:28:23.780 for someone to, uh, for someone to deny a particular, expressing a particular message that is not in
00:28:32.820 accordance with their beliefs. She then uses the Bible to justify her reasoning, if you can call it
00:28:39.980 that. She says, looks like universities will need to provide affirmative action policies based on their
00:28:45.900 religious beliefs. Quoting the Bible, uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed, Psalm 82,
00:28:53.280 three through four. And this really gets to the heart of like a lot of, uh, the so-called Christian
00:28:58.200 responses to the affirmative action case, the Christian progressives, if you want to call them that,
00:29:03.700 saying that this is affirmative action was righting the wrongs, um, against oppressed people. Well,
00:29:11.000 this is something that Clarence Thomas addresses that you are making an assumption that someone is
00:29:17.880 oppressed or that the current state that they're in has been affected by past oppression of people
00:29:24.240 that looked like them and past discrimination of people that looked like them, uh, rather than looking
00:29:29.980 at that person as an individual and seeing what qualities they have, seeing what their background has
00:29:35.420 been, uh, seeing what has actually put them in that situation. The assumption here is that black
00:29:42.420 people in America are all poor and they're all oppressed. That is an assumption. That's the
00:29:47.720 assumption of critical race theory. That's the assumption of people who say, uh, that all disparities
00:29:54.100 today are due to past discrimination or current discrimination. And that's not necessarily true.
00:30:00.660 There are people who may be oppressed of different skin colors. There are people who are black and who
00:30:06.340 are brown, who are not oppressed at all. Um, there are all kinds of factors that may affect
00:30:14.020 disparities in someone's life, disparities between them and their neighbor, disparities between them
00:30:19.780 and someone of a different skin color, someone of a different gender, someone of a different
00:30:23.040 skill set. Again, discrimination and disparities by Thomas Sowell speaks to this really clearly,
00:30:28.520 but so does Clarence Thomas in his concurrence. Um, I also saw, I think it was on the Be the Bridge
00:30:35.820 Instagram page saying, you know, mourning this decision, uh, against affirmative action and also
00:30:42.820 mourning the fact that, uh, Asians are at the center of this case and therefore it's dividing Asians and
00:30:50.300 black people. And that is the work of white supremacy trying to, uh, you know, divide these two,
00:30:58.520 marginalized ethnicities or, or, or races. Um, so I've seen this a lot. It apparently
00:31:08.120 bothers some people on the left more that Asian people are allegedly being hoisted up by white
00:31:18.460 supremacists to turn over affirmative action than they are bothered that Asian people are being
00:31:25.680 discriminated against by affirmative action policies. Like that makes them more mad. They actually see
00:31:32.380 it as like, uh, as Asian people being exploited by white supremacy, by being at the center of this
00:31:41.460 case. Uh, when in reality, look, Asian people have agency. That's something that I see on the left a lot
00:31:49.320 is that they believe that the only kind of people who actually have agency, the only people responsible
00:31:54.480 for their actions, the only people that could fight against progressive policies like defunding the
00:32:00.120 police or, uh, affirmative action that the only people that can be consciously really doing that
00:32:08.580 are white people. And every non-white person who lands on the conservative side of issues is just being
00:32:14.220 used as a token by white people. Or maybe the Asian people in this affirmative action case were tired
00:32:20.880 of being discriminated against. We're tired of being told, I'm sorry, you have a really high GPA
00:32:26.080 and you have really high test scores, but you're not going to get in because we already have too
00:32:32.360 many Asian people. That's what was happening. Remember the data set that we read on the show last week
00:32:38.040 that, um, an Asian person or a white person in say the 90th to 100th percentile, when it came to their
00:32:46.860 GPA, when it came to their test scores were less likely to get into Harvard than the black applicant
00:32:52.720 in the 50th percentile. That's not fair. Of course that's discrimination. And so like maybe Asian
00:32:59.580 Americans were tired of being barred from opportunities. Maybe it had nothing to do with
00:33:03.800 white supremacy at all, but you see how the left-wing ideology, how this progressive race central
00:33:10.700 ideology actually blinds you to the truth. Like it blinds you to reason. It blinds you to logic. It
00:33:17.280 blinds you to reality so that you are forced to see things through a lens of partiality, which God
00:33:24.200 hates. God hates partiality. I'm reminded again of James 3, that the wisdom that from, that is from
00:33:30.660 above, is impartial, is open to reason. Those that push this kind of critical race theory narrative
00:33:39.500 constantly, which I'm, I'm over the phrase critical race theory, but it actually does have a meaning
00:33:44.480 that we've defined very many times on this episode, social justice, racial justice, whatever you want
00:33:49.680 to call it, intersectionality. Those that push that narrative and that hold onto that idea, they're not
00:33:54.640 open to reason. They're not impartial. They're not bringers of peace. They cannot see things as they
00:34:01.520 actually are. They constantly have to interpret everything through the lens of black and brown
00:34:07.240 oppressed, white oppressor. And when you see things like that and you're unable to remove that lens,
00:34:15.360 you are actually unable to enact justice or see what justice actually looks like because you can't see
00:34:22.680 truth. And there is no justice without truth. There's no justice without impartiality. And so
00:34:29.600 again, this person that I was just reading is perpetuating that idea, the assumption that all
00:34:35.460 black and brown people are oppressed and poor. Actually, if you go back to God's law giving in
00:34:41.180 ancient Israel, you will see that he hates partiality, that you are not to be partial either to the poor
00:34:46.960 or to the great in a lawsuit. But in truth, but in truth, you are to enact justice. All right. So those
00:34:58.660 are just some brief kind of general takes on some of these Supreme Court decisions. I know you've seen
00:35:04.640 a lot of reactions going around. I hope that I've at least pointed you in the right direction.
00:35:16.960 Okay, so it is the end of Pride Month. And something that we didn't get to, something that we didn't
00:35:29.520 get to was that crazy clip that was going around of the activists at a Pride parade saying,
00:35:40.660 we're here, we're queer, and we're coming for your children. So here's that.
00:35:44.680 Okay, so here is how NBC responded to the backlash to that clip by conservatives on social media.
00:36:10.780 NBC said the coming for your children chant has been used for years at Pride Month.
00:36:14.680 events. According to longtime March attendees and gay rights activists who said it's one of many
00:36:19.220 provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people. Oh, in that case,
00:36:27.020 it's fine. Great. So there's a reason why you see more and more people saying, huh, maybe this isn't
00:36:35.360 just about love is love, which as I've said many times is stupid and circular. If love is just love,
00:36:42.360 if it can't actually be defined as anything, then love can be anything. It can be lust. It can be
00:36:47.000 predation. It can be fantasy. It can be just a feeling, just a declaration. If it's not substantive,
00:36:54.700 if it's not rooted in anything, anchored in any kind of reality, then you see that the slippery slope
00:36:59.760 is not a fallacy. If you can define love as anything, and if you justify anything by love,
00:37:06.300 then you can see how perversion then is accepted. Depravity then predation then is accepted as
00:37:15.680 justifiable in the name of love, right? Thankfully, God's word gives us clarity. 1 John 4, 8 tells us that
00:37:24.380 God is love. 1 Corinthians 13 says, love is patient and kind. One of the characteristics that it gives
00:37:31.280 is that it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. So love is love. Makes no
00:37:36.760 sense. It makes just as little sense as trans women are women. If you're not defining these terms,
00:37:42.800 it's just circular. It's just stupid. They can just mean anything, which leads to anarchy. That's why
00:37:48.780 it's so important for us to define our terms and why Christians should love truth and understanding
00:37:53.740 and knowledge and wisdom so much. But there's a reason why people are now kind of waking up to that.
00:38:01.940 It's not just Christian conservatives, but people are seeing, oh, this slippery slope, it really wasn't
00:38:06.540 a fallacy. That my grandmother who sat in 2012, this is the beginning of the end, or this is going to
00:38:13.540 lead us down a bad path. Oh, she was right. Actually, she was more right than she realized,
00:38:19.200 unfortunately, that we have slipped down the slope really quickly, that now they're just opening up
00:38:25.400 with chants like they are preying upon your children, they're coming for your children,
00:38:28.660 at the very least trying to indoctrinate your children. You're going to get people who aren't
00:38:33.580 just Christian conservatives having an aversion to that kind of thing, who don't really care anymore
00:38:38.460 about being called a quote unquote homophobe or a transphobe who say, well, now that you're
00:38:43.480 involving kids, now that you're trying to talk to kids about this stuff, now that you're putting kids
00:38:47.900 on puberty blockers, now that you're just being open about the predation, whether or not you want
00:38:52.620 to say it's some kind of 4D chess to take over the slurs that have been used against you, we're not
00:38:57.900 comfortable with that. And still you see progressives calling people on the right transphobes
00:39:05.920 or homophobes, like it's something that really is supposed to make a big difference. And one of
00:39:12.480 the craziest examples of that was this tweet by someone named Katie Montgomery. I don't know who
00:39:19.120 she is, but this tweet, he, she, I don't know. This tweet got a lot of traction. Katie said,
00:39:26.420 the rage at trans women, read men who dress up as women, breastfeeding is just transphobia. So the
00:39:33.560 rage at trans women, breastfeeding is just transphobia. There's nothing else to it. It's
00:39:36.920 healthy. Not that rare for non birthing for the non birthing mother to do in lesbian relationships.
00:39:41.960 For example, there are even still wet nurses, which aren't, which they aren't all raising,
00:39:47.440 raging about. It's just because it's trans. It's just because it's trans. And so why is this person
00:39:56.700 even tweeting this? Well, unfortunately, this is a thing that happens. Men who put themselves on
00:40:01.980 estrogen and then take these very, very strong hormone-laced drugs to try to induce lactation,
00:40:09.900 they are trying to breastfeed children. Now, I think that this is probably a small portion
00:40:17.340 of the American population, but the fact that it even happens at all, the fact that it's legal is
00:40:22.260 very troubling. And then there is this, there's this person who apparently has some influence
00:40:28.360 who posted on social media that, let's see, Gooseberry Orca on social media, he posted
00:40:39.680 himself trying to breastfeed an infant, but also has other posts saying that he actually has some
00:40:47.540 kind of nipple fetish. Okay? So he has some kind of nipple fetish he is opening up about,
00:40:53.700 and then he posts another picture trying to breastfeed his partner's baby. So it's obvious
00:41:00.020 here that this is a fetish. And I think in all cases, in all cases where men are using babies to
00:41:06.180 try to affirm their so-called gender identity, it is a sexual fetish. There's something pedophilic
00:41:11.960 about it. There's something autogyna-philic about it. It has nothing to do with them actually
00:41:16.820 thinking they're the opposite sex. It's seeing children as objects of kind of sexual and identity
00:41:22.400 affirmation, which is perverse and should trouble absolutely anyone. It does trouble a lot of
00:41:27.720 people, no matter how tolerant you think that you are. But here's my message to conservatives in the
00:41:32.420 midst of all of this, because I see conservatives objecting to being called things like transphobe.
00:41:39.580 They'll defend themselves saying, transphobia means fear, and I'm not scared of trans people.
00:41:44.740 I just don't believe that men should be going into women's bathrooms, etc. That's not transphobic.
00:41:50.100 Well, number one, defending yourself against their accusations and name-calling is wasted time.
00:41:56.120 The proper response to things like that is not, no, I'm not. It's, I don't care. I don't care.
00:42:02.080 That's the proper response. And then number two, here's the thing. We actually should feel fear.
00:42:07.920 Like, we should fear men going into women's bathrooms. We should fear the female prisoners
00:42:12.220 being forced to be incarcerated with men, many of whom have actually raped women.
