3 - Executive order reportedly repeals favorable treatment regarding sexual orientation for Federal contractors
Earlier this year, there was concern in the Christian public policy community about the Trump administration requiring Federal contractors to recognize sexual orientation and gender identity in its hiring practices. As a story on the NBCNews.com website pointed out, this came around the time that there was a rumored executive order coming on religious freedom, which never materialized.
Well, according to that NBC story, the Trump administration may have relaxed the rules left over from the previous administration about recognizing the so-called "rights" of those in the LGBT community.
The story states that:
With little fanfare on Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that LGBTQ advocates say rolls back lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights and breaks a promise to that community not to make such changes to existing policy.
The executive order revokes key components of the Obama administration's previous executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, gay rights advocates say.The article also said:
LGBTQ advocates say they were particularly rattled by Trump's Monday signing, since revoking the compliance requirement would appear to make existing protections against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination meaningless.The White House denies this is the case, but it is worth watching.
Oh, and LGBTQ advocates are also up in arms because the Trump administration has changed some announced plans to include questions on sexual orientation in the 2020 Census. But FoxNews.com reports:
But never before have there been questions about sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, not so long ago, the LGBT community probably would have seen such inquiries as an invasion of privacy.
But during the Obama era, a number of federal agencies, as well as congressional Democrats, wanted to add such questions. And a preliminary draft for the 2020 Census released earlier this week suggested there might be some.
The final draft sent to Congress from the Census Bureau did not feature such questions. John Thompson, head of the Census Bureau—which is part of the Department of Commerce--explained in a letter that they’d investigated if there was a “legislative mandate” to collect such data and determined there was “no federal data need to change the planned census.”2 - Videographers exposing Planned Parenthood arrested in CA, Planned Parenthood is not
The Center for Medical Progress videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing how they obtain and sell the parts from unborn babies have brought far-reaching implications, including increased scrutiny of the nation's largest abortion provider. But, in a stunning turn of events, according to the LiveActionNews.org website, "David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, the undercover investigators behind the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) videos exposing the trafficking of baby body parts and other potentially illegal activities at Planned Parenthood, have been charged with 15 felony counts of invasion of privacy in the state of California."
Live Action President Lila Rose responded:
Using state power to attack citizen journalists who expose crimes against the defenseless is a severe miscarriage of justice.She said that Daleiden and Merritt "should be lauded for their brave work, not punished." Referring to the current AG, Xavier Becerra, and his predecessor, now-Senator Kamala Harris, she stated:
California’s last two pro-abortion attorneys general have yet to investigate Planned Parenthood after two congressional committees found significant evidence that it may have broken the law with its baby parts trafficking scheme. Similar charges against David and Sandra were dropped in Texas months ago, yet Mr. Becerra insists on punishing them and putting his political agenda ahead of the laws that he was sworn to uphold.1 - North Carolina lawmakers cave on transgender bathroom law
The "all-or-nothing" strategy of those pushing the LGBT agenda was on full display, as organizations devoted to forcing all people to accept their unbiblical view of sexuality did a "full-court press" against a legislative compromise that was designed to appease them. Didn't work in the case of HB2 in North Carolina, a state that faced potentially retaliative action by, of all organizations, the NCAA! At the Family Research Council website, FRC.org, the analysis went like this:
In the "deal" struck by State Senate Leader Phil Berger (R) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R), North Carolina rushed to pass a modified version of HB 2 in hopes of wooing the college sports association back to the state. What the measure has succeeded in doing is revealing the definition of compromise for LGBT agitators – total surrender of those who oppose their radical agenda.According to FRC, "What the LGBT agitators don't like is that in places like government buildings and schools, the state would reset its policy to the pre-HB 2 standard (which is still gender-specific)." The compromise also puts into place a three-year moratorium on municipalities, like Charlotte, revising their laws to accommodate SOGI demands.
As the Council states the conservatives...
...are frustrated that the state is even trying to appease these cultural bullies. As anyone who's tried to negotiate with LGBT activists knows, they won't be satisfied until conservatives have unilaterally surrendered. There's no need to give even the appearance of compromise on what a majority of Americans believe are common-sense protections. Especially not now, when Texas and 12 other states are on the verge of solidifying their own privacy laws. "This... will not solve anything!" said our friends at the N.C. Family Policy Council and N.C. Values Coalition. And ironically, the NCAA, who this whole "deal" was meant to placate, wouldn't even comment on whether it supported the idea.Another FRC piece points out that NCAA President Mark Emmert said, "We've tried to do a number of analyses, laying them all side by side, and it very quickly becomes very, very difficult. What distinguished North Carolina was, as you pointed out, there were four distinct problems that the board had with that bill. They've removed some of those now but now, as you point out, not all of them. And the question the board will be debating [is]: If you remove two or three of them, is that enough-- relative to other states?"