Pennsylvania Family Institute Warns about Senator Wagner’s SB 613

Download a free ebook from Pennsylvania Family Institute warning about the danger posed by the Scott Wagner sponsored bill SB 613 at:

eBook: Tools to combat renewed push for harmful legislation

The ebook describes the bill as follows:

“The result of this law then, is that biological males and females will have the right to access restrooms, showers and locker rooms of the opposite biological sex – in schools, places of employment, and at public accommodations.”

Furthermore, the ebook points out that similar bills in other states have been used to limit freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion, e.g. the prosecution of Jack Philips in Colorado for refusing to create a cake to celebrate a so-called same-sex “wedding” and the prosecution of Barronelle Stutzman in Washington State for refusing to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a so-called same-sex “wedding”

Did you watch the gubernatorial debate on March 7th?

On the evening of March 7, 2018, I watched a gubernatorial debate televised from the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Senator Scott Wagner lied again about his support of transgenderism, indicating his bill was not a bathroom bill. That is flat out untrue. I have read Senate Bill 974 (2015 Session) and Senate Bill 613 (2017 Session), both of which have Senator Wagner’s name on them as a sponsor, and they both expressly prohibit discrimination in facilities of public accommodation on the basis of sexual identity or sexual expression. As a lawyer who has been reading statutes for over a quarter century (nearly 30 years, if you count my time as a law school student), I can tell you this would be construed as giving a right to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. What’s more, there is a second section in the proposed amendments which expressly gives employees the right to wear clothes of the opposite sex on the job. I can’t see employees changing their clothes just to use the bathroom. Wagner is lying to our face and not expecting us to know any better. Anybody who lines up in support of him before the primary should have some explaining to do. Moreover, Wagner should be asked if he thinks Christians should have a voice in the Republican party.

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Family Council sees the bill as I do.

Would Scott Wagner fly the rainbow flag?

Scott Wagner has refused to revoke his co-sponsorship of Senate Bill 974 which would amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to cover “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression”.  Moreover, Senator Wagner seeks to obfuscate the effect of the proposed amendment. He denies that it would give persons the right to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex. However, the express terms of the amendment bar discrimination according to sexual identity in public accommodation facilities. That language, in plain English, includes public bathrooms, no matter how much Senator Wagner seeks to confuse the voters.

Furthermore, as explained in an ebook published by the Pennsylvania Family Council, similar laws in other states “have been used to limit freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion.” Furthermore, the ebook cites as examples the case of Jack Phillips in Colorado and the case of Baronelle Stutzman in Washington State. Mr. Phillips was prosecuted for failing to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex “wedding”. Ms. Stutzman was prosecuted for failing to create flower arrangements to celebrate a same-sex “wedding”.  The proposed amendment, by prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of the advantages and privileges of public accommodation, would facilitate such prosecutions in Pennsylvania.

In addition, the proposed amendment expressly gives employees the right to wear the clothing of the opposite sex while on the job.

Also, the proposed amendment calls for the creation of councils and agencies to issue publications to “promote good will and minimize or eliminate discrimination because of … sexual orientation, gender identity or expression” and calls for the Commission in cooperation with the Department of Education to recommend a multicultural educational program to promote appreciation of sexual orientation and sexual identity or expression. In other words, the proposed amendment would empower the government to harangue persons who have moral objections to homosexuality and transgenderism and/or transvestism; and no doubt portray persons voicing moral objections to homosexuality, transgenderism, and transvestism as hateful bigots. I see that as state-sanctioned anti-Christian discrimination. Does state-sanctioned normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism mean that Christians will be viewed by the state as enemies of the state?

Our rights are grounded in God

You will recognize the following sentence from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This language acknowledges that the origin of our rights is in our Creator, i.e. our rights are given to us by God.  Also, this language indicates that our rights are unalienable, i.e. our rights cannot be taken from us.  Moreover, the inherent logic contained in this statement is that the only reason our rights cannot be taken from us is that they find their origin in God.  This means that our rights are objective facts, not subjective human opinions. Because our rights are not given to us by men, they cannot be taken from us by men.

If our rights find their origin in God and not merely in the opinions of men, it necessarily follows that we can only know what our rights are through divine revelation, i.e. through scripture (the Bible) or through God’s general revelation, nature. The Declaration acknowledges this in its reference elsewhere to “the laws of nature and nature’s God”.

Accordingly, any action which God expressly prohibits cannot be a right and the Pennsylvania legislature cannot make any such action a right by expressing its opinion on the subject, e.g. homosexual practice.

Will the Republican Party live up to its platform? – Part 2

Here’s a quote from the National Republican Party Platform from 2016:

Reducing the Federal Debt
Our national debt is a burden on our economy
and families. The huge increase in the national
debt demanded by and incurred during the current
Administration has placed a significant burden on
future generations. We must impose firm caps on
future debt, accelerate the repayment of the trillions
we now owe in order to reaffirm our principles of
responsible and limited government, and remove
the burdens we are placing on future generations.
A strong economy is one key to debt reduction,
but spending restraint is a necessary component
that must be vigorously pursued.

Here’s the reality when a Republican President heads the executive branch of the government and the Republican Party hold’s majorities in both the House and the Senate:

Senate Leaders Reach Budget Deal to Raise Spending Over Two Years

So much for spending restraint.

Will the Republican Party live up to its platform? – Part 1

Here’s a quote from the National Republican Party Platform from 2016. We may soon find out whether it is worth the paper it is printed on:

We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most common and popular rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.

Why I am running

I am running for the position of Member of the Republican State Committee in order to advocate Biblical Values and Limited Government in the Pennsylvania Republican Party at the state level. I also support term limits and will urge candidates to commit themselves to term limits. In addition, I will seek to have the party refrain from endorsing candidates in advance of the primary elections. I trust the voters to make informed decisions in the primary and will seek to facilitate means by which all the primary candidates will be able to effectively communicate their policy positions and personal qualifications to Republican voters. I seek to create an environment in which individual voters will be able to make intelligent choices and not be expected to simply confirm those candidates who have already been chosen as party favorites by party officials months before the primary election.