It’s Called the ‘Equality Act,’ And if Dems Win on Nov. 3, It Will Destroy Religious Freedom; Supreme Court Case Could Rewrite the Book on Free-Speech Lawsuits, and related stories

Op-Ed: It’s Called the ‘Equality Act,’ And if Democrats Win on Nov. 3, It Will Destroy Religious Freedom:

A Democratic sweep (House, Senate, president) this November means Christian institutions and individuals abiding by the moral teachings of Moses or Jesus of Nazareth will face government persecution initiated by the LGBTQ+ Human Rights Campaign and the child-killing business of Planned Parenthood via their promotion of the so-called “Equality Act.”

Joe Biden wants to sign it in the first 100 days of his presidency; Donald Trump opposes this assault on religious liberty.

The “Equality Act” defines entities health care providers, among others, as “public accommodations,” akin to restaurants, hotels, amusement parks, etc., and “sexual orientation and gender identity” is declared a protected class, just like race. The act could even expand the definition of “public accommodations” to include churches, synagogues and mosques, according to the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance.

Since the Equality Act does not reference employment by religious organizations, courts could potentially rule that schools that decline to hire someone in a same-sex “marriage” would be “discriminating,” and treated by the IRS as if they refused to hire a teacher because of race. The school would then lose its tax-exempt, tax-deductibility status. —>READ MORE HERE

Supreme Court Case Could Rewrite the Book on Free-Speech Lawsuits:

Should the government be held to account when it violates a person’s First Amendment rights, or should it be allowed to manipulate the legal system to avoid judgment?

This term, the Supreme Court will hear Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, a case on precisely that question. Its ruling may dramatically change the way First Amendment litigation proceeds in this country.

Right now, it comes about in one of two ways. One is a “pre-enforcement challenge” where a person or group identifies a law it believes is unconstitutional and meticulously plans its case before filing a complaint in federal court. The other involves a person coming to court the old-fashioned way: by having the long arm of law come down on her.

In many ways, not least for the peace of mind of the litigant herself, the first way is easier — when it is available. For starters, the plaintiff does not have to endure the enforcement process, which is a form of punishment even when you win. But a second key advantage is that by planning their case ahead of time, plaintiffs can ensure that they satisfy a legal requirement called “standing.” —>READ MORE HERE

Follow links below to related stories:  Source