Imagine the money America would save if liberals understood a little concept called the “separation of powers.” Instead, they clog the courts with cases hoping that judges won’t interpret the law, but rewrite it in a way that elected representatives refuse to! And while some courts are all too willing to comply, others — like the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals — are leaving the legislating to Congress.

It’s a novel idea to rule on the plain text of the law, but Judge William Pryor agrees that if the Left wants to change the way we define discrimination, it’s asking the wrong branch of government. Like us, he knows that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 accomplished a lot of things — but special rights for people based on their sexual preferences was not one of them. Nowhere in the text of the law does it say anything about making “sexual orientation” a protected class — but that hasn’t stopped the Left from arguing as much. But based on a decision late Friday, they’ll have to argue harder or (gasp) convince lawmakers to change the law! In the case of Jameka Evans, a security guard who claims she was fired for identifying as a lesbian, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit ruled that “sex discrimination” — which is part of Title VII — is not the same as “sexual orientation discrimination.”

For the last few years, we’ve seen this new trend from liberals, including President Obama, to twist the Civil Rights Act (which statues like Title VII and Title IX are based on) to fit their modern-day LGBT agenda. That’s how the last administration justified its gender-free school bathroom and shower mandate. It argued that people who identify as transgender were somehow part of the broad umbrella of “sex” outlined in the law in 1964. But, as most people point out, sexual orientation wasn’t on the minds of legislators 53 years ago when it was trying to weed out prejudice — and more importantly, it wasn’t in the text of the law it passed! This is just another attempt by the Left to rewrite policy through the courts because it knows the public isn’t on board with its radical agenda.

Fortunately, Judge Pryor agreed with the lower court that Evans’s claim “relies on false stereotypes of gay individuals.” By a 2-1 decision, the panel rejected the claim that “sex discrimination” includes “sexual preference,” as Pryor called it. “Just as woman cannot recover under Title VII when she is fired because of her heterosexuality, neither can a gay woman sue for discrimination based on her sexual orientation.” He goes on, “Deviation from a particular gender stereotype may correlate disproportionately with a particular sexual orientation, and plaintiffs who allege discrimination on the basis of gender nonconformity will often also have experienced discrimination because of sexual orientation. But under Title VII, we ask only whether the individual experienced discrimination for deviating from a gender stereotype.”

In an almost comical dissent, Judge Robin Rosenbaum tried to refute Pryor’s reasoning but showed her true activist colors instead. “The mere fact that we may believe that Congress may not have specifically intended the meaning of what a statute actually says is not a basis for failing to apply the textual language.” Translation: Sure, Congress didn’t include “sexual orientation” in its law, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read into it what we want! Meanwhile, no federal appeals court has ever ruled that Title VII includes “sexual orientation.” And thanks to Judge Pryor, this 11th Circuit panel won’t be the first.

Originally published here.

Gov Stops Faith-Based Adopt-Shun

Here’s something both sides should agree on: the importance of adoption. But these days, even finding loving homes for kids is an explosive topic in the bigger clash over religious liberty. At least in South Dakota, children won’t be pawns in the Left’s push to legitimize same-sex parents. Late Friday, Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed a bill into law that protects the beliefs of faith-based adoption agencies and foster care providers. As the South Dakota Family Policy Council explains, “The law would ensure that the State of South Dakota may not coerce them to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions in their placement decisions and the ongoing need for placement of children in safe nurturing homes will be served. These faith-based adoption agencies do not currently receive any state funds for child placement services, but without this protection, they are faced with a possible decision of closing their doors or failing their mission. While this has already occurred in other states, it should never happen here in South Dakota.”

Unfortunately, those “other states” — places like Massachusetts and Indiana — forced groups like Catholic Charities to make a choice: either place children with same-sex parents or lose their government contracts. In a huge blow to the kids of those states, the group made the sad decision to close its doors rather than compromise its beliefs. Gov. Daugaard, who was the former director of Children’s Home Society, knows how catastrophic that could be to South Dakota. “Whether it’s the state acting directly or through an agency, we need to do everything we can to encourage those agencies to stay in this business and help us find those placements,” he told the press. “I’m worried that a child placement agency may make what is in the best interest of the child a correct decision but be subject to a lawsuit by someone who has a little bit of a leg up by virtue of being in a protective class. And if we can forestall that with this legislation, then I’m willing to do that.”

In most cases, these faith-based agencies don’t even receive state funds — but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t become a target. In too many places, Christian groups are being driven out of the adoption business, leaving children and prospective parents with even fewer options for building families. Adoption is not— and should never be — about adults. This is about giving children the best chance to succeed in life. If LGBT activists truly cared about kids, they’d stop using them as leverage to force society — through the government — to embrace their lifestyle. A lifestyle, social science tells us, that poses serious risks to children. Hats off to South Dakota for going to bat for the freedom of belief.

