I was reading a Wikipedia biography of Pat Robertson that contained a section on Controversies and Criticisms, listing all manner of so-called controversial topics and criticisms, (are these criticisms of Robertson or subjects of his critique). The tone of this section is highly negative of Robertson, as it promotes a biased premise seated in political correctness and Ad Hominem statements, (which means, attacking a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim).
When did the liberal definition of “politically correct” become defacto truth – never. The Supreme Court in 2003 did not sanction homosexuality by demanding public approval and acceptance, but narrowly as a private matter between two adult individuals in a private dwelling. Moreover, the dissenting opinion noted that there is “no general right of privacy” or relevant liberty in the Constitution. Nevertheless, contrary to constitutional authority, the Court legalized private acts of homosexuality and subsequently in 2018 granted legal unions between same-sex persons, but it has not granted a preferential or favored status to such behavior, as media supports and militants seek.
Therefore, to express a religiously based opinion recognized throughout human history, that homosexual and incestuous behavior is detestable is not controversial. The constitution clearly protects religious practice and expression, while it offers no right of privacy or freedom of sexual perversion. It is the militant left and homosexual activists who are controversial. Expression of religious tolerance is not to be confused with license or acceptance, thus dissent is protected free speech regarding such behavior and is acceptable, reasonable, and legal in every respect. Controversial are two Court rulings for which there is no basis and the militants who can not be satisfied with freedom, but demand subservience.
The protected classes under E.E.O. laws are founded in physical God-given characteristics and religious freedom, (disability and age discrimination are governed by separate legislation, although commonly grouped with the whole). Even though the Federal government permits administrative E.E.O. complaint procedures for ‘sexual preference’, there is no law that gives a preference to LGBTQ claims and they are founded in chosen behavior. The psychiatric community of professionals still recognizes homosexuality as a mental disorder and no physical or biological gene causes homosexuality. Controversy is generated by those who promote lascivious lifestyles and their accomplices in the liberal media who have an agenda to divide and remake America in their image.
The concept of a Protected Class has been further distorted, radicalized, and used by militants who use the courts and media to secure favor and priority to certain groups. The law never granted or intended to grant a preferential class, but classes which should be protected from illegal discrimination. The Federal Government instituted a policy of “Affirmative Action” with respect to racial discrimination in order to make up for historical racial discrimination. It provided that where all candidates for a job were equally qualified, a precedence should be given to black candidates if there was a disparity in racial representation within a geographic area. This was not law but was upheld in the courts and measured by quotas based on racial percentages within the geographic area. This policy is not supported by any legislation, merely policy, executive orders and some court cases that accepted as evidence of disparate treatment analysis of the general population in a given area, thus suggesting that each race should be accorded a quota.
Once again the courts created judicial law governing behavior that exceeded its authority under the constitution. Other groups have since attempted to secure protected class status and assume a preferential state like that of Affirmative Action. Militant activist and the liberal media claim preference and special recognition for every “victim” group. They contrive and structure scenarios to form a basis for legal court action in order to further their self interests. EEO laws should be the guardian of equality for all, rather than a device granting preference in support of bias.