Republicans ‘significantly higher’ on Bible engagement than Democrats, independents: study

By Brandon Showalter, CP Reporter

The vast majority of Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, support the preservation of single-sex spaces and women’s sports as female-only, a new survey has found. 

The poll, which was conducted by Spry Strategies on behalf of Women’s Liberation Front, found that a majority of likely voters in the 2020 election object to “gender identity” policies, including the Equality Act, which passed in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives last year.

The proposed federal bill is an update to the 1964 Civil Rights Act — considered by many to be the legislative legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. — that would redefine sex to include self-declared gender and thus remove distinctly sex-based protections in spaces such as prisons, shelters, and athletics.

Sampled nationally from all 50 states, the 3,500 likely voters were comprised of different races, ethnicities, and political affiliations. The poll results found that black and Hispanic voters approve of such things as single-sex prisons and homeless shelters, at a higher rate than whites. 

In response to the question: “Do you think men who are sex offenders or domestic abusers should be allowed to serve their sentences in women’s prisons,” 66.93% of those polled strongly disagreed. An additional 10.44% said they merely disagreed.

Regarding transgender-identifying males being allowed to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, nearly 67% of respondents indicated that they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with it.

Just under 60% of likely voters opposed allowing males to enter women’s restrooms and changing facilities.

The survey also asked whether children younger than 18 who identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo medicalized gender-transition such as taking hormones that cause sterility or cosmetic gender surgeries to appear as the opposite sex.

Two-thirds of respondents disapproved, most of them strongly.

“The poll also revealed that … the wealthiest Americans (those with household incomes over $150,000) are the most likely to support these policies which are largely unpopular with middle-class voters,” WoLF noted in a summation about the survey on its website.

“These results indicate that those most likely to actually be impacted by gender identity policies (poor or working-class families and people of color) are more likely to oppose them.”

Those sampled from May 1, 2018, to Oct. 20, 2020, said they had voted in at least two of the last four election cycles or were newly registered voters. The data was modeled after the 2016 General Election voter turnout, which is the anticipated model for the 2020 cycle.

The latest poll is commensurate with similar findings released in September in which likely voters were surveyed in Idaho, a conservative state that adopted a bill banning trans-identified males from competing in women’s sports, and California, a progressive state.

The Spry Strategies poll, conducted in conjunction with WoLF, showed that opposition to males in girls’ sports had significant cross-partisan backing.

Some 79% of likely voters in Idaho, and 74% of likely voters in California, agreed that boys and men, regardless of how they identify, ought not to be permitted to participate in female-only sporting competitions, the survey found.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/over-60-of-likely-voters-oppose-gender-transition-for-kids.html

---

Related

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/biden-plan-will-increase-abortions-decimate-religious-charity.html

AUDIO SCOTUS LGBT Decision Will ‘Create a Tsunami of New Litigation’ Against Religious Groups

ROBERT KRAYCHIK 15 Jun 2020

The Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) reinterpretation of a federal prohibition against employment discrimination based on sex — which now includes sexual orientation and “gender identity” — will “create a tsunami of new litigation” against religious organizations, explained Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, offering her remarks on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Rebecca Mansour.

The Supreme Court’s legal redefinition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” opens the door for further left-wing lawfare against religious organizations, Severino noted.

Severino said, “The Supreme Court left a lot of really important issues open, like, how do you balance this with religious freedom? How do you balance it with freedom of speech? If you’ve got a law, for example, saying that using someone’s preferred pronoun is mandatory — or you can be fined [for non-compliance], how do we balance that with some of these other important and even constitutional questions? Those are things that, for the most part, are unfortunately going to be just decided by a whole range of lower courts. and it will be a long time before the Supreme Court even takes up the opportunity to weigh in on that.”

Severino predicted, “These questions are going to create a tsunami of new litigation and create a huge amount of uncertainty going forward.”

LISTEN:

The Supreme Court’s decision to extend prohibitions against employment discrimination to include sexual orientation and “gender identity” will place religious and traditional organizations at a legal disadvantage when they are inevitably sued by left-wing outfits.

“You’re going to see these decisions going overwhelmingly in favor of the litigants [and] the plaintiffs who are challenging any religious organization, or any school, or anyone who wants to maintain a traditional, biologically based, scientific-based understanding of sex,” Severino forecasted.

“The logic that the court embraced” sets in motion a legal momentum for lower courts to render future decisions in favor of plaintiffs suing religious and traditional organizations for their personnel decisions, Severino anticipated.

Mansour asked if religious organizations would surrender to left-wing activist groups filing lawsuits based on the Supreme Court’s decision given their insufficient resources to legally defend themselves.

Severino replied, “That’s part of the strategy of the activists because they know that many of these organizations can’t afford to pay for defense. They can’t afford to risk a negative judgment where they could face crippling fines. If you’re talking about individuals, you’ve seen what’s happened with cases like the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, where someone’s entire business and livelihood could be destroyed and where they can face even personal threats and real concern over their own safety if they are willing to carry on litigation.”

Severino added, “I think the intimidation factor of a lawsuit is huge, and when you’ve got the court almost inviting that, it’s going to present a real challenge for a lot of people. Practically speaking, for the most part, this isn’t even going to be an issue because I think there’s the vast majority of businesses don’t have any reason or desire to discriminate on either of these bases, but there are circumstances where it is either relevant to the job qualifications or where it’s going to be an issue of conscience, and those are the ones where you’re going to have people who are going to be forced to make those tough choices between violating their own conscience and possibly losing their livelihood.”

The Supreme Court’s decision amounted to a rewriting of civil rights legislation, Severino stated.

“This had to do with the court interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Severino explained. “We’re kind of familiar with this language. It says that no employers can discriminate on the basis of sex, of religion, of natural origin, and other kinds of classic caveats that you have, but what their question was, ‘It says you can’t discriminate ion the basis of sex. Does that also mean you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?’”

Severino continued, “It’s kind of a strange question to be asking because in so many states, now, and in many situations in federal law, we already do have laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they never phrase it as ‘discrimination based on sex.’ It’s always explicitly written, ‘discrimination based on sexual orientation.’”

“What the Supreme Court did is, in an opinion, they basically just rewrote what that text said because there is a long-standing history where for decades, no politicians [and] no judge said that language meant sexual orientation, as well,” Severino added.

The Supreme Court’s decision usurps the role of legislators, Severino determined.

“That’s really a revisionist reading of the statute dressed up as textualism, and that’s one of the things that is so dangerous because we have laws that courts can effectively rewrite,” Severino concluded. “No legislator who passed [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act] would have thought it meant that.”

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot channel 125 weeknights from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern or 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific.

Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/06/15/carrie-severino-scotus-lgbt-decision-tsunami-litigation-religious-groups/