Speaking of the First Amendment, America’s college students could use another lesson in it. In a revealing new video, our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom took to the campus of the University of Wisconsin and asked students if they thought designers should be free not to dress Melania Trump. Absolutely, most responded! What about Muslims, ADF went on? Should they be forced to sing at a Christian church? No way, students said. But watch what happens when these same young people are asked if a Christian photographer should be able to turn down a same-sex wedding job. It’s a powerful lesson in the hypocrisy of the Left.

Originally published here.

Airline’s Decision Flies in the Face of Left’s Logic

If North Carolina tourism is suffering from HB 2, you could have fooled us! People aren’t just coming to the Tarheel State, they’re flocking to it. So much so that Virgin Airlines is actually adding more direct flights to and from Raleigh-Durham International (RDU). And in what can only be described as irony, the biggest demand has been from a city no one would have guessed: San Francisco. Turns out, the LGBT community isn’t exactly shunning the state for its privacy law. On the contrary, a Virgin spokesman said, “RDU is a very desirable destination. … Our strategy is to use the same philosophy that’s worked well for us in our Pacific Northwest hubs, which is to offer convenient, nonstop flights to the places guests fly to the most.”

One of the biggest lies of the Left is to suggest that protecting the safety of women and children will cost states billions of dollars in business. As PolitiFact and others have pointed out, that’s simply not true. Lt. Governor Dan Forest (R-NC) continues to point out that North Carolina has not only weathered the storm over HB 2 but thrived in it. For the second consecutive year, the state was ranked #2 on Forbes’s top states for doing business. The ranking was given late last year, so there would have been ample time to assess the impact of the privacy law on the economy. In fact, more businesses seem to be moving to North Carolina than away from it.

Still not convinced? Despite the NCAA and ACC pulling championship games, travel to the state was also up. In North Carolina’s annual hospitality report, there wasn’t one mention of HB 2. That’s probably because the year-end hotel and motel occupancy was up 3.4 percent statewide from 2015 — a state record. And when you compare it to the rest of the U.S., the statistic is even more impressive. In the rest of the country, occupancy was up only 0.1 percent, and South Atlantic states’ occupancy was up 1.1 percent from 2015. Room demand was up 5.1 percent, the largest boost in six years. If that’s what the Left calls a boycott, bring it on!

Originally published here.

20/20’s Blurred Vision of Sexual Reorientation Therapy

Here’s a quiz for you: What’s the difference between: a) Christian churches and schools that teach the historical orthodox consensus that the Bible says homosexual conduct is not God’s will; b) well-trained, compassionate professional therapists who help clients with unwanted same-sex attractions achieve the client’s own goals; c) loving parents making careful and responsible decisions about health care for their children; and d) a couple of fly-by-night “boarding schools” for “troubled youth” of all kinds in Alabama that physically and emotionally abused children? If you answered, “There’s a huge difference,” you would be correct. But if you answered, “They’re all the same thing — gay ‘conversion therapy camps!’” then you might have a future ahead of you as “Chief Investigative Reporter” for ABC News.

The man who currently holds that title, Brian Ross, put together a completely irresponsible and grossly misleading hour-long report on what LGBT activists and ABC call “conversion therapy camps,” which aired Friday night on the news magazine 20/20. It focused primarily on two unregulated, unaccredited boarding schools (not “camps”) in Alabama, and the personal testimony of one self-identified gay teenager named Lucas who told Ross he had the misfortune of being physically beaten at both of them. (In fact, the hour-long episode depended so much on this single personal testimony that it was titled, “A Boy Named Lucas.”)

Despite ABC’s breathless commentary, this was hardly breaking news — Alabama media have had many reports on these schools, and the three leaders of one facility were recently convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for child abuse. However, if you listened very closely, you would have noticed that even on 20/20, neither the police investigator, the prosecutor, nor the judge ever mentioned sexual orientation as being a factor in the abuse. Nor did half a dozen local news reports, adding up to thousands of words. While we have no reason to doubt Lucas’ testimony, ABC presented no evidence that the percentage of the “troubled youth” in these facilities who identified as “gay” was any larger than the percentage in the general population who do so.

That’s why FRC’s Peter Sprigg, who gamely attempted to inject some reason and accuracy during his interview with 20/20, stands by his belief that the idea of a shadowy network of “camps” focused primarily on forced “conversion therapy” for youth is largely a myth. What does exist are responsible, professional, compassionate therapists and counselors who are available to help youth and adults with unwanted same-sex attractions who voluntarily seek help. The fact that 20/20 did not even interview a single actual therapist for a story about “therapy,” or a single ex-gay person for a story about sexual orientation change, shows that it had little interest in the truth.

Originally published here.

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.