00:42:18.300 We should fear for the rape victims being forced to share space in abuse shelters with men. We should
00:42:24.660 fear a world in which girls are forced to suppress their instincts and smile as males infiltrate their
00:42:30.900 sororities, their teams, their locker rooms. And also, yes, like we should feel aversion too. We should
00:42:37.320 have a strong aversion toward men trying to breastfeed babies. We should be averse to the idea
00:42:43.960 that female is a costume to be donned or an identity to declare. These fears and aversions
00:42:52.500 are healthy. They're normal. They're logical. What they are not is irrational. And that is why
00:43:00.760 the term transphobe isn't accurate because phobia means an irrational fear or aversion. But the fear
00:43:08.560 and aversion felt in this case, they're extremely rational. So whether you believe that we are a
00:43:15.980 product of evolution and we have the instincts that we do, the instinctive fears that we do because they
00:43:23.100 were passed down from our ancestors to help us survive, or whether you know, as I do, that we were
00:43:28.300 made in the image of God, given by God, the ability to discern obvious observable truths like differences
00:43:35.380 between male and female, the fear and aversion people have to men trying to be women and enter
00:43:41.320 their spaces, or the fear and aversion that people have to a group of a bunch of confused and lost and
00:43:49.320 unstable people marching down the street and saying they're coming for your children. These are very
00:43:55.060 innate and understandable fears and aversions. This doesn't mean that people who are confused about
00:44:01.080 their gender are any less inherently valuable than anyone else. They're made in God's image like
00:44:06.200 the rest of us. They're in need of Christ like the rest of us. I mean, I feel such pain in hearing the
00:44:11.680 story specifically of these transitioners who were victims of manipulation and negligence. I rejoice when
00:44:17.920 I hear that they have heard the good news of the gospel and they believe, but the insistent denial of
00:44:23.800 reality, particularly at the expense of women and girls when it comes to this movement of men
00:44:30.800 identifying as women is a thing to be feared and disdained. We can and we should hold all of these
00:44:37.600 facts in mind at the same time. You can call it transphobia, whatever phobia you want. It's just the
00:44:44.720 truth. And conservatives and Christians just need to be able to stand firm on that. You can call it
00:44:51.540 whatever you want to. It's not an irrational fear. It might be a fear and aversion, but it's not
00:44:57.860 irrational. It is completely logical. It's completely rational. It's completely reasonable
00:45:03.400 because it is based on truth and we should never shy away from truth. Honestly, it's the most loving
00:45:09.260 thing that we can do. Because remember, love isn't just love. Love rejoices with the truth, never in
00:45:17.900 wrongdoing, as 1 Corinthians 13 says. And so that's what we remember and double down on all the time,
00:45:26.000 but especially every year is just the depravity is shoved into our faces and we see what the
00:45:32.320 movement, what the activist movement actually is. Now, what we're talking about isn't characteristic
00:45:37.360 of every single person who identifies as part of LGBTQ. That's not what we're saying. But the movement
00:45:45.460 as a whole, the activist part of this, the push for this is absolutely representative of something
00:45:54.200 that is even darker than just sexual immorality and gender identity, but really, really comes from a
00:46:01.900 place, I think, of yes, demonic oppression, but also just perverse predation. And it is something that
00:46:10.200 you should have a fear of and an aversion to. It shouldn't steal your joy because you trust in a
00:46:18.280 God who has promised to come back and to make all things right. And one day there will be no more sin,
00:46:24.160 no more sadness, not just this kind of sin, but our own sin of whatever it is, of pride, of distrust,
00:46:34.040 distrust of the Lord, of selfishness. All of these things one day will be gone and God will rule in
00:46:42.880 perfect peace and enact perfect justice forever and ever and ever. So speak the truth and love doing
00:46:50.320 the next right thing because that's all we can do, especially in the face of this chaos.
00:47:04.040 All right. That's all we've got time for today. Next week, I'm going to be in a different location.
00:47:12.760 We're going to have all, um, we're going to have all, you know, our normal episodes that we usually
00:47:18.600 have. We have a couple interviews that are exciting that we'll be recording next week. And then our
00:47:23.320 normal, you know, uh, current events, culture type episodes that'll be coming out next week too,
00:47:28.140 but I will be in a different location. So it might look and sound a little bit different,
00:47:32.560 but same great relatable content. Um, as always, if you love this podcast, please leave us a five
00:47:38.480 star review. That would mean so much and subscribe on YouTube if you haven't already. Um, and let us
00:47:44.920 know if there's anything in particular you want us to, uh, discuss next week. All right. Thanks so
00:47:50.400 much for listening. We will be back here on Monday.