Nevada Passes Most Inclusive States Equal Rights Amendment In Nation, Criminalizing People For Criticizing LGTBQIA+ Lifestyle

It should be noted that this vote was not decided upon in the state courts, but was voted in by the majority of citizens of the state, that was included on this year’s state midterm election ballots.

Otherwise known as Question 1, the vote makes a critical alteration to the state’s constitution, that people can not be discriminated against based on “race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.”

Nnedi Stephens, the campaign manager for Nevadans for Equal Rights, and advocate for Question 1, said that no other state up to this point has never outright prohibited discrimination on the premise of ‘sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.’

Passing the most inclusive state ERA amendment in the country uplifts Nevada as a beacon of light and a model for fighting back against hatred and bigotry in all of its forms.

Nevadans for Equal Rights said in a statement

Moreover, the new change to the constitution opens a pathway for more equal pay for women and preventatives against “pregnancy discrimination.”

Although some protection against discrimination exists in federal and state law, there are gaps in the existing legal patchwork that have resulted in unavailable or inadequate protection for certain classes of people, including instances of unequal pay for women and pregnancy discrimination. This ballot measure fills those gaps by providing comprehensive state constitutional guarantees of equal treatment under the law for the classifications of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, and national origin.

This ballot measure will not diminish the rights of some people at the expense of others but, instead, will advance equality for all by filling the gaps in existing protections. Additionally, this ballot measure will not eliminate the authority of the State and local governments to protect classifications of people, including children and other vulnerable populations, who have always been entitled to such protections. Governmental entities will still be able to pass laws or take actions to protect classifications of people but will have to honor Nevada’s constitutional commitment to equality when doing so.

Arguments for on the ballot

On the flipside, the ballot also gave concessions to those who were opposed to it.

Proponents fail to acknowledge the impact Question 1 may have on individual liberties and safety. They state that this ballot measure will protect against religious discrimination based on a person’s “creed” or religion. But they fail to explain how this ballot measure can give new constitutional protections to classifications such as sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression and, at the same time, actually protect the religious liberties of individuals who hold traditional views on marriage and gender and want to live according to those values.

If Question 1 is approved, proponents may use this ballot measure as a basis to demand taxpayer funding of abortions in Nevada. And if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, proponents may use this ballot measure as a basis to claim abortion rights in Nevada despite the Supreme Court’s decision.

Question 1 may be used by biological males and transgender athletes as a basis to undermine women’s sports by demanding equal rights that allow them to compete unfairly against women and girls in school sports and for athletic scholarships. Question 1 may also be used to challenge the traditional separation of men’s and women’s restrooms and locker rooms in government-owned facilities, such as public schools, universities, and colleges, potentially allowing biological men and women in each other’s restrooms and locker rooms and threatening everyone’s personal safety and privacy.

For instance, there is no way to know how courts would resolve challenges to existing age-based laws regarding sexual consent, child endangerment, and parental consent and notification, some of which involve classifications based on both age and sex.

Arguments against on the ballot

Those arguing for won the day.

The Nevada Current wrote, ‘Statewide, 57% of voters supported the measure and 43% opposed, as of Thursday afternoon. Urban counties carried the ballot question to success with double digit margins, while Nevada’s rural counties voted heavily against the measure.’

‘Clark and Washoe counties voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ballot question. Rural Republicans in nearly every other county in the state voted against it. Nearly three-fourths of voters in Lincoln and Eureka counties opposed adding the equal rights amendment to the state constitution,’ the Nevada-based publication added.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

By the blessing of the upright the city is exalted: but it is overthrown by the mouth of the wicked.

Proverbs 11:11

The implications of this cannot be underscored. We all know how taciturn and neurotic these ‘types’ of people are when it comes to how they want to be identified and spoken to as, especially the people that say they are “gender fluid.” By now protecting these people, the doorway has been opened for everyday common citizens to be fined and/or jailed for not adequately making the correct distinction.

Moreover, the bill glazes over the fact that some sick pedophile, child molester, and groomer, has just been absolved; or, as the subverted progressives say, “minor attracted persons.’ Furthermore, when does the buck stop? It doesn’t of course.

SEE: USA Today Promotes The Normalization Of Pedophilia

https://youtu.be/egiBgmvv8wA

What about the people that later decide that they want to identify as a cannibal, and decides to commit homicide to do so? The bill, the way it is worded, is basically allowing this type of reprehensible behavior. The list goes on, including things like bestiality and necrophilia.

Or what happens when some sick pervert is burning with so much intense lust in public, he/she just decides to “act” on it on the spot with someone or something else? How will that be legislated, when he is just “showing his public affection?” Whose to say – the courts and police – otherwise as to not be a hypocrite and discriminate against him?

And how will social media posts and online presence factor in, and will people be getting a visit from the police after they “criticize” someone?

The naysayers will say that I am overexaggerating and peddling misinformation, but nothing I said is an overstatement in the slightest. Knowing how abominable and insidious these people are, it’s going to go buck wild really quick in the state that’s home to Sin City (Las Vegas).

On top of all that, we know this will influence other states to adopt something similar in the near feature, if not possibility influence the Supreme Court to take action too at some point.

Lastly, it is imperative to note that this wicked decision was not made by the courts, but by hundreds of thousands of people that voted for it. And how many people voted for it not even knowing what they just signed-off on?

Needless to say, this country is far gone and dead,

[10] And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? [11] Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; [12] And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me: [13] Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers; and there shall ye serve other gods day and night; where I will not shew you favour.

Jeremiah 16:10-13

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE