End Times and Current Events

General Category => War On Family => Topic started by: Mark on August 14, 2012, 07:05:50 am



Title: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 14, 2012, 07:05:50 am
What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal

(first published August 5, 2008)

If homosexuality is fully legalized and homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.

In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).


In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his euology, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.  It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,” LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith--any faith--if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives--if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,” OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:

“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. ...

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. ...

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They're not seeking equality; they're seeking total control,’ she said. ...

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).

Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality -- SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.

In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to his religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”

Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver **** Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a **** and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:

“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).

Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.

“**** men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room--while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle--during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,” Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.

In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).

____________________________


http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/faee220dbe0056669572e867bf8638d1-1076.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 14, 2012, 10:11:44 am
Now it's creeping into the modern-day "church" - a few years ago I read a Phillip Yancey book where he pretty much endorsed homosexuality in the church. No, he didn't do it blatantly, but he did so VERY craftily and subtlely to the point where he was playing on your "guilt" and had the appearance he was telling truth. Yancey also promotes alot of RCC nonsense, so that should tell you something too.

And the Emergent Church is doing the same as well by making the "church" Postmodern.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 22, 2012, 09:25:06 am
Will Churches Be Forced To Perform Gay Marriages?
UK: Christians not convinced by promise to protect churches


(AP)David Cameron has promised that churches and other places of worship will not be forced to carry out gay marriages, but Christians remain unconvinced.

A poll by ComRes has found that nearly eight out of 10 churchgoers (79%) believe that the Prime Minister's pledge is worthless.

Of the 569 churchgoers surveyed, 86% said that even if the Government changes the law to exempt religious buildings this will be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

Colin Hart, campaign director of C4M, which commissioned the ComRes poll, said the Government's plans to legalise gay marriage were "ill thought out and undemocratic".

"Churchgoers simply don’t believe the assurances from the Government that these changes will not be forced on churches," he said.

He pointed to recent reports of leaked emails in Scotland which indicated that clergy could be forced to carry out gay weddings against their beliefs if the Government fails to change the Equalities Act.

The Prime Minister has said previously that the plans would only affect "what happens in a register office, not what happens in a church".

The ComRes poll found that nearly two-thirds of churchgoers (63%) feel that the PM is "intolerant in his reaction to opposition to his plans for same-sex marriage".

Worryingly for Mr Cameron, the survey found 58% churchgoers were less likely to vote for the Conservative leader at the next general election.

Forty-three per cent of Christians said they were less likely to vote Lib Dem as a result of the gay marriage plans, with just 2% saying they were more likely. Sixty-five per cent of churchgoers said their views of the Lib Dem leader had got worse because of the proposals.

Ed Miliband the Labour leader, fared slightly better with nearly three in ten (27%) saying they were less likely to vote Labour at the next election and 8% saying they were more likely. Thirty-seven per cent said their opinion of the Labour leader had worsened.

Fourteen per cent said the gay marriage proposals would make them more likely to vote for UKIP, but the same percentage said less likely.

While the main political parties are set to experience a dip in Christian support, a ComRes poll in May revealed weak support within the gay community, with only 39% of gay people saying they felt the change was a priority.

The same poll revealed that just under one in five (19%) of gay people thought Mr Cameron was supporting gay marriage because of his convictions.

A February ComRes poll of the general public found that 70 per cent of people back the current definition of marriage.

Mr Hart said: "Those pushing forward these proposals are increasingly looking out of touch with ordinary members of the public who see this as an unnecessary distraction.

"How much longer can the Government ignore the overwhelming weight of the arguments against these plans and the growing public opposition to them? It’s time to ditch them.”


http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/uk-christians-not-convinced-by-promise-to-protect-churches/7533.htm


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 22, 2012, 09:25:58 am
California law barring parents from 'curing' gay children moves through legislature

A first-of-its-kind state law that would restrict parents from trying to "cure" their minor children's same-sex attractions seems headed to the governor's desk.

If both state houses can agree on the final language, the legislation, which would ban all sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) treatment for minors, will be sent to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature sometime in September. But, so far, there has been no indication from his office on whether he will sign the bill into law.

Whatever the governor does, he's sure to face criticism. Backers see it as a civil rights issue, while critics say lawmakers are infringing on not only parents' rights but also on the mission of mental health professionals.

"[The law] unconstitutionally prohibits speech…violates privacy and personal autonomy rights, intermeddles in theological disputes, clashes with other laws and creates significant unintended consequences," Matt McReynolds,, a staff attorney with Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute, said.

"As long as this bill threatens to shame patients and silence counselors, therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists, we will vigorously oppose it," McReynolds told Fox News. "We cannot afford to let the state invade the counseling room or doctor's office to dictate what views on sexuality are acceptable and unacceptable."

Sponsored by a coalition of gay rights groups led by California Equality the bill was introduced by State Sen. Ted W. Lieu (D-Redondo Beach).  Lieu told Fox News his interest in the issue was sparked by a news report he saw on television in 2011.

"The story detailed the harmful impact on vulnerable minors of this kind of supposed reparative therapy," Lieu said. "So when California Equality approached me about introducing a bill to ban that kind of therapy for minors, I jumped at the chance."

Lieu also cited studies like the American Psychological Association (APA) 2009 Task Force, which reported SOCE therapy could lead to depression, feelings of shame, self-loathing, drug abuse, high-risk sexual behavior, anger, withdrawal and in some cases, even attempted suicide in minor children, if those same-sex attractions continue to persist.

Libertarian and conservative political and legal groups including McReynolds' group and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a nationwide group of conservative mental health providers based in Salt Lake City have blasted the bill.

David Pickup, a Glendale, Calif. therapist said he's been a member of NARTH for more than eight years. He told Fox News that he went through his own SOCE treatment and uses it to treat his patients.

Pickup said that although he's had thousands of sexual interactions with men, he never identified himself as being gay.

"I describe myself as being a heterosexual man with a homosexual challenge," Pickup said, adding that after his own SOCE treatment he had feelings for women and now only experienced attractions towards men "once in a blue moon."

Pickup claims that SOCE treatments work to varying degrees on "95 percent" of his patients and he vehemently opposes SB 1172 as a "violation of parental rights," and said the law would have a "chilling effect" on the ability of therapists to treat their patients.

Pickup also claims mainstream mental health groups like the APA 2009 Task Force report labeling SOCE change efforts as "posing critical health risks" to lesbian, gay and bisexual people was based solely on "anecdotal evidence."

Brad Dacus, president of PJI told Fox News that whether or not the therapy is viable isn't for lawmakers to decide. Parents, patients and therapists should not be dictated to, he said.

"This is really a serious violation of the constitutional rights of patients and counselors, a violation of privacy and an outright attack on the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children," Dacus said.

Lieu responded to the criticism by pointing out this was a health issue and his bill was written to protect the health, welfare and rights of minors who were experiencing same-sex attractions.

"We (the government) intervene all the time to restrict the rights of individuals and parents regarding health issues," Lieu told Fox News.

"We pass laws saying minors can't buy tobacco products; anyone under 21 can't legally drink alcohol and we force parents to put their very young children into car seats while they're driving," Lieu said.

While public opposition to the bill has been loud and long, it was actually opposition to portions of the legislation from mainstream mental health associations that forced Lieu and the bill's sponsors to amend it.

That opposition, which included several smaller mental health groups, was led by a coalition of the state's four largest mental health associations: the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT), California Psychiatric Association, California Psychological Association and the California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors (CALPCC).

Today, the bill only bans SOCE treatments for minors, regardless of their parents' desires. Initially, the bill's sponsors had wanted a total ban on SOCE in the state. Also cut was a provision that subjected mental health providers to damage claims and civil suits by their former patients and immediate family members if they violated the law.

But one major sticking point remained.

Randall Hagar, Government Affairs director of the California Psychiatric Association told Fox News the coalition remained opposed because the bill's definition of SOCE was "overly broad and could have inhibited minors from discussing even legitimate issues, fears and concerns about their sexual identity with their therapists."

Dr. Jo Linder-Crow, executive director of the California Psychological Association echoed Hagar's concerns.

"It would have been too easy to misinterpret," she said. "Our concern was that proverbial law of unintended consequences and what could happen to our patients."

A compromise was finally brokered that enabled the coalition to move to a neutral position on the bill, Hagar said. In laymen's terms, Hagar said, SOCE was defined as any therapy whose sole purpose or aim was to change a person's sexual orientation from same-sex to opposite sex attraction.

Banned SOCE treatments would exclude psychotherapies that provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients' coping, social support and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices and do not seek to change sexual orientation.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/18/california-law-barring-parents-from-curing-gay-children-moves-through/?utm


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on August 22, 2012, 01:55:51 pm
Quote
A first-of-its-kind state law that would restrict parents from trying to "cure" their minor children's same-sex attractions seems headed to the governor's desk.

Those people in California are insane. They have completely gone off the constitutional track and are just winging it legislatively. Are they next going to say parents can't "cure" their child of being a Democrat? ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 24, 2012, 08:38:58 am
FIRST-PERSON: How gay marriage harms religious liberty
Eric Metaxas
Posted on Sep 18, 2012

Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex marriage. "How does our marriage hurt you?" they ask.

Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, "there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings ... against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage." Of course he means legal proceedings.

For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man contacted a state marriage commissioner, wanting to "marry" his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was "charged with a human-rights violation" and "threatened with litigation."

Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex wedding ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations. But that wasn't good enough. The women took action, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway. As Michael Coren puts it, "it's becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents" -- precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay marriage.

If you think this couldn't happen here, think again. This year we've seen the Obama Administration, through the health care law, attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs for church employees. And in June, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, "How does gay marriage hurt us?" It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay marriage, but to condone it as well.

This is why I urge you to join the half-million Christians who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Please sign it yourself by going to manhattandeclaration.org.

You and I must demonstrate love to our gay neighbors, of course, remembering that we are ultimately engaged in spiritual warfare. But we should boldly stand up when our rights as citizens and the demands of our conscience are threatened.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38745


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on September 24, 2012, 02:45:10 pm
Quote
Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway.

Yep, there are those that are doing just that; going to known Christian businesses and filing charges if they get refused service.

They insist that the Christian community accept them as they are, yet they refuse to do the same in return by respecting Christians as they are.

And gays call Christians hypocrites!  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 03, 2012, 10:57:09 am
Obama’s FBI and CIA ‘going gay’ warns pro-family activist

(http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/blog/CIA_Pride-640x303.jpg)

Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency have embraced the homosexual movement, posing a new threat to the country’s sexual morals and to pro-family activists, according to Brian Camenker of the Massachusetts pro-life and pro-family organization MassResistance.

“The US military and State Department aren’t the only branches of the US government to ‘go gay,” notes Camenker. “Since the Obama Administration took control, the FBI and CIA, the two main federal law enforcement and surveillance organizations, have fully embraced the homosexual and transgender movements, and appear to be poised to crack down on pro-family groups and citizens who are critical.”

The agencies’ new “orientation” is evident on their own websites, one of which boasts of the FBI’s “Sexual Orientation Program,” a homosexual outreach that enables gays to “come out” to their coworkers and even hosts “gay pride” events at headquarters and field offices. The CIA has created it’s own Agency Network of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Employees and Allies (ANGLE) whose slogan is “Inclusion for All, Celebrating with Pride.”

The two agencies are hosting booths at homosexual events, and a CIA representative reportedly boasted to visitors on one such occasion that their headquarters “will soon have two unisex restrooms.”
 
The CIA’s ANGLE recently “co-hosted a panel discussion of CIA senior leaders as part of the 2012 June Pride Month celebration,” according to the agency’s website. “The panel highlighted the role allies—straight family members, friends, colleagues, and managers who believe in and actively promote equality—play in creating an inclusive workforce for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) employees at the CIA.”

Camenker notes that homosexual publications are running headlines stating that the “FBI encourages LGBTs to report hate crimes” and that Attorney General Eric Holder “has gone to extraordinary lengths to promote the LGBT agenda,” including giving a Department of Justice award to a “transgender” attorney who works for the agency while in drag. He also notes that the FBI has created an intimate partnership with the anti-family Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a leftist, anti-family group which labels organizations that defend family values and reject the homosexual agenda as “hate groups.”

Camenker regards Barack Obama as “more aggressive at pushing the radical homosexual and transgender agendas than anyone could possibly have imagined.”

“The fact that the mainstream media (and most of the conservative media) is almost completely silent about this gives him even more cover to continue. In a second term, it would unquestionably get even worse,” he adds.

However, Camenker also notes that Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s own statements on the homosexual agenda suggest that pro-family groups would find little relief in his administration.

“When Romney announced to a national audience that he would support ‘gay rights’ and in effect be the most pro-homosexual Republican president ever, that didn’t give us much confidence,” writes Camenker.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obamas-fbi-and-cia-going-gay-warns-pro-family-activist


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on October 03, 2012, 01:21:14 pm
Are they going to change the color of the seal of the CIA and FBI to pink also?  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: shadyben on November 29, 2012, 02:22:48 am
Religion will be made illegal. I don’t want to imagine the world infested by people of that category. It would just be wrong.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 29, 2012, 03:15:20 am
Religion will be made illegal. I don’t want to imagine the world infested by people of that category. It would just be wrong.

Please clarify that statement if you don't mind. People of what catagory?


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Boldhunter on November 29, 2012, 11:57:11 am
Yes- I'd also like to understand the statement.
Muslims would certainly be upset by religion being illegal. Only their Sharia Law should be banned since they call for execution of infidels INCLUDING GAYS.
As for this Forum- if is for people who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus- the Son of God. There is no violence in us. True believers are known by their fruit.

Galatians 5:22-23 KJV

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

A person will always "worship" something in one form or another by how much time they devote their MIND and heart to it. So technically, it is impossible to make "religion" illegal.

Ephesians 4:21-23 KJV

If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Romans 12:2 KJV

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.




Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: tennis shoe on November 29, 2012, 12:41:32 pm
Religion will be made illegal. I don’t want to imagine the world infested by people of that category. It would just be wrong.

Actually, it will be the other way around. A certain religion, a very old one, will be quite legal. World leaders will approve of and promote it and you will find it more than acceptable, shadyben.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 04, 2012, 07:53:48 am
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-temporarily-blocks-calif-gay-therapy-law-043542231.html

Judge temporarily blocks Calif. gay therapy law

12/4/12



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.
 
U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in "reparative" or "conversion" therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.
 
"Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," Shubb wrote.
 
The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."
 
The law, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October, states that therapists and counselors who use "sexual orientation change efforts" on clients under 18 would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards. It is set to take effect on Jan. 1.
 
Although the ruling is a setback for the law's supporters, the judge softened the impact of his decision by saying that it applies only to three people — psychiatrist Anthony Duk, marriage and family therapist Donald Welch, and Aaron Bitzer, a former patient who is studying to become a counselor who specializes in clients who are unhappy being gay.
 
The exemption for them will remain in place only until Shubb can hold a trial on the merits of their case, although in granting their request for an injunction, the judge noted he thinks they would prevail in getting the law struck down on constitutional grounds.
 
Bitzer, Duk and Welch were represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, a Christian legal group. President Brad Dacus said he thought Shubb's ruling would have a chilling effect that would keep the licensing boards that regulate mental health professionals from targeting other practitioners.
 
"If there are any, we can easily add them to the case as a plaintiff," Dacus said. "We know we will have to have another hearing on the merits, but to be able to get a preliminary injunction at this stage is very telling as to the final outcome, and I'm very encouraged by it."
 
Complicating the outlook for the law is that another federal judge in Sacramento is considering similar arguments from four more counselors, two families and a professional association of Christian counselors, but has not decided yet whether to keep the ban from taking effect.
 
"We are disappointed by the ruling, but very pleased that the temporary delay in implementing this important law applies only to the three plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit," National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter said. "We are confident that as the case progresses, it will be clear to the court that this law is fundamentally no different than many other laws that regulate health care professionals to protect patients."
 
Lawyers for the state argue that outlawing reparative therapy is appropriate because it would protect young people from a practice that has been rejected as unproven and potentially harmful by all the mainstream mental health associations.
 .


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 12, 2013, 08:42:26 am
Fewer Americans Believe Homosexuality Is a Sin

Following President Obama's affirmation of same-sex marriage in May of last year, LifeWay Research released data showing the public was split on the issue of whether homosexuality was a sin.

Today we have released new, updated data showing the percentage of Americans who believe homosexuality is a sin has decreased significantly over the past year. There is little doubt that the President's evolution on homosexuality probably impacted the evolution of cultural values. This is a real and substantive shift, surprisingly large for a one-year timeframe-- though this was hardly a normal year on this issue.

From the release:

A November 2012 survey of adults in the United States found 37 percent affirm a belief that homosexual behavior is a sin - a statistically significant change from a September 2011 LifeWay Research survey asking the same question. At that time, 44 percent answered, "Yes."

In contrast, the percentage of Americans who do not believe homosexuality is a sin remains nearly the same between the two surveys - 43 percent in September 2011 and 45 percent in November 2012 indicate this belief, with an increase in the percentage of those unsure of what they believe. Seventeen percent in the November 2012 survey said, "I don't know;" an increase of 4 percent over the September 2011 survey.

The November 2012 survey also reveals Americans in the South (40 percent) are the most likely to select "Yes" to the question "Do you believe homosexual behavior is a sin?" as are Americans who attend religious services at least about once a week (61 percent), and those calling themselves "born-again, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christian" (73 percent).

Americans who never attend religious services are the most likely to say they do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin (71 percent).

The issue at hand is an important one for many reasons. First, as I mentioned in my last post, there is a sizable minority in the United States holding to traditional religious beliefs. As I stated earlier today, this is also an important moment as Americans consider a simple question: are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have always held?

I believe the trajectory toward greater acceptance of homosexuality will continue. However, there will always be a sizable minority of people, often people of faith, who hold minority views. Increasingly, Americans will have to wrestle with how to be tolerant in more than one direction.

(http://www.edstetzer.com/changeinbelief-web.jpg)

http://www.edstetzer.com/2013/01/new-research-fewer-americans-b.html?utm


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on January 13, 2013, 02:39:31 am
That's a rather stupid survey, seeing it's only a sin if one believes in sin, typically as it relates to biblical "sin". Those that are not Christian most likely won't consider it a sin and see nothing wrong with it. They should have asked if people feel it's not a sin, but something that is morally wrong.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 08, 2013, 03:51:25 am
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior, including in written form, is essentially a hate crime.

On Wednesday, the court upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002.

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.” The justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against a specific group of people.

Two other flyers that expressed outrage at the male solicitation of sex with boys in a local publication were not found to be in violation of the statute, in part because Whatcott’s citation of Luke 17:2 was not clear on whether it only referred to homosexuals. The verse, which he had handwritten on the handouts, quotes from Jesus Christ.

“If you cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone was tied around your neck and you were cast into the sea,” it read.

The court insinuated that the Scripture could have been an issue like the other references if used in a way to pertain solely to homosexual persons.
Connect with Christian News

Whatcott had distributed the flyers over a decade ago to raise awareness of his concerns about both the homosexual parades in Canada, as well as the vulnerability of children in a culture that promotes homosexuality. However, when Canada’s Human Rights Commission found out about the matter, they took him to court, citing him with a hate crime.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.

“[Whatcott's] expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” the panel ruled on Wednesday.

It pointed back to the lower court ruling, which asserted, “While the courts cannot be drawn into the business of attempting to authoritatively interpret sacred texts such as the Bible, those texts will typically have characteristics which cannot be ignored if they are to be properly assessed in relation to … the [Hate Crimes] Code.”

The judges did note, however, that “it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.”

Commentator Andrew Coyne noted that the wording of Canada’s hate crimes law is problematic because it leaves much discretion in the hands of law enforcement.

“The code itself outlaws material that ‘exposes or tends to expose to hatred’ any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds. It is not necessary, that is, to show the material in question actually exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might,” he advised. “The Court then upholds the ban on the grounds that the hatred to which individuals might or might not be exposed might in turn lead others to believe things that might cause them to act in certain unspecified but clearly prejudicial ways: it ‘has the potential to incite or inspire discriminatory treatment,’ or ‘risks’ doing so, or is ‘likely’ to, or at any rate ‘can.’”

Whatcott has now been ordered to pay $7,500 to two homosexuals who took offense at his flyers, as well as to pay the legal fees of the Human Rights Commission — which could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“The ruling and the reasoning [of the court] is terrible,” he told reporters. “They actually used the concept that truth is not a defense.”

“It’s worse than I expected,” Whatcott added. “What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”

A much different ruling came out of the Alberta Court of Appeals last October, as Pastor Stephen Boissoin was likewise facing hate crimes charges for submitting an op-ed to a local newspaper that outlined his beliefs about homosexual behavior. In releasing its opinion, the court said that Boissoin had a right to express his beliefs on matters such as homosexuality as long as they were focused on a behavior and not a specific person.

“Matters of morality, including the perceived morality of certain types of sexual behavior, are topics for discussion in the public forum. Frequently, expression on these topics arises from deep seated religious conviction, and is not always temperate,” the panel advised. “Boissoin and others have the freedom to think, whether stemming from their religious convictions or not, that  homosexuality is sinful and morally wrong. In my view, it follows that they have the right to express that thought to others.”

However, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Wednesday that oftentimes, it is impossible to say that one loves the sinner and hates the sin. It asserted that the hatred of the act was inseparable from hating the person or person group.

“I agree that sexual orientation and sexual behaviour can be differentiated for certain purposes,” the court outlined. “However, in instances where hate speech is directed toward behaviour in an effort to mask the true target, the vulnerable group, this distinction should not serve to avoid [the hate-crime clause of the Code].”

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

A number of incidents have made headlines in recent years where American businesses have been punished for their refusal to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle, such as the story of a photographer in New Mexico that was forced to pay $700 in fines for declining to shoot a same-sex commitment service, to the Vermont bed and breakfast owners who settled a lawsuit with two lesbians who were told by an employee that they could not hold their commitment service on the property. A Kentucky t-shirt screening company was also recently punished for declining to complete a work order involving t-shirts that were to be worn at a local homosexual pride parade.

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 13, 2013, 05:53:24 am
Poll: Most Americans View Gay Marriage as Civil Rights Issue

A majority of Americans view same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, according to a new poll by LifeWay Research. Most also believe its legalization in the United States is inevitable.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-americans-view-gay-marriage-as-civil-rights-issue-91752/


of course they do, as they allow their kids to be taught through government schools and the mass media and TV that its ok. So the next generation will always believe that its ok and see nothing wrong with it. At one time teaching evolution was against the LAW, now its full accepted, how you ask? By getting to the kids and teaching them young that its correct, and look at the world now. So of course the sodomite lifestyle will be accepted and embraced in the near future



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 13, 2013, 11:33:01 am
Poll: Most Americans View Gay Marriage as Civil Rights Issue

A majority of Americans view same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue, according to a new poll by LifeWay Research. Most also believe its legalization in the United States is inevitable.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-most-americans-view-gay-marriage-as-civil-rights-issue-91752/


of course they do, as they allow their kids to be taught through government schools and the mass media and TV that its ok. So the next generation will always believe that its ok and see nothing wrong with it. At one time teaching evolution was against the LAW, now its full accepted, how you ask? By getting to the kids and teaching them young that its correct, and look at the world now. So of course the sodomite lifestyle will be accepted and embraced in the near future



And when they make movies with pro-gay themes, look HOW they make them - remember a Jim Carrey movie called "Doing Time on Maple Drive". It was a drama about a self-professing Christian family that was very disfunctional. Carrey played an alchoholic. His sister just got an abortion. And his brother who is about to get married drops a bomb-shell that he's gay.

Here was the biggest bombshell about this movie(which was pretty much overlooked by audiences) - this family was CATHOLIC(but somehow they were portrayed as Christian). Ultimately, the mother was viewed as some mean hypocrite b/c she wouldn't take this news so politely, and the father was portrayed as someone as "too nice" for anyone's taste(and couldn't even provide a biblical answer to his son). Ultimately, especially for the Christian viewer of this movie, tons of confusion ended coming out by movie's end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_Time_on_Maple_Drive

And they made more of these types of movies back then as well, which ended up stirring up alot of debate and chatter. Yeah, typical War on the Family movie.

Eph 5:22  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on March 13, 2013, 04:11:29 pm
It's all part of the "strong delusion" the world has.


Title: Lurch toward transgenderism pushed by Obama
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 14, 2013, 12:06:40 pm
Colleges also facilitating move toward sex-change surgeries as routine
3/7/13

The expression “boys will be boys” is no longer true at dozens of America’s universities who are offering sex change operations with paid tuition fees. Instead, “boys will be girls” more accurately portrays the thinking behind the new health coverage policies at many of America’s elite colleges, which, according to the host of the nationally syndicated radio show “Line of Fire,” reflect the agenda pushed by the Obama administration.
 
Michael L. Brown, host of Line of Fire, said in a WND interview that universities routinely teach that gender is a matter of mind, not physical assignment at birth, so it’s changeable.

And President Obama has been helping spread that idea.
 
Without a doubt, the president and his administration have been real game changers, not so much in changing public opinion from scratch, but rather in hastening the progress of LGBT activism,” said Brown.
 
What has surprised me is to see how some religious leaders are now caving in because of the president’s public stands. Before Mr. Obama was elected, I warned my radio listeners that he would be the most radically pro-gay president in our nation’s history, and in that respect, he has not disappointed us.”
 
Brown cited the recent news from Yale, founded in 1701 as a Bible college to instruct colonists in morality and the Christian faith, that it may be adding sex-change operations to the student health plan.
 
Already, some three dozen colleges and universities agree to pay for student sex-change procedures as part of their health benefits plans.
 
“Almost overnight, perception has changed about ‘transgender’ issues, and without any new scientific or psychological [research] to justify that change in perception, more and more of the public now simply believes that if a little boy (or a grown man) claims to be one gender outside and another gender inside, then that’s who they really are, in which case sex-change is like any other surgery,” Brown told WND.
 
“The fact that most American colleges and universities are quite liberal means that they would more readily embrace this point of view,” he said.
 
Many of the arguments for transgenderism come from the American Medical Association, which has coined “gender identity disorder” as a “serious medical condition” that manifests as a continual discomfort with one’s primary and secondary biological sex characteristics.
 
Its claim is that individuals could experience severe depression and have suicidal tendencies if not treated.
 
Yale officials already offer the benefit of sex-change procedures to faculty and staff, university spokeswoman Karen Peart told Fox News.
 
She explained, “Cost would vary depending on treatment.”
 
Estimates are it could be $25,000 or more.
 
It might be too early to tell how much the extra “service” would escalate student expenses, but could the surgeries add to the already high cost of education at Yale? Already, the university says that a single student living off campus during the 2012-2013 academic year can expect to pay a “reasonable, albeit modest” $61,394 for tuition, fees, room and board, and the Yale Health hospitalization fee.
 
It claims that the $41,225 tuition fee includes health-care services under Yale Health, but how much of the fee would go into covering-sex change operations is yet to be seen
.
 
According to the Yale Daily News, Yale University Health Services Director Dr. Paul Genecin insists that students have shown “increasing interest” in the school covering sex-change surgery but concedes that he has received only a “small number of requests.”
 
Other demands also are arising.
 
“It’s among a handful of health-care issues that are of concern to students right now; another would be improving access to mental health and counseling services,” Gabriel Murchison, a Resource Alliance for Gender Equality member at Yale, told FoxNews.com.
 
Does this increased need for treatment of emotional or psychological problems have anything to do with the mainstreaming of LGBT teachings in education?
 
“It has to be so,” responded Brown, founder and president of the Fire School of Ministry. “The more that kids are raised without a mom or dad, the more they are told that any arrangement that is loving works, the more that marriage is genderless, the fewer role models they have and the more negative media influence they have, coupled with the propaganda put forth in schools (along with Gay Straight Alliances and the like) – when you couple all this with the fact that a young person’s sexual development can be confusing at times, it is only natural that these problems would be on the increase
.”

 
The Transgender Law and Policy Institute announced last month that Brown University became the 36th university to offer sex changes to students.
 
Brown points out that more and more education programs at colleges and universities are seeking to normalize homosexual and transsexual behavior. He says this has greatly affected the way society defines sexuality and morality, which has resulted in an outright war against those holding to Christian principles.
 
“Since our next generation of leaders (or, with the Internet boom, the current generation of leaders in many cases) is being educated at our major universities, where gay positive is the norm and moral (and biblical) conservatism is mocked, the new ‘tolerance’ is outright hostile to biblical values,” Brown contends.
 
And when asked which universities he considers to be most aggressively pushing the LGBT agenda through their academic programs and campus politics, Brown didn’t know where to start.
 
“There are too many to mention!”
Brown exclaimed. “A whole book was written by gay activist Shane Windmeyer for the The Advocate, listing the most gay-friendly campuses in America, and they included quite a few of the biggest and best. Some even had funding in their programs to recruit LGBT students. I have a whole chapter on this in my book, “A Queer Thing Happened to America.”
 
Windmeyer says campuses promoting sexual alternatives are to be commended.
 
“Every student deserves to feel safe on campus, and all of these colleges are committed to creating a more LGBT-friendly campus,” Windmeyer said.
 
Some notable schools making Windmeyer’s 2012 Campus Pride “Top 25 LGBT-friendly Colleges and Universities List” are Stanford, UCLA, Cornell, University of Chicago, Penn State, UC Berkeley, Ohio State, Washington, Michigan and Oregon.
 
Do the shocking statistics about immorality on American campuses nationwide present the most compelling cases out there that would alert parents who are planning on sending their kids to college?
 
Not so much the stats (which include all kinds of sexual immorality – gay and straight – as well as lots of drugs and drinking), but the anecdotes, where kids really ‘come out’ and begin to identify themselves in every imaginable way, like a queer-bisexual-transdyke – in other words, ‘normal’ doesn’t exist anymore,” Brown contended.
 
Public K-12 schools also are see by Brown as the breeding ground for the sexual libertinism witnessed on college campuses from coast to coast.
 
“Public schools that have policies where a boy who identifies as a girl uses the girl’s bathroom, or that don’t make gender distinctions and refer to the students as ‘friends’ rather than boys and girls, or that have GSAs where kids can come out as gay among their peers and faculty advisers without parents knowing, or first-graders having gay books like “King and King” read to them, or a gay positive sex-ed programs – all this and more paves the way for the ultra-liberal atmosphere on the campuses,” Brown explained.
 
After-college life is being hit, too, with one quarter of Fortune 100 companies covering sex changes with insurance, up from only 1 percent less than a decade ago.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/lurch-toward-transgenderism-pushed-by-obama/#Ir81z27gF4rQBDFV.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 26, 2013, 11:39:54 am
Lesbian Mary, Mother Of God!

A public charter school in Massachusetts turned a deaf ear to protests last week and followed through with performing a pro-homosexual play that mocks the Bible and has been blasted as “blasphemous.” Students from the Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Charter Public School, or PVPA – which serves 400 pupils, grades 7-12, in South Hadley, Mass. – on March 15-17 performed the controversial play, “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told.” A 1998 Paul Rudnick comedy that had a run in theaters in New York City, “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told” alters the biblical Book of Genesis to include homosexual couples Adam and Steve and Jane and Mabel in the Garden; as well as a “****” rhinoceros that tries to seduce men on the Ark; and Mary, the mother of Christ, arguing she can’t be pregnant, because she’s a lesbian “bull-dyke.” A New England theater guide, The Theater Mirror, in a glowing review, further explains the play “gets so specific as to be a gay how-to sexbook” and summarizes it as “a goofy gay romp with a serious sting in its tale.” 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/lesbian-mary-mother-of-god/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on March 26, 2013, 03:43:52 pm
Quote
high cost of education at Yale? Already, the university says that a single student living off campus during the 2012-2013 academic year can expect to pay a “reasonable, albeit modest” $61,394 for tuition, fees, room and board, and the Yale Health hospitalization fee.

ONE year? 60k for 1 year of college? WOW!

That works out to about $250,000, minimum, regardless of degree.

Over 5 times more than what my BA cost, and I thought it was expensive! That's just insane theft. And how much of that goes to actually running classes, rather than put into "research" departments?

Education is crazy out of control.


Title: Florist Who Refused Flowers to Gay Wedding Sued
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 10, 2013, 06:30:50 pm
http://gma.yahoo.com/florist-refused-flowers-gay-wedding-sued-154420094--abc-news-topstories.html
4/10/13
Florist Who Refused Flowers to Gay Wedding Sued

A florist who reportedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is being sued by the Washington State Attorney General.

The lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in Benton County, came almost two weeks after Attorney General Bob Ferguson said he sent a letter to Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland, Wash., asking her to reconsider her decision.

Stutzman is accused of violating the state's Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a public place.

When ABCNews.com reached Stuztman at her flower shop today, she declined to comment on the lawsuit.

On March 1, Robert Ingersoll, a longtime customer, visited the shop and told Stutzman he wanted to order flowers for his upcoming wedding, according to the complaint.

Stutzman told Ingersoll she was unable to provide flowers for his wedding "because of [her] relationship with Jesus Christ," according to the complaint.

At the time of the alleged denial, Stutzman was aware Ingersoll's "upcoming wedding for which he was seeking to purchase flowers would be to another man," the complaint stated.

"The fact that Mr. Ingersoll, a gay man, was seeking to purchase flowers for his wedding to another man was a substantial factor in [Stutzman's] refusal to sell him flowers," the complaint said.

Ferguson is seeking a permanent injunction that would require the store to comply with Washington's consumer protection laws and pay at least $2,000 in fines.

It was the second case in recent months in which a same-sex couple said they were denied service while planning their wedding.

A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages.

Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake.

"I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said.

A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

"Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.

"I want to give them a big hug and say congratulations," he told ABCNews.com in February. "It involves cake, it involves love, marriage, all things I'm a big fan of."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 15, 2013, 08:30:46 am
California Lawmakers Consider Mandating ‘Gay Infertility’ Insurance

 Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that would mandate insurance companies, under criminal penalties, to offer coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals.

AB 460 was recently proposed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, who notes that while insurance companies in the state currently cover infertility treatments for couples, some “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination.”

He says that some companies are denying coverage to homosexuals because they did not have “an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” Current law requires that spouses try to conceive for one year, and may claim coverage if they remain barren after that time.

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation,” Ammiano’s proposed legislation declares.

However, some find the bill’s purpose confusing, as by nature homosexuals can not conceive with each other.

“The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered ‘infertile,’ which is [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” comments writer Ben Shapiro. “It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can’t make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.”

“But nature is irrelevant here,” he continues. “Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga’s phrase, ‘born this way,’ political correctness trumps nature.”

Wesley Smith of NewsBusters was also perplexed by the legislation.

“This raises a cogent question: Could AB 460 be construed to require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments for gay couples simply because their sexual unions cannot produce children?” he asked. “It would seem so. There is no requirement that actual infertility be diagnosed. Nor is there a requirement that the gay ‘infertile’ patient seeking coverage for treatment have tried and failed to conceive or sire a child through any heterosexual means, whether natural or artificial. Moreover, the bill would still define infertility as engaging in sexual intimacy without conceiving for one year, regardless of whether the relations were heterosexual or homosexual.”

Carlos Alcala, spokeperson for Assemblyman Ammiano clarified the bill’s intent.

“Anything that is covered by an insurance plan must be covered for everyone,” he said. “If a plan covers egg donation costs for a heterosexual couple unable to conceive without it, it would have to cover those costs for a gay male couple as well.”

If the bill passes, failure to provide coverage to homosexuals for infertility treatments would result in criminal penalties.

http://christiannews.net/2013/04/13/california-lawmakers-consider-mandating-gay-infertility-insurance/

This is the wold we live in, "Infertility Insurance" for sodomites... seriously...


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 15, 2013, 09:50:49 am
Quote
“The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered ‘infertile,’ which is [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” comments writer Ben Shapiro. “It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can’t make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.”

Speaking of surrogate mothers - there's been movies on tv recently with these plots. No, doesn't involve homosexual couples, but nonetheless conditioning the masses perhaps...


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 15, 2013, 10:56:06 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rules-favor-lesbians-suing-hawaii-b-b-003846543.html
4/15/13
Judge rules in favor of lesbians suing Hawaii B&B

HONOLULU (AP) — A judge has ruled a Hawaii bed and breakfast violated the law when two women were denied a room because they're gay.

The Hawaii First Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of a Southern California couple who sued Aloha Bed & Breakfast for discrimination in 2011, Lambda Legal announced Monday. In 2007, Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford tried to book a room at the bed and breakfast because it's in Hawaii Kai, the same east Honolulu neighborhood where the friend they were visiting lived.

When Cervelli specified they would need one bed, the owner asked if they were lesbians. Cervelli responded truthfully and the owner said she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her house because of her religious views, the lawsuit said.

The bed and breakfast violated the state public accommodations law and is ordered to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, according to the ruling dated April 11. The public accommodations law prohibits establishments that provide lodging to transient guests from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, race, color, ancestry, religion, disability and sex —including gender identity or expression.

Jim Hochberg, a Honolulu attorney representing the bed and breakfast's owner said Monday the ruling doesn't consider her First Amendment rights. "The public needs to be aware of this decision because it has far-reaching consequences," he said.

The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission joined the lawsuit.

"The court's decision is based on Hawaii's strong state civil rights laws which prohibit discrimination," commission Executive Director William Hoshijo said. "When visitors or residents are subjected to discrimination, they suffer the sting of indignity, humiliation and outrage, but we are all demeaned and our society diminished by unlawful discrimination."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on April 16, 2013, 02:34:57 am
Quote
The public accommodations law prohibits establishments that provide lodging to transient guests from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation,...

Looks like a legal slam dunk to me. If that is actually on their state law books, then the defendant doesn't have a leg to stand on. Another non-story.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 30, 2013, 07:25:51 am
In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

Appeal Sent to Supreme Court Over Woman Fired for Criticizing Homosexuality

A conservative law firm representing a woman who was fired from a university position over an opinion column criticizing homosexuality has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
The American Freedom Law Center filed a petition for writ of certiorari on Tuesday to the highest court in the United States on behalf of Crystal Dixon. "Petitioner did not occupy a political position, nor did she publicly criticize her employer or any identified policy of her employer in her writing," reads the petition.
 
"Rather, Petitioner was fired for expressing her personal religious beliefs in a local newspaper on a controversial public issue: whether it is legitimate to compare the civil rights struggles of African Americans with those struggling to promote gay rights, an issue about which Petitioner, an African American, is uniquely qualified to address."
 
Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel who authored the petition to the court on behalf of Dixon, said in a statement that it was a matter regarding freedom of religious dissent.
 
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion," said Muise.
 
"As a result of [the university's] speech restriction, that 'fixed star' in our constitutional constellation has been obscured and an official orthodoxy prescribed in direct violation of the First Amendment."

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/appeal-sent-to-supreme-court-over-woman-fired-for-criticizing-homosexuality-96873/#wJzRq6WlvCDGc0rF.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 30, 2013, 11:38:19 am
A conservative law firm representing a woman who was fired from a university position over an opinion column criticizing homosexuality has filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
The American Freedom Law Center filed a petition for writ of certiorari on Tuesday to the highest court in the United States on behalf of Crystal Dixon. "Petitioner did not occupy a political position, nor did she publicly criticize her employer or any identified policy of her employer in her writing," reads the petition.
 

Was looking on their web site, and...

1) It's a 501c3, that's strike one right there b/c when it comes to cases like these, you would think their hands would be at least somewhat tied.

2) Members of their advisory board include a contributing editor for the National Review(who's founder William F. Buckley is a former Yale Skull and Bones man), professors at Fordham and Notre Dame Univs(?perhaps Jesuit trained?), and former CIA director James Woolsey(who helped author PNAC - Project for a New Age Century with the likes of William Kristol, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and which is one of the blueprints for the NWO).

Yeah, have to be careful over who is watching over you..."the fox guarding the hen house..."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 27, 2013, 04:10:19 am
IRS Could Revoke Non-Profit Status for Religious Institutions over Same-Sex Marriage

Based on Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, in which the Court majority determined that the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal definition of marriage had to incorporate state-based same-sex marriages, Internal Revenue Service regulations could be modified to remove non-profit status for churches across the country.

The DOMA decision makes clear that marriage is a state-to-state issue, meaning that religious institutions that receive non-profit status on the federal level but do not perform or accept same-sex marriages in states where it is legal could have non-profit status revoked. Furthermore, should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States that it was within the scope of the First Amendment’s protections for religion for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status for the university based on its policy prohibiting interracial dating. The Court determined that the “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education … which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the university’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.”

The Supreme Court is clearly leaning toward a similar move here. The Court stated in Romer v. Evans (1996) that states could not take measures to prevent future distinction of gays and lesbians as a protected class under state law; in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Court ruled that same-sex sexual activity was Constitutionally protected; in the DOMA case on Wednesday, the Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional not merely on federalism grounds, but because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On the state level, a movement is already under way to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by the same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts in 2006, Boston Catholic Charities withdrew from adoption services thanks to the state mandate on same-sex adoptions, rather than fight the issue in court. In California, a bill is already making its way through the legislature to bar non-profit status for any religious youth group that discriminates on the basis of “gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/IRS-could-revoke-non-profit-for-religious-institutions


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on June 27, 2013, 11:44:26 am
"Could Revoke"? I have little doubt they WILL revoke non-profit status of those who don't tow the federal line. Now that they got the Supreme Court ruling out of the way, it's open season on anybody that opposes homosexuality.

Side Note:

My wife said they had a lawyer come by their office for a meeting with employees over workplace sexual discrimination and harassment, and she said that the lawyer was as gay as they come. I asked her who set that up, but she said she didn't know. I find it very interesting timing. Makes me wonder was it just coincidence, or is there some behind the scenes goings on by the gay lobby. I'll try to find out more.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 27, 2013, 03:57:49 pm
This is one of those read between the lines stories, but you can see the "tolerance" card being used. Funny how tollerance only ever goes one way

Democratic Strategist Accuses Pastor Jeffress of Using Religion to Promote Bigotry
 
Gay Marriage Advocate Claims Children Raised by LGBT Parents Are Happier, Better Adjusted


In a debate between Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman and Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, about Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to overturn a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, Whitman accused the megachurch pastor of "using religion to promote bigotry."

"I'm not going to allow Pastor Jeffress to continue to suggest that children raised by gay couples are any bit less well-adjusted," Whitman said.
 
"The fact that you use religion to promote bigotry against gays and lesbians has to stop."
 
The two were featured on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," where Whitman claimed that Christian conservatives weren't offering a good case against homosexual marriage except for Bible-thumping.
 
 Jeffress responded, saying that "there is a good case beyond the Bible for traditional heterosexual marriages."
 
"In my book, I quote Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan who said, 'if we were trying to design a situation in which to best raise a child, it would be one in which the child is connected to both of its biological parents.' That's not always possible, but it ought to be the preferred status, and government ought to promote it, instead of discourage it," the Dallas pastor said.
 
Countering Jeffress' statement, Whitman claimed that children who are raised by LGBT couples are better adjusted and healthier than those who are raised by heterosexual parents. "In fact, there's a study just out in Australia – 500 kids – that showed children of gay couples are actually healthier and get along better with their family members than do straight," he cited.
 
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of DOMA in a narrow 5-4 vote, now allowing married gay couples to receive the same tax, health and retirement benefits that are available to married heterosexual couples.
 
Jeffress, who leads an 11,000-member congregation, has been outspoken about his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision, and has been featured on local and national news programs affirming that he believes the ruling was based on "the shifting sands of public opinion rather than enduring legal and moral principles."
 
Following Whitman's accusation that Jeffress promotes bigotry, radio host and political commentator Laura Ingraham said she didn't like Whitman branding people who believe in traditional marriage as being "intolerant or anti-gay."
 
Continuing his argument against same-sex marriage, Jeffress said he wanted to remind Whitman that neither he or anyone else would be here had it not been for a heterosexual union between a man and a woman.
 
"Nature teaches us, and I believe it's God, that the best relationship in which to raise a child is with a father and a mother," the pastor said. "To say that two men can just as easily and effectively raise a child is to demean the role of women. And listen, even though culture changes and the court may change, God's word never changes. He designed marriage, He knows how it best operates."
 
Whitman replied, "You do not have a lock on God, sir, and my God does not agree with you." you got that right

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/democratic-strategist-accuses-pastor-jeffress-of-using-religion-to-promote-bigotry-98939/#YoXDKVuEtqau8cEm.99



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 27, 2013, 05:41:40 pm
Quote
Jeffress responded, saying that "there is a good case beyond the Bible for traditional heterosexual marriages."
 
"In my book, I quote Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan who said, 'if we were trying to design a situation in which to best raise a child, it would be one in which the child is connected to both of its biological parents.' That's not always possible, but it ought to be the preferred status, and government ought to promote it, instead of discourage it," the Dallas pastor said.

Did anyone catch this? He says "BEYOND the bible...", and quotes some secular sociologist to prove his points. This is a big red flag with a lot of these modern-day preachers - they can be "socially conservative" all they want, but many more times than not they distance themselves from showing what the WORD OF GOD says. If anything, he was very subtle about it too.

1John 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.


Quote
Jeffress, who leads an 11,000-member congregation, has been outspoken about his disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision, and has been featured on local and national news programs affirming that he believes the ruling was based on "the shifting sands of public opinion rather than enduring legal and moral principles."

Dunno, but any pastor that has an 11K member congregation in a megachurch too is caught up yoking with pop culture. Saw the interiors of his church in the Dallas Morning News when it opened - parts of it looks like an amusement park.

FWIW, the modern-day church system is partly to blame for the shifting sands of public opinion on this issue as well - they come out acting like the world...well, how can they be a good witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone?

Rom 2:1  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2  But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6  Who will render to every man according to his deeds:


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on June 28, 2013, 03:20:15 am
Quote
Countering Jeffress' statement (Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman), Whitman claimed that children who are raised by LGBT couples are better adjusted and healthier than those who are raised by heterosexual parents.

This guy is an idiot! I'm guessing he's gay too?  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 01, 2013, 11:11:51 am
Obama To Force All Churches To Perform Gay Marriages?

Obama the Liar-In-Chief
 
Freshly glowing on the heels of his Supreme Court victory on the defeat of exclusive heterosexual marriage, Barack Hussein Obama pursed his lips today and said that he would not “force churches to perform gay marriages”. Let us give you a few reasons why this is a lie and that forcing churches to perform gay marriage is precisely his goal:
 •Taxpayer-funded abortion: Obama promised that there would be no taxpayer-funded abortions. Guess what? He lied.
 •Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital: When running for President he said that he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Then guess what?, he didn’t.
 •ACORN: Obama said “The only involvement I had with Acorn was doing some stuff with the justice department.” Guess what? That was a lie
 •Bill Passing In Washington: Obama promised that “The Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk” Guess what? This has never happened one time. Total lie.
 •Obamacare: Obama promised that “if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it.” Guess what? You can’t.
 
We could fill half a dozen blog posts with the proven lies of Barack Obama. So when he says that he will not “force churches to perform gay marriages”, that is a GUARANTEE that at some point over the next 3 years every church in America will be forced to perform them. And that’s the truth.


From Washington Examiner: President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.
 
“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions.  Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”
 
Here’s guessing that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups that are in the midst of fighting the contraception mandate are skeptical of that pledge.
 
“[T]he administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when the mandate was first unveiled last January.
 
Here’s Obama’s full statement:
 

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal — and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.
 
This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.
 
So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.
 
On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital.  How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions.  Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.
 
The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts:  when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=14211


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on July 01, 2013, 03:00:35 pm
9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10  For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:9-12 (KJB)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 05, 2013, 03:28:21 pm
San Antonio pastors oppose city's proposed anti-discrimination law

The momentum is growing to protect gays, lesbians, transgendered and veterans in the city’s anti-discrimination laws. But some local pastors say those changes may end up violating the rights of the religious.
 
“A religious view: either you have one or you don’t, it is still a religious view. And if I don’t attain to their view, then I’m out of the picture completely. It’s a stifling of free speech,” said Pastor Steve Branson of Village Parkway Baptist Church.
 
Ever have a Paula Deen moment -- make an off-color joke or hold a religious belief? Branson says keep it to yourself if you’re involved with San Antonio city government. Proposed changes to the anti-discrimination ordinance could get you fired.
 
“If you voice any opinion, no matter how many years back it’s been, it can be used against you. City employees are going to be greatly affected by this,” Branson continued.
 
Branson was one of more than a dozen local church leaders gathering in a strategy session Tuesday. The group wants to stop revisions to the city’s non-discrimination laws.
 
Branson said the group isn’t after gays, lesbians, veterans or other group protections.
 
Instead the group said they are targeting language in the law that tinkers with freedom of speech.
 
Together with the mayor, Councilman Diego Bernal is spearheading the changes to a document that hasn’t been revised in decades. Bernal said the ordinance tightens language to be all-inclusive.
 
Bernal told KENS 5: “This (ordinance) is the bare minimum. Austin’s is more progressive.”
 
But attorneys for the pastors said the bill’s vague phrases are open to interpretation.
 
Consider this wording on page 3: “You can forget that committee appointment if you’ve ever 'demonstrated a bias, by word or deed against any person.'”
 
“How do you figure out what a bias is?” asked Branson.
 
Branson said any faith-based organization with a city contract would have to abide by the new rules … and any bias — real or imagined — could cost jobs and contracts.
 
“This is open to interpretation to whoever is in control,” Branson added.
 
San Antonio city council is on summer hiatus. The proposed ordinance will be taken up in August when the council returns.


http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/San-Antonio-pastors-oppose-citys-proposed-anti-discrimination-law--214134941.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 05, 2013, 03:28:49 pm
Proposed Law Prohibits Christians From Working For San Antonio City Government

If you want to know how the unleashed pansexual regime is going to both impoverish and marginalize Christians from the public square in the wake of the Supreme Court’s declaration of war on Christians, a proposed revision in San Antonio’s city code gives us a view of the plan.

If you are someone who believes that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, or that the Bible is true, you cannot be a city employee. You cannot even have a contract with the city. If you are such a city employee now, and they find out, you can be fired.

Of course, the wording is barely flexible enough that the city government could wait, if they felt they needed to, to fire the chambered round at their target.

“[A]ttorneys for the pastors said the bill’s vague phrases are open to interpretation. Consider this wording on page 3: ‘You can forget that committee appointment if you’ve ever “demonstrated a bias, by word or deed against any person.”’ ‘How do you figure out what a bias is?’ asked Branson. Branson said any faith-based organization with a city contract would have to abide by the new rules … and any bias — real or imagined — could cost jobs and contracts. ‘This is open to interpretation to whoever is in control,’ Branson added.”

I’m predict that believing Romans 1.18-32 is a message from God counts as bias. It is just a matter of time, and not that much of it, if the law is changed.

I feel ambiguous about this since I assume that most city governments of any larger size are such sleazy pits of corruption that they really are simply another facet of organized crime in the United States. Perhaps Christians should see their imposed boycott as a blessing.

But, however inefficiently, city governments often do meet legitimate needs. And as places that siphon off income from all people whether or not they are Christians, it is a huge disadvantage to the exiled group to be prohibited from working for the people who have confiscated all that money. Specifically, this is a way to really hurt those Christians who aspire to enter or stay the middle class, who often depend on jobs in bureaucracies or owns small businesses.

Even if the law gets shot down, you can be sure that there will be many cities doing the same thing. States will try to mandate it for themselves and for their cities. And the Feds will use their own money power to do the same to the states. Again, the IRS won’t be too holy to collect money from people who subscribe to forbidden religious ideas, but the Feds will then use the funds to reward the people who pass their test.

Demographically, time is on the side of Christians and other groups who value children. But we need to resist all this proposed thoughtcrime law as much as we can to get to the tipping point.


http://godfatherpolitics.com/11568/proposed-law-prohibits-christians-from-working-for-san-antonio-city-government/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 08, 2013, 07:09:06 am
Street Preacher Brutally Beaten During Seattle ‘Gay Pride’ Event
Posted by Erin Benziger ∙ 6 July 2013 ∙ In News   

From Christian News Network:

    A street preacher was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked by attendees of a homosexual pride event in Seattle this past weekend.

View article → http://christiannews.net/2013/07/05/street-preacher-brutally-beat-down-during-seattle-gay-pride-event/



Evangelist Tony Miano Arrested in London for Preaching Homosexuality Is a Sin
Posted by Erin Benziger ∙ 6 July 2013 ∙ In News   

The Christian Post reports:

    Tony Miano, a retired deputy sheriff from Los Angeles County, Calif., was arrested in London, England, earlier this week for preaching on abstaining from sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, in downtown Wimbledon. He was found to be in violation of Public Order Act Section 5, for “using homophobic speech that could cause people anxiety, distress, alarm or insult,” Miano said in a YouTube video posted on Wednesday.

View article → http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-evangelist-arrested-in-london-for-preaching-homosexuality-is-a-sin-99420/#uTQjZXEaX5bOOSL9.99



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on July 08, 2013, 01:57:42 pm
Quote
Tony Miano, a retired deputy sheriff from Los Angeles County, Calif., was arrested in London, England, earlier this week for preaching on abstaining from sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, in downtown Wimbledon

I guess he missed that part where it says, "Cast ye not your pearls before swine..."

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Matthew 5:25 (KJB)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 12, 2013, 01:44:09 am
Obama To Force All Churches To Perform Gay Marriages?

Obama the Liar-In-Chief
 
Freshly glowing on the heels of his Supreme Court victory on the defeat of exclusive heterosexual marriage, Barack Hussein Obama pursed his lips today and said that he would not “force churches to perform gay marriages”.

The 501c3 churches will have no choice b/c they have to comply with the IRS - IMHO, with the way the economy is in freefall mode now, wouldn't surprise me if these clergies do it voluntarily out of desperation to raise more money for their churches.

Quote
Let us give you a few reasons why this is a lie and that forcing churches to perform gay marriage is precisely his goal:
 •Taxpayer-funded abortion: Obama promised that there would be no taxpayer-funded abortions. Guess what? He lied.
 •Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital: When running for President he said that he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Then guess what?, he didn’t.
 •ACORN: Obama said “The only involvement I had with Acorn was doing some stuff with the justice department.” Guess what? That was a lie
 •Bill Passing In Washington: Obama promised that “The Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk” Guess what? This has never happened one time. Total lie.
 •Obamacare: Obama promised that “if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it.” Guess what? You can’t.

Why in the world does anyone believe a word any of these politicians have to say? Of course they want to tickle everyone's ears! The Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc all did the same thing. And for that matter too, look at the last election when Romney supporters believed every word he said DESPITE the fact that his record as gov of MA said OTHERWISE.

Prov 6:16  These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17  A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18  An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
Pro 6:19  A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 24, 2013, 07:46:48 am
U.S. city looks to penalize Bible believers
 
Critics charge 'anti-bias' requirement punishes people with moral convictions


Think it’s hot in Texas these days? Just wait a few weeks, until the San Antonio City Council ends its summer hiatus and resumes work on a proposed change to its  nondiscrimination ordinances that apparently will discriminate against all who take the Bible at its word and follow it.
 





Ads by Google
 
Will You Boldly Proclaim"I am a Christian"? Sign the pledge now! billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian
 Top 7 No Contract Phones2013 Bestselling Cell Phones Compare Latest Deals & Save Big Comparestores.net/Cyber-Monday
 

That’s because the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.
 
Opponents of the plan, which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the nondiscrimination ordinances, charge it is a violation of constitutional Article VI, paragraph 3, which states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
 
The opponents explain that the ordinance would bar anyone from office who has “demonstrated a bias” against someone based on categories that include “sexual orientation.”
 
The proposal, however, does not define “bias,” which, according to local church leaders, could mean someone who declares homosexual behavior is sinful.
 
The new ordinance would state: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.”
 
Anyone in office who demonstrates a bias would be considered guilty of “malfeasance” and removed from office.
 
Church leaders who oppose the proposed change argue it violates First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association. It also violates, they say, the Texas Religious Freedom Act and the Texas Constitution.
 
Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, who has been alerting city residents about the issue, told OneNewsNow that the reference to “bias” could mean anything.
 
“The ordinance … says that if you have at any point demonstrate a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” Flowers said. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”
 
He called the measure “unprecedentedly wrong” and said “the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”
 
Many pastors are concerned, reported KHOU-TV’s Joe Conger in Houston.
 
“Ever have a Paula Deen moment – make an off-color joke or hold a religious belief?” Conger said. “[Pastor Steve] Branson [of Village Parkway Baptist Church] says keep it to yourself if you’re involved with San Antonio city government. Proposed changes to the anti-discrimination ordinance could get you fired.”
 
Get the best deals on Paula Deen’s books at WND’s SuperStore.
 
“If you voice any opinion, no matter how many years back it’s been, it can be used against you,” Branson told the station. “City employees are going to be greatly affected by this.”
 
The KHOU report said more than a dozen church leaders met to discuss the looming issue.
 
An analysis released by pastors said the “ordinance violates Texas and federal Constitutions by creating a religious test for involvement in city government.”
 
The church leaders said it allows the city council “to prohibit those that speak their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality from serving on city boards.”
 
“For example, if a person publicly expresses their religious belief that homosexual behavior is a sin – even if this expression is at a church service – that person could be frozen out of involvement with city government.”
 
The analysis also contends businesses “run by people of faith will be subject to criminal penalties if they refuse to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs relating to homosexuality.”
 
The council, which declined to advance the plan when it first was discussed, is scheduled to resume talks on the controversy in August.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/u-s-city-looks-to-penalize-bible-believers/#APjUPr1Xsd04sRlL.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on July 24, 2013, 04:08:16 pm
Quote
the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.

"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation 13:17 (KJB)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 26, 2013, 03:33:49 pm
Jul 26, 10:53 AM EDT
UN human rights office unveils gay-rights campaign
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UN_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-26-10-53-25

NEW YORK (AP) -- Amid a surge of anti-gay violence and repression in several countries, the United Nations' human rights office on Friday launched its first global outreach campaign to promote tolerance and greater equality for lesbians, gays, transgender people and bisexuals.

Called Free & Equal, it's an unprecedented effort by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to change public attitudes around the world on issues that have bitterly divided the U.N.'s own member states.

The multi-pronged campaign - announced at a news conference in Cape Town, South Africa - will include videos and public-service announcements distributed through social media, a new website, a series of fact sheets, and engagement by celebrities well-known in different regions of the world.

"Changing attitudes is never easy... It begins with often difficult conversations," said Navi Pillay, the high commissioner for human rights. "And that is what we want to do with this campaign. Free & Equal will inspire millions of conversations among people around the world and across the ideological spectrum."

There were multiple reasons for choosing South Africa as the news conference venue. It is Pillay's home country, and is a leading nation on a continent where discrimination and violence against LGBT people is widespread.

In Cameroon, for example, two men were sentenced to prison this week for gay sex, and a gay rights activist was tortured and killed earlier this month in an attack his friends suspect was related to his activism. South Africa, in contrast, does not criminalize homosexuality and allows same-sex marriage, yet is plagued by extensive anti-gay violence, including frequent rapes of lesbians.

However, the new awareness campaign will extend worldwide, reflecting the challenges faced by gays in many countries.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin recently signed a law that will impose hefty fines for holding gay pride rallies or providing information about the gay community to minors. In Haiti, gay-rights leaders say their community has been targeted by a recent series of threats. In Montenegro, several hundred people on Wednesday attacked the Balkan nation's first-ever gay pride rally, throwing rocks and bottles at activists while some yelled, "Kill the gays."

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights promises a world in which everyone is born free and equal in dignity and rights - no exceptions, no one left behind," Pillay said. "Yet it's still a hollow promise for many millions of LGBT people forced to confront hatred, intolerance, violence and discrimination on a daily basis."

Among the dignitaries throwing their support behind "Free & Equal" was retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who in the 1980s was a prominent leader of the struggle to end South Africa's apartheid system of racial segregation and white-minority rule.

"I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven ... I mean I would much rather go to the other place," Tutu said at Friday's news conference. "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

The paramount anti-apartheid leader, ailing former South African President Nelson Mandela, also has been an inspiration for Free & Equal, according to Charles Radcliffe, a spokesman for the U.N. human rights office.

"He said education is the best weapon against prejudice," Radcliffe said. "That's really the best inspiration for this campaign."

At the UN, the office of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement commending Free & Equal and declaring that Ban "is personally committed to championing this cause."

According to the human rights office, at least 76 countries still criminalize consensual, same-sex relationships, and discrimination against LGBT people is widespread in many other nations.

Less than half of the U.N.'s 193 member states have gone on record in support of gay rights and in opposition to laws criminalizing homosexuality. In March 2011, for example, only 85 states signed a joint statement at the Human Rights Council expressing their concern at violence and human rights violations against LGBT people.

Radcliffe said funding for Free & Equal is being provided by outside contributors, and is not reliant on U.N. funds, thus skirting any possible opposition from U.N. members who oppose gay-rights activism.

"Some countries may be uncomfortable with this, but our approach has been nonconfrontational," he said. "We're standing for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Free & Equal's creators say they will try to tailor the messaging to mesh with regional sensibilities and cultures, but there will be common themes, including an effort to make use of personal stories.

According to a memo about the campaign, these might include accounts from parents of bullied children, partners of individuals murdered in hate crimes, transgender adolescents disowned by their families, and older couples forced to live their lives in hiding.

In a foretaste of the new campaign, the human rights office recently released a 2-minute video called "The Riddle."

"What exists in every corner of the world - embraced and celebrated in some countries - but is illegal in 76?," a series of narrators ask. "What is hidden for fear of public shame, imprisonment, torture or even the death penalty in seven countries?"

The human rights office said several celebrities have offered to help spread Free & Equal's messages, including pop star Ricky Martin, South African singer Yvonne Chaka Chaka, Bollywood actress Celina Jaitly, and Brazilian singer Daniela Mercury.

Cristina Finch, who monitors global gay-rights issues for Amnesty International USA, welcomed the U.N. initiative.

"Any campaign that wakes people up to the danger faced by the LGBT community on a daily basis has incredible potential to help end this violence and discrimination," she said. "The UN has a unique role to play in this effort."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 27, 2013, 09:00:13 am
Open Season on Christians after Pro-Gay Rulings

Christians who speak out and stand up for traditional marriage are more likely than ever to be persecuted and even prosecuted for it.

That's because of how the majority at the U.S. Supreme Court wrote their June 26 pro-gay marriage rulings.

The high court majority attacked the motives of those who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. DOMA enshrined traditional marriage in federal law and prevented federal benefits from going to same-sex couples.

"The avowed purpose and  practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the United States v. Windsor ruling.

"DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code," he added.

According to Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty, the rationale for this ruling basically undermined the motive of those for traditional marriage only.

"The Court said that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is literally irrational, that it was just the fruit of bigotry and beknighted souls rather than the thoughtful actions of elected, national leaders," he said.

Rep. Gerald Nadler, D-N.Y., agreed with Justice Kennedy, summing up the majority's judgment of DOMA as being "motivated by animus."

"Animus means hatred and discrimination," the New York lawmaker said. "It says there was no conceivable legitimate purpose of the law."

DOMA passed in Congress with huge majorities, but Klukowski said the high court has now decided "that 85 percent of Congress in passing it and Democratic President Bill Clinton signing it into law were not motivated by any sound reason, by any rational thought whatsoever, that they were motivated either by ignorance or by hostility."

Stage Set for Persecution?

Such talk by the nation's highest court will likely propel pro-homosexual rights groups and pro-gay government officials to go after backers of traditional marriage harder than ever.

"There's absolutely a growing threat under this administration and under this court," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told CBN News.

"I think what Justice Kennedy did in his opinion was basically assign a false motive to those who are opposed to the redefinition of natural marriage, acting as if they were a threat to people, therefore declaring open season," Perkins stated.

"And I think you will see open hostility, increasing open hostility," he predicted. "I mean, we've seen very recent gay pride events where there were Christians beaten because they took a stand for biblical morality."

Thomas Peters, communications director for the National Organization for Marriage, says up until now, action against traditional marriage backers has mostly come at the state level, and cases have been piling up in recent years.
 
Peters listed some.

"The Colorado baker who right now could spend a year in jail for refusing to give a wedding cake to a gay ceremony, or the town clerks in New York who had to resign their jobs because they simply asked that someone else in the office would sign the same-sex marriage licenses so that they wouldn't have to do it," he said.

"Or the wedding photographer in New Mexico who's been fined thousands of dollars simply for saying she didn't want to photograph a gay ceremony," he continued.

There's likely to be much more of this kind of legal action if America's neighbor to the north can serve as an example. Same-sex marriage came to Canada in 2005. In a recent five-year period there, 200 to 300 cases against opponents of gay marriage were brought before courts, human rights commissions, and employment boards.

Now, Perkins expects a steep rise in cases across the United States and he said that's going to have a major impact on America.

"This is about fundamentally altering the American society," Perkins stated, "loss of religious freedom, loss of parental rights, employers - bakers, photographers, florists - being forced to participate by threat of law in same-sex marriages."

Florist Refuses Gay Couple

One such florist in Washington state has made national news. In March, Barronelle Stutzman refused to supply the flowers for the gay wedding of longtime customers Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll because of her Christian beliefs.

Freed and Ingersoll weren't going to take any legal actions, but Washington's state attorney general went after Stutzman anyway.

Peters summed up Stutzman's case.

"She said, 'I will happily serve you as individuals, but I don't believe in gay weddings, so I'm not going to do your wedding ceremony,'" he said. "The attorney general and the ACLU colluded to sue her with civil and criminal penalties. This is just a gross overreach of power."

In state after state that's voted to legalize gay marriage, religious opponents have been promised they wouldn't face legal action because of their opposition.

But Peters said of the legal action against Stutzman, "It's exactly what the same officials promised would never, ever happen if you redefined marriage. We saw only a few months later those promises meant nothing."

Gay Activists: Passivity = Bigotry

Peters and Perkins point out these days the most active of gay rights activists demand affirmation from everyone in society. And these activists suggest it's anti-gay to do anything less than show full support for them.

Standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court after its pro-gay marriage rulings in June, Chad Griffin, with the leading homosexual rights group the Human Rights Campaign, stated, "At this moment, apathy and passivity are no better than bigotry."

For instance, an email went to Department of Justice managers this spring saying they should display a gay pride symbol in their office. It instructed when it comes to gays, "Don't judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval."

Many worry what will happen to federal workers who believe homosexuality is unbiblical. Some military members have already run into trouble.

Retired Col. Ron Crews, a former chaplain, told CBN News of two Christians having Bible study in their Post Exchange food court, reading Romans 1 - a chapter that condemns homosexual behavior.

"Two tables over, a soldier heard them, came up to them and started cursing at them for talking 'about him,'" Crews said. "And then called an MP over, wanted to reprimand them for talking 'about him,' while all they were doing was reading Scripture."

Crews talked to an Air Force officer who'd had a Bible on his desk for 23 years with no complaints from anyone -- until he arrived at a new location.

"His superior officer told him, 'You cannot put your Bible on the desk because it may offend someone,'" Crews said.

A Blow to Military Readiness?

Lt. Gen. (Ret) Jerry Boykin, a former Delta Force commander who's now executive vice president of the Family Research Council, warned the military depends on patriotic people of faith to fill its ranks.

"When young men and women across America are told that they must leave their faith at the door when they come into our military, they will not be allowed to practice their faith - then they're not going to come into our military," Boykin said. "And our military readiness will decline as a result of it."

Peters added that even civilian pastors could face trouble in the future if they serve as civil ministers marrying couples and they won't do gay weddings.

"In the same way that tax status could be threatened," Peters said, "ministerial exemptions could be threatened as well if we continue to embed this false idea into law that standing for marriage equates with bigotry."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/July/Open-Season-on-Christians-after-Pro-Gay-Rulings/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on July 27, 2013, 02:36:34 pm
Quote
"I mean, we've seen very recent gay pride events where there were Christians beaten because they took a stand for biblical morality."

 ::)

So churchianity thinks it's okay to go harass people at their parties, but I suspect those same church-goers would throw a fit if a bunch of gays showed at their Sunday "church" services protesting Christianity.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 28, 2013, 08:35:46 am
::)

So churchianity thinks it's okay to go harass people at their parties, but I suspect those same church-goers would throw a fit if a bunch of gays showed at their Sunday "church" services protesting Christianity.

Yep - I don't think anyone has seen anything yet!

Pt being that real persecution, I believe, isn't necessarily going to come from these outside gay rights groups alone, but ultimately from WITHIN these church buildings. As this sodomy agenda is continuing to be pushed further, these 501c3 pastors and church leaders will cave in, and will end up ostracizing and pushing out believers who take a stand on this. And not to mention too throw in the whole ecumenical, Emergent/Purpose driven, Crislam, etc movements which have planted the seeds to persecute believers from within as well.

But hey, our blessed hope is eternal life with our Lord Jesus Christ, and not some corporate church building!

John 16:1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
Joh 16:2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Joh 16:3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.


2Cor 5:1  For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2  For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
2Co 5:3  If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 30, 2013, 06:14:46 am
Do Christians Have Free Speech Rights to Preach That Homosexuality is a Sin? British Police Asked to Confirm After Arrest

A Christian rights group in Great Britain has called on the chief of Scotland Yard to issue guidelines clarifying whether Christians have free speech rights, following the arrest of a street preacher in London earlier this month.
 
The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) has called on Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to issue guidelines to his officers, clarifying that Christians are protected legally by free speech rights when quoting scripture relating to homosexuality being a sin.
 
The request comes after Tony Miano, a former deputy sheriff from Los Angeles, Calif., was arrested in Wimbledon, South London earlier in July for allegedly preaching about homosexuality as a sin, quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, which focuses on "sexual immorality." Miano was reportedly detained by police for seven hours, during which time he was questioned about his views on homosexuality and DNA tested.
 
Miano said in a YouTube video following his arrest that the police found him in violation of the Public Order Act Section 5 for "using homophobic speech that could cause people anxiety, distress, alarm or insult," although he was ultimately released without charge.
 
The Christian Legal Center is now requesting in a letter submitted to Hogan-Howe that the free speech rights of Christians are protected.
 
According to The Telegraph, which has viewed the letter, Andrea Williams, director of the CLC, argues that although the police arrested Miano for "insulting" language, they neglected to arrest a passerby who yelled an expletive at the street preacher.

"We formally request that you issue guidance to all officers immediately that the Bible message on the 'sin of homosexuality' is lawful," Williams wrote in the letter, adding that currently, the "police appear to enforce the law to silence the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is a sin."
 
"This conduct by the police is unlawful and amounts to a systemic pattern of discrimination against Christians," Williams continued.
 
Williams added that the goal of the legal group is to see Scotland Yard set forth clear authority regarding the protection of free speech for Christians.
 
"We would like to see clear guidance from the Metropolitan Commissioner that Christians preaching from the Bible that homosexual conduct is sinful is lawful free speech," Williams said. "Free speech is under threat and we need to protect it. We hope that the Commissioner will take a lead in this."
 
Miano said following his arrest that although policemen singled him out for preaching on homosexuality, the sermon he delivered the day of his arrest was focused on all sexual immorality. Miano also argued that although he has been portrayed as only preaching about homosexuality, he seeks to preach about all sins.
 
"This idea that open air preachers only preach about homosexuality is fallacious. We talk about all forms of sin. We usually take people through the Ten Commandments. We explain to people that no liar, no thief, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no homosexual, will enter into the kingdom of God [...] I can assure you that I have offended more people by quoting Revelation 21:8 than I have by suggesting that homosexuality is a sin," Miano told Christian radio talk show host Frank Sontag during a segment on KKLA, as previously reported by The Christian Post.
 
The CLC, which is representing Miano, added in the letter that there have reportedly been at least 16 cases of Christians being arrested for expressing their beliefs on homosexuality in the past 11 years in Britain. The Christian legal group has announced that it will launch legal proceedings against Scotland Yard if it does not issue guidelines protecting the free speech rights of Christians.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/do-christians-have-free-speech-rights-to-preach-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin-british-police-asked-to-confirm-after-arrest-101098/#d5410vOeYDxCHyCr.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 30, 2013, 07:21:20 am
John 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


Luke 12:4  And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Luk 12:5  But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Luk 12:6  Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?
Luk 12:7  But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on July 30, 2013, 01:40:27 pm
Released, with no charges, but they still got his DNA!  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 09, 2013, 11:08:34 am
http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/transgender-tv-host-b-scott-sues-bet-for-gender-discrimination-200710888.html
Transgender TV Host B. Scott Sues BET for Gender Discrimination
8/8/13

B. Scott, a transgender TV host and popular Internet personality with a successful website, sued BET Networks on Tuesday for $2.5 million, stemming from an incident that took place at the 2013 BET Awards. He is claiming gender-identity and gender-expression discrimination along with five other complaints, after he says he was pulled from his hosting job for dressing in women's clothing.

In legal paperwork filed with Los Angeles Superior Court and posted to his website, B. Scott (real name: Brandon Sessoms) is suing for compensatory damages based upon gender-identity and gender-expression discrimination, sexual-orientation discrimination, violation of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

B. Scott claims that while he was working as a Style Stage Correspondent on June 30 for the 2013 BET Awards "106 & Park" Pre-Show, producers pulled him from the red carpet and asked him to wear men's clothing, even though the women's clothing he originally wore had been pre-approved by the network and the broadcast's sponsors. However, "after his first segment, B. Scott was literally yanked backstage and told that he 'wasn't acceptable.' He was told to mute the makeup, pull back his hair, and he was forced to remove his clothing and take off his heels; thereby completely changing his gender identity and expression."

The lawsuit adds that he was then "forced to change into solely men's clothing." He claims he was not allowed to keep presenting and that the network then replaced him with "The Real" co-host Adrienne Bailon. Later, when he claims the network learned the error of their ways, B. Scott claims he was added back at the very end of the show in a diminished capacity as a co-host alongside Bailon.

B. Scott has a history of working with BET, having appeared on their show "106 & Park" twice before. In the lawsuit, he points out that his transgender persona and manner of appearance are well known from those past appearances.

BET had no comment when reached. However, on July 2, they issued the following statement on the matter: "BET Networks embraces global diversity in all its forms and seeks to maintain an inclusive workforce and a culture that values all perspectives and backgrounds. The incident with B. Scott was a singular one with a series of unfortunate miscommunications from both parties. We regret any unintentional offense to B. Scott and anyone within the LGBT community and we seek to continue embracing all gender expressions."

In a statement posted to his website on Wednesday, B. Scott wrote, "While I want nothing more than to put this incident behind me and move on with my life, I still wholeheartedly believe that I'm entitled to a true public apology. BET's non-apology statement added more insult to injury. What happened to me was not a 'miscommunication' nor was it 'unintentional'. It was wrong. I have been vehemently trying to come to a resolution with BET and Viacom behind the scenes. After a few weeks of back and forth dialogue with no foreseeable resolution, I have filed a lawsuit against BET and its parent company Viacom for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation."

B. Scott first posted on his site about the incident on July 1, the day after the BET Awards. "It's not just about the fact that BET forced me to pull my hair back, asked me to take off my makeup, made me change my clothes and prevented me from wearing a heel. It's more so that from the mentality and environment created by BET made me feel less than and that something was wrong with who I am as a person," he wrote at that time.

Omg! spoke on Thursday with Waukeen McCoy, B. Scott's attorney, who elaborated further on why his client filed this lawsuit. "Discrimination is wrong in any form, especially in a corporate environment like BET," he said. "There's no place for discrimination in any situation. For the last month we've gone back and forth with [BET] trying to get the situation resolved amicably with a public apology as well as compensation, but we were not able to reach a resolution."

McCoy, who helped successfully defend marriage equality for same-sex couples before the California Supreme Court and won one of the nation's largest discrimination verdicts (for $132 million) against the parent company of Wonder Bread, hopes that this case will begin a national conversation about transgender discrimination. "I think there should be a dialogue about this issue," he explained. "I think the transgender community has not been well represented. A lot of things that a lot of people are saying are offensive. I hope this case will bring these issues to the forefront of people's thoughts."

McCoy says that he and his client feel BET's previous statement was not sufficient. "We're looking for something more — an apology directed personally to B. Scott. I think they should apologize to him on their programming. The apology they gave was not it. I think it should be more."

"People who do not reflect society's expectations of gender norms too often face discrimination simply because of who they are," a rep for GLAAD tells Yahoo! TV in a statement. "Media outlets have a responsibility to help end that stigma by showcasing LGBT people who represent all facets of their audience."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 14, 2013, 12:20:57 pm
Business owners threatened, face legal action for refusing to rent facility for gay ‘wedding’

A Christian couple is facing a state complaint, business cancellations, and vulgar, harassing, and threatening e-mail messages after refusing to rent out a business facility for a gay “wedding.”
 
Dick and Betty Odgaard said they could not in good conscience allow a homosexual couple to use their business, the Görtz Haus Gallery, to conduct the ceremony itself.
 

Betty Odgaard

“To us, [marriage] is a sacrament,” Betty Odgaard said, that exists only “between a man and woman.”
 
She told Billy Hallowell of The Blaze their rejection was “totally a faith-based issue,” adding the couple would be happy to serve the homosexuals “in any other way,” besides being the site on which they traded vows.
 
The couple quickly filed a legal complaint before the Iowa Human Rights Commission, saying that state law forbids any public venue from denying the use of its premises on the basis of sexual orientation.
 
As the story of their denial broke, frightening messages began filling up the Odgaard's inbox, the couple says.
 
“F--k you, f--k your God, f--k your religion," said one message from an angry gay rights activist. The same writer enlarged upon his thoughts, adding, “You are mean, rude, selfish, mother f---er racist sons of b---hes from hell.”
 
The family has suffered financial loss for its traditional stance, as well. Other couples have canceled their ceremonies.
 
The Grimes, Iowa, location served as a Lutheran church for nearly 65 years and is a popular destination for couples tying the knot.
 
Same-sex “marriage” has been legal in Iowa since April 3, 2009, when the state Supreme Court unanimously declared its defense of marriage law violated the constitution.
 
Lawsuits and legal actions accusing Christians of violating “anti-discrimination” statutes have risen in proportion to the number of states and localities that have toyed with redefining marriage.
 
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Last year, a judge ruled that a New Jersey retreat house affiliated with the United Methodist Church could not refuse its services for a gay “marriage.”
 
Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson pressed charges against elderly Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman after she refused to sell flowers for a gay“marriage” in March.
 
Christian photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were convicted of violating the New Mexico Human Rights Act after they declined to photograph a same-sex “commitment” ceremony.
 
Rasmussen pollsters found earlier this year that 85 percent of Americans believe people should be able to opt out of participating in same-sex “marriage” ceremonies if they so choose.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f-k-you-f-k-your-god-f-k-your-religion-business-owners-threatened-for-refus


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 14, 2013, 01:26:18 pm
California Considers Punishing Youth Groups Against Homosexuality as ‘Bathroom Bill’ Becomes Law

On the same day that the governor of California signed a bill into law mandating that boys who identify as girls be allowed to use girls’ bathrooms and vice versa, a California committee approved legislation which would cause any non-profit organizations that do not embrace homosexuals to lose tax-exempt status.
 
Senate Bill 323 (SB323) was first introduced in mid-February by Ricardo Lara, a Democratic state senator from Los Angeles. Lara is himself an open homosexual, as well as a member of the California Legislative LGBT Caucus. According to the bill’s introduction, SB323 would “provide that an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from [state taxes].”
 
Later in the legislation, approximately 25 youth organizations are specifically listed as entities that would have to embrace these “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” guidelines, or else lose their tax-exempt standing. Little League, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs, Boys’ Clubs, and Girls’ Clubs are all included.
 
On Monday afternoon, California’s Committee on Revenue and Taxation held a hearing on SB323, and eventually approved the legislation by a 6-3 vote. Now the bill moves forward to the Committee on Judiciary.

Proponents of SB323—commonly referred to as the “Anti-Boy Scouts Bill”—herald the legislation as a long-overdue measure to end unfair discrimination in many organizations. John O’Conner of Equality California said the bill would “make it clear … that discrimination has a real cost,” and Senator Lara described his bill as a means to end organizations’ “outdated practices.”
 
“Our state values the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next generation,” Lara stated. “This is demonstrated by rewarding organizations with tax exemptions supported financially by all Californians. SB323 seeks to end the unfortunate discriminatory and outdated practices by certain youth groups by revoking their tax exemption privilege should they not comply with our non-discrimination laws.”
 
However, a news release from Lori Arnold of the California Family Alliance argued that the “Anti-Boy Scouts Bill” is both self-contradicting and unconstitutional.

“The irony of the proposed law,” Arnold wrote, “is that its blatant use of extortion—by holding nonprofit groups financially hostage—instills its own form of discrimination by trampling individual and organizational religious beliefs by labeling them ‘outdated practices,’ practices that are protected by the First Amendment.”
 
Similarly, Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) stated that “the bill’s imposition of ‘gender identity’ acceptance on virtually all youth sports in California is untenable and out of step with the reasonable privacy expectations,” and also “establishes a gender-blind scheme that most parents believe to be absurd.”
 
On the very same day as the SB323 committee hearing, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1266 into law—a bill that allows boys who identify as girls to use girls’ bathrooms at school, and vice versa. As previously reported, California lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the “Bathroom Bill” last month, even though the bill’s author—Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano—admitted that the new measures will “perhaps” make some children “uncomfortable.”
 
“I don’t want to minimize that,” Ammiano said, according to the BBC, “but new experiences are often uncomfortable. That can’t be an excuse for prejudice.”

However, Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, told Christian News Network that the enforcement of AB 1266 will lead to instances of “extreme violation of [students’] privacy,” with “horrendous” mental and emotional ramifications.
 
Dacus further said that both SB323 and AB 1266 are being driven by those who want non-traditional sexual behavior accepted and protected in every arena.
 
“The common motive,” he explained, “is to inoculate anyone who has any objection to homosexuality or transsexuality, and [both bills are] specifically targeting young people. The goal is to make transsexuality, cross-dressing, and homosexuality a cultural norm—not just as a matter of tolerance, but as a matter of socially-mandated acceptance.”
 
“It’s a massive demoralizing campaign which is being engaged in at the expense of countless young people who will be unquestionably impacted,” he said.

http://christiannews.net/2013/08/14/california-considers-punishing-youth-groups-against-homosexuality-as-bathroom-bill-becomes-law/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 14, 2013, 01:58:58 pm
Quote
"Our state values the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next generation,” Lara stated. “This is demonstrated by rewarding organizations with tax exemptions supported financially by all Californians. SB323 seeks to end the unfortunate discriminatory and outdated practices by certain youth groups by revoking their tax exemption privilege should they not comply with our non-discrimination laws.”

That's not what scripture says...

Luke_6:35  But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
 
Quote
However, a news release from Lori Arnold of the California Family Alliance argued that the “Anti-Boy Scouts Bill” is both self-contradicting and unconstitutional.

If you're a 501c3, then you all but gave up your constitutional rights.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on August 14, 2013, 03:41:03 pm
Quote
If you're a 501c3, then you all but gave up your constitutional rights.

I'm no lawyer, but that's how I see it.

Every game has it's rules, and the world is no different. You want to play in the world, you must understand that the world expects you to go by their rules, all the while "the world" retains the right to not honor those rules as the world sees fit. It's their game, their rules!

"Ye cannot serve God and mammon"


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 16, 2013, 09:31:24 am
Judge: Foreigners can sue U.S. pastor over sermons
 
Lets Uganda 'gays'' claim of 'crime against humanity' proceed against Bible preaching


A federal judge has backed a homosexual-rights group in its claim that members were injured by an American pastor’s biblical preaching in Uganda against homosexual behavior.
 
But the ruling from Judge Michael Posner in a case brought by Sexual Minorities Uganda against Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries could mean much more. It could establish that an international consensus disavowing long-held biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution.

SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a “crime against humanity” in violation of “international law.”
 
The plaintiffs allege that the Alien Tort Statute in the United States allows them to make the charge in the U.S.
 
Lively’s attorney, Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel, said his client’s preaching is protected by the Constitution.
 
“We are disappointed with the decision because we believe SMUG’s claims are firmly foreclosed, not only by the First Amendment right to free speech, but also by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel, which eliminated Alien Tort Statute claims for events that allegedly occurred in foreign nations.”
 
Mihet said his team is still reviewing the court’s ruling “and will continue to vigorously defend Mr. Lively’s constitutional rights, with confidence that he will ultimately be vindicated.”
 
The judge took nearly 80 pages to say that he thought the allegations by SMUG were substantive and needed to be adjudicated.
 
He sided with the “gays” in his first paragraph, explaining that while SMUG is made up of groups “that advocate for the fair and equal treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people,” Lively is an “American citizen residing in Springfield, Mass., who, according to the complaint, holds himself out to be an expert on what he terms the ‘gay movement.’”
 
The judge cited “many authorities” who “implicitly support the principle that widespread, systematic persecution of individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes a crime against humanity.”
 
The judge argued that the idea that Lively’s statements are protected under the First Amendment was “premature.”
 
“Indeed, defendant, according to the amended complaint, is alleged to have maintained what amounts to a kind of ‘Homophobia Central” in Springfield,” the judge wrote.
 
“He has allegedly supported and actively participated in worldwide initiatives, with a substantial focus on Uganda, aimed at repressing free expression by LGBTI groups, destroying the organizations that support them, intimidating LGBTI individuals, and even criminalizing the very status of being lesbian or gay.”
 
Lively sought to have the complaint dismissed recently when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Alien Tort Statute doesn’t apply to foreign territory. The court said the law cannot be used to challenge foreign conduct in courts in the United States.
 
The ruling came down in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
 
Mihet had explained the heart of the case against Lively is the belief that First Amendment free speech protections should play second fiddle to an international consensus that criticism of homosexuality is criminal.
 
Mihet told WND earlier that he has argued all along the lawsuit was prevented by the First Amendment, which puts the U.S. Constitution higher than international law.
 
The case against Lively claims that by speaking in opposition to homosexuality, he was conspiring to deprive the plaintiffs of their fundamental rights.
 
Mihet explained that SMUG would allow people to express an opinion against homosexuality, but they would not be allowed to take any action.
 
Under that precedent, he said, someone petitioning in opposition to special designations for homosexuals would become an international human rights criminal. Likewise, those who worked to support Proposition 8 in California, the state’s constitutional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, would be subject to conviction, he said.
 
It also would target those who are working to defeat the ENDA plan in Congress, which imposes certain special protections for homosexuals in the workplace.
 
“All of those become criminals overnight under this theory of liability,” Mihat said.
 
Lively’s attorneys have explained that SMUG’s attack goes directly to the supremacy and portability of the U.S. Constitution.
 
“SMUG asks this United States court to punish one of its citizens, Mr. Lively, for ‘crimes against humanity’ under an international treaty that The United States has expressly rejected,” a court filing opposing SMUG’s case explained.
 
“Moreover, what SMUG cavalierly and conclusorily labels as ‘crimes against humanity’ – the most heinous of crimes – is actually nothing more than civil, non-violent political discourse in the public square on a subject of great public concern, which occupies the highest run of First Amendment protection,” the brief said.
 
The action was prompted by Lively “sharing his biblical views on homosexuality during a 2009 visit to Uganda.”
 
While there may have been some actions in Uganda against homosexuals, Liberty Counsel said, “SMUG alleges no plausible connection between Mr. Lively and the actual perpetrators of those alleged violent acts, and, indeed, Mr. Lively’s name is not mentioned in single time within the many pages of the complaint that describe those six events.”
 
SMUG is represented by the George Soros-funded Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which even the New York Times described as left-leaning.
 
“[The Alien Tort Statute] is not a blanket delegation of lawmaking to the democratically unaccountable international community,” said Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel founder. “Like all American citizens, Rev. Lively enjoys a fundamental First Amendment right to engage in nonviolent political discourses anywhere in the world.”
 
The case has some significant holes, Liberty Counsel contends.
 
“SMUG also does not tell the court that David Kato – the murdered Ugandan activist whom SMUG makes the centerpiece of this lawsuit – was killed not by an enraged homophobe incited by Mr. Lively’s protected speech, but by a homosexual prostitute upset over a failed business transaction.
 
“Neither does SMUG tell the court that the confessed perpetrator of this horrible crime was tried and convicted in Ugandan courts, and is now serving a 30-year prison sentence.
 
“And, finally, SMUG does not tell the court that, far from inciting violence, Mr. Lively has consistently condemned acts of violence and calls to violence in the strongest possible terms, and has praised the Ugandan courts for imparting justice.”
 
WND also recently reported Ugandan newssite New Vision said President Yoweri Museveni celebrated Uganda’s 50th anniversary of independence from Britain at the National Jubilee Prayers event by publicly repenting of his personal sin and the sins of the nation.
 
“I stand here today to close the evil past, and especially in the last 50 years of our national leadership history and at the threshold of a new dispensation in the life of this nation. I stand here on my own behalf and on behalf of my predecessors to repent. We ask for your forgiveness,” Museveni prayed.
 
“We confess these sins, which have greatly hampered our national cohesion and delayed our political, social and economic transformation. We confess sins of idolatry and witchcraft which are rampant in our land. We confess sins of shedding innocent blood, sins of political hypocrisy, dishonesty, intrigue and betrayal,” Museveni said.
 
“Forgive us of sins of pride, tribalism and sectarianism; sins of laziness, indifference and irresponsibility; sins of corruption and bribery that have eroded our national resources; sins of sexual immorality, drunkenness and debauchery; sins of unforgiveness, bitterness, hatred and revenge; sins of injustice, oppression and exploitation; sins of rebellion, insubordination, strife and conflict,” Museveni prayed.
 
The president also dedicated Uganda to God.
 
“We want to dedicate this nation to you so that you will be our God and guide. We want Uganda to be known as a nation that fears God and as a nation whose foundations are firmly rooted in righteousness and justice to fulfill what the Bible says in Psalm 33:12: Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. A people you have chosen as your own,” Museveni prayed.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judge-foreigners-can-sue-u-s-pastor-over-sermons/#qI7cp8DCRQw1SQYR.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 16, 2013, 12:12:55 pm
Didn't Rick Warren try to make Uganda, at one time, one of the "Purpose Driven" nations? I wonder if he will speak up about this? ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Kilika on August 16, 2013, 01:21:10 pm
I'm noticing a pattern with these type cases, where some "Christian" is persecuted, and then in their defense, claim a constitutional right to free speech. And they keep losing. Hmm.

What makes me curious about these type cases is that I noticed something missing; the defense argument seems to not focus on the person's right to a certain belief, which comes before a person believes they have the right to profess said belief. See my point?

It's like they ignore the very reason the person is "preaching" in the first place! How convenient.

As I see it, it's a right under freedom of religion before it gets to the right to free speech. It should be that the person's right to exercise their beliefs is being violated, not their right to free speech, which I see as a secondary violation to the person's rights under the US Constitution.

It's as if Caesar's legal system is pushing and pulling the defendants to file and argue their case the wrong way, so of course there's a lot of lost cases. ALL those lawyers that argue in courts are officially recognized by Caesar. You cannot call yourself a lawyer in a US court unless the US says your a lawyer, and the only way you get that distinction is by going to Caesar's law schools and pass the bar in at least one state.

To me, it's the same difference as having a "public defender" appointed and payed by Caesar to defend you against Caesar's prosecutors! Talk about a kangaroo court!  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 16, 2013, 01:29:21 pm
I'm noticing a pattern with these type cases, where some "Christian" is persecuted, and then in their defense, claim a constitutional right to free speech. And they keep losing. Hmm.

What makes me curious about these type cases is that I noticed something missing; the defense argument seems to not focus on the person's right to a certain belief, which comes before a person believes they have the right to profess said belief. See my point?

It's like they ignore the very reason the person is "preaching" in the first place! How convenient.

As I see it, it's a right under freedom of religion before it gets to the right to free speech. It should be that the person's right to exercise their beliefs is being violated, not their right to free speech, which I see as a secondary violation to the person's rights under the US Constitution.

It's as if Caesar's legal system is pushing and pulling the defendants to file and argue their case the wrong way, so of course there's a lot of lost cases. ALL those lawyers that argue in courts are officially recognized by Caesar. You cannot call yourself a lawyer in a US court unless the US says your a lawyer, and the only way you get that distinction is by going to Caesar's law schools and pass the bar in at least one state.

To me, it's the same difference as having a "public defender" appointed and payed by Caesar to defend you against Caesar's prosecutors! Talk about a kangaroo court!  ::)

Also, look at who's defending these people - LIBERTY COUNCIL(for one), which of course is runned by the Falwells.

Pt being that the defendents in these high profile cases are being defended by CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. It's also these Liberty Council types that are defending these state anti-abortion laws that are being brought to the court systems by Planned Parenthood - no wonder why they are losing them as well(not that the courts systems are compromised to begin with).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on August 27, 2013, 07:18:25 am
What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal

(first published August 5, 2008)

If homosexuality is fully legalized and homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS FULLY LEGAL, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/faee220dbe0056669572e867bf8638d1-1076.html

This is so true and here is 100% proof of it, the Constitution in America is DEAD, its over. This is the END TIMES and the Lord will soon return for HIS own.

Judge: Ugandan Homosexual Activist Group Can Sue American Pastor for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’

A federal judge has refused to dismiss an international lawsuit filed by a Ugandan homosexual activist group, which accuses an American pastor of committing ‘crimes against humanity’ for speaking out against homosexual behavior in the country.
 
As previously reported, Massachusetts Pastor Scott Lively, author of The Pink Swastika, had visited the nation of Uganda in 2009, where he spoke on what the Bible says about homosexuality and expressed support of pastors in the country that were working to oppose the proliferation of sexual activity between those of the same gender.
 
Following his visit, the group Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG), filed a lawsuit against Lively, asserting that he had violated international law because his words allegedly encouraged government persecution against homosexuals in the nation. He was sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows individuals from foreign nations to file federal complaints against U.S. citizens who have committed torts overseas.
 
“That’s about as ridiculous as it gets,” Lively told the New York Times. “I’ve never done anything in Uganda except preach the Gospel and speak my opinion about the homosexual issue.”

“ATS is not a blanket delegation of lawmaking to the democratically unaccountable international community,” said Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Council, which is representing the evangelical pastor. “Like all American citizens, Lively enjoys a fundamental First Amendment right to engage in nonviolent political discourse anywhere in the world.”
 
In January of this year, Senior Litigation Counsel Harry Mihet and General Counsel Steve Crampton asked District Judge Michael A. Ponsor to throw out the case. SMUG is being represented by a group funded by George Soros.
 
However, now eight months later, Ponsor has issued his decision, refusing to dismiss the lawsuit.

“He has allegedly supported and actively participated in worldwide initiatives, with a substantial focus on Uganda, aimed at repressing free expression by LGBTI groups, destroying the organizations that support them, intimidating LGBTI individuals, and even criminalizing the very status of being lesbian or gay,” he wrote in his 79-page ruling.
 
Ponsor, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994, reportedly said that Ugandan representatives were “co-conspirators” with Lively, and that to some, standing against the proliferation of homosexuality “constitutes a crime against humanity that violates international norms.” However, he advised that it is too soon to say whether Lively actually violated any American law.

Lively’s attorney, Harry Mihet, issued a brief statement in response to Ponsor’s decision, remarking that the case should not have been permitted to proceed.
 
“We are disappointed with the decision because we believe SMUG’s claims are firmly foreclosed, not only by the First Amendment right to free speech, but also by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel, which eliminated Alien Tort Statute claims for events that allegedly occurred in foreign nations,” he said. “We are still reviewing the court’s ruling, and will continue to vigorously defend Mr. Lively’s constitutional rights, with confidence that he will ultimately be vindicated.”
 
The case will now move forward in federal court.
 
In addition to serving as an attorney, author and pastor, Lively assists the homeless and drug addicts of his community and helps them to find freedom from their chains through the power of Jesus Christ.

http://christiannews.net/2013/08/26/judge-ugandan-homosexual-activist-group-can-sue-american-pastor-for-crimes-against-humanity/


Title: moving
Post by: Mark on September 01, 2013, 05:26:31 am
UK Pastor Under Investigation After Calling Homosexual Pride Fest ‘Carnival of Perverted Carnality’

Get ready... Its coming here...

A pastor in the United Kingdom was recently visited at his home by police and is now under an official criminal investigation after he sent an email to organizers of a homosexual pride event expressing his concern over what he called an “unashamed carnival of perverted carnality.”
 
Alan Clifford of Norwich Reformed Church recently attended Norwich Pride with several friends to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with attendees, as he had done in years past. In 2012, he was banned from an area of the parade for distributing what was deemed as “hate motivated” literature.

After this year’s event, he sent an email to organizers, which he copied to other entities, to express his disapproval.
 
“The planned route took us past the market and the City Hall. Shamelessly displaying the City Council’s decadence, a ‘rainbow’ drape stretched along the entire width of the building,” Clifford wrote. “On the balcony the lord mayor, resplendent in his ceremonial robes, waved to the crowd, supported by other members of the council. It was a truly shameful display of official support.”

 He also described the event as an “unashamed carnival of perverted carnality,” and attached two Gospel tracts:  Christ Can Cure – Good News for Gays and Jesus Christ – the Savior We All Need.
 
Norwich Pride organizers then reported the email to the police, asserting that the pastor had engaged in “homophobic” speech.
 
“We reported the email to the police as a hate incident and are pleased that they are dealing with it seriously,” a representative told EDP 24. ”Our mission at Norwich Pride is to ensure that we live in a city where everyone feels safe and proud to be themselves–and nobody feels hated simply for being who they are.”

Police have confirmed that they are now investigating the matter, and Clifford awaits to hear whether or not he will face criminal prosecution. He was visited at his home by the Norfolk Constabulary, who offered him the choice of paying a fine or contesting the allegation.
 
The pastor replied that he doesn’t hate homosexuals, and that the reason that he attended the event was because he loves them enough to share the word of God and the Gospel.
 
“Is that hatred? We don’t hate these people. We love them and want to help them,” he told police. “So, even though the gay-pride people are upset, we are guilty of no crime.”
 
‘I certainly fear the influence of homosexuality on society,” Clifford said, “but this should not be regarded as ‘hatred’ unless criticism is taken to mean ‘hatred.’”
 
UK reporter Adrian Hilton also defended Clifford, stating that while he disagrees with the pastor on some topics, such as his belief that Islam is “evil,” he believes prosecution is unwarranted.

 “Both European law and the English common law establish by precedent that Dr. Clifford may exercise his freedom of speech–especially in regard to religious liberty and preaching the Word of God–even if this might cause offense,” he wrote in a recent article about the matter.
 
Hilton also stated that he found it to be “deeply and profoundly intolerant” of homosexuals to “reduce public moral discourse to crass displays of boorish posturing and infantile ethics.”
 
“The Gospel may now only be preached safely to white, able-bodied heterosexuals, and you’d better hope that ‘any other person’ doesn’t happen accidentally to overhear,” he lamented. ”It’s a good job adultery, drunkenness and theft aren’t protected characteristics–there’d be nobody left to preach to.”

http://christiannews.net/2013/08/31/uk-pastor-under-investigation-for-calling-homosexual-pride-fest-carnival-of-perverted-carnality/


Title: Re: Florist Who Refused Flowers to Gay Wedding Sued
Post by: Mark on September 03, 2013, 03:59:46 am
http://gma.yahoo.com/florist-refused-flowers-gay-wedding-sued-154420094--abc-news-topstories.html
4/10/13

A lesbian couple went to Sweet Cakes, a Gresham, Ore., bakery Jan. 17 to order their wedding cake, but said they were told the bakery didn't serve same-sex marriages.

Aaron Klein, who owns Sweet Cakes with his wife, Melissa, told ABC News affiliate KATU-TV he was living in accordance with his religious beliefs when he refused to make the couple a wedding cake.

"I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn't mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly," he said.

A complaint was filed with the Oregon Department of Justice; however a spokesman told ABCNews.com the couple said last month they planned to move the complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

"Ace of Cakes" star Duff Goldman heard about the plight of the brides-to-be and said he would bake them a wedding cake free of charge.

"I want to give them a big hug and say congratulations," he told ABCNews.com in February. "It involves cake, it involves love, marriage, all things I'm a big fan of."


Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes

A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors.

On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone.

Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read "Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham."

As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, “This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.”

In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding.

In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians.

Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the "Sweet Cakes by Melissa,” refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple "elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs."

All of the comments on the bakery's Facebook page are largely supportive of the business.

“I'm sorry to hear this. Its very frustrating to have people do all they can to cause others strife just because they don't agree with a lifestyle. I will keep you all in my prayers. Don't let them get you down. You will survive this and all other tests through your faith. God bless Melissa,” one woman writes.

Willamette Week, however, noted several negative comments on Sweet Cakes’ Facebook page have been taken down.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-that-denied-same-sex-wedding-cake-closes--222004711.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 03, 2013, 11:03:03 am
Scripture warns about having the galls of bitterness.

Yeah, this sodomite couple who forced this bakery to get closed down - they will have just that until their death, and will regret it when they face Jesus Christ at the Great White Throne of Judgment(unless they repent).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 03, 2013, 11:23:44 am
ya know, my problem with this is their reason for it. Ya Sodomy is a sin, but it is also a JUDGMENT from God on a nation and a people. But they sell their goods to well, LIARS, ADULTERERS, THIEVES, BLASPHEMERS... I mean which sin is worse than the other? The Bible says the only way to get rid of the sodomites is to drive them out of the country and repent to the Lord. These people are putting one sin above another, like its worse than another or something.

Sorry but the punishment is all the SAME. And this really looks hypocritical. BECAUSE they sell to LIARS and THIEVES.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 03, 2013, 11:28:51 am
ya know, my problem with this is their reason for it. Ya Sodomy is a sin, but it is also a JUDGMENT from God on a nation and a people. But they sell their goods to well, LIARS, ADULTERERS, THIEVES, BLASPHEMERS... I mean which sin is worse than the other? The Bible says the only way to get rid of the sodomites is to drive them out of the country and repent to the Lord. These people are putting one sin above another, like its worse than another or something.

Sorry but the punishment is all the SAME. And this really looks hypocritical. BECAUSE they sell to LIARS and THIEVES.


Yeah, it seems like with today's modern-day church pastor, when the subject of sodomy comes up, they have this "But no sin is worse than any other" attitude. They may staunchly oppose gay marriage itself, but that's as far as they will go.

As we've seen throughout the bible - like you said, sodomites had to be driven out of the land. Otherwise, it would be the end of the line(ie-Sodom and Gomorrah).

And also - look at all the ties sodomy has with - feminism being one, and feminism's biggest agenda is to war against Christianity. And feminism's other big agendas are abortion, and being EQUAL with men.

Yeah, ultimately, you see how all of this ties together.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 03, 2013, 11:30:21 am
And let's not forget how the Wescott and Hort bible versions were done by sodomites.


Title: ENDA: Christian businesses could be forced to bankruptcy
Post by: Boldhunter on September 06, 2013, 12:39:45 pm
Found the bathroom sign in this article interesting to depict "transgender"...

http://www.prayinjesusname.org/2013/08/dr-chaps-vs-alan-colmes-on-discrimination-vs-sodomy/

NEW Petition, Stop ENDA "bathroom bill" to Punish Christian Employers.  Select, sign, we will fax all 535 members of House and Senate (saving you time!) or pick free option here.

**Ladies, imagine you're at a restaurant or shopping mall, with your little girl, and you walk into the bathroom, and are confronted by a man who "feels" like a woman that day.  Or business owners, just imagine getting sued by that man, and bankrupted, because you politely asked him to use the men's room.  You'll pay both your lawyer, and his.

What is ENDA, you ask?  The end of women's privacy in public bathrooms.  This doomsday legislation, H.R. 1755, empowers homose xual complainers to bankrupt all Christian Business Owners, hurting the economy, if the business owner refuses cross-dressing men entry to the ladies room, even before the deviant gets any sex-change operation. 

GOP Congressman John Kline (R-MN) warns us that ENDA creates an entirely new protected class that is vaguely defined and often subjective. "The legislation extends protections based on – quote – 'perceived' sexual orientation," Kline said. "These vaguely defined terms would result in an explosion of litigation," costing millions in lawyers fees, paid by Christian Business Owners to homose xual complainers.

Lesbian activist Patricia Nell Warren admitted this, during interviews with Bill Berkowitz:

BB: How do you react to charges from Religious Right leaders that ENDA will sanction cross-dressing in the work place?

PNW: In a sense, the charge is accurate. If ENDA is passed, employees should be allowed to dress in the manner that's appropriate to their chosen gender identity, whatever that is. And they will do that if allowed by law.

BB: And when ENDA is passed?

PNW: If and when ENDA passes, having people with changed gender identity in the workplace -- working side by side with them, and even using the same bathroom with them -- is something that some people will just have to get over.  [She then compared those who don't want co-ed bathrooms to racists.]

NEW Petition, Stop ENDA "bathroom bill" to Punish Christian Employers.  Select, sign, we will fax all 535 members of House and Senate (saving you time!) or pick free option here.

Friends, their version of tolerance now requires bankrupting Christian employers, or any public restaurant or retail store that refuses men full access to women's bathrooms.  We must take action to stop ENDA from becoming law.

(Excerpt: More...)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 14, 2013, 05:57:40 am
Sports Commentator Fired Over Past Remarks That Homosexuals Will ‘Answer to the Lord for Actions’

After only a week on the job, a former NFL star and ESPN commentator was fired from his new position at FOX Sports Southwest this week after video footage surfaced of comments he made last year expressing that homosexuals will have to “answer to the Lord for their actions.”
 
Craig James played for the New England Patriots in the 1980′s and later became a sportscaster for ESPN. In 2011, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and participated in a number of debates, including the 2012 event that recently cost him his job.
 
During the debate, Craig was asked about his views on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” As a Christian, he responded that he could not support unBiblical behavior, and neither should any other civil leader.
 
“I think that this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up–the leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades,” he said. “I can assure you, I will never ride in a gay parade. Our kids out there…People need to see examples. I’m a guy who believes in [the union of] a man and a woman, [and] the greatest government is occurring in a home at night between a husband and wife, Adam and Eve, and what the Bible says.”

Craig was then asked if he believes men and women choose to be homosexual.
 
“I think it’s a choice; I do,” he replied. “Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s them. And God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.”
 
“We should not give benefits to those civil unions,” James continued. “We have to stay strong on this. This is important, man. I’ll tell you what, we have a fiscal issue in this country, [but] we also have a moral issue in this country, and as Christians, we’ve got to stand up.”

His response then drew applause from the crowd, but not so much when FOX officials saw the footage.
 
“We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,” an unnamed FOX representative told reporters. “He couldn’t say those things here.”
 
“Craig James will not be making any further appearances on FOX Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” they advised.

Reaction to James’ firing has largely been negative.
 
“How sad that these sports networks claiming they are about diversity and openness completely shun the conservative or Christian view. This is absolutely wrong and spits in the face of what you claim to be,” one commenter wrote. “[FOX is] not open-minded or accepting of other’s opinions or beliefs, which makes you the hypocrite. The sad thing is that many of Mr. James’ fellow announcers feel as he and the majority of America does, but are not brave enough to stand for what’s right for fear of retribution or losing their job as Craig did.”
 
“Shame on you FOX Sports,” they said. “God bless you, Mr. James. It’s good to see someone stand for their beliefs.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZjzgKi5a4&feature=player_embedded

http://christiannews.net/2013/09/13/sports-commentator-fired-over-past-remarks-that-homosexuals-will-answer-to-the-lord-for-actions/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 14, 2013, 03:47:18 pm
Quote
“I think that this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up–the leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades,” he said. “I can assure you, I will never ride in a gay parade. Our kids out there…People need to see examples. I’m a guy who believes in [the union of] a man and a woman, [and] the greatest government is occurring in a home at night between a husband and wife, Adam and Eve, and what the Bible says.”

Craig was then asked if he believes men and women choose to be homosexual.
 
“I think it’s a choice; I do,” he replied. “Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s them. And God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.”
 
“We should not give benefits to those civil unions,” James continued. “We have to stay strong on this. This is important, man. I’ll tell you what, we have a fiscal issue in this country, [but] we also have a moral issue in this country, and as Christians, we’ve got to stand up.”

And he made these comments LAST YEAR. ::) At least to me, they didn't seem offensive at all, but very well thought out.

With that being said - looks like the Lord is separating the wheat from the tares as we are likely approaching these last days. Thank you Jesus!


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 20, 2013, 11:11:24 am
New LGBT SODOMY Protection Law Criminalizing Believers?

More than 180 cities across the country have now passed LGBT laws that suppress the views of Christians.
 
Dubbed "nondiscrimination" by LGBT activists, the ordinances provide new protection for sexual minorities while also severely curtailing religious liberty.
 
So far, the laws have gone largely unnoticed. But a measure passed in San Antonio Sept. 5 has drawn national attention, both for its scope and for passing in this large, Hispanic-majority city traditionally known for its family values.
 
The ordinance forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
 
Although hundreds of believers across San Antonio attended a city council hearing to protest the ordinance; it passed easily with an 8-3 vote, backed by Mayor Julian Castro, a rising star in Democratic politics.
 
The Sunday after the vote, CBN News visited churches across the city where believers expressed shock over the vote and fear about what it would mean.
 
Believers Shocked
 
"The right for us to speak out and say, 'I disagree. It doesn't sound right.' Now we're labeled a hater, a bigot, homophobic," Jacob Herrera, with Faith Outreach Center International, explained.

"It criminalized what you thought about the LGBT community and I don't think that's right," Rosalie Astran, a fellow church member, said.
 
"My faith, my belief and how I've raised my family -- I can get in trouble for that because they don't agree with that," Leonard Pena, at Abundant Life, said.
 
Councilman Carlton Soules, one of the "no" votes, questioned the ordinance's supporters repeatedly during the public hearing. He later told CBN News he thought the measure was acted on too quickly.

"We didn't put the ordinance up on the website," he said. "It was fast-tracked through. Anytime we are going at light speed to do something that's unpopular that throws a lot of red flags."
 
Red Flags
 
For San Antonio's faith community there are several red flags. The ordinance criminalizes those with a biblical view of sexuality as it forbids bias against homosexuality or bi-sexuality.
 
Those charged and declared guilty by the city will face a Class C misdemeanor on their record and fines of up to $500 a day.
 
Also, the ordinance forbids appointed officials on city boards from showing any bias. 

Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, a San-Antonio-based Christian legal non-profit, has worked to analyze and explain the ordinance for San Antonio's churches.
 
He said the ordinance is vague and unclear but he believes it can and will be used against Christians, especially those in the business world who disagree with unbiblical sexuality.
 
"The leverage of the city to pressure any business to caving in is enormous under this," he explained.
 
Even Councilman Soules is warning people of faith.
 
"I believe if you're a small business owner, operating within the city limits of San Antonio, or you're a business owner that wants to do business with the city, you need to tread carefully," he said.
 
Church Asleep at the Wheel
 
CBN News spoke with key church leaders who protested the ordinance. Until now, they say, the city's faith community has been asleep at the wheel. Case in point--less than 7 percent of registered voters turned out for May's city election.
 
"Politics in San Antonio has always been low-key and there have never been any troubles, so most people had quit voting," Pastor Steve Branson, with Village Parkway Baptist Church, explained.
 
After jump-starting opposition to the ordinance but failing to persuade the council, Branson and other pastors and their congregations are motivated to push back.
 
"We're starting to speak," Branson said. "I can guarantee you it won't be quiet anymore."
 
Haunting Comparisons
 
For African-American churches, there's outrage over gays equating their issue with civil rights.

"What we have is very cherished laws of anti-discrimination, hewn out of the heat of civil rights. These laws, everyone values. Now the activist, the homosexual, lesbian, gender-confused community has activists that they want to insert into those laws and then use them against people of faith," Pastor Charles Flowers, with Faith Outreach Center International, explained.

Pastor Eli Bonilla, with Abundant Life Church, said for Latino churches, overflowing with immigrants, the new ordinance is a haunting reminder of what they left behind in their native countries.
 
"We have some that are budding business people and all of sudden they feel themselves with the same angst that they felt when they came from their countries, where evangelicals have always been put on the side, on the periphery," he said.
 
"They tell me that that's the same gut feeling they get when they hear this ordinance," he said.
 
What Now, Pastor?
 
Abundant Life youth pastor Gabriel Colmenero said his high school students, many who lead Bible clubs in their public schools, are now unsure about what they can and cannot say.
 
"They are asking me, 'What do we do now, Brother Gabe?'" he said. "Well, we're going to start praying about that, how to teach them what to do, how to confront their friends who may be homosexual."
 
If LGBT laws can pass in cities like San Antonio, well-known for its churches and conservative values, there's concern that they can pass anywhere.
 
For many pastors in San Antonio, there's awareness that the spotlight is now on their city and that now is the time for them to speak out against the ordinance.
 
"I've had emails from 50 states," Branson said. "I've had people say we're praying for you --'please keep this up.'"
 
Those who oppose the ordinance may push for a city-wide referendum on it or a vote to recall council members that voted for it-or both. Lawsuits are also expected from both sides.
 
"If we don't fight this thing with everything we've got, our rights will be taken away and our mouths will be muzzled and that just can't happen, here in the land of the free,"  Herrera said.
 
What's not escaping Herrera and others is the fact that this battle is taking place in the city that still remembers the Alamo, a city known for fighting for its freedom against all odds.


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/September/New-LGBT-Protection-Law-Criminalizing-Believers-/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on September 20, 2013, 01:18:52 pm
Quote
"If we don't fight this thing with everything we've got, our rights will be taken away and our mouths will be muzzled and that just can't happen, here in the land of the free,"  Herrera said.

It CAN and WILL happen in the world because the world hates Jesus, even if the reference to Jesus is through some churchianity group. It's easier for our enemy in the world to go after fake Christians and their false churches. As for real Christians, we are told by Jesus that this is NOT His kingdom, therefore His servants do not fight in this world. We are to step back and let the dogs feed on themselves if that is what they prefer versus facing the truth of the gospel.

I know for a fact they will lose that fight in the world. Jesus says so.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 24, 2013, 12:01:00 pm
Senate confirms Todd Hughes, 1st openly gay federal appeals court judge in US history - @tlrd


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2013, 12:32:03 pm
Senate confirms Todd Hughes, 1st openly gay federal appeals court judge in US history - @tlrd

And he was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/todd-hughes-gay-judge_n_3982256.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on September 24, 2013, 01:18:56 pm
Sports Commentator Fired Over Past Remarks That Homosexuals Will ‘Answer to the Lord for Actions’

After only a week on the job, a former NFL star and ESPN commentator was fired from his new position at FOX Sports Southwest this week after video footage surfaced of comments he made last year expressing that homosexuals will have to “answer to the Lord for their actions.”
 
Craig James played for the New England Patriots in the 1980′s and later became a sportscaster for ESPN. In 2011, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and participated in a number of debates, including the 2012 event that recently cost him his job.
 
During the debate, Craig was asked about his views on homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” As a Christian, he responded that he could not support unBiblical behavior, and neither should any other civil leader.
 
“I think that this country, our moral fiber is sliding down a slope that is going to be hard to stop if we don’t stand up–the leaders who don’t go ride in gay parades,” he said. “I can assure you, I will never ride in a gay parade. Our kids out there…People need to see examples. I’m a guy who believes in [the union of] a man and a woman, [and] the greatest government is occurring in a home at night between a husband and wife, Adam and Eve, and what the Bible says.”

Craig was then asked if he believes men and women choose to be homosexual.
 
“I think it’s a choice; I do,” he replied. “Same-sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s them. And God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.”
 
“We should not give benefits to those civil unions,” James continued. “We have to stay strong on this. This is important, man. I’ll tell you what, we have a fiscal issue in this country, [but] we also have a moral issue in this country, and as Christians, we’ve got to stand up.”

His response then drew applause from the crowd, but not so much when FOX officials saw the footage.
 
“We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department,” an unnamed FOX representative told reporters. “He couldn’t say those things here.”
 
“Craig James will not be making any further appearances on FOX Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” they advised.

Reaction to James’ firing has largely been negative.
 
“How sad that these sports networks claiming they are about diversity and openness completely shun the conservative or Christian view. This is absolutely wrong and spits in the face of what you claim to be,” one commenter wrote. “[FOX is] not open-minded or accepting of other’s opinions or beliefs, which makes you the hypocrite. The sad thing is that many of Mr. James’ fellow announcers feel as he and the majority of America does, but are not brave enough to stand for what’s right for fear of retribution or losing their job as Craig did.”
 
“Shame on you FOX Sports,” they said. “God bless you, Mr. James. It’s good to see someone stand for their beliefs.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZjzgKi5a4&feature=player_embedded

http://christiannews.net/2013/09/13/sports-commentator-fired-over-past-remarks-that-homosexuals-will-answer-to-the-lord-for-actions/

EXCLUSIVE -- Broadcaster Fired for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Blasts Fox Sports for Religious Discrimination

In exclusive comment to Breitbart News, former ESPN and CBS broadcaster and former Southern Methodist University and NFL star tailback Craig James criticized former employer Fox Sports Southwest for its firing of him two weeks ago over his public stance on same-sex marriage.
 
“I was shocked that my personal religious beliefs were not only the reason for Fox Sports firing me but I was completely floored when I read stories quoting Fox Sports representatives essentially saying that people of faith are banned from working at Fox Sports,” James told Breitbart News. “That is not right and surely someone made a terrible mistake.”
 
James continued, “I have worked in broadcasting for twenty-four years and have always treated my colleagues with respect and dignity regardless of their background or personal beliefs. I believe it is essential in our business to maintain professional relationships with people from a diverse background and have tolerance for those of different beliefs. I have never discussed my faith while broadcasting and it has never been an issue until now.” James’s attorneys at Liberty Institute have sent a demand letter, given exclusively to Breitbart News, to Fox Sports. The letter is embedded below.
 
On August 30, 2013, FOX Sports Southwest announced that James would join its Fox College Saturday college football studio analysis team. James would be teamed with Erin Hartigan and former NFL quarterback Tony Banks on the Saturday postgame shows, as well as some segments of FOX Sports Southwest’s BIG 12 LIVE wrap-up. “We’re excited to add Craig to the FOX Sports Southwest team,” said Executive Producer Mike Anastassiou. “He’s a talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.” James was formally hired by FSSW general manager Jon Heidtke.
 
James’s first day on air was August 31. It went well. Nonetheless, on September 1, Heidtke called James to inform him that he had been fired. The reason, said Heidtke, was that somebody higher up in the chain of command had been made aware of James’s comments during his unsuccessful 2012 senate run about same-sex marriage.
 
In one of his primary debates in April 2012, James, along with the other candidates, was asked about same-sex marriage. After now-Senator Ted Cruz said that he opposed same-sex marriage, James expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, and then discussed his religious perspective on same-sex activity: “People choose to be gay…I think it’s a choice. I do. Sam- sex marriage, if someone chooses to do that, that’s done. And God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions. And in that case right there, they’re going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions.” James explicitly included himself and all other human beings as those judged by God. James’s positions on other social issues are similarly traditionally religious. On abortion, for example, James’s campaign website stated, “I believe that life is precious and must be protected—especially in the womb. Therefore, I am adamantly opposed to abortion.”

The Texas Republican Party platform is in adherence with James’s position. The Texas state constitution enshrines traditional marriage as the sole standard for marriage in the state of Texas; the constitutional amendment was passed in 2005 by a 76 percent to 24 percent margin.
 
Despite the fact that James’s comments represent a broad swath of the American public, and that his comments came well over a year ago, FSSW canned him over his views. Sports Illustrated’s Richard Deitsch reported the initial news of the firing with a statement from FSSW: “Craig James will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season.” But just to make clear that James’s firing came as a result of his religious beliefs, a Fox spokesperson told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.” FSSW pulled its original press release celebrating James’s signing as well.
 
This is not just a blatant case of religious discrimination in violation of law. It is not merely an example of yet another step in the media’s attempt to silence those of a traditional perspective on same-sex marriage. It is a story that traces up much higher in the national FOX Sports organization than the regional network. That next portion of the story will be reported in coming days.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/09/23/Craig-Jones-Fox-Sports-gay-marriage


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on September 24, 2013, 02:06:25 pm
Quote
...James’s attorneys at Liberty Institute...

That speaks volumes.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2013, 02:11:53 pm
^^ Craig James was in the 2012 Senate GOP Primaries, pretty much, to largely help split the votes b/w the big pool of candidates, in order to help Ted Cruz to get elected. He only got like 5% or so, but nonetheless it was just enough to help split the votes.

Otherwise, I'm surprised he even ran b/c he belongs in the sports broadcasting booth.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on September 24, 2013, 02:32:32 pm
Quote
“We should not give benefits to those civil unions,” James continued. “We have to stay strong on this. This is important, man. I’ll tell you what, we have a fiscal issue in this country, [but] we also have a moral issue in this country, and as Christians, we’ve got to stand up.”

The reality is that a person cannot be intolerant of others in the world like the classic churchianity dogma he's projecting. His politician slip is showing. If he had just left it at he's opposed personally, but others are free to choose what they want for themselves, I don't think anything would have been said.

That whole, "...as Christians, we've got to stand up", nonsense is totally opposite to what Jesus is actually saying.

As frustrating as it is to see evil in this world around us, and reason seems to say that shouldn't be that way, we don't have a side in that fight. Jesus already told us that the world WOULD be this way, and that we cannot change it, and in fact, are exhorted not to mess with it when possible.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2013, 02:40:43 pm
The reality is that a person cannot be intolerant of others in the world like the classic churchianity dogma he's projecting. His politician slip is showing. If he had just left it at he's opposed personally, but others are free to choose what they want for themselves, I don't think anything would have been said.

That whole, "...as Christians, we've got to stand up", nonsense is totally opposite to what Jesus is actually saying.

As frustrating as it is to see evil in this world around us, and reason seems to say that shouldn't be that way, we don't have a side in that fight. Jesus already told us that the world WOULD be this way, and that we cannot change it, and in fact, are exhorted not to mess with it when possible.



Yeah, if anything, the STAND we take is for the WORD OF GOD.

Ephesians 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
Eph 6:15  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Eph 6:18  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Eph 6:19  And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
Eph 6:20  For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.


Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.


Thought I would add a side note here - this is one of my gripes with the post-tribulation rapture view - a lot of people that promote this say how the pre-trib view is blinding Christians from taking a stand. My response is - blinding Christians from taking a stand against what? The Antichrist?(when prophecy says it's God that will unleash the Revelation/Daniel judgments)

Anyhow - didn't mean to sidetrack this thread with the above comment - but nonetheless especially in modern times, Churchianity has really been sidetracked over what we have to take a stand for/against. And what Craig James mentioned is one example.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2013, 02:47:39 pm
Mark 6:45  And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.
Mar 6:46  And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray.
Mar 6:47  And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
Mar 6:48  And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.
Mar 6:49  But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:
Mar 6:50  For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
Mar 6:51  And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.
Mar 6:52  For they considered not the [miracle] of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 24, 2013, 12:15:54 pm
California Lawmakers Consider Mandating ‘Gay Infertility’ Insurance

 Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that would mandate insurance companies, under criminal penalties, to offer coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals.

AB 460 was recently proposed by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, who notes that while insurance companies in the state currently cover infertility treatments for couples, some “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination.”

He says that some companies are denying coverage to homosexuals because they did not have “an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” Current law requires that spouses try to conceive for one year, and may claim coverage if they remain barren after that time.

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation,” Ammiano’s proposed legislation declares.

However, some find the bill’s purpose confusing, as by nature homosexuals can not conceive with each other.

“The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered ‘infertile,’ which is [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” comments writer Ben Shapiro. “It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother. It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can’t make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.”

“But nature is irrelevant here,” he continues. “Even though both men and women were, to borrow Lady Gaga’s phrase, ‘born this way,’ political correctness trumps nature.”

Wesley Smith of NewsBusters was also perplexed by the legislation.

“This raises a cogent question: Could AB 460 be construed to require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments for gay couples simply because their sexual unions cannot produce children?” he asked. “It would seem so. There is no requirement that actual infertility be diagnosed. Nor is there a requirement that the gay ‘infertile’ patient seeking coverage for treatment have tried and failed to conceive or sire a child through any heterosexual means, whether natural or artificial. Moreover, the bill would still define infertility as engaging in sexual intimacy without conceiving for one year, regardless of whether the relations were heterosexual or homosexual.”

Carlos Alcala, spokeperson for Assemblyman Ammiano clarified the bill’s intent.

“Anything that is covered by an insurance plan must be covered for everyone,” he said. “If a plan covers egg donation costs for a heterosexual couple unable to conceive without it, it would have to cover those costs for a gay male couple as well.”

If the bill passes, failure to provide coverage to homosexuals for infertility treatments would result in criminal penalties.

http://christiannews.net/2013/04/13/california-lawmakers-consider-mandating-gay-infertility-insurance/

This is the wold we live in, "Infertility Insurance" for sodomites... seriously...

California Governor Signs Law Mandating ‘Gay Infertility’ Insurance Coverage

The governor of California has signed into law a bill that mandates insurance companies in the state to provide coverage for infertility treatments for homosexuals.

As previously reported, AB 460 was proposed this past spring by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco, whose partner died of AIDS in 1994. He asserts that some insurance companies are discriminating by denying coverage to homosexuals because they did not have “an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.”

Current law requires that spouses try to conceive for one year, and may claim coverage if they remain barren after that time.

“Reproductive medicine is for everybody’s benefit,” Ammiano wrote in a statement following the signing of the bill this month by Governor Jerry Brown. “To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. I wrote this bill to correct that.”

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation,” the new law states.

It does, however, seek to protect religious insurance companies from being mandated to violate their conscience.

“[This bill] shall not be construed to require any plan, which is a subsidiary of an entity whose owner or corporate member is a religious organization, to offer coverage for treatment of infertility in a manner inconsistent with that religious organization’s religious and ethical principles,” the legislation provides.

Carlos Alcala, spokeperson for Assemblyman Ammiano clarified the bill’s intent.

“Anything that is covered by an insurance plan must be covered for everyone,” he said. “If a plan covers egg donation costs for a heterosexual couple unable to conceive without it, it would have to cover those costs for a gay male couple as well.”

The law covers artificial insemination, but excludes in vitro fertilization.

“We have the right to marry now and this is further support for us to be able to create families,” Judy Appel of the homosexual advocacy group Our Family Coalition told the Associated Press.

But some have been perplexed by the legislation as by nature those of the same gender cannot conceive with each other.

you are not kidding

“The way the law works, gay and lesbian couples would simply have to testify that they have been having sex for a year without producing a child to be considered ‘infertile,’ which is [100% of the time], since baby-making requires necessary components missing in homosexual activity,” comments writer Ben Shapiro.

“It doesn’t mean situations in which two gay men are both infertile and incapable of impregnating a surrogate mother,” he continued. “It means situations in which gay or lesbian couples can’t make a baby by having sex with each other. In other words, every single gay and lesbian couple on the planet.”

“Biologically, homosexuals cannot produce children, so politics cannot trump biology,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality told OneNewsNow. “[T]o force insurance companies to provide infertility treatment benefits to homosexual couples is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.”


http://christiannews.net/2013/10/23/california-governor-signs-law-mandating-gay-infertility-insurance-coverage/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 05, 2013, 06:21:51 am
Homosexual activists at the church door

Homosexual activism in America may have started as a movement for toleration. In recent years, however, it seems to have developed into an intolerant campaign to force complete acceptance of a lifestyle many regard as immoral behavior.

Most historians trace the homosexual rights movement's beginnings to what is known as the Stonewall Riots that began June 28, 1969, in New York City.

According to the History Channel website, "Just after 3 a.m., a police raid of the Stonewall Inn -- a gay club located on New York City's Christopher Street -- turns violent as patrons and local sympathizers begin rioting against the police.

"Although the police were legally justified in raiding the club, which was serving liquor without a license among other violations, New York's gay community had grown weary of the police department targeting gay clubs, a majority of which had already been closed.

"The crowd on the street watched quietly as Stonewall's employees were arrested," the History Channel report continued, "but when three drag queens and a lesbian were forced into the paddy wagon, the crowd began throwing bottles at the police....

"The so-called Stonewall Riot was followed by several days of demonstrations in New York and was the impetus for the formation of the Gay Liberation Front as well as other gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights organizations. It is also regarded by many as history's first major protest on behalf of equal rights for homosexuals."

The early stages of the homosexual rights movement seemed content with securing a live-and-let-live attitude, if you will, toward those who pursued a homosexual lifestyle.

With success comes the desire for more success, and eventually homosexual activists sought and gained anti-discrimination employment policies on a variety of government and corporate levels the decriminalization of homosexual acts and hate crimes legislation that included the designation of homosexuality as a specially protected group.

No longer content just to be tolerated, homosexual activists sought to have their lifestyle regarded as equal to heterosexual relationships by pushing for homosexual marriage. The movement that began out of a desire to be tolerated morphed into a crusade to be celebrated as natural, normal and healthy.

One segment of society that stands in the way of the homosexual activists' ultimate goal is conservative Christians. In order to have complete cultural confirmation, conservative churches will have to be dealt with.

With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act this summer, expect homosexual activists to take the issue of homosexual matrimony directly to conservative churches.

Months before the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling, one homosexual couple took on a religious group concerning homosexual nuptials and won.

A lesbian couple approached the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) in the New Jersey seaside community of Ocean Grove about renting the Christian group's beachfront boardwalk pavilion for their civil union ceremony.

OGCMA was founded in 1869 as a ministry to provide opportunities for spiritual birth, growth and renewal in a Christian seaside setting. The group has a loose affiliation with the United Methodist Church.

OGCMA denied the couple's request, saying homosexual unions went against the group's beliefs. The couple sued and in January 2012 a New Jersey state administrative law judge ruled the Christian group had no grounds for denying the couple's request and had discriminated against them.

The judge said the OGCMA pavilion had been previously open to the public for a variety of community events, thus it had been established as a venue of public accommodation. The only denial, other than for scheduling conflicts, had been to the lesbian couple.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out that OGCMA received a state tax exemption with the understanding the Christian group's property was to be "open for public use on an equal basis." Since the association did not allow a lesbian wedding, it violated the terms of the agreement.

"When you open your doors to the public, you can't treat same-sex couples differently," said Jeanne LoCicero, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey deputy legal director, according to a report on the ACLU-NJ website.

What does the ruling against the Ocean Grove camp mean for conservative religious organizations in America?

Many churches, if not most, allow the public to utilize facilities for weddings and other occasions. Some are even used as polling places for elections. Additionally, churches have long been granted a tax exemption by the government, originally to keep the state completely out of the churches' business.

Like OGCMA, many churches could be deemed places of public accommodation. Add to this the liberal interpretation that the U.S Constitution's First Amendment was designed to keep the church out of the public square (a means by which the government can restrict the church) and I expect homosexual activists will seek to force conservative churches to provide space wherein they can celebrate their lifestyles via same-sex weddings -- a lifestyle which many Christians are convinced is both biblically and biologically aberrant.

It seems the only recourse for conservative churches will be to close their doors to any and all public access. Either that, or be faced with expensive lawsuits or perhaps even the loss of a tax exemption which was once designed to protect religious organizations from the state.

The homosexual rights movement was born out of a desire to be tolerated. Through the years it seems to have morphed into a crusade bent on forcing all of society, even conservative churches, to accept and celebrate homosexuality as natural, normal and healthy.

The irony would be amusing if the threat to religious liberty weren't so serious.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=41402&utm


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 05, 2013, 10:05:42 am
Quote
What does the ruling against the Ocean Grove camp mean for conservative religious organizations in America?

Many churches, if not most, allow the public to utilize facilities for weddings and other occasions. Some are even used as polling places for elections. Additionally, churches have long been granted a tax exemption by the government, originally to keep the state completely out of the churches' business.

In the first place, these 501c3 churches get tax benefits for doing weddings, funerals, baptisms, baby dedications, etc. Dunno about allowing them for polling places(although it wouldn't surprise me). So it wouldn't surprise me when all is said and done, they'll allow sodomy activities b/c of just that.

Quote
It seems the only recourse for conservative churches will be to close their doors to any and all public access. Either that, or be faced with expensive lawsuits or perhaps even the loss of a tax exemption which was once designed to protect religious organizations from the state.


Or how about for starters, go back to the King James Bible - these other perversions like the NIV and others from these "bible societies" have feminized God's word almost completely. So I don't see how 99% of these churches are "conservative" to begin with.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 05, 2013, 12:35:49 pm
A "church group" locally should be a closed society to the world anyway. Believers are not suppose to be interacting with the world like that. They should be treated more like a private club, where only members(born-again believers) are able to use the group's services. There never should have been any public access (friendship with the world), other than to inquire about repenting and believing the gospel.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 06, 2013, 05:54:50 pm
Homosexual Student Suspended for Ripping Pages of Leviticus Out of Bible in Class

A homosexual student in Texas was suspended last week for ripping pages of Leviticus out of his Bible during his Spanish class.

Isaiah Smith is an 18-year-old senior at Birdville High School in North Richland Hills. Last week, he brought his Bible to his first period Spanish class to refute his fellow classmates who state that homosexuality is a sin, or violation of the law of God. Smith identifies as a Christian, but asserts that his homosexuality does not conflict with his faith.

“At my high school, some kids like to say that being gay is a sin and that you can’t be gay and Christian,” Smith told the Star-Telegram. “I wanted to bring my Bible to school and interpret the books of Leviticus and Romans because they are often used to bully gay people.”

He stated that as students again contended last Monday that he would go Hell for violating God’s law, he began tearing pages out of the Book of Leviticus and other portions of Scripture.

However, Smith was then reprimanded by Vice Principal Glenn Serviente, who arrived at the classroom and instructed Smith to follow him to his office. Smith told reporters that Serviente advised that he was causing a disruption to the learning environment by tearing up his Bible in class.  He states that he was told by Serviente that he could carry his Bible in school if he wished, but he could not rip pages out of it.

Two days later, Smith was called back to the vice principal’s office.

“How would Muslims feel if a student was tearing up the Quran?” Serviente asked, according to reports.

Smith responded that he understood that other students would not like it, but noted that he was not tearing up another person’s Bible, but rather his own.

He was then suspended from school for three days and his torn Bible was confiscated.

However, now Smith has retained legal assistance from the Washington-based American Humanist Association (AHA), which is demanding that the strike be expunged from Smith’s record.

“Isaiah’s Bible was not the source of disruption, the bullying was,” AHA attorney Bill Burgess told reporters. “Instead of reprimanding the bullies, the school punished Isaiah for offering an alternative viewpoint on the Bible.”

Burgess contends that the school violated Smith’s violated Smith’s First Amendment rights to free speech, and may sue the school district if it declines to comport with the organization’s demands. AHA sent a letter to district following the incident, requesting compliance “lest [Birdville ISD] face legal action.”

But district spokesman Mark Thomas told the Dallas Observer that the suspension is not about the Bible, but rather Smith’s behavior.

“[A]ny recurring incident that disrupts the learning process is dealt with according to policy and appropriate disciplinary action is taken according to that policy,” he said.

http://christiannews.net/2013/11/05/homosexual-student-suspended-for-ripping-pages-of-leviticus-out-of-bible-in-class/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 06, 2013, 05:56:52 pm
Well, hopefully he uses his suspension time to repent.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 06, 2013, 06:06:38 pm
Well, hopefully he uses his suspension time to repent.

I dont know, he doesnt seem to like the word of God to much


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 07, 2013, 03:59:42 am
Uh, it's obvious he hates the truth. That demon inside him has him trying to destroy the Word. And it's obvious the kid has been coached by gay activists...

Quote
“At my high school, some kids like to say that being gay is a sin and that you can’t be gay and Christian,” Smith told the Star-Telegram. “I wanted to bring my Bible to school and interpret the books of Leviticus and Romans because they are often used to bully gay people.

Now just where does an 18 year old kid get that kind of idea? Who says those books are used for "bullying"? Clearly this kid has been brainwashed by wickedness.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 07, 2013, 10:45:04 pm
Personally, this is one of those "be ye angry and sin not moments" for me - the Op-Ed columnist is Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush White House Press Secretary - pretty much, the puppet-masters behind Reagan/Bushes manipulated Churchianity(and professing conservatives for that matter too), and got them to quietly push some major globalist agendas(including eugenics and sodomy). Ultimately, it was b/c of 20 years of Churchianity and professing conservatives standing down to Reagan/Bushes we have Obama in office now.

And they're at it again...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/house-enda-opinion-ari-fleischer-99546.html
11/3/13
Why the House must pass ENDA

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to protect gay employees from job discrimination with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Republicans should support these protections, and I hope the GOP leadership in the House schedules the bill for a vote. It’s the morally right thing to do. No one should lose their job, or not get hired, because of their sexual orientation.

Allowing people to be successful in their workplaces is an essential piece of individual opportunity and liberty. Working for a living is one of America’s freedoms. It’s a virtue to be encouraged — and supporting it is important to the future of the Republican Party. In an era in which the government often punishes hard work and individual success, this bill encourages it.

At its core, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is about individual liberty. All employees should be treated the same and be judged on their job performance. No one should receive special treatment, and no one should be fired because of their sexual orientation.

Since the 1960s, Congress has passed laws ensuring that employers can’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender — personal characteristics that have nothing to do with how well someone does his or her job. These laws are widely accepted throughout our society. Who among us today would say an employer should have the right to fire someone because of their faith or the color of their skin? The same sense of fairness and respect should apply to the hundreds of thousands of qualified, hardworking Americans covered by ENDA.

After all, everyone has a right to earn a living — including gay, lesbian and transgender Americans.

I’m not the only one who feels this way.

According to a national poll done in September by GOP pollster Alex Lundry on behalf of Project Right Side, a strong majority of Americans (68 percent) said they favored a federal ENDA. Among Republicans, 56 percent nationwide supported the law, while only 32 percent opposed it. Additional statewide polling conducted by conservative pollster Jan van Lohuizen in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire confirmed those findings.

It’s a little sad that these questions even need to get put to a poll, but old ways of thinking sometimes take time to change. The time for this change has arrived. In fact, many in the business community, recognizing the importance of a qualified, skilled workforce, are well ahead of the federal government.

Having been in the private sector since the end of the George W. Bush presidency, I’m not surprised. A large majority of Fortune 500 companies already have nondiscrimination policies on their books. And corporate titans like PepsiCo, Pfizer, Marriott, Alcoa, Bank of America and Nike publicly back the bill.

Now is time for the government to catch up so that nondiscrimination laws protect workers at all companies, not just some.

The reason there is Republican and business support for ENDA is simple: It’s reasonable. The bill respects many different viewpoints, allowing exemptions for religious organizations, for example.

I would oppose the bill if I thought it was written to encourage lawsuits that have more to do with enriching attorneys and less to do with fighting discrimination. But there is no evidence to suggest that would be the case, based on the experience of the states and municipalities that have already adopted ENDA-like policies and the growing number of businesses that have done the same. If Fortune 500 companies were concerned about lawsuits, they wouldn’t be tackling discrimination on their own.

Politically, it’s about time for the GOP to do the right thing while acting in a more inclusive and welcoming manner. Republicans need to expand our appeal and earn the support of millennials. The younger generation of Americans views gay rights differently than our parents’ generation, and as was noted in an assessment of the Republican Party I co-authored following the 2012 elections, issues like this are gateways into whether young people see the GOP as a party worthy of support.

Ten Senate Republicans voted in support of ENDA: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizizona, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Orrin Hatch of Utah, who said that ENDA “prohibits discrimination that should not occur in the workplace,” while it also “protects the rights of religious entities and minimizes legal burdens on employers.” In the House, only five Republicans are co-sponsors.

Other members of the House GOP caucus are, rightly, studying the issue and hearing from their constituents as the bill moves to the lower chamber. I hope they do the right thing by voting for ENDA.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 07, 2013, 10:46:12 pm
Malachi 2:17  Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 08, 2013, 12:43:21 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/rare-move-uganda-leader-publicly-tests-hiv-112548521.html
11/8/13
In rare move, Uganda leader publicly tests for HIV

KAMPALA, Uganda (AP) — Uganda's president tested for HIV in public on Friday to encourage millions of untested people to check their status, a critical step to stemming the spread of the virus in the East African country.

Public leaders rarely test for HIV in public in Uganda, despite recommendations from health workers that it would set a good example in a country that has seen HIV infection rates increasing. Uganda was once a global leader in efforts to fight AIDS.

Not all government officials at the Friday event in the capital, Kampala, joined the president in testing.

Ugandan officials have said they want to test 15 million people by the end of 2014. They acknowledge it will be hard to reach that target, the reason they want the president to be a "role model."

"Therefore, all Ugandans, test (for HIV). Find out your status and let the state and health workers manage you accordingly," said President Yoweri Museveni.

The HIV rate in Uganda stands at 7.3 percent, up from 6.4 percent in 2005, according to a 2011 survey by Uganda's Ministry of Health. Ugandan officials who presided over its reduction from 18 percent in 1992 to 6.4 percent in 2005 say they are confounded by the increase.

Ugandans health officials say more married couples are getting infected, in part because of what campaigners have dubbed a "sexual network" in which married Ugandans maintain secret lovers. One billboard in Kampala urges couples to "put your love to the test" by testing for HIV.

Museveni and his wife are "leading by example in a bid to roll back the HIV epidemic in Uganda," the Uganda AIDS Commission, the local body tasked with fighting AIDS, said, though the first lady did not attend the event where Museveni was tested.

Experts say HIV testing is critical to preventing new infections because those who know their status are less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. But getting people to test for HIV has proved difficult in Uganda, where rampant stigma persists and where thousands get infected each year.

The rise in new infections is stretching the ability of Uganda's government and donors to provide HIV and AIDS treatment. More than 500,000 Ugandans need AIDS treatment, many accessing it through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

If Ugandans reach their testing goal, at least 400,000 more people will likely be in need of AIDS treatment, according to Musa Bungudu, the Uganda coordinator for the United Nations' AIDS agency.

Uganda once earned a global reputation for successfully putting in place a policy called ABC: Abstain, be faithful, or use condoms. Students of a certain generation were shown videos of the devastating toll of AIDS on the human body, and then told to postpone the first act of intercourse. But critics of Uganda's policy to fight AIDS say the country recently has focused more on treatment rather than prevention.

Uganda's government now has added male circumcision to the plan to fight HIV and AIDS, in response to studies showing the procedure reduces the risk among African men of getting HIV in half.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 14, 2013, 05:09:05 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/14/texas-county-adopts-sweeping-policy-to-protect-lgbt-inmates/?intcmp=latestnews
11/14/13
Texas county adopts sweeping policy to protect LGBT inmates

HOUSTON –  The sheriff of Houston's Harris County has adopted a sweeping policy designed to protect and guarantee equal treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender inmates, including allowing transgender individuals to be housed based on the gender they identify with instead of their biological sex.

The new policy, which Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia's office believes to be one of the most comprehensive in the country, states "discrimination or harassment of any kind based on sexual orientation or gender identity is strictly prohibited," and outlines how such inmates will be searched, booked and housed, according to a copy of the policy obtained by The Associated Press ahead of an official announcement Thursday.

The policy also covers intersex inmates, defined as people born with sex chromosomes or reproductive systems that are not considered standard.

Houston has the third-largest county jail in the U.S., after Los Angeles and Chicago's Cook County, and processes some 125,000 inmates annually. Other major jails, including L.A., Washington, D.C., and Denver, have taken similar steps to meet new federal standards for protecting inmates from sexual abuse and assault.

But Harris County is the first in Texas to adopt this extensive of a policy, according to Brandon Wood, executive director of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards, a state agency that inspects, regulates and provides technical assistance to county jails.

The 11-page policy, along with a separate three-page document protecting this population from workplace discrimination, went into effect Wednesday.

"It represents a significant step forward," said Harper Jean Tobin, director of policy for the Washington-based National Center for Transgender Equality, who worked closely with Garcia and his staff.

The new policy may be notable because it's occurring in a staunch red state proud of its conservative values, Tobin said. But she emphasized it's not about politics.

"This is not a red or blue issue," Tobin said. "It is an issue of preventing violence, of meeting the state's legal and moral responsibilities to keep people safe and safeguarding public funds that when sexual abuse happens in prison need to be spent on medical care and mental health care and recovery."

According to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, the jail currently has about 8,900 inmates and at least 250 of them, or 2.8 percent, identify themselves as lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender.

A "safe zone project" will promote a "positive relationship of solidarity" between the sheriff's department and the gay community, according to the document. Members of this staff will wear an obvious identifier so they can be easily spotted.

The sheriff's department will also have "zero tolerance" for staff sexual misconduct or sexual harassment toward members of the gay community. Violations could "result in termination" or referral for criminal charges or other action.

Another key section of the policy states that members of the transgender community will be addressed by their chosen name, even if it has not legally been changed, both when spoken to and on their identification bracelets.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 16, 2013, 12:43:42 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/apple-takes-heat-over-insensitive-dictionary-entry-gay-2D11603757?ocid=msnhp&pos=5
11/15/13
Apple takes heat over insensitive dictionary entry for 'gay'

Apple's stock Dictionary app is in the spotlight this week after a Massachusetts teen took issue with a derogatory definition of the word "gay." But not every Mac shows the same definition — and, of course, Apple didn't write the entry, it just licensed it.

Becca Gorman, a 15-year-old tenth grader in Sudbury, Mass., was doing research for a paper on gay rights, and had decided to look up the word "gay" in her MacBook Pro's built-in Dictionary application, according to a report in the MetroWest Daily News. To her dismay, among the definitions was the following:

informal foolish; stupid: making students wait for the light is kind of a gay rule

This is, in fact, common usage, but the issue is that it wasn't given the "offensive" or "derogatory" tags found in other places inside the dictionary database. Gorman, struck by this as potentially a tacit endorsement of this sense of the word, took the matter to her parents, who happen to be a lesbian couple. They encouraged her when she decided to write an email to Apple CEO Tim Cook, which read in part:

I assume that you are a pro-gay company, and would never intend for any one of your products to be as offensive as this definition was. Even with your addition of the word informal, this definition normalizes the terrible derogatory twist that many people put on the word “gay”. ... When I look at this definition it makes this hatred filled use of the term as something as okay as “dude”.

I am asking for you to remove this definition from the Dictionary you are promoting, or to make a significant change to it. I also think it would be a good idea to apologize to the gay community, a good amount of your customers. Thank you for your cooperation, I love your products.

Apple has indeed been quietly but reliably gay-friendly, providing company benefits to same-sex couples and lobbying against California's Proposition 8, among other things.

According to MetroWest, which republished Gorman's letter, an Apple representative called the teen's home just an hour after the email was sent, and told her the company would be looking into it, though nothing official has been announced, nor have any updates been issued.

As the story spread, however, it became clear that not all Macs were giving the same definitions. NBC News checked several Macs, and while some had the definition exactly as quoted by Gorman, some included "offensive" alongside "informal." (Strangely, The Daily Dot found a version where the third sense was just plain omitted.)

Apple doesn't write its own dictionaries; the one used by the Dictionary app in OS X and iOS in the U.S. is the New Oxford American Dictionary. Looking up the word with that dictionary's online tool, the definition provided includes "offensive."

The explanation is likely that the new definition ("foolish; stupid") was added at some point to Oxford's system, and that, along with countless other updates, was sent to Apple for use in their Dictionary app. Some time thereafter, Oxford amended the framing of the definition, adding "offensive," and soon that update too was sent to Apple.

Anyone using an old version of the Dictionary app, for whatever reason, would see the old definition, of course. Just what versions have which definitions isn't clear.

NBC News contacted Apple for comment, and a representative referred us to the Oxford Dictionaries FAQ on its handling of "vulgar and offensive" language. The company's editors are "constantly re-evaluating and improving" such things, and evidently the entry for "gay" was among those that was reassessed; Oxford University Press (which publishes the dictionaries) did not reply immediately to requests for further information.

So Gorman's request that Apple update the definition has, in fact, already been granted: NBC News confirmed that the dictionaries included in the latest versions of Apple's operating system, OS X Mavericks and iOS 7, both label the negative use of the word as "offensive."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 18, 2013, 01:41:42 pm
It wasn't too long ago when Churchianity warmed up to Cheney. Pt being that enemies don't exactly come from without, but from within. Look how they're playing out the final throes of this Hegelian Dialectic.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/within-cheney-family-a-dispute-over-gay-marriage/?_r=2&
11/17/13
Dispute Over Gay Marriage Erupts in Cheney Family

Updated, 10:09 p.m. | WASHINGTON — They were the towheaded sisters who tagged along on campaigns, polite and smiling, as their father rose through Wyoming and then Washington politics to become one of the most powerful men in the country.

“We were as close as sisters can be,” recalled Mary Cheney of her relationship with her older sister, Liz.

But now, a feud between the two has spilled into public view, involving social media, an angry same-sex spouse, a high-profile election and a father who feels uncomfortably caught between his two children.

The situation has deteriorated so much that the two sisters have not spoken since the summer, and the quarrel threatens to get in the way of something former Vice President Dick Cheney desperately wants — a United States Senate seat for Liz.

Things erupted on Sunday when Mary Cheney, a lesbian, and her wife were at home watching “Fox News Sunday” — their usual weekend ritual. Liz Cheney appeared on the show and said that she opposed same-sex marriage, describing it as “just an area where we disagree,” referring to her sister. Taken aback and hurt, Mary Cheney took to her Facebook page to blast back: “Liz — this isn’t just an issue on which we disagree you’re just wrong — and on the wrong side of history.”

But then Mary Cheney’s wife, Heather Poe, went further, touching on Liz Cheney’s relocation from Northern Virginia to Wyoming to seek office. (Liz Cheney is already battling accusations of carpetbagging in the race.)

“I can’t help but wonder how Liz would feel if as she moved from state to state, she discovered that her family was protected in one but not the other,” Ms. Poe wrote on her Facebook page. “Yes, Liz,” she added, “in fifteen states and the District of Columbia you are my sister-in-law.”

The feud reveals tensions not just within the family but in the Republican Party more broadly as it seeks to respond to both a changing America and an energized, fervently conservative base.

Indeed, while Liz Cheney seeks to make clear her opposition to same-sex marriage, her father more than a decade ago was able to embrace fairly moderate views on the subject, breaking publicly with President George W. Bush over Mr. Bush’s support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. He has gone further still since then, telling Barbara Walters in 2011, “I certainly don’t have any problem with” same-sex marriage.

But Ms. Cheney, in her bid to defeat Republican Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, is running to his right and seeking to capture conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts.

Liz Cheney on Sunday declined to directly address the remarks from her sister and sister-in-law, but said in an email: “I love my sister and her family and have always tried to be compassionate towards them. I believe that is the Christian way to behave.”

People who have spoken to Liz Cheney say she is irritated that her sister is making their dispute public and believes it is hypocritical for Mary Cheney to take such a hard line now, given that she worked for the re-election of President Bush, an opponent of same-sex marriage.

The relationship between the two sisters used to be quite different. The daughters drew especially close when their father ran as Mr. Bush’s running mate in 2000 and eventually became a figure of great controversy and enormous power as vice president. After Mr. Cheney left office in 2009, politically bruised and physically ailing, the sisters, who lived 15 minutes apart in Washington’s tony Northern Virginia suburbs, would join their parents for a standing Sunday dinner at Liz’s house in McLean each week, along with their families, including Ms. Poe.

Mary Cheney, 44, said in a phone interview Sunday that she presumed her sister shared her father’s views on marriage, and that view was reinforced because Liz Cheney “was always very supportive” of her relationship with Ms. Poe and the couple’s two children. She learned otherwise in August when Liz Cheney declared, shortly after announcing her Senate candidacy, that she was opposed to same-sex marriage rights. Mary Cheney said it is now “impossible” for the sisters to reconcile as long as Liz Cheney maintains that position.

“What amazes me is that she says she’s running to be a new generation of leader,” Mary Cheney said, citing her 47-year-old sister’s slogan in her campaign against Mr. Enzi, 69. “I’m not sure how sticking to the positions of the last 20 or 30 years is the best way to do that.”

Mary Cheney said it was her wife’s idea for the couple to take to Facebook to respond to Liz’s televised remarks. Ms. Poe seemed especially hurt that her sister-in-law had acted so embracing toward them in private, and then took this public position.

“Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children, and when Mary and I got married in 2012 — she didn’t hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us,” Ms. Poe wrote. “To have her say she doesn’t support our right to marry is offensive to say the least.”

In the interview, Mary Cheney, who is a longtime political consultant, said she would continue to raise the matter. Reminded by a reporter that such criticism could complicate her sister’s Senate campaign, Mary Cheney offered a clipped answer reminiscent of her father’s terse style. “O.K.,” she said, before letting silence fill the air.

It is not the substance of the issue that could hurt Liz Cheney in Wyoming — her opponent also opposes same-sex marriage. But the ugly family drama and questions about what Liz Cheney truly believes could reinforce questions about her authenticity in a place where many voters have met their politicians in person and are already skeptical of an outsider like Ms. Cheney, who has lived elsewhere for much of her life. Ms. Cheney’s first ad, which she released last week, was devoted entirely to emphasizing her family’s Wyoming roots.

Wyoming, a sprawling but sparsely populated state, has rarely seen such high-profile primaries, and this one has already featured an ugly Cheney family episode: After former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, a longtime friend of the family who served with Mr. Cheney in the state’s congressional delegation, fretted to The New York Times this summer about how Liz Cheney’s challenge of Mr. Enzi would be divisive among the state’s Republicans, Lynne Cheney, the sisters’ mother and Mr. Cheney’s wife, confronted him at a charity event and told him to “just shut up” — three times, Mr. Simpson claimed. When Lynne Cheney later said that the exchange never happened, Mr. Simpson called her denial “a damn baldfaced lie.”

The former vice president is active and visible in his daughter’s Senate bid and this Wednesday, he will join her in Denver for a fund-raiser to benefit her campaign. Early polls show Liz Cheney trailing Mr. Enzi, but her fund-raising since declaring her candidacy has been robust.

As for Mary Cheney, she said that when she gets together with her parents these days, they know which subjects not to bring up. “They come over for dinner and we don’t talk about Liz or the race,” she said. “There is so much more to talk about.”

The Cheneys have tried to be “as neutral as they can,” added Mary Cheney, who just returned from a pheasant hunting trip with her father in South Dakota. “My parents are stuck in an awful position.”

As for the coming holidays, Mary Cheney said that her parents will come to her and Ms. Poe’s Northern Virginia home for Thanksgiving and that she assumed her older sister would be in Wyoming.

At Christmas, the whole Cheney clan will head to the Jackson Hole area in Wyoming, where Liz Cheney now lives. But Mary Cheney said of her sister, “I will not be seeing her.”


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 26, 2013, 02:20:15 am
Well now, it seems things aren't what they appear! If true, this is a new low for gays and their whining...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/26/report-family-says-tipped-gay-waitress-didnt-leave-note-about-lifestyle/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/26/report-family-says-tipped-gay-waitress-didnt-leave-note-about-lifestyle/?intcmp=latestnews)

Quote
Report: Family says they tipped gay waitress, didn't leave note about 'lifestyle'

Published November 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

A New Jersey couple is reportedly disputing a story that made headlines nationwide about a gay waitress who was left a note criticizing her "lifestyle" instead of a tip, claiming their receipt shows they did leave a tip and didn't write the note.

Dayna Morales, an ex-Marine and server at Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, said she received the offensive note on a November 13 receipt. "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I don't agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life,” the message read.

NBCNewYork.com reports that the couple, who asked to remain anonymous, contacted the station after the story went viral and produced a receipt that was apparently printed at the same time, on the same date, for the same amount, except with an $18 tip.

The couple also produced document they claimed was a Visa bill, which indicated their card was charged for the meal plus the tip, for a total of $111.55, the station reported.

The couple told NBCNewYork.com they believe their receipt was used for a hoax. The husband said he didn't vote for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie because the governor opposes same-sex marriage.

"Never would a message like that come from us," he said.

Morales announced last week she would donate thousands of dollars in gratuities from supporters to the Wounded Warrior Project. She told NBCNewYork.com on Monday she did not receive a tip and insisted the handwriting on the receipt was not her own.

The restaurant, which reportedly could not produce the original receipt nor explain why the family was charged for the tip amount, told the station it was aware of the couple's claims and that an internal investigation is ongoing.

"I just felt like people have a right to know that -- it's fine of people want to donate to her or to the Wounded Warriors, but they're doing it under a false pretense," the wife said.

This is how the Huff Post reported it in their gay section...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/dayna-morales-marine-tip-gay-lifestyle_n_4273801.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/dayna-morales-marine-tip-gay-lifestyle_n_4273801.html)

Quote
Dayna Morales, Waitress And Marine, Denied Tip Because Of Her 'Gay Lifestyle' (UPDATE)

The Huffington Post  |  By Cavan Sieczkowski   Posted: 11/14/2013 12:33 pm EST  | 
Updated: 11/17/2013 12:05 pm EST

A waitress in New Jersey who previously served in the Marines received an offensive note from a family who denied her a tip because of her "gay lifestyle." Now, she is speaking out against those very people whose freedom she once defended.

Dayna Morales, a server at Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, N.J., wrote an email to gay-friendly blog "Have A Gay Day" about her recent experience with homophobia while serving a family of diners, reports Gay Star News. When Morales introduced herself to the couple and their two children, the mother was allegedly shocked by Morales' short hair.

"Oh I thought you were gonna say your name is Dan," she allegedly said. "You sure surprised us!"

At the end of the meal, Morales was left with no tip on the $93.55 bill. Instead, she found a note on the receipt, reading: "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I don't agree with your lifestyle & how you live your life."

(http://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s235x350/544171_453425841430201_1880158113_n.jpg)

Morales expressed her disgust over the incident in her email to Have A Gay Day. The email, later posted to the site's Facebook page, read:

   
Quote
I am THOROUGHLY offended mad ****ed off and hurt that THIS is what her kids will grow up learning and that I served in the Marines to keep ignorant people like them free. Sorry lady but I don't agree with YOUR lifestyle and the way you're raising your kids but you didn't see me throwing that in your face and giving you ****ty service. Keep your damn mouth shut and pray we never cross paths again.

So she resorts to threats of violence? Typical.  ::)

Facebook users offered their support to Morales in response to the post. "As a member of the heterosexual community, I beg your forgiveness for these ignorant people," wrote one person. "I always tip 15% to 20% no matter who my server is, what my server does out side of the place is none of my business," wrote another.

Neither Morales nor a representative for Gallop Asian Bistro was immediately available for further comment.

Although this story may seem shocking, it's not the only one of its kind to make headlines recently.

Last month, a waiter at Carrabba's Italian Grill in Overland Park, Kan., found that some Christian diners had left on the back of a receipt a shockingly homophobic message -- peppered with anti-gay language -- in lieu of a tip. Although the diners said his service was "excellent," the note called his lifestyle an affront to God.

"We hope you will see the tip your fag choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly," the note continued, per to the New Civil Rights Movement. "It is never too late for GOD’S love, but none shall be spared for fags. May GOD have mercy on you.”

Earlier this year, a lesbian couple was handed an anti-gay note from a North Carolina cafe owner, who decried homosexuality as an act against God's will.

UPDATE: Morales told CNN that since going public with her story, she's received more than $2,000 in donations from those who have mailed tips, or donated to a special PayPal account the restaurant set up.

The restaurant set it up alright. It's just me, but this appears to me to be a pr stunt for the gay lobby. Notice her workplace is supporting her and setting up accounts for people to donate to. What better way to increase you gay customer traffic and get national exposure?  ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 26, 2013, 11:28:34 am
Had to read it twice to make sure I was understanding it correctly - so the restaurant and the gay lobby set up the whole thing from the start. Wow...is all I can say(and disgusting!). And FWIW too, notice the part where that family didn't vote for Chris Christie b/c he opposes SSM.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 26, 2013, 12:37:14 pm
Quote
so the restaurant and the gay lobby set up the whole thing from the start.

That's my own personal perception.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 26, 2013, 12:45:22 pm
Looks like the customers are backing their claim with proof...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/customers-claim-they-did-leave-tip--did-not-leave-note-for-server-144714897.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/customers-claim-they-did-leave-tip--did-not-leave-note-for-server-144714897.html)

Quote
Customers claim they did leave tip, did not leave note for server

By Mike Krumboltz,
Yahoo News 3 hours ago
The Sideshow

When Dayna Morales, a restaurant server in New Jersey and former U.S. Marine, claimed a family wrote her a hateful note on a receipt, outrage ensued.

"I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life," read the note. Morales, who is gay, posted a photo of the receipt on Facebook.

Morales went on news programs and showed off the receipt with the message. But now, a family has come forward saying it left no note and did leave the waitress a tip. The note, it claims, is a fake, according to NBC New York.

(see video)


The message on the tip reads in part, "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I don't agree with your lifestyle."
The family, which wished to remain anonymous, told NBC New York it left Morales a $18 tip. It reportedly provided a copy of the receipt as proof as well as a credit card statement "which appears to indicate their card was charged for the meal plus the tip, for a total of $111.55."

The wife told NBC New York that she is left-handed and couldn't have made the slash in the tip section of the receipt. She says it appears like it was made from the right.

"We've never not left a tip when someone gave good service, and we would never leave a note like that," the wife told NBC New York.

The husband said he didn't vote for Chris Christie because of the governor's lack of support for gay marriage.

"Never would a message like that come from us," he said.

Faking a note, he added, is "a disgusting thing to do."

"The restaurant profits from this; obviously Dayna profits from this. It's fraud. It's a scam," he said.

Morales told NBC New York that she didn't receive a tip and repeated that the handwriting on the tip was not hers. The restaurant told NBC New York it is conducting an internal investigation into the incident.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 26, 2013, 12:48:40 pm
Im not surprised that its a hoax. Im sure most gay discrimination are set up.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 26, 2013, 01:42:16 pm
You can tell the handwriting is different, the numbers definitely were done by two different people.

I'm thinking they just printed out another copy of the bill and voided the original (which the public can't access their register tapes to verify each bill rang up and what was voided, by management!), which I think the time stamp would stay the same because I think it's done when the order is first entered into the system, not a time when the receipt is printed out, so the date and time would be the same. The key may be in what they redacted/blurred on both receipts, but their daily receipts record will definitely show what was done, but I don't see them producing those records.
 


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 26, 2013, 01:43:52 pm
Im not surprised that its a hoax. Im sure most gay discrimination are set up.

Yeah, anytime something like this makes the MSM, you know there's some kind of agenda/hoax behind this.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on November 28, 2013, 03:41:14 am
But wait, there's more!...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/27/gay-new-jersey-waitress-in-tip-flap-is-compulsive-liar-friends-say/?intcmp=trending (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/27/gay-new-jersey-waitress-in-tip-flap-is-compulsive-liar-friends-say/?intcmp=trending)

Quote
Gay New Jersey waitress in tip flap is compulsive liar, friends say

Published November 27, 2013
FoxNews.com

   

A gay waitress who says she was stiffed on a tip due to her sexuality, a claim that sparked national outrage, is having her credibility questioned by several friends.

Dayna Morales, a 22-year-old ex-Marine, claimed earlier this month that a family of four who racked up a $93.55 bill at the Gallop Asian Bistro in Branchburg, N.J., left her no gratuity, just a note saying they couldn’t leave any extra money because they “do not agree with your lifestyle.”

Morales emailed the story to a gay advocacy website, and later posted a photograph of the purported check on her Facebook page. The story made national headlines and resulted in thousands of dollars being donated to Morales, who said she would send all proceeds to the Wounded Warrior Project.

But on Monday, the couple accused by Morales of leaving the note denied doing so, according to WNBC-TV, going so far as to show the station copies of their Visa bill that apparently show a $111.55 payment to the restaurant – a total that includes a nearly 20 percent tip.

Now, people who know Morales are calling her credibility into question.

Kristina Calamusa, who describes herself as a former friend of Morales, told The Daily Caller that the waitress claimed to her that she was “blown up by a land mine overseas.”

But, according to Calamusa, that story was false; Morales was never on active duty.

The Journal News of White Plains, N.Y., also quotes acquaintances of Morales who say she lied about her military service.

Julie Howat and Karolee Larkin, both 23, related to the newspaper a story Morales supposedly told them about her serving in Afghanistan and surviving an explosion that killed everyone in her platoon, leaving her as the unit’s sole survivor.

But Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokesman for the Marines, said in an email to The Journal News that while Morales did serve in the Marines Corps reserve from July 2009 to May 2013, there’s no indication in her record of combat service in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Also, Haney said, “while (Morales) did not fulfill her reserve obligation, per the Privacy Act, administrative actions are not releasable. The same applies to character of service and type of discharge.”

That’s not all Morales has lied about in the past, acquaintances say.

“She said that her dad raped her and got her pregnant,” Kiersten Bremer told The Daily Caller News Foundation. When Morales failed to produce a child, she told Bremer and other friends that she had cervical cancer which spread to the baby, killing it, Bremer claims.

Bremer says Morales later admitted she fabricated the entire story.

Another story comes from a day care center where she once worked, when she told co-workers that Superstorm Sandy so badly damaged her former home in Stony Point, N.Y., that a boat tore through the living room, The Journal News reported. Concerned friends who stopped by the house found only minor damage to the carpet by the front door and no indications of the catastrophic damage Morales described.

“Every story she comes up with has a lie,” Howat said.

Morales did not respond to requests for comment from The Daily Caller or The Journal News. Messages seeking comment from the Gallop Asian Bistro and the Wounded Warrior Project also went unanswered, The Daily Caller said.

If you've been in the military, you might be able to read between the lines on what was said by the US Marines spokesperson about Morales. Sounds to me like she was kicked out of the reserves before her time was up under "administrative actions", which suggests a discharge of something other than honorable. Notice how her "service" has been mentioned by the media, them trying to play up the story how a poor ex-marine lesbian is being discriminated against, boo hoo. Looks like the joke is on them, and they got played by a liar.

And wouldn't you know it, her service just ended in May, which means her pay just ended too most likely. Hmm. ::)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 28, 2013, 08:56:36 am
Quote
But wait, there's more!...
  :D

Waitress Who Likely Lied About Anti-Gay Note in Lieu of a Tip Is Accused of a Bigger Lie – This One Will Really Tick Off Military Vets

The New Jersey waitress accused of lying about receiving an anti-gay note instead of a tip has a long history of lying and is always in need of “sympathy and empathy,” according to people who know her.

In addition to likely lying about getting anti-gay insults on a recent receipt, Dayna Morales, 22, is also accused of lying about her military service and falsely telling friends that she had brain cancer and that her home was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy.

“Every story she comes up with has a lie,” coworker Julie Howat told the Journal News.

“Any tragedy that happened, she had to be a part of it. She needed sympathy and empathy,” she added.

A former classmate of Morales’ told the newspaper that you “can’t believe much of what she says.”

In what would certainly be the most egregious lie, Morales allegedly told friends that she somehow managed to survive an explosion that killed her entire platoon in Afghanistan.

A U.S. Marines spokesman confirmed that the waitress served in the Marine Corps Reserve until May 2013, but there was “no indication of combat service in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

Morales failed to “fulfill her reserve obligation,” the spokesman said.

More from the Journal News:

    The explosion left her with back injuries that required surgery and a couple of months to recover, Larkin said Morales told her employer. But during her time off, Morales posted photos of herself on Facebook enjoying a trip to Florida with a girlfriend, they said.

    Samantha Reidy of Pomona, who dated Morales for a month a couple of years ago, said Morales appeared to have undergone the back surgery, and sent pictures of herself in pain. But Reidy said Morales told her that she had a quick recovery that allowed her to take the trip. Morales, who stopped all contact with Reidy shortly after taking the trip to visit another girlfriend, got engaged to the other woman when she returned.

    Reidy said poems penned by Morales during their courtship that she kept appeared to have matched the writing on the restaurant receipt, bringing into question whether Morales wrote the note on the receipt herself.

Morales has not been fired from the Gallop Asian Bistro in Bridgewater, N.J., however, she is not currently on the schedule to work.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/waitress-who-likely-lied-about-anti-gay-note-in-lieu-of-a-tip-is-accused-of-a-bigger-lie-this-one-will-really-tick-off-military-vets/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 28, 2013, 09:06:17 am
Romans 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32  Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on December 03, 2013, 03:08:21 am
Well, looks like we might be getting down to the truth on this one. Seems the lying reprobate has been exposed as a fraud. Typical.

http://news.yahoo.com/waitress-who-received-alleged-anti-gay-receipt-suspended-pending-investigation-205841873.html (http://news.yahoo.com/waitress-who-received-alleged-anti-gay-receipt-suspended-pending-investigation-205841873.html)

Quote
Waitress who received alleged anti-gay receipt suspended pending investigation

By Jay Busbee 12 hours ago

The New Jersey waitress who claimed she received an anti-gay message in lieu of a tip has been suspended pending an investigation.

Dayna Morales, a waitress at the Gallop Asian Bistro restaurant in Bridgewater, N.J., said that a couple who ate at the restaurant paid their bill but left no tip, saying "I'm sorry but I cannot tip because I do not agree with your lifestyle and how you live your life." Morales is gay.

However, the couple later came forward and provided their copy of the receipt to counter Morales' charges, along with a copy of the credit card statement indicating that the tip had been included. Now, the restaurant has suspended Morales pending its investigation into her conduct.

“Ms. Morales is currently not on our employee schedule while we are still working to complete our investigation," the restaurant wrote on its Facebook page.

Both the husband and the wife who ate the meal strongly protested the allegation that they left an anti-gay "tip," with the wife noting that she is left-handed and does not write like the receipt indicates, and the husband saying he did not vote for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie because of his opposition to gay marriage. Morales, in turn, has said the handwriting is not hers.

In the wake of the incident, Morales has drawn criticism from her co-workers. Morales, an ex-Marine, was reportedly discharged from the Reserve Corps in May under conditions other than honorable for failing to attend drills.

Contact Jay Busbee at jay.busbee@yahoo.com or on Twitter at @jaybusbee.

View Comments (7251) 



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 03, 2013, 03:27:19 am
Even worse, the damage has already been done - pretty much, it's the initial stories that the public usually grasps the most, not the latter ones when truth exposes the lies from the previous ones.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 05, 2013, 04:10:20 am
Homosexual movement's goal is to outlaw Christianity

For years now, many of us have been warning America that freedoms of religion, speech, conscience and association and homosexual "rights" cannot coexist; they are by nature mutually exclusive. This is becoming clearer by the minute, as the radical homosexual movement has taken super flight under the ever-darkening reign of the pro-homosexual Barack Obama (or whatever his name is).

The homosexual movement is part of a larger push toward tyranny that has its roots in the spirit realm. Ephesians 6:12 clearly spells out the real battle:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

While we certainly have human enemies aligned against us, our true enemies are Satan, his demons and the spiritual wickedness of those in places of great power. As Christians, we have read the end-times prophecies, and we know the warnings Jesus gave us about how awful things will become in the last days. Satan is working feverishly to fully cement his terrible, earthly rule and bring those hellish days to fruition.

The Godless communists (or fascists, if you prefer) are using the homosexual agenda to work toward eradicating Christian opposition to their plans, which are Satan's plans. If you know your Bible, then you know that Christianity is destined to be outlawed. We are moving steadily toward a time when Christians here in America will be in danger of state-sanctioned murder for their beliefs. If you think I exaggerate, then you don't know what God has already told us, or perhaps you mistakenly believe that the United States is the exception, that it can't happen here. Christians throughout the world have always been persecuted, but here in the United States, we have enjoyed unparalleled protection and freedom during the existence of our nation. That protection is quickly being eroded, and the homosexuals are used as pawns in this process.

Peter LaBarbera, a former journalist for the Washington Times and founder and President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), has an outstanding column at WorldNetDaily that plainly illustrates the fact that Christian liberty and homosexual "rights" cannot coexist. In the column, titled, "'Gay' Power vs. Religious Liberty," he also compiles a long, sickening list of examples of Christian persecution at the hands of homosexualists, leftist courts and outrageous state laws that protect homosexual behavior while robbing the freedoms of those who conscientiously object. In part, he writes:

"The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation." – Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folger (Porter), "The Criminalization of Christianity"

There is a war between homosexual "rights" and Americans' religious and First Amendment freedoms – and the "gay" activists are winning.

The "zero-sum game" is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern "rights" based on homosexual "orientation" (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.

"Gays win, Christians lose," Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests. She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas.

Mr. LaBarbera also points out that not all the battles we face are related to the homosexual "marriage" fight:

These victims of escalating "Gay Tyranny" in America are not all tied to the question of homosexual "marriage." Indeed, well before "gay marriage" came on the scene as a "mainstream" issue, pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" laws and corporate pro-LGBT policies were victimizing and punishing Christians and other moral opponents of homosexuality. And those laws are invariably used to argue for homosexuality-based "marriage." The homosexualist agenda moves ahead incrementally, but "sexual orientation" laws and policies – and their philosophical presupposition that homosexuality is about innate "identity" ("who you are") rather than changeable, wrong and aberrant behaviors ("what you do") – is the foundation for the entire far-reaching LGBT agenda.

There is much more to Mr. LaBarbera's piece, and I strongly recommend that you read it, along with all the examples of Christian persecution he cites in the second part of the column. It will give you ammunition against the idiot claims of leftists who declare that there is no such thing as a "homosexual movement" and that Christians are not being targeted by homosexual activists. Those lies are easily debunked.

Even so, we are losing this battle, and there are numerous reasons why. Brian Camenker, of MassResistance, wrote a report titled, "Lessons Learned from the Hawaii 'Gay Marriage' Fight." Homosexual "marriage" was forced on the people of Hawaii by a group of leftist politicians, despite massive opposition by the residents of the state who demanded that the issue be put to a vote by the people, instead of rammed through legislatively. This is another important column that you should take a few moments to read. In his piece, Mr. Camenker lays out the battle as it stands and makes sobering observations, on which he expounds, including the:

-Huge forces stacked against us in these battles

-Huge, well-organized lobbying blitzkrieg by the homosexual movement

-Enormous amounts of pro-homosexual money coming in

-The mainstream media's non-stop PR campaign

-Almost no support from national conservative movement

Mr. Camenker goes on to describe the astonishing battle by the people of Hawaii against this monstrous move by their leftist lawmakers. He also lays out lessons and strategies that we must implement to fight this homosexual juggernaut that is devouring the rights and freedoms of the American people.

Yes, this is a steeply uphill battle, but we should never quit fighting it. The prince of the power of the air, Satan, is successfully crafting a deceptively pro-homosexual atmosphere in our nation, from the media, to entertainment, to corporations and all major institutions. This causes many people to fear standing in opposition to the militant homosexual agenda and its activists, because of their track record of hostility, even violence, toward those who oppose them. Many conservative groups and churches fear the vicious vitriol of homosexuals and their supporters in our twisted culture, and that's really a shame. Fear is a debilitating force if we give it sway over us.

We must stand, as much as ever, against this degenerate and tyrannical homosexual movement, and in so doing, we must not lose sight of the real nature of the battle. It's a spiritual battle, and we must approach it as such, putting on the full armor of God, as best we can, if we are to have any hope of turning back this truly evil tide.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/131203


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on December 05, 2013, 04:36:32 am
Quote
It's a spiritual battle, and we must approach it as such, putting on the full armor of God, as best we can, if we are to have any hope of turning back this truly evil tide.

Man has no hope of turning back that evil tide. It's the unbelieving world, and it's doomed to fail. Only Jesus will be able to stop it. Prophecy makes it perfectly clear. Churchianity needs to quit trying to "rally the troops" for a fight that isn't our fight. God says He will repay.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 05, 2013, 11:29:59 am
Man has no hope of turning back that evil tide. It's the unbelieving world, and it's doomed to fail. Only Jesus will be able to stop it. Prophecy makes it perfectly clear. Churchianity needs to quit trying to "rally the troops" for a fight that isn't our fight. God says He will repay.

Yeah, the final nail in this coffin was June of this year by the USSC.

It's pretty mindboggling when I read how these Churchianity "pro-family" groups act like there's still "hope" to defeat this and bring America back(read on one end times Christian message forum how someone admitted she rallied with Catholics in Illinois to protest against the IL state legislature to not pass that gay marriage bill - guess what, it ended up PASSING, and she ended up NOT being a good Christian witness to others with what she did).

As for wanting to defeat this - if they are really serious, then they should start with exposing their "hero" Ronald Reagan - it was in 1978 when he worked with Harvey Milk to campaign to defeat CA's Prop 6 Briggs Initiative, which would have banned sodomites in public work places. And people wonder why California is so backward now...


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on December 05, 2013, 01:17:25 pm
I get that Reagan played his role, but that's way too much political water under the bridge to be bringing up Reagan and his cohorts. The guy is dead afterall!


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 05, 2013, 01:27:58 pm
I get that Reagan played his role, but that's way too much political water under the bridge to be bringing up Reagan and his cohorts. The guy is dead afterall!

I know, but I was trying to point to the MANY YEARS BACK to where the seeds were planted. Pretty much, all you hear from these Churchianity circles is how Clinton and Obama are the main ones who are responsible for putting out this sodomy agenda.

For example - these "pro-family" groups went after those Dem Iowa judges 3 years ago that legalized sodomy in that state in 2009(and got them unseated). However, they didn't say nigh a word about Vaughn Walker(who ruled to strike down Prop 8 that same year), who was appointed by Reagan/Bush. And another time I read an article by Steve Baldwin(a former CNP leader) - in the late 70's/early 80's or so, he warned about the sodomy agenda infiltrating society, but he didn't say nigh a word about Reagan's/Bush's involvement.

Ultimately, pt I'm trying to make is that if these "pro-family" groups really want to get serious about "fighting" this, they're going to have to go WAY back to expose EVERYTHING from the nitty-gritty. Otherwise, as the phrase goes, "You missed the train".

With that being said, yes, Reagan was just a puppet like anyone else(and it's been an OVERALL TEAM effort, not just this guy - but was just pointing him out b/c hardly any of these "pro-family" Churchianity groups say a word about him). And if we all really want to go WAY back, then why not N@zi Germany, as the NG minion leaders were sodomites themselves.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on December 09, 2013, 03:19:24 am
Well, there you go! I guess that settles that... ::)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/new-york-gay-waitress-tip/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/new-york-gay-waitress-tip/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Quote
Gay waitress loses job after investigation into whether customers denied tip

By Haimy Assefa, Allie Malloy and Kristina Sgueglia, CNN
updated 2:59 PM EST, Sun December 8, 2013


(CNN) -- A New Jersey waitress was out of a job on Saturday, weeks after her story of being denied a tip because of her sexual orientation brought an outpouring of sympathy and donations.

Dayna Morales' employment was terminated after an internal investigation into allegations that she made up the story, Gallop Asian Bistro manager Bobby Vanderhoof told CNN.

"The results of that investigation are inconclusive as to exactly what happened between Ms. Morales and the customers that night. However, in light of the investigation and recent events, both Ms. Morales and Gallop Asian Bistro have made a joint decision that Ms. Morales will no longer continue her employment at our restaurant," the restaurant posted on Facebook. (cont.)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 14, 2013, 08:05:07 am
A Moral Revolution at Warp Speed-Now, It's Wedding Cakes

By ALbert Mohler
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/12/11/a-moral-revolution-at-warp-speed-now-its-wedding-cakes/
December 11, 2013

[Gay marriage] Six months. That's how long it took to get from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act to the decision of a Colorado judge ordering a Christian baker to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony. Just six months.

Back in June, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Windsor case, ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, was unconstitutional. Six months later, judge Robert N. Spencer, an administrative law judge in Colorado, ruled that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver must serve same-sex couples by making wedding cakes, or face fines.

Last Friday, Judge Spencer ruled that Phillips must "cease and desist from discriminating" against same-sex couples in his cake business. The case emerged after Phillips refused to make a cake to celebrate the civil union of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Colorado has a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages, but it recognizes legal civil unions for same-sex couples. The two men had married in Massachusetts, but planned a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the couple that it was the same-sex marriage that he could not celebrate by making the cake. According to Judge Spencer's decision, Phillips told the court that making same-sex wedding cakes would be "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible." He told the men: "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Mullins and Craig went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which took their case to court. ACLU attorney Amanda Goad told the court that Phillips's faith, "whatever it may have to say about marriage for same-sex couples or the expressive power of a wedding cake, does not give the respondents a license to discriminate."

Phillips told the court that making a wedding cake was an artistic endeavor that was expressive in nature, communicating approval and celebration of the same-sex union. He also told the court that he has been a Christian for thirty-five years and that making the cake would violate his Christian convictions and responsibility, requiring him to encourage what he believes to be sin.

Judge Spencer ruled that Phillips must make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, regardless of his moral or biblical convictions. Make the cakes or face legal penalties, he was told.

The editorial board of The Denver Post was enthusiastic about the judge's decision: "If you're going to sell wedding cakes in Colorado, you have to sell them to everyone who comes into your shop. You can't pick and choose among customers based upon your belief that some weddings are immoral."

So this baker in Colorado joins a photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and another baker in Oregon in facing such a challenge or legal order. These four will not be the last, and of that you can be certain.

The moral revolution represented by same-sex marriage is vast in its scope and unprecedented in its velocity. The Windsor decision in June requires the United States government to recognize same-sex marriages. As predicted by Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion, all that remains after Windsor is for "the other shoe to drop."

Last week, that shoe dropped on Jack Phillips.

The Windsor decision was not directly cited in Judge Spencer's decision. It did not have to be. It was standing in the background, representing the massive momentum of the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. Reversing the federal government's legal position on recognizing same-sex marriage was a giant victory for the advocates of same-sex marriage, and it now looms over every legislative action and judicial decision in the nation.

Six months. That's all the time it took for the news to shift from a landmark Supreme Court decision in Washington to a Colorado court ordering a baker to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The momentum of this revolution is breathtaking, and its threat to religious liberty is plain for all to see.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 03, 2014, 08:25:24 am
another possible fake sodomite story

Fmr. Viking Kluwe: ‘I Was Fired By Mike Priefer, A Bigot’

The Minnesota Vikings are vowing to thoroughly review allegations brought by former punter Chris Kluwe.
 
In an open letter published Thursday on Deadspin, Kluwe wrote that his outspoken support of same-sex marriage cost him his job.
 
Kluwe alleges that during the 2012 season, head coach Leslie Frazier urged him to stop speaking out on the issue, but Kluwe said special teams coordinator Mike Priefer became downright hostile.
 
Kluwe wrote, “Mike Priefer, in one of the meanest voices I can ever recall hearing, said: ‘We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows.’”
 
RELATED: Mike Max interviews Chris Kluwe.
 
Kluwe created a national platform for the gay rights cause, appearing on shows like Ellen and the Colbert Report. His advocacy was noteworthy because it was so unexpected.
 
“You’re in the most hyper-masculine sport in the world,” Stephen Colbert said in a 2012 interview.
 
LINK: Read the entire Deadspin article here.
 
Kluwe spoke out openly and frequently about equality for gays and lesbians, and he would say that the Vikings had no problem with it.
 
“The organization has been very supportive about my right to make my views known,” Kluwe said in a 2012 interview with WCCO.
 
But now, in an online article titled “I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards And A Bigot,” Kluwe refers to Frazier and Vikings GM Rick Spielman as cowards and Priefer a bigot.
 
Kluwe wrote that Priefer became increasingly hostile toward him, telling him he would “burn in hell with the gays.”
 
He said Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, on the other hand, shook Kluwe’s hand and encouraged him to speak out, but Spielman, Frazier and Priefer teamed up to get rid of him.
 
On late Thursday afternoon, Priefer released this statement:
 
“I vehemently deny today’s allegations made by Chris Kluwe.
 
I want to be clear that I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals. I personally have gay family members who I love and support just as I do any family member.
 
The primary reason I entered coaching was to affect people in a positive way. As a coach, I have always created an accepting environment for my players, including Chris, and have looked to support them both on and off the field.
 
The comments today have not only attacked my character and insulted my professionalism, but they have also impacted my family. While my career focus is to be a great professional football coach, my number one priority has always been to be a protective husband and father to my wife and children.
 
I will continue to work hard for the Minnesota Vikings, the Wilf family and all of our loyal fans.”
 
The Vikings also released a statement, saying this is the first time they’ve heard these allegations, and they’ll review the matter thoroughly.
 
They say the team does not tolerate discrimination and that “any notion that Chris was released from our football team due to his stance on marriage equality is entirely inaccurate and inconsistent with team policy.”

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/01/02/fmr-viking-kluwe-i-was-fired-by-mike-priefer-a-bigot/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 03, 2014, 10:15:01 am
Read this the other day, and was thinking the same thing(another FAKE sodomite story).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 04, 2014, 11:40:41 am
Vikings: Chris Kluwe released strictly based on football performance

"The Minnesota Vikings were made aware of Chris Kluwe's allegations for the first time today. We take them very seriously and will thoroughly review this matter.

"As an organization, the Vikings consistently strive to create a supportive, respectful and accepting environment for all of our players, coaches and front office personnel. We do not tolerate discrimination at any level. The team has long respected our players' and associates' individual rights, and, as Chris specifically stated, Vikings ownership supports and promotes tolerance, including on the subject of marriage equality. Because he was identified with the Vikings, Chris was asked to be respectful while expressing his opinions. Team ownership and management also repeatedly emphasized to Chris that the Vikings would not impinge on his right to express his views.

"Any notion that Chris was released from our football team due to his stance on marriage equality is entirely inaccurate and inconsistent with team policy. Chris was released strictly based on his football performance. We will have further comment at the appropriate time."

rest: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24395720/vikings-chris-kluwe-released-strictly-based-on-football-performance


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Homosexuality is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 13, 2014, 06:19:32 am
Do Christians Have Free Speech Rights to Preach That Homosexuality is a Sin? British Police Asked to Confirm After Arrest

A Christian rights group in Great Britain has called on the chief of Scotland Yard to issue guidelines clarifying whether Christians have free speech rights, following the arrest of a street preacher in London earlier this month.
 
The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) has called on Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to issue guidelines to his officers, clarifying that Christians are protected legally by free speech rights when quoting scripture relating to homosexuality being a sin.
 
The request comes after Tony Miano, a former deputy sheriff from Los Angeles, Calif., was arrested in Wimbledon, South London earlier in July for allegedly preaching about homosexuality as a sin, quoting 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, which focuses on "sexual immorality." Miano was reportedly detained by police for seven hours, during which time he was questioned about his views on homosexuality and DNA tested.
 
Miano said in a YouTube video following his arrest that the police found him in violation of the Public Order Act Section 5 for "using homophobic speech that could cause people anxiety, distress, alarm or insult," although he was ultimately released without charge.
 
The Christian Legal Center is now requesting in a letter submitted to Hogan-Howe that the free speech rights of Christians are protected.
 
According to The Telegraph, which has viewed the letter, Andrea Williams, director of the CLC, argues that although the police arrested Miano for "insulting" language, they neglected to arrest a passerby who yelled an expletive at the street preacher.

"We formally request that you issue guidance to all officers immediately that the Bible message on the 'sin of homosexuality' is lawful," Williams wrote in the letter, adding that currently, the "police appear to enforce the law to silence the viewpoint that homosexual conduct is a sin."
 
"This conduct by the police is unlawful and amounts to a systemic pattern of discrimination against Christians," Williams continued.
 
Williams added that the goal of the legal group is to see Scotland Yard set forth clear authority regarding the protection of free speech for Christians.
 
"We would like to see clear guidance from the Metropolitan Commissioner that Christians preaching from the Bible that homosexual conduct is sinful is lawful free speech," Williams said. "Free speech is under threat and we need to protect it. We hope that the Commissioner will take a lead in this."
 
Miano said following his arrest that although policemen singled him out for preaching on homosexuality, the sermon he delivered the day of his arrest was focused on all sexual immorality. Miano also argued that although he has been portrayed as only preaching about homosexuality, he seeks to preach about all sins.
 
"This idea that open air preachers only preach about homosexuality is fallacious. We talk about all forms of sin. We usually take people through the Ten Commandments. We explain to people that no liar, no thief, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no homosexual, will enter into the kingdom of God [...] I can assure you that I have offended more people by quoting Revelation 21:8 than I have by suggesting that homosexuality is a sin," Miano told Christian radio talk show host Frank Sontag during a segment on KKLA, as previously reported by The Christian Post.
 
The CLC, which is representing Miano, added in the letter that there have reportedly been at least 16 cases of Christians being arrested for expressing their beliefs on homosexuality in the past 11 years in Britain. The Christian legal group has announced that it will launch legal proceedings against Scotland Yard if it does not issue guidelines protecting the free speech rights of Christians.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/do-christians-have-free-speech-rights-to-preach-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin-british-police-asked-to-confirm-after-arrest-101098/#d5410vOeYDxCHyCr.99

American Evangelist Arrested for the Second Time in the UK for Alleged ‘Homophobic’ Comments

An American evangelist was arrested for the second time in the UK while open air preaching this week.
 
Evangelist Tony Miano, a retired police officer from California, was arrested for breach of peace in Dundee, Scotland this Wednesday following a complaint that he had preached against homosexuality.
 
Miano had been preaching about the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ and about the nature of sin, including sexual sin, when a woman began to shout at him. The woman blurted out that her son was a homosexual before calling the police.
 
Pastor Josh Williamson of the Craigie Reformed Baptist Church in Perth, who was present during the incident, said that Miano’s message did not center on homosexuality.

 

“Tony wasn’t focusing on homosexual practice; it was about all sin,” he explained. “A woman was yelling at him, and her friend noticed we were filming the preaching, so she ran up to me and tried to smash my camera.”
 
Williamson said that a council warden soon approached him and Miano and told them to move on, but also advised that what they were doing was not illegal.
 
Two police officers then arrived at the scene as Williamson and Miano were packing up. According to Williamson, the woman began shouting again so that the preachers would be arrested.

“The female officer saw that we had a camera and lunged for it and then the male policeman grabbed it and threw it in the police van,” Williamson said. “After Tony was put in the police van, I asked why he was being arrested and was told it was for breach of peace and for using homophobic language.”
 
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, says that the incident raises serious questions about police procedure and understanding of the law in dealing with such incidents.
 
“This appears to be an overzealous reaction by the police,” she said. “The incident adds to the number of arrests of Christian street evangelists for preaching from the Bible. It is indicative of the suppression of the freedom to speak and to live out the words of Jesus Christ in public and present the teachings of the Bible.”
 
Miano was released the next day after being held in police custody overnight–28 hours after the arrest. He said that he was grateful for all the support he received, but was saddened by what had happened.
 
“It’s alarming that in a country such as the UK, which helped spread Christianity to the world, [that] we’re seeing police oppression of God’s word being preached in the streets of our towns and cities,” Miano stated.
 
Miano appeared in court the following day, where he pleaded not guilty to a charge of breach of peace with “homophobic” aggravation. He is now free on bail and may return to America, but is required to appear in Scottish court on April 22.
 
As previously reported, Miano was also arrested last July in London for alleged “homophobic” comments, but no charges were formally filed.

http://christiannews.net/2014/01/11/american-evangelist-arrested-for-the-second-time-in-the-uk-for-alleged-homophobic-comments/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 17, 2014, 04:17:56 am
13 House Democrats offer bill demanding government study on Internet hate speech

Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to "advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate."

The Hate Crime Reporting Act, H.R. 3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades.

"The Internet is a wonderful vehicle for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship," he said. "But it can also be used as a platform to promote hate and target vulnerable individuals.

"This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection."

His legislation requires the NTIA to update its report to examine how the Internet and mobile phones can be used to encourage and commit hate crimes based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation.

The NTIA would also have to recommend a way to address these actions "while respecting the important protections of the First Amendment."

The NAACP supports the bill, and says more information is needed about how people commit or encourage hate crimes online.

"As the use of the Internet and the ever-expanding variety of social media tools used by these groups continues to grow and evolve, we need to have a better idea of what they are doing and how they are doing it," said Hilary Shelton, the director of the NAACP's Washington Bureau.

The National Organization for Women also supports the bill. "We hope that the study will address continuing hate speech that vilifies women seeking reproductive health care as well as websites that encourage violence against healthcare providers at women's clinics which we believe have led to the injuries and death of clinic personnel and volunteers," NOW said in an official statement.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/technology/195647-dems-demand-government-study-on-internet-hate-speech#ixzz2qeL4Ctz2


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 17, 2014, 11:55:28 am
What is "hate speech" anyways? Do we always have to say and think "good things" about everyone?

The same is said, it seems, in these modern-day "churches" - if let's say you expose the Pope and Rick Warren for their major doctrinal errors, they act like you're doing just that, "hating" them, and that we have to "think good things" about them.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 17, 2014, 12:15:28 pm
What is "hate speech" anyways? Do we always have to say and think "good things" about everyone?



1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;




Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 17, 2014, 12:17:18 pm

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;




Psalms_97:10  Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs_8:13  The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 17, 2014, 12:24:07 pm
Psalms_97:10  Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs_8:13  The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.



1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 23, 2014, 06:10:21 am
Oregon: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” says Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And Klein told me the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. Melissa posted a message that said they were vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:

“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands. ... Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”

Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If the two parties can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he says. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”

Klein says he’s not surprised by the ruling and calls it “absolutely absurd.”

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he says. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me the plight of the Klein family is another example of the consequences of redefining marriage.

“We’re seeing a steady drumbeat of the loss of religious liberty, the ability to live your life, conduct your business according to the principles and teachings of your faith,” Perkins says.

He says he is especially disturbed by the level of attacks against the Klein family.

“It shows that tolerance is one way,” he says, referring to the militant gay protests. “Those who trumpet the message of tolerance have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.”

The Kleins warn that what happened to them could happen to other Christian business owners. And it already has.

In December, a Colorado baker was ordered by a judge to either serve gay weddings or face fines. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.

New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

And the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, filed a countersuit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network she “had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ.

Perkins told me that in many cases, gay couples are targeting businesses owned by Christians.

“Individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted using the leverage of the government through these homosexual activists,” he says. “Government has become a weapon that homosexual activists are using against Christian business owners.”

And if you have any doubts about the validity of Perkins' claims, just ask the Klein family. They know what it’s like to incur the wrath of militant homosexual bullies. And they learned that in today’s America, gay rights trump religious rights.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/42506-oregon-christian-businesses-must-follow-demands-of-gay-customers


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 23, 2014, 06:11:30 am
Despite Gay Marriage Law, Christian B&B Owner Refuses Same-Sex Weddings

The owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Illinois has vowed not to allow same-sex marriages at his venue after they are legally recognized in the state beginning in June.

Jim Walder, a Christian who owns TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast in Paxton, Ill., does not allow civil unions to be performed at his venue, and he will not change his policy once the law changes.

“As long as I own TimberCreek, there will never be a gay marriage at this wedding venue,” Walder says, according to The News-Gazette.

A gay couple in Mattoon, Ill., filed a civil rights complaint against Walder in 2011 after he refused to host their civil union ceremony. Walder is awaiting a ruling by the Illinois Human Rights Commission and expects to face further legal troubles after Illinois legalizes same-sex marriage in June.

“I totally support exemptions for everyone doing business in the wedding industry regarding civil unions or gay marriage,” Walder says. “Our current legal predicament could be the predicament of other businesses in Paxton, as well,” such as photographers, cake bakers, caterers, DJs, floral shops and wedding planners.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is representing the couple, Todd and Mark Wathen, in their complaint against Walder. According to Walder, Mark Wathen asked him if he planned to hold same-sex civil unions but never made a request for the facility.

Walder’s attorney, Jason R. Craddock, says it would be a violation of Walder’s First Amendment rights if the Human Rights Commission sides in favor of the Wathens.

Craddock says if that happens, the decision would be appealed, and litigation would be the next step if the decision was upheld. He says the impending decision may set a precedent for future cases.

“So it’s extremely important that we keep fighting for the rights of people like Jim Walder and others who want to exercise their liberty to do business,” Craddock says.

State Rep. Josh Harms is working to draft a bill that would “protect all entities controlled by the church,” specifically private schools affiliated with churches. The current law protects “religious facilities,” but some churches operate schools that rent out space to the public.

“What we’re trying to get done right now is just something to protect all the entities that are under the control of the church,” Harms explains.

Harms says he wants business owners to be protected, but he limited the scope of his bill because it has “the highest probability for success” in passing the House and Senate, reports The News-Gazette.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/42513-despite-gay-marriage-law-christian-b-b-owner-refuses-same-sex-weddings


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on January 23, 2014, 12:34:12 pm
Quote
A gay couple in Mattoon, Ill., filed a civil rights complaint against Walder in 2011 after he refused to host their civil union ceremony. Walder is awaiting a ruling by the Illinois Human Rights Commission and expects to face further legal troubles after Illinois legalizes same-sex marriage in June.

I still want the issue addressed of why are these "couples" going to these Christian companies, when they know odds are they will be refused?

BINGO! They KNOW they will be refused is the whole point of the gay lobby. They are forcing their agenda through the court system, which to me is an abuse of the legal system in their intentional efforts to back "Christian" businesses into a legal corner and right into the courts.

The real moral of the story is that professed Christians need to withdraw from doing business in the world. Problem solved. Trying to be friends with the world and God don't work. You cannot serve two masters, period. You WILL suffer tribulation and failure.

Love one and hate the other, but you can't do both!

"No man can serve two masters..."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 31, 2014, 10:16:04 am
Court: Transgender student's rights were violated
http://news.yahoo.com/court-transgender-student-39-rights-were-violated-180408610.html;_ylt=A0LEVzj0yutSwFoAvVlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzYmgwY3VhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyMl8x
1/30/14

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A transgender fifth-grader should have been allowed to use the girls' bathroom, Maine's highest court ruled Thursday, concluding that school officials violated state anti-discrimination law.

Nicole Maines' family and the Maine Human Rights Commission sued in 2009 after school officials required her to use a staff, not student, restroom.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the Orono school district's actions violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, overturning a lower court's ruling that the district acted within its discretion.

The ruling represented the first time a state high court concluded that a transgender person should use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify, according to Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Federal courts haven't taken up the issue.

"This is a momentous decision that marks a huge breakthrough for transgender young people," said Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD's Transgender Rights Project, who argued the case on the family's behalf before the state supreme court.

Students at the southern Maine high school Nicole now attends stood up and cheered when news of the ruling was announced, said her father, Wayne Maines.

School administrators across the country are grappling with the issue.

Colorado officials said last year that a suburban Colorado Springs school district discriminated against a 6-year-old transgender girl by preventing her from using the girls' bathroom.

In California, there's an effort afoot to try to repeal a law that allows public school students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their expressed genders.

In the Maine case, Nicole Maines was using the girls' bathroom in her elementary school until the grandfather of a fifth-grade boy complained to administrators. The Orono school district determined that she should use a staff bathroom, but her parents said that amounted to discrimination.

Nicole is a biological male who identified as a girl beginning at age 2.

Nicole, who's now 16, said after arguments before the high court last summer that she hoped the justices understood the importance of going to school, getting an education and making friends without having to be "bullied" by other students — or school administrators.

Nicole's father said all he had ever wanted was for his daughter to be treated just like her classmates. He said he was overcome with emotion when he learned of the decision.

"It sends a message to my kids that you can believe in the system and that it can work," Wayne Maines said. "I'm just going to hug my kids and enjoy the moment, and do some healing."

Melissa Hewey, lawyer for the school district, said the ruling provided clarity not just to Orono, but to schools around the state.

"The court has now clarified what has been a difficult issue and is a more and more common in schools, and the Orono School Department is going to do what it needs to do to comply with the law," she said.

In the 5-1 ruling, the court had to reconcile two separate state laws, one requiring separate bathrooms based on gender and the other prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In this case, where there the child had a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, "it has been clearly established that a student's psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity," Justice Warren Silver wrote.

The Supreme Judicial Court pointed out that its ruling was based on the circumstances of the case in which there was ample documentation of the student's gender identity. "Our opinion must not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of their choice," he wrote.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 31, 2014, 10:17:56 am
Quote
Nicole's father said all he had ever wanted was for his daughter to be treated just like her classmates. He said he was overcome with emotion when he learned of the decision.

Try telling that to Stephen...

Acts 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53  Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Act 7:54  When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Act 7:55  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56  And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57  Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58  And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59  And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60  And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 05, 2014, 10:04:39 am
What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?

Enlarged February 5, 2014 (first published August 5, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

If homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in Western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.


In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).

In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his euology, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.  It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,” LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith--any faith--if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives--if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.

That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve--one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.

After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family--the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign--the nation’s largest gay activist group--posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn't Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores.

John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent:

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is.  He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people.  His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012).

After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hated of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint.

In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.

In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh--known as the supreme civil court of Scotland--ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton--an antiques-dealer--and Richards-Hill--an education technologist--exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. ... Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Record interview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”

On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorites Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,” OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:

“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. ...

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. ...

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They're not seeking equality; they're seeking total control,’ she said. ...

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,” Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).

Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality -- SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.

In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’”

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its students loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”

The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. ... Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. ... ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,” The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to her religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

CONTINUED BELOW


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 05, 2014, 10:04:51 am
In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elane and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Elanes took the matter to court, but they lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart, Aug, 22, 2013). Justice Richard Bosson said that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is “the price of citizenship.” The case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”

Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same=sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”

Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.”

The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. ... After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue--both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ ... Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”

The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ ... attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”

The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands”

In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver **** Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a **** and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:

“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).

Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.

“**** men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room--while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).

In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,” American Thinker, March 9, 2013).

In April 2013 the California Assembly Education Committee approved a bill that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender (“California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms,” Christian News, Apr. 18, 2013). “AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration. ‘We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,’ Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.”

The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. ... Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as--and identify as--a girl.”

In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law--setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student's gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want--and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. ... Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It's an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. ... All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals--particularly young girls and young women--who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle--during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,” Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.


In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on February 05, 2014, 10:30:40 am
Quote
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

That statement to me is conditioning by the opposition. A red herring.

Yes, you CAN turn down a person who is gay, just not for being gay.

There is a very simple existing solution to the matter; "right to work" laws. You hire the person, then simply fire them days later. The employer doesn't have to have an excuse under "right to work" laws. You can be legally fired and not be given a reason, and it has stood up in court.

Now let's see how the courts handle "right to work" laws.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 06, 2014, 05:22:26 am
Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction

California can ban offering religious-viewpoint therapy to people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions, a federal appeals court ruled late last year in a matter that may now go to the Supreme Court.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/05/Federal-Appeals-Court-Rules-Against-Religious-Liberty-on-Same-Sex-Attraction


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on February 06, 2014, 01:13:43 pm
Quote
California can ban offering religious-viewpoint therapy to people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions

That's a result of the gay lobby, pure and simple. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all, and I do think it's an infringement on a person's right to seek counseling.

Considering all the outright crazy "therapies" in the psychiatric industry, and they want to ban "religious-viewpoint therapy"? Can they be any more obvious in wanting to silence any opposition to sodomy? This has nothing at all to do with science. It's all personal bias.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 08, 2014, 08:05:19 pm
U.S. Justice Department to expand rights of same-sex couples
http://news.yahoo.com/holder-adopts-spousal-privilege-same-sex-couples-u-190547146--finance.html
2/8/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder plans widespread changes within the U.S. Justice Department to benefit same-sex married couples, such as recognizing a legal right for them not to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.

The changes, being unveiled by Holder in a speech on Saturday in New York, are designed to keep pushing for gay rights in the United States after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year said the federal government cannot refuse to recognize same-sex marriages carried out in states that allow them.

Gay marriage is permitted in only 17 of the 50 U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia.

U.S. law has long included a "spousal privilege" that protects communications between a husband and wife so that they cannot be forced to incriminate one another in court.

In addition to extending the privilege to same-sex couples in situations involving the Justice Department, Holder said he plans to put same-sex couples on the same legal footing as opposite-sex couples in other areas, including how certain debts are handled in federal bankruptcy proceedings and visitation policies at federal prisons
.

"In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said in excerpts of the speech released in advance.

The excerpts were released ahead of Holder's speech at an event for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights lobbying organization.

**FYI, Emergent Church leader Bill Hybels brings these "human rights" activists to his annual global leadership summit meetings every August at his Willow Creek Assoc church.(Hybels, along with Warren, have the 2 largest megachurches in America) Even some of these so-called "conservative" Baptist churches will advertise this.

A written memo to department employees will follow on Monday. It will "formally instruct all department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," according to the excerpts.

The Supreme Court in June struck down part of a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Edith Windsor, a lesbian widow, sued after the government forced her to pay additional estate taxes because it did not recognize her marriage.

Since then, President Barack Obama's administration has aggressively implemented the ruling in contexts such as immigration and federal employee benefits.

Holder will also make same-sex married couples equally eligible for death benefits paid to the surviving spouses of law enforcement officers who have died on duty and for benefits from the September 11 victims' compensation fund, according to the speech excerpts. The Justice Department runs both programs.

'LAWLESSNESS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'

Opponents of gay marriage condemned Holder's action.

"The news that the Justice Department will extend sweeping recognition to 'marriages' of same-sex couples, even in states that do not recognize such unions, is yet another illustration of the lawlessness of this administration," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement.

Perkins noted that while the Supreme Court last year required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, the justices were "conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried."

"The Obama administration's haste to nevertheless recognize such unions in every state actually runs counter to the Windsor decision's emphasis on the federal government's obligation to defer to state definitions of marriage," he added, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Windsor case.

Comparing the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when Robert Kennedy served four years as attorney general, Holder said it was important for his department to act. "As attorney general, I will not let this department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history," he said, according to the excerpts.

"This landmark announcement will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better," Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.

"While the immediate effect of these policy decisions is that all married gay couples will be treated equally under the law, the long-term effects are more profound. Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all," Griffin added.

In states where same-sex marriage is not legal, spousal privilege for same-sex couples is not guaranteed.

In politically conservative Kentucky, for example, a state judge in September denied a woman's request for spousal privilege to shield her from testifying against her partner in a capital murder case. (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wdrb/news/bobbijo.pdf)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 09, 2014, 06:31:09 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/methodists-crisis-over-gay-marriage-church-law-174414898.html
Methodists in crisis over gay marriage, church law
2/9/14

NEW YORK (AP) — The dispute among United Methodists over recognition of same-sex couples has lapsed into a doctrinal donnybrook, pitting clergy who are presiding at gay weddings in defiance of church law against proponents of traditional marriage who are trying to stop them.

Since 2011, Methodist advocates for gay marriage have been recruiting clergy to openly officiate at same-sex ceremonies in protest of church policy. In response, theological conservatives have sought formal complaints against the defiant clergy, which could lead to church trials. One scholar has warned that Methodists are "retreating into our various camps" instead of seeking a resolution over an issue the church has formally debated since the 1970s.

"At this point, we have kind of come to the place where we know what the brute facts are," said Matt Berryman, executive director of Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for gay and lesbian Methodists. "Most folks, after 40 years of trying legislative solutions, realize they won't work. The way forward is to claim what we know to be true. And we're going to continue doing it in an aggressive way."

The intensity of the conflict was laid bare over the last several months, when the church tried, convicted and defrocked Frank Schaefer, a Pennsylvania pastor who presided at the wedding of his son to another man. Berryman said the case galvanized Methodists advocating for recognition of gay marriage, increasing donations to the group and traffic on Reconciling Ministries' online sites. Schaefer has since been traveling the country giving talks and sermons on gay acceptance.

Opponents have also stepped up their organizing. Through statements, videos and conference calls, a theologically conservative Methodist movement called Good News has been pressing church leaders to act when church law, contained in the Methodist Book of Discipline, is violated. "When people choose to break the covenant that holds us together, there has to be some accountability," said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, Good News' president.

Last month, a new Methodist group formed called the Wesleyan Covenant Network to support theologically conservative Methodists and keep them from leaving the denomination. The meeting in Atlanta drew about 130 clergy and others. One speaker choked back tears while telling the group his son is considering entering ministry — but not in the United Methodist Church.

"The present atmosphere is the worst I've ever seen it," said the Rev. Maxie Dunnam, a retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky who helped organize the Wesleyan Covenant Network. "We are a divided church already."

Several other high-profile cases are pending. The Rev. Thomas Ogletree, a retired Yale Divinity School dean and retired elder in the church's New York district, will be tried March 10 for officiating at the same-sex wedding of his son. The Council of Bishops has also called for a formal complaint against retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, who presided at the wedding of two men last October in Alabama over the objections of a local bishop. The Rev. Stephen Heiss of Binghamton, N.Y., is expected to face a church trial for presiding at his daughter's same-sex wedding in 2002 and at other same-sex marriages.

Thomas Frank, a Wake Forest University professor who specializes in Methodist history and governance, wrote an open letter to the church's bishops, urging them to end the trials. He warned that Methodists have been "retreating into our various camps" and were in desperate need of an open conversation.

"The continuation of church trials is a disgrace to our heritage," Frank wrote. "It is divisive, bringing interference from interest groups outside the annual conference and introducing the language of 'prosecution' 'defense team,' 'conviction,' 'judge,' and 'jury' to our church as if we were all players in 'Law and Order.' We are not considering criminal acts; we are deliberating about pastoral judgment."

Since 1972, the Book of Discipline has called same-gender relationships "incompatible with Christian teaching" and has banned clergy from taking actions contrary to that position: No ordinations or clergy appointments are allowed for "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." No "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions" are permitted in churches. No clergy can preside at the ceremonies no matter where the events are held.

The church has also declared itself "dedicated to a ministry of Christ-like hospitality and compassion to persons of all sexual orientations" and has committed to supporting "certain basic human rights and civil liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation."

Theological conservatives see no inconsistencies among those positions. Advocates for gays and lesbians do. They have debated at every national legislative meeting, or General Conference, for four decades with the same result: the "incompatible" language — and the related prohibitions — have stayed.

Frustration over the lack of change fueled the new movement to openly defy church law, starting in 2011 in Minnesota and New York. Methodist ministers had already been quietly officiating at same-gender ceremonies in some communities for years. A few of the more publicly defiant clergy had faced formal complaints or had been tried by the church. But the public marriage pledges brought new energy to the campaign.

By the spring of 2012, when General Conference had gathered in Florida, more than 1,100 clergy had signed on. But within the legislative meeting, delegates were unmoved. The conference once again voted to keep the status quo.

On the final day of the assembly, at a gathering of Methodists who support gay marriage, Talbert announced, "The time for talking is over."

"I declare to you that the derogatory language and restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience," Talbert told the cheering crowd. "I call on the more than 1,100 clergy who have signed the pledge to stand firm on their resolve to perform marriages among same-sex persons, same-sex couples, and to do so in the normal course of their pastoral duties, thus defying the laws that prohibit them from doing so."

He called the weddings "an act of biblical obedience" to the teaching that all people are created in God's image. Dorothee Benz, of Methodists in New Directions, a New York advocacy group spearheading the gay marriage drive, said, "that language of biblical obedience became a messaging touchstone."

The situation for United Methodists stands out because their fellow mainline Protestants have moved toward accepting gay relationships. The United Church of Christ began ordaining people with same-sex partners in the 1970s, and by 2005, had endorsed gay marriage. In 2003, the Episcopal Church elected the first bishop living openly with a same-sex partner, Bishop Gene Robinson. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have both struck down barriers to ordaining gays and lesbians. United Methodists are the second-largest U.S. Protestant group and have about 12.5 million members worldwide.

Demographics largely explain why the Methodists have maintained their marriage stance. The church, which once had a presence in nearly every county in the U.S., has become "more red state-y than it ever was," said David Steinmetz, a specialist in Christian history and retired professor at Duke Divinity School. Sandwiched between the liberal-leaning Northeast and Western districts are the more theologically conservative Methodist conferences, which tend to have larger and faster-growing congregations. Reconciling Ministries Network took on the geographic challenge last fall by adopting a new Southern outreach strategy.

Boosting the theologically conservative numbers are the burgeoning Methodist churches overseas, where the predominant views are traditional. At the next General Conference in 2016, the share of delegates from U.S. will drop to about 58 percent, while the contingent from Africa will rise to 30 percent, according to United Methodist News Service. Most U.S. Protestant denominations belong to some kind of international fellowship, but largely set their own policies at home. Methodists are the rare mainline group structured to give overseas members a direct say.

"The church is already partly in schism. You've got bishops not obeying the law of the church. You have pastors not obeying the law of the church," Steinmetz said. "How long can they live with two mindsets? I just don't know."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 20, 2014, 09:58:06 pm
Article deals with politics, but nonetheless this candidate makes some very good points...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnells-gop-challenger-suggests-233008056.html
2/20/14

A spokeswoman for Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Matt Bevin disputed that Bevin had suggested a radio interview on Wednesday that legalizing gay marriage could lead to marriages between parents and their children.

"Again, where do you draw the line, even on that?" Bevin said on  The Janet Mefferd Show, discussing the issue of spousal benefits.

"If it's all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital, and there's other repercussions and things that come with it," Bevin said.

"So a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise. Where do you draw the line?"

Bevin was discussing a recent ruling by a federal judge that struck down part of Kentucky's ban on gay marriage. His comments were picked up by Right Wing Watch.

Bevin spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said that the immediate interpretation of the comments was a " gross misrepresentation of what Matt said."

"He sees no comparison between gay marriage and incest," she said in an emailed statement. "He was discussing the implications of the legal rights related to this issue such as hospital visitations and benefits. To imply otherwise is ridiculous."

Bevin has taken heat from both the left and right this week. Republicans have criticized him amid new revelations that he signed a letter expressing support for the financial bailout program . That had The Herald-Leader questioning whether it was "the end for Matt Bevin."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on February 21, 2014, 04:39:37 am
Quote
because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital, and there's other repercussions and things that come with it," Bevin said.

That argument does hold water, at all. Any patient can name any person as having a right to access to you and your medical information. All it takes is a single sheet of paper and a signature, then it's placed within the patient's medical record of the facility they are at.

Now if by chance the patient is not able to articulate their wishes, it will fall back on the person who does have right to speak on behalf of the patient before the patient came to not be able to speak for themselves. Usually, no person has officially been listed within the patient's medical record other than the intake forms you fill out as a new patient. The patient can name on that form, or update later, anybody the patient wants on that form, but the patient in sound mind must name them. Once a patient can't speak for themselves, it's too late legally.

Keep in mind, a patient's medical records are NOT the property of the patient.

The patient only has rights to view what those records contain, and to obtain a copy, or share them with another medical facility that requests them as part of the patient's care somewhere else. Here again, this is where the patient can name or allow, or disallow access to those records, to a limit. Doctor to doctor is the primary need usually, and that is done professionally between offices by a standard request, done with every records request.

Again, the patient is the one that dictates release of records in virtually every situation.

Ultimately, this all boils down to money, the love of money. The secular world doesn't really care who is related or married to whom, just so long as they  know who to tax and how much. That's it.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 23, 2014, 07:24:45 am
Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to
Refuse Service to Gays Based on Religious Beliefs


http://www.christianpost.com/news/arizona-passes-bill-allowing-business-owners-to-refuse-service-to-gays-based-on-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-114903/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 24, 2014, 11:15:27 am
Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to
Refuse Service to Gays Based on Religious Beliefs


http://www.christianpost.com/news/arizona-passes-bill-allowing-business-owners-to-refuse-service-to-gays-based-on-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-114903/

John McCain, Jeff Flake want Arizona gay bill veto

Monday morning, Sen. John McCain tweeted his hope that the governor will veto Senate Bill 1062, echoing a tweet sent Saturday by Sen. Jeff Flake

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html#ixzz2uGE7uYZ9

of course he does,


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html?hp=r3


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 24, 2014, 12:45:52 pm
John McCain, Jeff Flake want Arizona gay bill veto

Monday morning, Sen. John McCain tweeted his hope that the governor will veto Senate Bill 1062, echoing a tweet sent Saturday by Sen. Jeff Flake

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html#ixzz2uGE7uYZ9

of course he does,


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html?hp=r3

John McCain - the man most remembered for helping Obama getting elected in 2008, and he also managed to get Churchianity on board to follow him blindly that year.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 24, 2014, 08:10:23 pm
"playing games" is an understatement here...

http://news.yahoo.com/3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-bill-172541858.html
2/24/14
3 Arizona Republican senators urge veto of bill

PHOENIX (AP) — Three Republican Arizona state senators who voted for a bill allowing business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to refuse service to gays sent a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday urging her to veto the legislation.

The letter came as more prominent Republicans pressed the GOP governor for a veto, including Sen. John McCain. Five of seven Republican candidates for governor also have called for the bill to be vetoed or withdrawn. The latest is Frank Riggs, a former California congressman, who said it is a "solution in search of a problem."

State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce sent their letter urging the veto just days after they joined the entire 17-member Senate GOP caucus in voting for the bill.

"I think laws are on the books that we need, and have now seen the ramifications of my vote," Worsley told The Associated Press. "I feel very bad, and it was a mistake."

The legislation has set off a firestorm across the nation from gay rights backers and politicians of all stripes. Arizona's two Republican U.S. senators, Jeff Flake and McCain, are urging a veto, as are business groups like the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. McCain weighed in Monday with a tweet saying, "I hope Gov. Brewer will veto #SB1062."

The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

CAP President Cathi Herrod is urging Brewer to sign the legislation and deriding what she called "fear-mongering" from its opponents.

"The attacks on SB 1062 ... represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate," Herrod wrote in a weekend posting on the group's website. "Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting.

"Our elected leaders have a fundamental duty to protect the religious freedom of every Arizonan, and that's what SB 1062 is all about."

If SB1062 is vetoed, it will be a major defeat for Herrod's group, which is seen as a powerful force on the Arizona political scene. Herrod suffered a similar defeat last year when she tried to get the Legislature to tack anti-abortion language onto a Medicaid expansion bill that Brewer was pushing. That effort angered Brewer, herself a strong opponent of abortion.

The bill is expected to be formally transmitted to Brewer as early as Monday, and she'll then have five days to act. Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

But with the business community lining up against the plan, Brewer could have cover for a veto. She's worked hard to return Arizona's economy to pre-recession levels with business-friendly incentives and tax cuts.

Pierce said he and the others went along to present a solid Republican front, despite misgivings.

"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," Pierce said. "We really didn't want to vote for it, but we made a mistake and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."

But their letter also said while the intent of their vote "was to create a shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance."

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.

Opponents call it a license to discriminate against gays.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is not about discrimination but protecting religious freedom. They frequently cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. They said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts.

Another frequently cited example is a suit brought against an Oregon baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The businesses were sued, but those efforts came under state laws that extended protected-class status to gays. Arizona has no such law protecting people based on sexual orientation.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on February 25, 2014, 12:49:47 am
Quote
But with the business community lining up against the plan, Brewer could have cover for a veto. She's worked hard to return Arizona's economy to pre-recession levels with business-friendly incentives and tax cuts.

WHAT? Arizona's economy hasn't recovered! Maybe business is better for businesses, but for citizens it's at least no better, if not worse. And there is no business community "lining up against the plan". That is just not true. There has been no indication from here of any kind of business community uprising.

It's wishful thinking, and really, lies, in an attempt to make their cause look stronger than it is, along with the help of supportive journalists who are writing pro-gay articles that aren't telling the whole truth, and sometimes even outright lie about the facts.

Politicians just love to blow smoke up the backside, only to tell you that your being fined for polluting the environment!

Quote
Republicans stressed that the bill is not about discrimination but protecting religious freedom. They frequently cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. They said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts.

No, the state is suppose to protect people and the state from frivolous lawsuits by the gay lobby. The courts are just playing sides rather than making people abide by the laws in place.

And they still ignore the fact that in EVERY case, the suing customers had the freedom to shop and buy elsewhere, but instead they chose to pursue a specific business, and then targeted them with a lawsuit, regardless of state law, because they are being supported by federal pressure.

This takes the cake though...

Quote
Pierce said he and the others went along to present a solid Republican front, despite misgivings.

"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," Pierce said. "We really didn't want to vote for it, but we made a mistake and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."

See a problem with that statement? Any American citizen should, especially the people that clown represents. He just openly admitted that they voted and acted based on the party line, rather than do what his constituents want. It's an open admission it's about what the Republican or Democrat parties official line is, not what the citizens want.

Better wake up America!


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 25, 2014, 12:17:24 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/governor-jan-brewer-39-likely-39-veto-arizona-170400685.html;_ylt=A0LEVxes3AxTFkIA9jhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0bmhzcGJhBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTQwMl8x
Governor Jan Brewer Is 'Likely' to Veto Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill
2/25/14

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is likely to veto the controversial bill that would allow businesses in the state to refuse service to gay people on the grounds of “religious freedom,” three sources close to the governor told NBC News.

Economic pressure largely dictates Brewer's potential decision to veto the bill, as source close to her said she doesn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize Arizona’s economic “momentum.” The state’s top business leaders have sent a letter to the governor urging the bill’s veto, and some of the biggest business names in the country, including the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, American Airlines, Marriott, and Apple have all expressed their concern over the measure. Arizona is hosting the Super Bowl next year. 

And it's not just businesses that are calling out their concern. Three Republican state senators that originally voted for the bill sent Brewer a letter urging her to undo their work in a move of regret fueled by national outcry and evidence of damage already done to Arizona's image. Chuck Coughlin, a longtime adviser to Brewer, told NBC, “It’s been her proclivity in the past to focus on the priorities she wants them [the legislature] to accomplish, and this was clearly not part of her agenda."

Sources also told NBC that Brewer is concerned about her public image, and took particular offense at an article calling her a “puppet” to the state legislature. It’s good to know the bill might be vetoed for all the right reasons.

Brewer has until Saturday morning to decide the bill's fate. She will meet with both sides on Wednesday and will make her decision on Thursday or Friday, NBC News reports. Hundreds of people also gathered in front of the Arizona Capitol on Monday night to protest the bill, according to AZCentral.com.

Arizona has seen backlash and boycotts over restrictive measures before, notably with Brewer’s approval of a 2010 immigration law that eventually played out in the Supreme Court. Arizona lost an estimated $140 million in revenue to that bill, which included granting police the right to request immigration papers from people they suspected of being undocumented immigrants.

Arizona senators John McCain and Jeff Flake tweeted that they hope Brewer vetoes the bill, with Flake adding that he personally asked her to do so in Washington. 


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 25, 2014, 06:02:05 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/could-arizona-s--religious-rights--law-cost-the-state-the-super-bowl-223127356.html
Could Arizona's 'religious rights' law cost the state the Super Bowl?
2/25/14

A controversial religious-rights bill awaiting the signature of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has drawn opposition on both social and economic grounds. There's now even concern that if Brewer signs the bill, Arizona could lose the 2015 Super Bowl.

SB 1062 would protect from lawsuits any Arizona businesses that refuse service to gays and others on religious grounds.

Arizona's Super Bowl Host Committee opposes the bill on the basis that it would create a business-unfriendly climate in the state. "On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential," the committee said in a statement. "We do not support this legislation,"

Meanwhile, the NFL is keeping a close eye on the Arizona goings-on: "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. "We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

There's precedent here, and it's even in Arizona. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl to Pasadena after Arizona voters refused to honor Martin Luther King's birthday as a holiday in a 1990 vote. When the state re-voted and approved the measure in 1992, the NFL awarded it the 1996 Super Bowl.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Kilika on February 26, 2014, 01:29:29 am
Quote
Economic pressure largely dictates Brewer's potential decision to veto the bill, as source close to her said she doesn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize Arizona’s economic “momentum.

That's a Republican for ya!  ::)

Corporations dictating state law, regardless of what the citizens want, is the problem.

This is why it's such a problem with allowing state officials the power to make decisions without consulting citizens. Most things done by politicians are done so without input from citizens.

Now, it's been turned 180 degrees, so that politicians who are suppose to represent citizens, are now telling citizens how it will be, rather than asking the public how the public wants things. That indicates the public has lost control of their own country, and voting is now worthless.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 03, 2014, 05:58:20 pm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-nyt-columnist-on-what-to-expect-when-gay-marriage-becomes-legal-in-50-sates-115485/
Conservative NYT Columnist on What to Expect When Gay Marriage Becomes Legal in 50 States
3/3/14

A conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, writes that it's perhaps only a matter of time when same-sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, ruminating on what it might be like for those who believe in traditional marriage when that happens.

The Supreme Court is likely to be "forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence" on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all states, writes Douthat, former senior editor at The Atlantic, in an op-ed piece for the Times.

This will finish the national debate but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage, he says.

This will lead to one of two possibilities, he argues.

This division "will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it." And in this case, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture, he says.

"And where conflicts arise – in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding – gay rights supporters would...let the dissenters opt out 'in the name of their freedom – and ours.'"

The other possibility is that "the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South" is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion, Douthat suggests. "In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business," he adds.

Meanwhile, "pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power," leading to harassment of agencies and businesses that promote the older definition of marriage, the columnist adds.

This seems more likely after last week's "debate" in Arizona over a bill that would make a way for business owners to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds, he argues.


While such bills have been seen, in the past, "as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender – to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent…now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore," Douthat says.

"The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform," he adds.

The writer then blames Christians for it, saying they had "plenty of opportunities – thousands of years' worth – to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance." He says they must "remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution."

In conclusion, Douthat wonders what settlement the "victors" will impose for the "defeated."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 04, 2014, 05:32:08 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-rights-groups-care-about-a-supreme-court-birth-control-case-211337519.html
3/4/14
Why gay rights groups care about a Supreme Court birth control case

Access to hormonal birth control hasn’t typically been a goal of the gay rights movement. But after a near miss on an anti-gay bill in Arizona last week, LGBT advocacy groups are rallying around a Supreme Court birth control case, arguing that gay people’s rights will be collateral damage if the court rules that for-profit businesses do not have to provide contraceptives to female employees.

On March 25, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby that the federal health care law is infringing on its religious liberty by forcing the company to provide contraceptive coverage in its health plan. The case is unusual because the family owned company is arguing that for-profit corporations — not just individuals and religiously affiliated nonprofits — have religious beliefs that should be protected under the Constitution and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Most of the dozens of “friend of the court” briefs in the case, filed in January, are from religious and anti-abortion individuals and organizations on the Hobby Lobby side, and reproductive rights groups on the government’s side. Only two gay rights organizations filed amicus briefs laying out the potential implications the case could have on gay and lesbian people. (The briefs favored Hobby Lobby’s side by a 3 to 4 ratio.)

But on Monday, just a few days after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a law that would have allowed  businesses with religious objections to refuse service to gay people, more than 30 LGBT groups signed on to a statement that says the birth control case is “cut from the same cloth” as the recently vetoed Arizona law.

If the conservative-leaning court rules that companies may deny contraceptives based on the religious beliefs of their owners, corporations would have more latitude to argue that serving gays and lesbians violates their religious beliefs, the groups argue.

“People from all across the country would face very real harm if corporations get a license to discriminate under the guise of religious liberty,” the statement says. The groups say the case could allow businesses to deny health care to employees with AIDS or HIV, or for hotels or restaurants to refuse to serve LGBT people.

“The case is directly about women’s access to reproductive health care and we don’t mean to suggest that that’s not the core issue there, but it is important to expand the lens,” said Jenny Pizer, general counsel for Lambda Legal, the gay rights groups that filed an amicus brief in the case.

The Arizona law served as a wake-up call for the general public and the gay rights community that a case about religious objections to birth control could have a big impact on gays.

“We’ve come to see the Hobby Lobby case as the biggest Supreme Court case that nobody’s heard about,” said Eric Ferrero, spokesman for Planned Parenthood. “What really happened with Arizona is it brought to life in very real terms what this agenda looks like.”

Interestingly, many of the nightmare scenarios the groups lay out of businesses turning away gays en masse are actually legal under existing law. There are few existing federal protections for discrimination against employees or customers based on sexual orientation, but advocates hope that Congress and states will move to adopt them soon. (Some gay discrimination cases can be brought as gender discrimination, but courts are split on the claims.) If Hobby Lobby prevails, businesses will have an argument in their back pocket going forward that religious objections to serving gays supersede any future anti-discrimination laws.

“Likely in the future we will have anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people so [this case] is attempting to get pre-emptive religious exemption from that,” said Doug NeJaime, a law professor specializing in gay rights at the University of California, Irvine.

More immediately, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby could also serve as a shield for businesses based in the 21 states that prohibit businesses from turning away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Hobby Lobby supporters argue that it’s far from clear that a ruling in the company’s favor would help a business owner who believes homosexuality is a sin and does not want to provide certain services to gay people.

“I know of no American religious group that teaches discrimination against gays as such, and few judges would be persuaded of the sincerity of such a claim,” writes Doug Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 05, 2014, 06:13:01 am
The Terms of Our Surrender

IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.

Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.

In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.

Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked.

In the past, this constant-pressure scenario has seemed the less-likely one, since Americans are better at agreeing to disagree than the culture war would suggest. But it feels a little bit more likely after last week’s “debate” in Arizona, over a bill that was designed to clarify whether existing religious freedom protections can be invoked by defendants like the florist or the photographer.

If you don’t recognize my description of the bill, then you probably followed the press coverage, which was mendacious and hysterical — evincing no familiarity with the legal issues, and endlessly parroting the line that the bill would institute “Jim Crow” for gays. (Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out.) Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke.

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.

Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?ref=rossdouthat&_r=2


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 05, 2014, 10:45:00 am
Quote
Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.

Hate to say it, but it seems like even elderly professing Christians have stood down on this issue too(at least from my experiences), as well as other important issues. For example, I commented to one elderly a couple of years ago how these heretical Emergent Church leaders like Rick Warren have endorsed sodomite pastors. And she responded, "What if my son was gay?!". And on another occasion, another elderly told me how we need to "tolerate" this "Christian" rock music coming into churches nowdays b/c young people(including young "pastors") grew up with this "mindset", so therefore we can't "discriminate" against them.

Don't get me wrong, the elderly are people you want to hang out with a lot b/c of their wisdom, but nonetheless they too have been deceived by this Churchianity mindset.

Quote
In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”

Andrew Sullivan is a long-time "conservative" writer/journalist who has been well-respected among professing conservatives, and is also a long-time sodomite. Pt being that enemies come from WITHIN, NOT from WITHOUT like these Obama-types. No surprise why ultimately, the sodomite agenda has ripened a lot of really bad fruit now.(ie-you never saw Jerry Falwell nor Hal Lindsey expose the sodomite wing of the Republican Party, the Log Cabin Republicans)

Quote
Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked.

Side note - Chick-fil-A has a lot of other serious issues...one of them being that they're just like these other wicked fast-food restaurants like McDonald's, Wendy's, etc - they put a lot of ingredients like Aspertame, MSG, etc in their products that cause a lot of illnesses(both physical and mental) in people. And they have the same hierarchies, infrastructures, etc that these other fast-food restaurants have(ie-minimum wage slave labor). Pt being that this whole "But we close on Sundays to honor the Lord and we're anti-gay marriage" is nothing but a smokescreen on their part.

And yes - the reason why a lot of these religious institutions et al are/will be giving into pressure is b/c of their tax-exempt statuses, which is rooted out of the love of money.

Quote
Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

And let's not forget too that the growing number of pastors in these "churches" are in that Millenial gen 20-35 range - for one, they were brainwashed in their respective seminaries(which has all but been taken over by Catholic teaching now). And two, they haven't been through all the wars and hardships like the elderly have, so deception and the enemies are able to creep past them much easier.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 05, 2014, 08:59:35 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/state-senator-fought-recent-bill-says-hes-gay-220032424--election.html
State senator who fought recent bill says he's gay
3/5/14

PHOENIX (AP) — A veteran Arizona lawmaker who was a vocal critic of a bill that touched off a national debate over discrimination came out as gay on Wednesday, saying "I wanted to let everyone know I am gay, I'm a Latino and I'm a state senator and it's OK."

State Sen. Steve Gallardo said he felt the need to come out publicly partly because of the recent battle against a bill approved by the Arizona Legislature that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays based on religious beliefs.

"In the middle of that discussion, it dawned on me that this bill affects me directly, and seeing all the people come to the Capitol protesting and rallying around this bill solidified my thought and that it's time for me to stand up and say, 'This is who I am,'" he said.

Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after strong opposition from the business community.

Gallardo, 45, said he also wants to send a message to members of the LGBT community who struggle with coming out as gay. He added that his family and friends have known about his sexuality for a long time.

The Phoenix Democrat is running for the open U.S. House seat being vacated by the retirement of Rep. Ed Pastor.

Gallardo served in the state House of Representatives from 2003 to 2009 and has been a state senator since 2011. He is one of three openly gay legislators in Arizona: Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, and Rep. Demion Clinco, D-Tucson. U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, has said she is bisexual.

Pastor's announcement last month that he would not run for re-election is expected to set the stage for a contested Democratic primary in the 7th Congressional District. The heavily Hispanic District is located entirely in Phoenix and is solidly Democratic.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 09, 2014, 06:20:02 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/miss-lawmakers-feel-pressure-over-religion-bill-003239513.html
3/7/14
Miss. lawmakers feel pressure over religion bill

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Lawmakers in conservative Mississippi find themselves in a tug-of-war over a religious-practices bill that some say is uncomfortably similar to one recently vetoed by Arizona's Republican governor.

A group that lobbies for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention is urging lawmakers to pass the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Others say that Mississippi, with its history of racial oppression, should avoid any law that could lead to discrimination against gay people and other groups.

Similar religious-freedom bills were filed this year in several states, including Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee. A bill was withdrawn in Ohio, and similar measures stalled in Idaho and Kansas. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill after critics said it would hurt the state's image by allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people.

One version of the Mississippi bill passed the Senate and awaits House debate by next week. Trying to assuage fears about discrimination, a House committee removed portions similar to the Arizona measure — provisions that some attorneys said could give cover to private businesses that choose to discriminate. But critics say the Mississippi bill is still vaguely worded and subject to broad interpretation, and should be killed rather than tweaked.

In its current form, it says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion without a compelling reason. It says a person whose religious practice has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened may cite that violation in either suing others or as a defense against a lawsuit.

"Why are they trying to enact this?" former state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz asked Friday. "No one's religious beliefs are being trampled upon in Mississippi. My goodness, we have more churches per capita than any state in the nation."

**Uhm, church buildings are unscriptural.

Jimmy Porter is executive director of the Mississippi Baptist Convention's lobbying group, Christian Action Commission. In an email this week, he urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying a law would allow a person of any faith to cite his or her religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit.

"The national media pundits, the ACLU, LGBT lobby, and others have declared this bill as discriminatory and hateful," Porter wrote. "That's not true; the bill is about religious freedom."

Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights lobbying group, opposes the bill, as does the American Civil Liberties Union.

**Coincidence how the HRC attends Emergent Church leader Bill Hybels' annual global leadership conference every August at his Willow Creek Assoc church - pt being that these same SBC/"conservative" churches in America that cry for religious freedom are also the same "churches" that have a lot of respect for this reprobate Hybels.

Todd Allen, an openly gay ordained minister who serves at a Unitarian-Universalist church in the small Mississippi town of Ellisville, said Friday that the bill seems to clear the way for businesses to use their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and lesbians. While same-sex marriage is illegal in Mississippi, Allen said he hopes to be able to marry a man someday, and he doesn't want to be tossed out of a restaurant, for example, for holding hands.

"What the provision is doing is saying the restaurant owner can delegitimize my Christian marriage because of his own interpretation of Christianity," said Allen, vice president of the Jackson area group Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays.

Mississippi has long been burdened by poverty, health problems and struggling schools. Some lawmakers are disgusted to be spending time and energy on legislation they see as divisive and pointless.

Rep. Kevin Horan, a Democrat from Grenada, said his biggest concern is attracting businesses to Mississippi. He said he worries that the specter of discrimination could hurt those efforts
.

"I haven't had a report of anything that would justify the need for this legislation," Horan said.

Rep. Brian Aldridge is a Republican from Tupelo, hometown of American Family Association, a conservative religious group that opposes same-sex marriage. Aldridge said he's hearing from constituents who support the bill because "they just want to make sure that they limit themselves against any kind of lawsuit."

When the bill was debated and passed the Mississippi Senate, nothing was said about its similarities to the Arizona legislation. Rather, the debate focused entirely on an amendment to fulfill Republican Gov. Phil Bryant's request to add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

Matt Steffey, a constitutional law professor at the private Mississippi College School of Law, helped the House committee draft the changes. He said that after the Arizona-like portions were removed, the Mississippi bill is similar to religious protection laws previously enacted by about 18 states. The bill says government could not put a substantial burden on religious practice. Steffey said, for example, that if a state employee wants to use a regularly scheduled daily work break to say prayers, the employee's manager could not prohibit that practice without a compelling reason.

"I don't see how this amended act serves to facilitate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Steffey said.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, Diaz said the bill is still open to broad interpretation. The former Supreme Court justice said that even if the amended version becomes law, it would allow people to cite religious beliefs to deny services to gay people or others with whom they disagree. He compared people's arguments for the religious restoration bill to Jim Crow-era arguments that used religion to justify discrimination and racial separation.

"I think that this bill goes too far in that it gives individuals and the government an opportunity to allow their religious beliefs to impact the general public," Diaz said. "It's like the old analogy: Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 17, 2014, 05:56:53 am
Maine college: We won't tolerate intolerance of Bible believers!



College officials in Maine have banned husband and wife Bible teachers from Bowdoin College after they refused to bow to the demands of homosexual activists.

Rob Gregory and his wife, Sim, have led the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on the campus for almost 10 years.

Carroll Conley of the Christian Civic League of Maine says the Gregorys were banned after refusing to sign an agreement allowing homosexuals to be considered for leadership in the group.

The administration has made it "absolutely clear" the Gregorys are not welcome if they don't sign a statement declaring "sexual orientation" is not considered for leadership positions, says Conely.

News website The Main Wire reported the Gregorys' must be gone by May, when the academic year ends.

The college newspaper, The Bowdoin Orient, reported that the couple agreed to sign  the agreement only if they could include a Reservation of Rights to Religious Beliefs and Practices. But the dean of Student Affairs, Tim Foster, denied the request.

Rob Gregory, an attorney and minister, sought the exemption to allow him to interpret and teach the Bible as he wanted.

Conley, Carroll (Christian Civic League of Maine)"It is simply unacceptable to have College-recognized student organizations effectively discriminate against individuals in violation of Maine law," Foster told the Gregory's in an email, which stated that Muslim and Catholic volunteers have signed the statement.

Conley says Bowdoin is a perfect example of the intolerance liberals display when demanding tolerance.

"They are the example of intolerance in the name of tolerance," he tells OneNewsNow.

Foster told the Orient the agreement protects people who are "LBTIQA," or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and asexual.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/2014/03/17/maine-college-we-wont-tolerate-intolerance-of-bible-believers


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 17, 2014, 10:58:36 am
Quote
Conley, Carroll (Christian Civic League of Maine)"It is simply unacceptable to have College-recognized student organizations effectively discriminate against individuals in violation of Maine law," Foster told the Gregory's in an email, which stated that Muslim and Catholic volunteers have signed the statement.

 ???

I hope I'm wrong, but at the same time it seems like these agendas have deeper roots than everyone is lead to believe - if they're throwing Muslims and Catholics in the same boat as the "discriminated", I don't like where this is going.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 24, 2014, 11:18:02 am
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-doesn-t-signal-move-same-sex-134607642--politics.html
Supreme Court doesn’t signal move in same-sex photography case
3/24/14

The United States Supreme Court didn’t say on Monday morning if it would accept or deny a highly publicized case about a New Mexico photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

The Court released a list of orders on its website at 9:30 a.m., but the case of Elane Photography v. Willock wasn’t on the list of cases that learned their fate, even though the Justices discussed the Elane Photography in private last Friday.

If accepted, the case would be heard in the Court’s next term, starting in October. But for now, Court watchers will need to wait.

Elane Photography v. Willock received even more publicity during the recent controversy in neighboring Arizona over a proposed change to that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The case started in 2006, when Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque , N.M., contacted Elane Photography to ask whether the business would take pictures of her commitment ceremony to another woman.  Elane Photography said it would only take photos of “traditional weddings,” and turned away the business.

Later, the couple hired a different studio, and the commitment ceremony proceeded. Willock filed a discrimination complaint under New Mexico law, which protects people against discrimination based on sexual orientation under its own public accommodations laws.

Republican lawmakers in Arizona decided to pursue their own legal changes after the Elane Photography ruling, but Arizona’s outgoing governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the Arizona bill.

In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the key question in the case centered on the photographer’s claim that the New Mexico law creates a conflict with her religious beliefs and violates the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.

The federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act dates back to 1993, when it was passed by Congress after a controversial Supreme Court decision in 1990 angered liberals and conservatives. But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states.

Currently, 21 states have their own versions of RFRA laws and the future of those acts could hinge on developments at the federal level and in cases like the Elane Photography case.

In the New Mexico case, the defendant couldn’t invoke that state’s version of RFRA, because it was a lawsuit between two parties not involving the state.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2014, 06:09:22 am
Catholics & Mormons Warned They Too Must Get Liberal Or Lose Congregants To Coming Super-Church

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the sweeping acceptance of gay marriage in recent years is owed in large part to Christianity. Rejecting the rigidly hierarchical and stratified societies of the ancient world, Jesus Christ taught the equal dignity of all persons, proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth, and declared that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The Western world has been working out the logic of these subversive teachings ever since, with the institutional transformation of marriage being the latest, though surely not the last, example of its social, moral, and political consequences. But what if the next institutions to be leveled by the Christian ideal of equality are the churches themselves?


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2014, 06:52:23 am
Catholics & Mormons Warned They Too Must Get Liberal Or Lose Congregants To Coming Super-Church

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the sweeping acceptance of gay marriage in recent years is owed in large part to Christianity. Rejecting the rigidly hierarchical and stratified societies of the ancient world, Jesus Christ taught the equal dignity of all persons, proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth, and declared that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The Western world has been working out the logic of these subversive teachings ever since, with the institutional transformation of marriage being the latest, though surely not the last, example of its social, moral, and political consequences. But what if the next institutions to be leveled by the Christian ideal of equality are the churches themselves?

Could you post the link to this?

Anyhow - yeah - hate to say it, but it's coming to these church buildings. These church buildings are just so corrupt right now - having been in them recently, you have no idea over all of the rotten stuff they've brought in. They may say they're anti-gay marriage until they're blue in the face...well, they also were staunch pre-trib rapture believers once upon a time ago. They were also anti-rock music once upon a time ago...but not anymore. Just saying.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 04, 2014, 12:29:22 pm
Miss. governor signs religious practices bill
http://news.yahoo.com/miss-governor-signs-religious-practices-bill-221425867.html
4/3/14

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill Thursday that supporters say will assure unfettered practice of religion without government interference but that opponents worry could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

An early version of the bill, considered weeks ago, was similar to one Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed after business groups said it could hurt that state's economy. Supporters say the final Mississippi bill bears little resemblance to the failed Arizona measure.

**As in there's CONDITIONS in this bill? Yeah, beware of all the potential agendas behind these things!

Outside the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 75 gay-rights supporters protested against the bill. Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center, said as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment.

"It's the first time in my life that I've actually considered moving out of Mississippi," said White, 32. "It made me physically ill the past few days, realizing what they're trying to do."

Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business.

The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Perkins said Mississippi becomes the 19th state to enact its own religious-practices law since 1996.

**FYI, Perkins is a Council for National Policy member.

"Those who understand the importance and cherish the historic understanding of religious freedom are grateful for leaders who respond to fact and not fictitious claims of those who are trying to quarantine faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said in a statement.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 07, 2014, 10:50:58 am
http://news.yahoo.com/u-justices-decline-photo-companys-free-speech-case-134611387.html
Supreme Court declines free speech, gay marriage case
4/7/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether a New Mexico photography company had free speech grounds to refuse to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.

The court's refusal to intervene means an August 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court decision against the company remains intact. Albuquerque-based Elane Photography had said its free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be a valid defense to the state's finding that it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The law, similar to laws in 20 other U.S. states, bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The company's owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to "express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," their attorneys said in court papers. Elane Photography has previously declined requests to take **** maternity pictures and images depicting violence, its lawyers said.

The dispute arose in 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the company if it would photograph the commitment ceremony between her and her partner, Misti Collinsworth. When Elane Photography declined, Willock filed a successful complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

Willock and her partner had their commitment ceremony in 2007, using a different photographer.

Elane Photography appealed the commission's decision, raising objections under both the First Amendment and a state law protecting religious freedom. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the state in an August 2013 decision. The company's Supreme Court appeal was limited to the First Amendment question.

Attitudes toward gay relationships have changed rapidly in the United States in recent years. New Mexico is one of the 17 states where gay marriage is now legal.

Recent court and legislative decisions making gay marriage legal have gained momentum since the Supreme Court's rulings in two cases last summer, one striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and another allowing gay marriage in California to proceed.

In February, Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed a bill viewed by critics as a license to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the name of religion. The law, heavily criticized by the business community, would have allowed business owners to claim their religious beliefs as legal justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples or any other prospective customer.

The case before the Supreme Court is Elane Photography v. Willock, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-585.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Jonathan Oatis)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 11, 2014, 06:11:51 am
Transgender Student Files Complaint Against Christian University for Denying Use of Male Dorm

A transgender student who was born biologically as a female and now seeks to identify as a male recently filed a federal complaint against a Christian university in Oregon for denying her the use of the male dorms.

The student, identified only as “Jayce,” lodged the sexual discrimination complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Friday, stating that officials at George Fox University “denied [their] request to live with other male students on campus.”

Jayce is sophomore and has been changing her appearance from female to male over the past few years. She first approached officials about her desire to live in the male dormitory in December, but officials denied her request, stating that because she is biologically a female, she must use the female dorms.

The student later obtained legal counsel after officials continued to stand their ground over the matter due to its Christian beliefs.

“The university’s decision makes me feel rejected, misunderstood and punished for something I cannot change,” Jayce told local television station KGW. “It also makes me anxious and nervous about where I’ll be able to live next year, and the year after that.”

But George Fox University issued a statement on the same day that the complaint was filed, reiterating its commitment to the Scriptures and asserting that it had been more than understanding to the student.

“George Fox strives to be a Christ-centered community and our residential facilities are single gender because of our theological commitments,” the statement read. “The student’s request to switch from female-only on-campus housing to male-only on-campus housing is one that many institutions would struggle with.”

It outlined that the school went so far as to refer to Jayce as a male, while drawing the line at allowing her to live with the men in the male dorms.

“Over the past several months, George Fox Student Life staff has spent many hours with this student hearing his story and offering support,” the statement continued. “Out of respect for the student’s wishes, university staff refers to the student using the masculine pronoun. At this time, the student has not legally changed genders.”

“While the university did not grant his request to live on campus with males, the student was not denied on-campus housing. He was offered the option of an on-campus single apartment with a commitment from Student Life to ensuring he stayed socially connected to the community,” it said. “The university has researched the student’s attorney’s legal claims and believes they are without merit, especially given the religious nature of the university.”

George Fox University was founded in 1885 as a school for Quakers, and is a private institution. Students on campus are largely Christian, and “all … employees—faculty, staff and administrators–are committed Christians.” The university holds to a lifestyle statement that expects staff and students to walk in holiness in their personal lives and be “transformed into the image of Christ.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/04/10/transgender-student-files-complaint-against-christian-university-for-denying-use-of-male-dorm/

No matter how bad you mutilate your body, you will always be a girl. No way around it, that is how the Lord Jesus made you, and that is how you will be for all eternity.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 11, 2014, 01:35:52 pm
And the irony of all of this is that this "Christian" university is a 501c3 - IOW, when all is said and done, they likely will have no defense case.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 19, 2014, 06:23:12 am
Liberals announce plan to 'purge' Christians
Exclusive: Matt Barber sounds alarm over leftist plot to punish pro-family Americans


They were always deadly serious about criminalizing Christianity and killing free speech, but now the American left has stopped pretending otherwise. In a recent column titled, “Why Are They Called ‘Homofascists’? Here’s Why,” I wrote that “progressive,” “Christian-hating fascists” – but I repeat myself – are “hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.”

I was referring specifically to the left’s well-organized and highly disturbing character assassination of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his private support of natural marriage. I was also addressing the larger goal of the American left to completely shut down free speech and freedom of religion, and to severely punish anyone who maintains both biblically and biologically correct views on human sexuality.

I closed with this:

“They smell blood in the water. I’ve often said that these folks want those who speak biblical truth about human sexuality and legitimate marriage either 1) dead, 2) imprisoned or, if they can have neither of these, 3) marginalized to the point where they can’t even support their families.

“Check No. 3 off the list. I guess they’re working backwards.”

The very next day, and as if right on cue, lefty rag Slate magazine vomited proof of my claims. It could not have been better scripted if I’d written it myself. In an article titled, “Purge the Bigots,” Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words:

“Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

“More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ …

“Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.”

No, this is not parody. It is not a bad joke. It is not Mr. Saletan satirically assuming the role of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister, in an effort to underscore how utterly out of control his own “progressive” movement has become and, in the spirit of argumentum ad absurdum, gently coax his fellow bohemians from madness.

Neither was Slate joking. They were not joining in on Saletan’s fun, pretending, for a day, to be “Nationalsozialistischen Briefe,” Goebbels’ parallel publication, in a clever endeavor to use the power of metaphor as a scrub brush to wash away the stench of totalitarianism from an American left bathed in it.

No, these ruthless cultural Marxists are as serious as Josef Salin’s heart attack.

Continued Saletan: “To organize the next stage of the purge, I’ve compiled the financial data into three tables.” He then listed details from, and linked to, the Proposition 8 hit-list reportedly leaked by the Obama IRS and meticulously assembled and published by the Los Angeles Times.

This was all by design. It’s what led to Brendan Eich’s career beheading. But Eich was just the opening act. The list provides the exact names, employers, places of residence and dollar amounts of every single person in America who donated even a dime to the Golden State’s campaign to protect natural marriage. (I realize it’s hopelessly symbolic, but as matter of principle I will not link to the list.)

This is a level of voter intimidation and journalistic terrorism on the part of the Obama administration, the L.A. Times and Slate magazine that is unprecedented in American history. With their blessing, indeed their encouragement, Herr Saletan then gave his fellow rainbow-shirts their jackbooted marching orders:

“If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list,” he said, candidly closing, “Otherwise, perhaps we should put down the pitchforks.”

You do understand this, right? Obama, the L.A. Times, Slate and America’s larger “progressive” movement are dead serious about purging Christians and other traditionalists from the workplace. It’s coming. Mozilla was just the opening salvo.

In the very same way Eich’s forced resignation was deliberately calculated to terrorize any American who might resist the left’s sexual anarchist agenda, and support some future, legally executed pro-family ballot initiative, the clear purpose behind releasing both the Prop 8 donor list and publishing the Slate article was to, likewise, instill terror in the hearts of Christians and other traditionalists who support natural marriage, family and human sexuality. It was a not-so-subtle shot over the bow.

It was also a call to arms.

It’s fight or flight time, America.

I’ve made my choice.

What about you?

I say that if we once crushed fascism from without …

We can sure as hell crush it from within.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/liberals-announce-plan-to-purge-christians/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2014, 05:04:36 am
As Public Opinion Approves Gay Marriage, Evangelicals Less Certain

 An ABC News/Washington Post poll that sampled 1,002 random adults found that the majority of the American public approve of gay marriage, but evangelical Christian support is not as strong as the rest of the population.

Specific statistics found in the study are as follows:

    59 percent of responders approve of gay marriage

    75 percent of responders under the age of 30 approve of gay marriage

    33 percent of evangelical Christians approve of gay marriage

    43 percent of evangelical Christians under 30 approve of gay marriage

According to the survey, Americans under the age of 30 were more likely to approve of gay marriage, whether or not they identified as an evangelical Christian.

Cokie Roberts, of ABC News said, “The reason the numbers have changed so fast and so dramatically on this question of gay marriage is because everybody in America now has experience with someone who is gay. People have come out of the closet and said, ‘I am your brother. I am your sister. I am your cousin. I am your friend.’ And then they have seen these families raising children and see these loving families.”

Still, many evangelical leaders oppose gay marriage on a religious basis. Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham said, “...I’m no better than a gay person. I’m a sinner. But I’ve been forgiven, and I’ve turned away from my sins. For any person that’s willing to repent in turn, God will forgive.”

The full study can be viewed as a PDF here. http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1159a2GayMarriage.pdf

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/as-public-opinion-approves-gay-marriage-evangelicals-less-certain.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2014, 08:21:33 am
UK Childcare Worker Fired After Explaining Biblical Position on Homosexuality to Co-Worker

A childcare worker has been fired for ‘gross misconduct’ after she explained the biblical position on homosexuality to her co-worker.

According to reports, Sarah Mbuyi, 30, was repeatedly asked about her beliefs over a period of several months at Newpark Childcare in Highbury after her lesbian co-worker discovered that she is a Christian. The latest discussion occurred in January, when her co-worker remarked that she was unhappy that she could not ‘marry’ her partner because of the Church’s beliefs, and stated that she thought God had nothing against homosexual behavior.

When Mbuyi replied by explaining the biblical position on the matter, she was reported to her boss.

“When I said ‘No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are’, she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager,” Mbuyi stated in a press release.

“I never ever condemned her, or accused her, but when she asked me directly what I believed, I was open about sharing the Bible’s teaching that homosexual sex (not the people) is wrong,” she continued. “It’s clear that this offended her and she was determined to get me sacked, simply because I expressed traditional Christian beliefs.”

Mbuyi was then asked to attend a disciplinary hearing where she was confronted with her co-worker’s accusations. However, she said that some of the claims were false, such as that it was Mbuyi who had initiated discussions about homosexuality with her co-worker.

“My disciplinary hearing was hopelessly one-sided because they put my accuser’s claims to me as fact, without any forewarning and so I wasn’t prepared,” Mbuyi stated. “It seemed to me they had already made up their minds to justify sacking me, before hearing my side of the story.”

She was immediately fired for gross misconduct.

Now, Mbuyi is filing a complaint against her employer, charging religious discrimination and an unfair dismissal. The Christian Legal Centre is providing assistance in representing Mbyui.

“Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love and concern for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by a dominating cultural correctness,” stated CEO Andrea Williams. “There is a culture of fear which closes down freedom of speech and the manifestation of faith. This culture brands the liberating good news of the gospel as oppressive and regressive.”

“Sarah’s case demonstrates the confusion we’re experiencing in current times,” she added. “David Cameron has given public recognition of the enormous positive impact that Jesus Christ has had on our nation but he wants to mold Christianity to his political agenda [by expressing support for homosexual 'marriage'].  … If he is serious in his support for Christianity, he will intervene in Sarah’s case and ensure that those who believe in marriage, as defined in the Bbible, between one man and one woman, will not lose their jobs but be wholly and properly protected by the law.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/04/22/uk-childcare-worker-fired-after-explaining-biblical-position-on-homosexuality-to-co-worker/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 22, 2014, 09:19:44 am

    59 percent of responders approve of gay marriage

    75 percent of responders under the age of 30 approve of gay marriage

    33 percent of evangelical Christians approve of gay marriage

    43 percent of evangelical Christians under 30 approve of gay marriage

According to the survey, Americans under the age of 30 were more likely to approve of gay marriage, whether or not they identified as an evangelical Christian.

Yes, I know this "polls" are fixed too, but nonetheless - from everything else I've read, yes, America as a whole, INCLUDING the Apostate church and Millenials, have softened their stance(at bare minimum) on sodomy marriage.

It's not only the entertainment media and secular public schools, but worst of all the Apostate church has embraced all of these phony bible versions, which have endorsed fornication. And not to mention too this CCM junk - which is nothing but repackaged satanic rock music, and has corrupted the minds of people for the worst.

Ultimately - I don't think they "support" it, per se - but nonetheless it's come to a point where the masses care much more about their earthly material wealth, then things that are of the Lord's. No wonder why a non-natural born citizen has crept into the White House recently.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 19, 2014, 05:09:42 am
City Council Demands Churches Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

A local council in the U.K. has been forced to apologize after issuing a letter that incorrectly demanded churches be licensed to perform same-sex marriages.

Essex County Council wrote to all churches in the county registered as wedding venues telling them that with “immediate effect” they “must” be licensed to “conduct same sex marriages.”

The words immediate and same were bold and underlined, with the latter also capitalized.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute says the council’s letter shows the need for churches to know their legal rights.

He says, “There is no legal reason whatsoever for churches to stop holding marriages in the ways they always have. They are free to do so.”

The Christian Institute has produced a new free legal guide, which gives reassurance that churches are well within their rights to say no to same-sex marriages.

“The behavior of Essex County Council goes to show why churches need to know their legal rights, because bureaucrats who want to push for gay marriage will try and go beyond the law,” warns Calvert.

He adds, “We want to be clear that Christians still have the right to express their belief that marriage is between a man and woman. Christians have every reason to be confident and bold in upholding the truth about marriage.”

“This is just the kind of thing we feared would happen,” says Colin Hart, campaign director of the Coalition for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition to the introduction of same-sex marriage.

“If this has already happened in Essex, there is a real danger that this kind of pressure will be applied by unelected officials across the country,” he warns.

The letter “lifts the lid on the Orwellian future that this ill-thought-through law creates,” Hart says.

Hart calls on the government to urgently issue advice to all local authorities in light of the new law and says Essex Council should conduct an urgent investigation as to “why this threatening letter was sent out to churches that are supposed to be exempt from the effect of the legislation.”

A spokesman for Essex County Council says, “Essex County Council’s guidance on registering a building certified as a Place of Religious Worship for same-sex marriages applies only to those institutions which want to conduct such ceremonies.

“A letter sent to churches in April may have created a different impression, and we issued a clarification within a week explaining the correct procedure.”

http://www.charismanews.com/world/43866-city-council-demands-churches-conduct-same-sex-weddings


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 12, 2014, 08:28:21 am
What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?

If homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in Western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The rights to free speech and to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.

In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.

In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.

In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).

In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.

In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.

In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).

In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (“Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.

In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)

In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his eulogy, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.

In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).

In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.  It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,” LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).

In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”

In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.

Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith--any faith--if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives--if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.

In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”

In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.

That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve--one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.

After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family--the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign--the nation’s largest gay activist group--posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn't Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores.

John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent:

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is.  He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people.  His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012).

After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hated of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint.

In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.

In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh--known as the supreme civil court of Scotland--ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton--an antiques-dealer--and Richards-Hill--an education technologist--exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. ... Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Record interview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”

On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorites Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”

In April 2014, Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla (maker of the popular web browser Firefox) because of his support for traditional marriage. In 2008, he contributed $1,000 to back California’s Proposition 8 referendum which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman. A firestorm of criticism by intolerant homosexual activists and supporters, like a bunch of howler monkeys, forced Eich’s resignation within two weeks of his election to head Mozilla. Newt Gingrich called the pressure against Eich as a “blatant example of the new fascism.” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist.” RedState called it “a fascist purge.” Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia.” Even homosexual media personalities condemned the action. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce called it the “gay gestapo.” Andrew Sullivan condemned the “intimidating of free speech” and likened it to the inquisition of heretics.

In May 2014, a Miami Dolphins player was fined and sent to “educational training” after he tweeted a negative comment about the drafting of the first homosexual professional football player. When Michael Sams was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, Don Jones tweeted, “OMG” and “Horrible” (“NFL Player Fined,” The Blaze, May 11, 2014). The speech Nazis didn’t waste a minute in condemning this “homophobic” behavior, and Jones quickly apologized, saying that his comments were “inappropriate.”

In May 2014, AIDS expert Brendan Bain was fired for saying that homosexual sex acts are dangerous to those who practice them and to public health in general (“AIDS Expert Fired,” CharismaNews, May 21, 2014). In 2012, Professor Bain testified on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place, showing from his own research that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. Because of this testimony, he was fired this month from his position as director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. The homosexuals who are served by CHART believe that criminalizing homosexual acts forces the HIV epidemic underground and increases the HIV risk. The reality is that they don’t want to face the truth about their actions, so they seek to quiet every voice of opposition.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,” OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).

In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.

On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:

“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. ...

“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’

“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.

“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. ...

“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.

“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They're not seeking equality; they're seeking total control,’ she said. ...

“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”

In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).

In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,” Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California’s ban against “religious-viewpoint therapy for people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” And in January 2014 the federal court refused to review the case (“Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction,” Breitbart, Feb. 5, 2014). The court rejected the Liberty Counsel’s argument that the statue violates First Amendment rights of both counselors and patients. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.

The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”

In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).

Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality -- SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.

In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).

The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’”

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its students loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”

The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. ... Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. ... ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,” The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 12, 2014, 08:28:38 am
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to her religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Huguenins took the matter to court, but they have lost at every level. They lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart.com, Aug, 22, 2013). The judges went so far as to say that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is the price of citizenship. Justice Richard Bosson said, “The Huguenins are free to ... pray to the God of their choice ... But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. But in April 2014, in an ominous ruling against first amendment rights, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand against Elene Photography.

Legal pundits say that it is probable that the Supreme Court will wait until a federal appeals court rules on this issue before taking it into consideration, but it is ominous that the judges had no interest in giving immediate relief to Christians who are being oppressed by homosexual activists and by a government bent on advancing a “new morality.” This will create a climate in which it will be nearly impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to own a business or hold a job, particularly in government and education, if he or she is not willing to accept the government’s view of morality.

In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.

In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”

Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same=sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”

Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).

When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.”

The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. ... After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue--both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ ... Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”

The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ ... attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”

The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands”

In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver **** Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a **** and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:

“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).

Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.

“**** men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.

“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.

“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.

“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city's streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order," said the organizer's chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”

This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room--while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).

In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,” American Thinker, March 9, 2013).

In April 2013 the California Assembly Education Committee approved a bill that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender (“California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms,” Christian News, Apr. 18, 2013). “AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration. ‘We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,’ Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.”

The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. ... Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as--and identify as--a girl.”

In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law--setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student's gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want--and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. ... Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It's an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. ... All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals--particularly young girls and young women--who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”

In February 2014, Maine’s supreme court ruled that a local school district discriminated against a fifth grade male student that “identifies as a female” when it refused to let him use the girls’ restroom (“Main Supreme Court Rules School Discriminated Against Boy,” Christian News, Feb. 4, 2014). The school offered to let the student use the staff bathroom, but on a 5-1 decision the court deemed that unacceptable. Lower courts had sided with the school district, but the state supreme court has overturned this ruling. Justice Warren Silver wrote on behalf of the majority. “Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.”

Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute observed, “It is imperative that parents in every state contact their elected officials to demand increased protections for student privacy. It is alarming that the Maine decision and similar pushes by transgender activists are blatantly ignoring the constitutional rights of the more than 99% of students who do not identify as transgender.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle--during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.

When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.

In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,” Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).

This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”

Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).

If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.

In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.

If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.

And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).

“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).


copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 16, 2014, 01:45:03 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sign-order-extending-lgbt-protections-160246439--finance.html
Obama to sign order extending LGBT protections
6/16/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, a White House official said Monday.

The move follows years of pressure from gay rights groups for Obama to act on his own while a broader employment non-discrimination measure languishes on Capitol Hill. The Senate passed the legislation last year but the bill stalled in the Republican-led House and there is little sign that lawmakers will take it up in an election year.

There is currently no federal law that explicitly bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While Obama does not have the authority to extend that protection to all Americans, he can take unilateral action that impacts federal contractors, which make up nearly one-quarter of the U.S. workforce.

Obama has used this tactic before, signing executive orders that raise the minimum wage for federal contractors and expanding the number of workers who would be eligible for overtime pay. White House officials have cast the approach as part of the president's effort to work around a Congress that continues to be mired in gridlock.

But those moves increased the frustration among gay rights supporters who have long pressed Obama to extend workplace discrimination protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals working for federal contractors. The White House publicly offered little explanation as to why the president moved forward on the wage-related orders but not the anti-discrimination measure.

The official would not say when Obama planned to sign the order, only that the president had asked his staff to prepare a measure for his signature. The official insisted on anonymity, lacking authorization to discuss the president's decision by name.

The official said the White House wanted to preview the president's upcoming action because of the "intense interest" in the executive order.

The announcement comes one day before Obama travels to New York for the Democratic National Committee's annual gay and lesbian fundraiser. LGBT donors have used previous fundraisers to press Obama on this issue.

Obama's plan to sign the order was welcomed by gay rights groups. Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called it a "major step forward."

"Through his actions, the president has demonstrated again his commitment to ending discrimination," Carey said.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 16, 2014, 07:39:20 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/prez-takes-gay-rights-own-hands-232500679--politics.html
Prez Takes Gay Rights Into His Own Hands
6/16/14

Excerpt:

This is a big deal. LGBT activists have generally regarded employment nondiscrimination as the “third leg of the stool”—the other two being same-sex marriage and the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But it’s also the thickest of the three. Many more LGBTs have jobs than get married or serve in the military—including some of the most vulnerable. To get a sense of the crisis, check out this incredible spread of “LGBT People Fired in 2013” from the gay newspaper The Advocate.

Perhaps most important, Obama’s executive order is said to include gender identity and gender presentation. Transgender people routinely are fired when they transition, especially if they don’t yet conform to stereotypes of how ladylike ladies and manly men are supposed to look.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 17, 2014, 10:33:54 pm
Jeremiah 25:27  Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.
Jer 25:28  And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.
Jer 25:29  For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 19, 2014, 11:45:59 am
http://news.yahoo.com/coming-gay-marriage-witch-hunt-094500911--politics.html
6/19/14
The Coming Gay Marriage Witch Hunt

The war is over. Or at least it is nearing its end.

In November 2012, same-sex marriage was legalized at the ballot box in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, while Minnesota defeated a constitutional ban. Since then, bills legalizing same-sex marriage have been passed in Rhode Island and Delaware. Courts in deeply conservative states like Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kentucky have ruled that marriage bans violate the Constitution. Nearly every Democratic office holder in the land supports same-sex marriage, and each day seems to bring another Republican over.

Savvy conservatives and evangelicals are acknowledging, often privately, that public opinion is not in their favor. And they fear what will happen in the future to those who fought against the rising tide of public opinion.

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

Perkins was speaking to The Daily Beast in the lobby of a New Orleans hotel in between sessions of the Republican Leadership Conference, a semi-annual gathering of conservatives from around the country. At an address to the delegates earlier in the day, Perkins railed against what he called, “The New McCarthyism,” which “would force every corporate leader, university official, public contractor, or media figure to answer a question: ‘Are you now or have you ever been involved in an effort to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman?’”

“No, I’ll go further than that,” Perkins continued. “This New McCarthyism demands, ‘Do you now think or have you ever thought that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman?’ Answer incorrectly, and watch your career be taken from you and your reputation smeared on a thousand websites.”

Many of these fears burst out into the open earlier this year when Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla, was run out of his position after it was revealed that he had donated money to the anti-gay marriage cause in California. Although some supporters of gay rights even thought the Eich affair was handled poorly, it sent a signal “that you have to be politically correct if you want to attain a higher position,” said Warner Todd Huston, a conservative activist and writer.

“That is the fear, that traditional American values are being criminalized as opposed to simply being out of fashion,” he said.

For gay rights activists, such concerns appear overblown and can be used to stoke paranoia on the right.

“This is a tactic. We have to call this out,” said Alvin McEwan, author of How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America and a blogger at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, a site, he says, that is dedicated to showing “how religious-right groups distort legitimate research and rely on junk studies to stigmatize the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.” The Eich case, McEwan said, was not proof of a witch hunt but proof that the American free enterprise system that conservatives extol was working properly.


“People have a right to boycott a business if they don’t like you,” he said.

And even though McEwan said he does not think that gay marriage opponents should be cast out of public life, conservatives, he added, have been warning the citizenry about “the gay agenda” for years.

“They have this entitlement thing,” he said. “They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they have to share the country.”

Same-sex marriage is, of course, not the first issue to divide Americans. Slavery, segregation, and abortion led to civil war, vigilante violence, and massive protest movements.

But opponents of same-sex marriage say that even in those instances there was détente after passions cooled. One-time segregationists remained in the upper echelons of American public life through the 1990s. This time, opponents of same-sex marriage fear that supporters will not be happy until their side has been run out of polite society and forced to retract their previously held views.

“Even supporters of abortion don’t go around saying that people who believe that life begins at conception are evil people,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage. “But this is not the case here, and the problem is that the establishment gay marriage groups have not condemned this view that those of us who favor traditional marriage are bigots and therefore should be abolished.”

Brown’s group has fought to keep the names of its donors secret for just that reason. He has been threatened and targeted, he said, and pointed to an incident last year in which a gunman attempted to shoot up the headquarters of the Family Research Council while holding a bag of food from Chik-fil-A, the conservative Christian company that was a target of boycotts over its owner’s anti-gay views. Brown noted that according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the FRC is a “hate group, in the same category as the KKK.”

Another difference between earlier American civil rights conflicts and this one, he said, was that slavery, or discriminating against someone on the basis of race, was considered immoral around the world for centuries while the practice was ongoing in parts of the U.S. Hardly anyone in politics, on the other hand, was pushing for gay marriage “until about 10 years ago, but the people who don’t totally want to redefine a definition of marriage that has lasted for thousands of years need to be shunned.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say that even liberals have started to feel the effects of the witch hunt. While to many listeners Hillary Clinton’s interview with Terry Gross last week was an example of a politician fumbling through a response to a question about her evolution on gay marriage, to conservatives it was proof that everyone who once held a different view must now apologize and be publicly flogged for it.

Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, said he does not think opponents will be treated the same way those who opposed, say, interracial marriage are now. And he cited an example that proponents of gay rights often use to describe the evolution of greater acceptance of their ideas.

Even proponents of same-sex marriage, Anderson said, “may have family members who are against gay marriage. It is hard to believe that my mom or my great-uncle or someone is a bigot.”

Yet Anderson himself was involved in an incident that anti-gay marriage activists point to as an example of the increasing threat they are under. After he was booked to speak at Stanford earlier this year, an uproar ensued and gay student groups demanded that the organization that invited Anderson be stripped of its funding to put on the event.

Anderson said he had spoken at the university without incident the previous year, and he attributed the change in tone to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling in the Supreme Court’s gay marriage case, in which he wrote that the purpose of bans was to “disparage and injure” gay couples.

“He was essentially saying that opposing viewpoints don’t have a right to be heard,” Anderson said.


In the meantime, as this particular culture war fades out, it is unclear when the soldiers will be free to leave their trenches, and conservatives know who to blame.

“The pro-gay marriage people need to accept that even though we disagree, we are not hateful,” said Brown. “This notion that our position is one that doesn’t belong in the public square is something we should all be worried about.”


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 20, 2014, 08:57:28 am
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-extends-family-leave-rights-gay-couples-040353756.html
Obama extends family leave rights of gay couples
6/20/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday will announce a rule that makes legally married same-sex couples eligible for benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act in all 50 states, a White House official said.

Currently, legally married couples are eligible for those benefits if they reside in a state in which same-sex marriage is legal. Obama is directing the Department of Labor to propose a rule extending the FMLA rights even to states where gay unions are not legal.

The rule is being issued as Attorney General Eric Holder announces the results of a review of U.S. laws in the wake of the landmark 2013 Supreme Court Windsor decision that held that the survivor of a same-sex couple could claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

The decision forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and has paved the way for the Obama administration to take steps to expand the legal rights of gay couples.

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical purposes.

Holder is due to issue a review on Friday of how the more than 1,000 different federal rights and obligations linked to a marriage or a spouse are affected by the Windsor decision.

Obama on Tuesday said he would sign an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation, but he also told gay rights activists they need to keep up the pressure on Congress to pass a broader law.

In February, Holder announced widespread changes within the Justice Department to benefit same-sex married couples, such as recognizing a legal right for them not to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 21, 2014, 04:08:57 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights-133650286.html
Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights
6/21/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Barack Obama, who established his bona fides as a gay and lesbian rights champion when he endorsed same-sex marriage, has steadily extended his administration's advocacy to the smallest and least accepted band of the LGBT rainbow: transgender Americans.

With little of the fanfare or criticism that marked his evolution into the leader Newsweek nicknamed "the first gay president," Obama became the first chief executive to say "transgender" in a speech, to name transgender political appointees and to prohibit job bias against transgender government workers. Also in his first term, he signed hate crime legislation that became the first federal civil rights protections for transgender people in U.S. history.

Since then, the administration has quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to update their passports, obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, get treatment at Veteran's Administration facilities and seek access to public school restrooms and sports programs — just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama's presidency.

"He has been the best president for transgender rights, and nobody else is in second place," Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said of Obama, who is the only president to invite transgender children to participate in the annual Easter egg roll at the White House.

Religious conservative groups quick to criticize the president for his gay rights advocacy have been much slower to respond to the administration's actions. The leader of the Traditional Values Coalition says there is little recourse because the changes come through executive orders and federal agencies rather than Congress.

The latest wins came this month, when the Office of Personnel Management announced that government-contracted health insurers could start covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for federal employees, retirees and their survivors, ending a 40-year prohibition. Two weeks earlier, a decades-old rule preventing Medicare from financing such procedures was overturned within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Unlike Obama's support for same-sex marriage and lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops, the White House's work to promote transgender rights has happened mostly out of the spotlight.

Some advances have gone unnoticed because they also benefited the much larger gay, lesbian and bisexual communities. That was the case Monday when the White House announced that Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In other instances, transgender rights groups and the administration have agreed on a low-key approach, both to skirt resistance and to send the message that changes are not a big deal, said Barbara Siperstein, who in 2009 became the first transgender person elected to the Democratic National Committee.

"It's quiet by design, because the louder you are in Washington, the more the drama," said Siperstein, who helped organize the first meeting between White House aides and transgender rights advocates without the participation of gay rights leaders.

The 2011 meeting came 34 years after Jimmy Carter's administration made history by meeting with gay rights groups. Obama's Cabinet and federal agencies have followed up with actions significantly expanding transgender rights without congressional approval.

For instance, Health and Human Services said in 2012 that it would apply the non-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act to investigate federally funded health plans and care providers that refused to serve transgender individuals.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Education Department informed public schools that under its reading of Title IX, the 1972 law that bans gender discrimination in education, transgender students are entitled to federal civil rights protections. The information was included in a memo on schools' obligations to respond to student-on-student sexual violence.

Obama has made clear the guidance has potentially broad implications.

"Title IX is a very powerful tool," he said last week. "The fact that we are applying it to transgender students means that they are going to be in a position to assert their rights if and when they see that they are being discriminated on their college campuses."

Meanwhile, religious conservative groups' opposition to transgender advocacy has trickled in.

The Traditional Values Coalition has lobbied against a bill that would provide federal workplace protections for gay and transgender people by warning that it would require schools to permit teachers to remain on the job amid gender transitions. Group President Andrea Lafferty said no one should mistake the absence of vocal opposition for acquiescence.

"There are other people who are concerned about these things, definitely. I think America is just overwhelmed right now," she said. "Everybody is going to have to take a step back, and that step back is going to be this November."

The stage was set for Obama to become a champion of transgender rights when the LGBT community split over an earlier version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that Lafferty's group is fighting.

In fall 2007, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank pursued, with the blessing of the nation's largest gay rights group, legislation prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians, but not transgender people. As Frank put it plainly, there were not enough Democratic votes to get a "trans-inclusive" law through the House.

Transgender advocates who had lobbied for legal recognition of same-sex relationships were livid and persuaded more than 100 civil rights groups to oppose a bill that left transgender rights for another day.

"The community was forced to decide: Where are you going to stand?" recalled Diego Sanchez, who was the first openly transgender person appointed to the DNC's platform committee and later became the first transgender staff member on Capitol Hill as Frank's top senior policy adviser.

At the 2008 Democratic convention where Obama was nominated, 28 years after the party pledged to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation, language was added to accomplish the same for gender identity.

As president, Obama has embraced the task of putting that pledge into practice, said Sanchez, now national policy director at Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"It's easier for voices to be heard once you are already in the room," he said. "What has changed is who is listening."


Title: 1st Corinthians 6:9
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2014, 05:41:15 pm
1Corinthians 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

First off, I am NOT defending transgenderism whatsoever - but nonetheless was researching it just now, and apparently THIS part of the sodomy agenda is by far THE most complex of them all, why? B/c apparently it's not necessarily a male/male and female/female lust attraction issue, but WHICH GENDER they IDENTIFY with(which is why for years and years, this part of the sodomy equation was really not accepted by the sodomites). IOW, even heterosexuals are part of this transgender group.

The reason why I researched this is b/c there was a Yahoo story today over some football player who committed adultery with a transgender(his wife is a famous reality show star).

It reminded me of this verse - how the EFFEMINATE shall not inherit the kingdom of God - honestly, really could never completely, until I researched transgender and saw the true definition of it(and how Obama endorsing it this week was BIG news).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Transgender people and the LGBT community
See also: LGBT

The concepts of gender identity and transgender identity differ from that of sexual orientation.[61] Sexual orientation describes an individual's enduring physical, romantic, emotional, and/or spiritual attraction to another person, while gender identity is one's personal sense of being a man or a woman.[30] Transgender people have more or less the same variety of sexual orientations as cisgender people.[62] In the past, the terms homosexual and heterosexual were incorrectly used to label transgender individuals' sexual orientation based on their birth sex.[63] Professional literature now uses terms such as attracted to men (androphilic), attracted to women (gynephilic), attracted to both (Bisexual) or attracted to neither (Asexual) to describe a person's sexual orientation without reference to their gender identity.[64] Therapists are coming to understand the necessity of using terms with respect to their clients' gender identities and preferences.[65] For example, a person who is assigned male at birth, transitions to female, and is attracted to men would be identified as heterosexual.

Despite the distinction between sexual orientation and gender, throughout history the gay, lesbian, and bisexual subculture was often the only place where gender-variant people were socially accepted in the gender role they felt they belonged to; especially during the time when legal or medical transitioning was almost impossible. This acceptance has had a complex history. Like the wider world, the gay community in Western societies did not generally distinguish between sex and gender identity until the 1970s, and often perceived gender variant people more as homosexuals who behaved in a gender-variant way than as gender-variant people in their own right. Today, members of the transgender community often continue to struggle to remain part of the same movement as lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, and to be included in rights protections.

http://news.yahoo.com/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights-133650286.html
Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights
6/21/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Barack Obama, who established his bona fides as a gay and lesbian rights champion when he endorsed same-sex marriage, has steadily extended his administration's advocacy to the smallest and least accepted band of the LGBT rainbow: transgender Americans.


Also - the NIV and these other perversions REMOVE this very effeminate word!


Title: Re: 1st Corinthians 6:9
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 25, 2014, 05:54:10 pm
And speaking of transgender women(described only transgender men above)...

Romans 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


Not only the men, but the women too are doing JUST THAT when they insist on "identifying" themselves with the male sex(change the natural use into that which is against nature...).

And also wanted to bring this up(while discussing this) - personally, was never a fan of NASCAR(or auto racing for that matter too) - but aren't all of these women competitors in this largely dominated male sport acting as just that in this sport...a TRANSGENDER, b/c deep down inside they're all but identifying themselves to compete against mostly men in this dangerous sport? Like I said, I'm no fan of auto racing, but it occured to me recently when I was looking more into this sodomy agenda.

1Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.


1Peter 3:1  Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2  While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6  Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1Pe 3:7  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Boldhunter on June 29, 2014, 12:47:47 pm
towleroad
http://touch.towleroad.com/all/2014-06-grindr-pride-survey-reveals-workplace-discrimination-concerns.html#1


"It’s a great time to be gay -- not just because it’s pride season, but because the tide is shifting for our community,” said Grindr CEO Joel Simkhai in an email statement. “Our voices are being heard as laws are changing, people are getting married and we have more allies than ever before."



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 30, 2014, 03:16:25 pm
And this is the same USSC that voted for "religious liberty" earlier today! :o

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-clears-ban-gay-conversion-therapy-194053503--politics.html
Supreme Court clears ban on gay conversion therapy
6/30/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for enforcement of a first-of-its-kind California law that bars psychological counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight.

The justices turned aside a legal challenge brought by supporters of so-called conversion or reparative therapy. Without comment, they let stand an August 2013 appeals court ruling that said the ban covered professional activities that are within the state's authority to regulate and doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that therapies designed to change sexual orientation for those under the age of 18 were outside the scientific mainstream and have been disavowed by most major medical groups as unproven and potentially dangerous.

"The Supreme Court has cement shut any possible opening to allow further psychological child abuse in California," state Sen. Ted Lieu, the law's sponsor, said Monday. "The Court's refusal to accept the appeal of extreme ideological therapists who practice the quackery of gay conversion therapy is a victory for child welfare, science and basic humane principles."

The law says professional therapists and counselors who use treatments designed to eliminate or reduce same-sex attractions in their patients would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards. It does not cover the actions of pastors and lay counselors who are unlicensed but provide such therapy through church programs.

Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law, as did other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill outlawing the practice in his state last year and Liberty Counsel has been fighting that law as well.

"I am deeply saddened for the families we represent and for the thousands of children that our professional clients counsel," Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver said in a statement Monday. "The minors we represent do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior."

California's law was supposed to take effect last year, but it has been on hold while a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn it made their way to the Supreme Court.

Now that the high court has declined to take the case, the state will be able to start enforcing the law after the 9th Circuit lifts an injunction it put into place during the litigation, an action that is expected to come within days, according to Christopher Stoll, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 08, 2014, 10:53:20 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/california-bill-replacing-words-husband-wife-in-marriage-law-signed-by-gov/?intcmp=latestnews
7/7/14
California governor signs bill replacing words 'husband' and 'wife' in state law

The terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.

SB1306, the bill signed Monday by Brown, takes effect Jan. 1 and reflects the legality of gay marriage after a decade of litigation. The law also removes limits on recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state.

The language was enacted after voters approved Proposition 22 in 2000. The initiative was struck down by the California Supreme Court in 2008, prompting voters to amend the constitution and ban gay marriage.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision ruling the ban unconstitutional. The bill was authored by state Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, who said Monday the bill is necessary to update existing state law.   

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on July 09, 2014, 12:01:52 pm
Chilling Implications? Largest Bank Asks Workers if They Support Homosexuality

The largest bank in the United States now allegedly requires its employees to state whether or not they are supporters of the homosexual lifestyle.

JPMorgan Chase, headquartered in New York City, is the United States’ largest bank, with total assets of over $2.5 trillion. The bank has overtly supported homosexuality for several years, appearing in several “gay pride” events and even offering a number of special benefits to bank employees who identify as “LGBT.”

Now, JPMorgan Chase has taken their LGBT support even further, reportedly requiring all their employees to voice whether or not they support the so-called “LGBT community”. According to Princeton University Professor Robert George, the bank recently surveyed their workers, asking them to state which of the following descriptions applied to them:

    A person with disabilities;
    A person with children with disabilities;
    A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;
    A member of the LGBT community;
    An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

An unnamed individual, who has worked at JPMorgan Chase for 11 years, first alerted George of the unprecedented survey. The employee told George, who is chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, that the questionnaire “had many of us scratching our heads.”

“What?! What kind of question was that?” the employee had wondered. “An ‘ally’ of that community? What’s the alternative if you don’t select that option? You’re not [an] ally of the LGBT community?”

The employee further explained that the survey was not anonymous, since it required everyone to enter personal identification information. The implications, he suggested, are chilling.

“With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid-50s to late 60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying ‘I’m not an ally of civil rights’; which is a vague way to say ‘I’m a bigot,’” he told George. “The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first’ list.”

    Connect with Christian News

George agreed, writing in a blog post that JPMorgan Chase could quickly quash any dissenters who do not support the homosexual lifestyle.

“The message to all employees is perfectly clear:  You are expected to fall into line with the approved and required thinking,” George stated. “Nothing short of assent is acceptable. Silent dissent will no longer be permitted.”

After George first drew attention to the JPMorgan Chase survey, another employee of the bank contacted him to confirm the initial report.

“I just wanted to confirm the Chase employee survey,” the second employee said. “It did have the last two options about being an LBGT ally. … was blown away by this question. I have no idea what they were thinking when they asked that.”

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that “closely held corporations” can operate according to their owners’ religious beliefs. However, because JPMorgan Chase is a publicly-traded banking company, the same standards likely do not apply. The bank’s questioning of employees’ beliefs on homosexuality is therefore concerning to many Christians.

http://christiannews.net/2014/07/07/chilling-implications-largest-u-s-bank-asks-workers-if-they-support-homosexuality/


Title: Obama to sign orders protecting gay employees
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 18, 2014, 06:07:40 pm
Obama to sign orders protecting gay employees
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_RIGHTS_RELIGION?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-07-18-15-47-07
7/18/14

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama plans to sign executive orders Monday prohibiting discrimination against gay and transgender workers in the federal government and its contracting agencies, without a new exemption that was requested by some religious organizations.

Obama's action comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed some religiously oriented businesses to opt out of the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Senior administration officials said Friday that ruling has no impact on non-discrimination policies in federal hiring and contracting.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plans publicly.

Since Obama announced last month that he would sign the orders, he's faced pressure from opposing flanks over the religious exemption and given no indication of where he would come down. Many religious leaders and conservative groups wanted him to exempt religious organizations from the order, while liberal clergy and gay advocacy groups adamantly opposed such an exemption.

Until last month, Obama long resisted pressure to pursue an executive order for federal contractors in hopes that Congress would take more sweeping action banning anti-LGBT workplace discrimination nationwide. A bill to accomplish that goal - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - passed the Senate last year with some Republican support, but has not been taken up by the GOP-controlled House.

The senior officials said Obama's action planned for Monday at the White House would amend two executive orders. The first, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, gender or nationality in hiring. Obama plans to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protections, and order the Labor Department to carry out the order. The officials said that means the change will probably take effect by early next year.

President George W. Bush had amended Johnson's order in 2002 to allow religious groups to hire and fire based upon religious identity. Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit. The senior administration officials said Obama will not change those exemptions.

The second order Obama will amend was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 to prevent discrimination against federal workers based on race, religion, gender, nationality, age or disability. President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation, and Obama will include gender identity in a change to immediately take effect.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said: "With two strokes of a pen, the President will have a very real and immediate impact on the lives of millions of LGBT people across the country."

The administration officials said the change for federal contracting will impact some 24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. Many large federal contractors already have employment policies barring anti-gay workplace discrimination, as do 21 states. However, the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that the executive order would extend protections to about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not have such nondiscrimination policies.

While few religious organizations are among the biggest federal contractors, they do provide some valued services, including overseas relief and development programs and re-entry programs for inmates leaving federal prisons.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 21, 2014, 11:38:53 am
http://news.msn.com/us/obama-gives-protection-to-gay-transgender-workers
Obama gives protection to gay, transgender workers
7/21/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Monday gave employment protection to gay and transgender workers in the federal government and its contracting agencies, after being convinced by advocates of what he called the "irrefutable rightness of your cause."

"America's federal contracts should not subsidize discrimination against the American people," Obama said at a signing ceremony from the White House East Room. He said it's unacceptable that being gay is still a firing offense in most places in the United States.

Until last month, Obama long resisted pressure to pursue an executive anti-discrimination covering federal contractors in the hope that Congress would take more sweeping action banning anti-LGBT workplace discrimination across the landscape of employment in America. A bill to accomplish that goal — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — passed the Senate last year with some Republican support, but has not been taken up by the GOP-controlled House. "We're here to do what we can to make it right," Obama said.

Since Obama announced that he would sign the orders, he's faced pressure from opposing flanks over whether he would include an exemption for religious organizations. He decided to maintain a provision that allows religious groups with federal contracts to hire and fire based upon religious identity, but not give them any exception to consider sexual orientation or gender identity. Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit.

Obama's action comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed some religiously oriented businesses to opt out of the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Obama advisers said that ruling has no impact on non-discrimination policies in federal hiring and contracting.

Obama said 18 states and more than 200 local governments already ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as a majority of Fortune 500 companies. But he noted that more states allow same-sex marriage than prohibit gay discrimination in hiring.

"It's not just about doing the right thing, it's also about attracting and retaining the best talent," Obama said.

The change for federal contracting will impact some 24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. Many large federal contractors already have employment policies barring anti-gay workplace discrimination. However, the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that the executive order would extend protections to about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not have such nondiscrimination policies.

While few religious organizations are among the biggest federal contractors, they do provide some valued services, including overseas relief and development programs and re-entry programs for inmates leaving federal prisons.

Obama amended two executive orders. The first, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, gender or nationality in hiring. President George W. Bush had amended Johnson's order in 2002 to add the exemption for religious groups.

Obama added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protections, and ordered the Labor Department to carry out the order. Administration officials said that means the change will probably take effect by early next year.

Obama also amended an order signed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 to prevent discrimination against federal workers based on race, religion, gender, nationality, age or disability. President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation, and Obama will include gender identity in a change that will immediately take effect.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 22, 2014, 07:05:02 am
What did he say that was so wrong? ???

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tony-dungy-s-assessment-of-rams-rookie-michael-sam-reflects-stunning-lack-of-courage-195216393.html
Tony Dungy's assessment of Rams rookie Michael Sam shows stunning lack of courage
7/21/14

The good news for Tony Dungy is that once upon a time enough people in power, be it in football … education … government … wherever, decided that they should empower African-Americans with the opportunities they deserved. They did this no matter whether things would go "totally smooth" or cause "things to happen" with the bigots who wanted to cling to the old days.

At some point they said someone such as Dungy deserved to go to school with white people, play football with white people, even coach football like white people once exclusively did, even at the highest levels of the NFL. They rejected the ancient concept that blacks either weren't deserving/capable of such opportunities. Even more important, they ignored the idiotic idea that until every last racist was completely and wholly comfortable with a black man playing, learning or working alongside them (let alone be the boss) then such opportunity should continue to be withheld.

The smartest people pushed the dumbest aside and decided to just let the best person win.

And Tony Dungy won. From high school in Jackson, Mich., to college at the University of Minnesota, to the NFL as both a Super Bowl-winning player and coach. It continued as a best-selling author, coveted and highly compensated speaker and now high-profile analyst on NBC, front and center on the No. 1 television show in America.

Despite all of that, Dungy decided to throw gasoline on the training camp story of the year by telling the Tampa Tribune that unlike the St. Louis Rams, he never would have drafted Michael Sam, the NFL's first openly homosexual player, because someone (who, he didn't say) might not handle it so well.

"I wouldn't have taken him,'' Dungy told the Tribune. "Not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it … It's not going to be totally smooth … things will happen.''

This thinking is devoid of courage – in every possible way. And that's what makes this so pathetic.

Dungy has a well-earned reputation as a straight shooter and a stand-up guy. It's almost impossible to play and work in the NFL without self-belief and heart. He is a powerful figure. He says a lot of smart things. He knows tough times and consistently finds time for people going through them.

He should be a lot better than this.

Dungy is an outspoken conservative Christian and if he were to say that he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam because the Bible that Dungy believes in condemns Sam's lifestyle that would be … well, that would be ridiculous, hypocritical and wrong also, but at least it would seemingly jibe with Dungy's sometimes expressed beliefs.

Sometimes being the operative word.

Dungy, is, after all, a guy who has drafted, hired, signed, coached, championed and personally mentored scores of players and coaches who routinely engaged in Biblical definitions of sin, let alone behavior that goes against modern societal standards. He was (rightfully) a huge proponent, for instance, of Michael Vick deserving a second chance after incarceration for the operation of a dog-fighting ring.

Still, at least it would be some kind of principled (if misguided) stance. At least it would've been honest.

This is actually worse. This is a complete cop-out. This is Dungy bending to the beliefs that he knows are wrong simply because those who hold them may – may – find doing the right thing difficult.

This is Dungy not standing up for his own convictions. It's Dungy using the same old buzzwords that caused society to move so slowly to grant equal rights and opportunities to minorities of all kinds, choosing what's easy over what's right (even if it likely will be easier for the generation of guys who actually play than an old man like Dungy realizes).

Integrated third grades weren't "smooth." A black man on the Dodgers caused "things to happen." The first female executives in the business world weren't welcome by all. Lots of people were aghast at the thought of minorities owning homes, especially in their neighborhood. Politicians that didn't look like the Founding Fathers were upsetting to some. Many bristled against the idea of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, gays, whatever on factory lines, boardrooms, school boards and on military front lines.

This isn't even worth arguing. Caving to the most ignorant and obstinate among us is an embarrassment and should never, ever, be the basis for anything. Ever.

For an NFL executive to not draft an openly gay player because someone in his locker room or fan base or anywhere might – might – not handle it so well is some kind of Jim Crow-era awful.

The good news for everyone other than Tony Dungy is that Tony Dungy doesn't draft players or coach players anymore. Dungy merely talks for a living and this week he'll deal with the reaction to his talking – there will be plenty of criticism, not to mention support via tortured straw man arguments, political opportunism and misguided admiration.

This isn't about politics though. This isn't about religion. This isn't about what anyone thinks of Michael Sam. This is about Tony Dungy sadly acknowledging he'd care more about someone's narrow mindedness than his own realization that everyone deserves a fair shot.

Mercifully Dungy is from the old NFL mindset rooted in a dying segment of society, like those who once wouldn't draft, hire, educate or vote for an African-American. Fortunately there are more than enough coaches, executives, players, fans and people these days who think otherwise.

So Michael Sam will report to training camp this week. If he can play, he will play. If he can't, he won't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sodomy is a CHOICE LIFESTYLE, NOT genetics!


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 12, 2014, 04:35:49 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/jersey-ban-gay-conversion-therapy-upheld-172229347.html
New Jersey 'gay conversion therapy' ban is upheld
9/11/14

 NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld New Jersey's ban on counseling intended to change the sexual orientation of gay and lesbian children.

By a 3-0 vote, a panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban, which Republican Governor Chris Christie signed into law in August 2013, did not violate the free speech or religious rights of counselors offering "gay conversion therapy" to convert homosexual minors into heterosexuals.

The panel also said the plaintiffs, who included licensed therapists and a Christian counseling group, lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of their minor clients.

Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith said the ban, the second in the country after California's, appropriately advanced New Jersey's legitimate interest in protecting people under the age of 18 from harmful or ineffective professional treatment.

He also said New Jersey had shown that the potential harm from gay conversion therapy was "not merely conjectural," reflecting concern by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups about such risks as anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Lawmakers may "rely on the empirical judgment of independent professional organizations that possess specialized knowledge and experience ... particularly when this community has spoken with such urgency and solidarity," wrote Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush.

The other judges on the panel were appointed by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, but various conservative and religious groups have since argued that sexual orientation can be changed.

Plaintiffs challenging the New Jersey ban included two counselors, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and the American Association of Christian Counselors.

"Laws banning counseling in this area are simply unconstitutional violations of free speech," the plaintiffs' lawyer Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. He said there will be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Christie's office declined to comment, and the state attorney general's office had no immediate comment.

The decision "will do a lot of good for young people who are at great risk of harm from unscrupulous or misguided therapists," Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, a nonprofit advocating for rights of gay and transgender people, said in an interview. "It validates the state's strong interest in preventing these snake-oil efforts."

Thursday's decision upheld a November ruling by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton, New Jersey.

The appeals court said Wolfson had erred in finding that New Jersey law regulated conduct and not speech, but said the law's limits on speech were "not more extensive than necessary."

California Governor Jerry Brown signed that state's gay conversion therapy ban into law in 2012, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in August 2013. The Supreme Court in June refused to disturb that ruling.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 12, 2014, 08:55:49 am
Christian T-Shirt Company Forced to Attend Diversity Training after Refusing to Make Gay Pride Shirts

 Hands On Originals, a Christian t-shirt printing company in Kentucky, has been found guilty of discriminating against homosexuals. Charisma News reports the company refused to make gay pride shirts, resulting in The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization filing a complaint in 2012.
 
The organization argued that Hands On Originals violated a city fairness ordinance when prohibits companies from refusing to provide services to homosexuals. Gay and Lesbian Services won the suit, forcing the Christian business to attend “diversity training.”
 
Alliance Defending Freedom represented Hands On Originals in the suit. "No one should be forced by the government or by another citizen to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree," the law firm said.
 
"In America, we don't force people to express messages that are contrary to their convictions," said co-counsel Bryan Beuman.
 

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/christian-t-shirt-company-forced-to-attend-diversity-training-after-refusing-to-make-gay-pride-shirts.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 12, 2014, 09:03:19 am
California Churches Forced to Offer Abortion Insurance Coverage

Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom filed a formal complaint Thursday with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services against the California Department of Managed Health Care.

The two national not-for-profit law organizations joined to represent seven California churches that are being forced to provide insurance coverage for elective abortions, in violation of federal law.

Skyline Church in La Mesa, Foothill Church and Foothill Christian School in Glendora, Alpine Christian Fellowship in El Cajon, The Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch, City View Church in San Diego, Faith Baptist Church in Santa Barbara, and Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Chino, object to offering their employees insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

The complaint filed on behalf of these churches echoes a separate complaint filed last month on behalf of employees at Loyola Marymount University, also represented by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom.

"California's Department of Managed Health Care created this abortion mandate in response to political pressure from the abortion lobby," said Life Legal Defense Foundation Legal Director Catherine Short.

"They would have us believe that, while the Legislature exempted these churches from the state's contraceptive coverage mandate, it nonetheless intended to force them to cover all abortions under the rubric of 'basic health care,'" she explained.

Short deemed this move a "a pure power play" adding, "We trust that the Department of Health and Human Services will take the necessary steps to bring the state of California into compliance with federal law."

Read the complaint filed by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom here.

Click here for additional information on the issue.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/45717-california-churches-forced-to-offer-abortion-insurance-coverage


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 14, 2014, 10:05:08 am
Major U.S. city demands oversight of sermons

Houston Mayor Annise Parker

Officials with the city of Houston, Texas, who are defending a controversial ordinance that would allow men to use women’s restrooms now have demanded to see the sermons preached by several area pastors.

The recent move came in a subpoena from the city to pastors for copies of their sermons and other communications in the city’s legal defense of a “non-discrimination” measure that allows “gender-confused” people to use public restrooms designated for the opposite sex.

A lawsuit challenging Houston’s move alleges the city violated its own charter in its adoption of the Equal Rights Ordinance, which in May designated homosexuals and transgender persons as a protected class.

Critics say the measure effectively enables sexual predators who dress as women to enter female public bathrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities. A coalition of activists that includes area pastors filed suit Aug. 6 against the city and lesbian Mayor Annise Parker after officials announced a voter petition to repeal the measure didn’t have enough signatures to qualify for the election ballot.

Parker, who has acknowledged the ordinance is “all about me,” was legally married to her same-sex partner in California in January.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion to quash the city’s demands to see the sermons. ADF argues the pastors are not party to the lawsuit, and the city’s strategy doesn’t meet the requirements of state law that requires such efforts “be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, not be overly broad, seek only information that is not privileged and relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, and not cause undue burden or harassment.”

ADF said city officials “are upset over a voter lawsuit filed after the city council rejected valid petitions to repeal a law that allows members of the opposite sex into each other’s restrooms.”

ADF attorneys say the city is “illegitimately demanding that the pastors, who are not party to the lawsuit, turn over their constitutionally protected sermons and other communications simply so the city can see if the pastors have ever opposed or criticized the city.”

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “In this case, they have embarked upon a witch hunt, and we are asking the court to put a stop to it.”

ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb said the city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is needless and unprecedented.

“The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions. Political and social commentary is not a crime; it is protected by the First Amendment,” she said.

While the public submitted more than three times the legally required number of petition signatures to require city action, and the city secretary certified the number as sufficient, the mayor and city attorney “defied” the law and rejected the certification, ADF said.

“The message is clear: oppose the decisions of city government, and drown in unwarranted, burdensome discovery requests,” said a brief in support of the motion to quash. “These requests, if allowed, will have a chilling effect on future citizens who might consider circulating referendum petitions because they are dissatisfied with ordinances passed by the city council.

“Not only will the nonparty pastors be harmed if these discovery requests are allowed, but the people will suffer as well. The referendum process will become toxic and the people will be deprived of an important check on city government provided them by the charter.”

WND has reported similar measures in other jurisdictions across the country. Opponents point to incidents such a man in Indianapolis who allegedly went into a women’s locker room at a YMCA and watched girls, ages 7 and 10, shower.

Opposition in Houston was led by a coalition including the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston, the Houston Area Pastor Council, the Houston Ministers against Crime, AME Ministers Alliance of Houston/Gulf Coast, the Northeast Ministers Alliance, the South Texas Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, the South Texas District of the Assemblies of God and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

The coalition had submitted more than 55,000 signatures in the referendum drive. City Secretary Anna Russell confirmed in writing Aug. 1 that the petition sponsors had submitted 17,846 qualified signatures, nearly 600 above the minimum 17,269.

However, City Attorney David Feldman announced 2,750 petitions were invalid because of “technical problems.”

Opponents have argued Feldman did not have the authority to step in and make the decision and that it should have been handled by the courts.

Critics dubbed the Houston law the “sexual predator protection act,” claiming that by designating transgender or gender-confused persons as a protected class, women and children are threatened by predators seeking to exploit the ordinance’s ambiguous language.

Political activist Steven F. Hotze said the ordinance would establish minority status for transvestites, allowing men who dress as women to enter women’s public bathrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities.

“I want to protect my wife, daughters and granddaughters from being exposed to the dangers of male sexual predators masquerading as women in women’s public bathrooms and other facilities,” he said. “This is why it has been called the Sexual Predators’ Protection Act.”

Similar cases also have erupted in Maryland, Florida and Colorado, which adopted a radical “transgender nondiscrimination” bill in 2008 that makes it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or the “perception” of gender identity. One consequence of the law is a ruling forcing authorities to permit 6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy who says he thinks he’s a girl – to use the girls bathroom at his elementary school.

Nationwide, 17 states and the District of Columbia have embraced the transsexual agenda. Rhode Island added “gender identity and expression” to its anti-discrimination law in June with the support of Gov. Jack Markell, and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden announced his support in an Equality Delaware video.

But other attempts to advance the transsexual agenda were defeated in Montana, Missouri, North Dakota and New York, where state Senate leaders refused to allow a vote.

Here what happened in Washington state:

The Obama administration is solidly behind the move to open locker room doors to some members of the opposite sex.

    President Obama signed the U.N. Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity;
    The White House hosted the first-ever meeting with transgender activists;
    The Department of State made it easier for transsexuals to change the sex indicated on passports;
    The U.S. Justice Department sided with a transsexual individual in an employment discrimination suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives;
    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled for the first time last year that “gender identity or expression” in the workplace is protected under federal civil rights law;
    The Office of Personnel Management inserted “gender identity” for the first time into its federal workplace anti-discrimination policy;
    The American Psychiatric Association removed “gender identity disorder” from its list of mental health ailments in late 2012, a move some regarded as a lifting of the social stigma attached to transsexual behavior.

 VIDEO

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/major-u-s-city-demands-oversight-of-sermons/
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/major-u-s-city-demands-oversight-of-sermons/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 14, 2014, 02:47:25 pm
Quote
Opposition in Houston was led by a coalition including the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston, the Houston Area Pastor Council, the Houston Ministers against Crime, AME Ministers Alliance of Houston/Gulf Coast, the Northeast Ministers Alliance, the South Texas Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, the South Texas District of the Assemblies of God and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Hate to say it, but there's nothing they can do b/c quite simply, they're a 501c3.

IOW, they know it, and they're just paying lip service(and nothing more).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 15, 2014, 07:00:06 am
City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”

ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.”

“Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”

The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa.  The city council approved the law in June.

The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF attorney Erik Stanley.  “This is designed to intimidate pastors.”

Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.

“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.

However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.

Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.

“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”

Rev. Dave Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.

“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”

“This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.

This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.

Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.

Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand.  We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.

The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution.

“This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”

We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together - because one day – the government might come for your pastor.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 15, 2014, 02:02:25 pm
College accreditation: Please God - or please man?


Education
College accreditation: Please God - or please man?
Michael F. Haverluck   (OneNewsNow.com) Friday, October 03, 2014
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 63

Accredited or not accredited … that is the question. Keeping to its biblical code of behavior as a Christian college since 1889, Gordon College has now been given an ultimatum by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC): be an accredited academic institution by accepting “homosexual practice” or stick to its Christian teachings on sexual behavior and be unaccredited.

Gordon College and NEASC verticalGordon College will be trying to convince the NEASC over the next 12 to 18 months during a review period that its policy conforms to the new thinking sweeping the education system — one that embraces and normalizes homosexual behavior on campus.

Prepping for its September 2015 meeting with the NEASC, a “working group of 20 representative trustees, faculty, administrators, staff and students” will prepare and submit a review of the process and its outcomes, which includes indoctrinating campus members in the “proper” way to respond to homosexual behavior. The document to be issued to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education must primarily prove one thing:

“[The review must] ensure [Gordon College’s] ability to foster an atmosphere that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds, consistent with the Commission’s Standards for Accreditation,” reads a joint statement produced by the Wenham, Massachusetts-based college and the NEASC.

Scrutiny of campus worldviews and attitudes toward the LGBTQ community escalated fairly recently after Gordon College president D. Michael Lindsay signed a letter along with other academic and religious leaders asking for a religious exemption from President Barack Obama’s executive order that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Repercussions were immediate, as the town hall in Salem quickly canceled Gordon College’s contract to use its facility when they found out about Lindsay’s request.

According to the NEASC, it assured Gordon College that if it doesn’t alter its policy, “the organization won’t be rushing to withdraw the school’s accreditation;” however, the NEASC controls whether federal funding will be made available to the college.

Related commentary by Dr. Michael L. Brown:
Gordon College, don't sell your soul for secular accreditation

Putting things into perspective

Stand to Reason founder and president Greg Koukl made it quite clear exactly what’s at stake.

“If they do not change the standards for sexual behavior in their ‘life and conduct statement’ (which prohibit ‘sexual relations outside of marriage’ and ‘homosexual practice’) they will lose their accreditation,” the head of the Christian nonprofit explained.

According to a joint NEASC-Gordon College statement, the association’s higher education commission met last week and “considered whether Gordon College’s traditional inclusion of ‘homosexual practice’ as a forbidden activity” is in violation of the commission’s accreditation standards. It states that the review will be conducted “to ensure that the College’s policies and procedures are non-discriminatory.”

Attempting to explain the 18-month period allotted to Gordon College, the NEASC higher education commission president said it was given because the college’s policy is “deeply embedded in the culture of the college” and such things “don’t change overnight.”

Koukl does not believe that this timeframe is as generous as it’s been described when taking the policy’s roots into consideration.

“How reasonable of the commission to give Gordon College 18 months to come to terms with overturning the thousands-of-years-old Christian view of acceptable sexual behavior,” Koukl jests. “This 18-month reprieve is nothing but theater, of course. Gordon College will not convince the commission their standards are ‘non-discriminatory.’”

The Christian scholar, who also teaches Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California, believes Gordon College is exercising an act of futility in its attempt for accreditation.

“Gordon College will explain the difference between behavior and identity, between a person with same-sex attractions who agrees with the biblical standards and one who doesn’t, and the difference between banning a person because of his sexual orientation and banning particular behaviors among all students that go against the biblical view,” Koukl argues. “And then the commission will reject it.”

Koukl is quite sure that this will be the course of action taken and explains why.

“How do I know this?” asks the Christian leader headquartered in Signal Hill, California. “Because this is what happened earlier this year when Gordon College publicly argued for the ‘right of faith-based institutions to set and adhere to standards which derive from our shared framework of faith.’ That controversy ended with the termination of their city contract to maintain Salem’s historical Old Town Hall and their student teachers being removed from public schools.”

Discrimination redefined

At the time the college was banned from the town hall it stated its beliefs, which it considered non-discriminatory.

“In our statement of faith and conduct we affirm God’s creation of marriage, first described in Genesis, as the intended lifelong one-flesh union of one man and one woman,” Gordon College officials maintained. “Along with this positive affirmation of marriage as a male-female union, there are clear prohibitions in the Scriptures against sexual relations between persons of the same sex.”

Gordon College went through lengths to assure that it does not treat homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals when it comes to sexual sin.

“It is important to note that the Gordon statement of faith and conduct does not reference same-sex orientation — that is, the state of being a person who experiences same-sex attraction — but rather, specifically, homosexual acts,” the college pointed out. “The Gordon community is expected to refrain from any such sexual intercourse — heterosexual or homosexual; premarital or extramarital — outside of the marriage covenant.”

It acknowledges the hot-topic social issues tied to homosexuality.

“There is currently much debate among Christians about the nature and causes of homosexuality, and about a faithful Christian response to same-sex attractions, but we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of grace, all called to redeemed humanity in Christ,” the statement continues. “We recognize that students at Gordon who identify as LGBTQ or experience same-sex attraction have often felt marginalized and alone, and recognize the pressing need for a safe campus environment for all students.”

Koukl contens there’s no satisfying the NEASC.

“That wasn’t enough then, and it certainly won’t be enough now,” Koukl asserts. “But it should be. Setting standards or sexual behavior is not the same as discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation — it’s not discrimination against singe people because of their heterosexual orientation, and it’s not discrimination against gay people because of their homosexual orientation.”

He insists that there is a definite double-standard going on — one that is rarely reported by the mainstream media that embraces the LGBTQ community.

“Consider this: I can’t think of three names off the top of my head right now of people who have same-sex attractions (and are open about it) who support the boundaries Christianity sets around sexuality and write for esteemed and popular conservative evangelical Christian ministries and/or whose books I recommend: Nick Roen, Sam Allberry, and Wesley Hill,” Koukl shared. “No one is interested in kicking them out of anything because of their same-sex attractions, because that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they subscribe to and live by the biblical view of sexuality, not their sexual orientation. There is a relevant distinction between the two.”

Koukl contends that part of the strategy behind the homosexual agenda is to blur the lines of the argument so that the LGBTQ community continues to get special legal privileges in the names of tolerance, anti-discrimination and civil rights.

“Therefore, just as having a sexual behavior standard for people with opposite-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against heterosexual people, so having the same standard for people with same-sex attractions is not an act of discrimination against homosexual people,”  Koukl reasons. “But the commission won’t see this because our culture is no longer capable of making a distinction between ‘sexual identity’ and behavior.”

According to Koukl, it’s all downhill for Christian nonprofit organizations, as he believes they will continue to have their beliefs and Christian traditions trampled as LGBTQ “rights” turn into privileges.

“If Stand to Reason still has tax-exempt status within five years, I will be very, very surprised,” Koukl concedes.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/2014/10/03/college-accreditation-please-god-or-please-man#.VD7EYslxhlc


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 15, 2014, 11:12:40 pm
Quote
"This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.

They already did  a long time ago - it was b/c these hireling pastors sold out to 501c3.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 16, 2014, 06:56:34 am
Why the City of Houston wanted the sermons of five Christian pastors

The City of Houston ignited a free-speech controversy by seeking the sermons of five evangelical Christian pastors as part of a legal battle over a new anti-gay discrimination ordinance. On Wednesday, the mayor scaled back the scope of the subpoenas.


The City of Houston ignited a First Amendment free-speech debate by issuing subpoenas to evangelical Christian leaders demanding they turn over their sermons – and all other communications – regarding a new city ordinance providing protections to the LGBT community.

But on Wednesday, the Houston Mayor Annise Parker apparently backpedaled.

"Mayor Parker agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastor’s sermons,” according to an email from Janice Evans, chief policy officer for the City of Houston. “The subpoenas were issued by pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) in January.  Neither the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until yesterday.  Both agree the original documents were overly broad.  The city will move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing.  Feldman says the focus should be only on communications related to the HERO petition process.”

Pastor Dave Welch, one of five Houston pastors who received a subpoena despite not being involved the HERO lawsuit against the city, said in a phone interview shortly after mayor's statement was issued: “What they did by issuing these subpoenas was to punish any pastor in the city of Houston who participated in gathering signatures against the HERO ordinance,”

Welch, who heads the Houston Area Pastor Council, called even a downsized version of the subpoena “an effort to both punish and intimidate those who dared to step-up and oppose this city council.”

The recently enacted HERO was championed by Mayor Parker, the nation’s first openly lesbian mayor of a major American city.

The city ordinance passed in June and bans anti-gay discrimination among businesses that serve the public, private employers, in housing and in city employment and city contracting. The ordinance exempted religious institutions.

But the ordinance passage was followed by a lawsuit against the city by people identified as Christians in the media. The lawsuit sought a court injunction forcing the city to suspend the HERO ordinance and place a repeal on the ballot in November. City attorneys responded to the lawsuit on Oct. 10 by issuing subpoenas to five local pastors.

And that's when a local battle over discrimination suddenly became a First Amendment cause célèbre.

“City council members are supposed to be public servants, not Big Brother overlords who won’t tolerate descent or challenge,” said Erik Stanley of the group Alliance Defending Freedom, which now represents the pastors, on the group’s website.  “In this case the city has embarked upon a witch hunt and we’re asking the court to put a stop to it.”

Part of the evangelical outcry now is the fact that the five pastors named in the subpoena have no involvement in the lawsuit brought against the city – the city attorney issued the subpoena during the legal discovery process, according to Religious News Service (RNS) and other news outlets.

Therefore it appears to some that these pastors have been singled-out because they allegedly fought the passage of the HERO ordinance from the pulpit.

The city attorney's office has not responded to requests for comment.

However, the subpoena was posted online by the attorneys at The Alliance Defending Freedom who represent the pastors.

“The subpoenas were issued to pastors who have been involved in the political campaign to organize a repeal of Houston’s new equal rights ordinance,” said Ms. Evans, chief policy officer to the mayor, in a statement to the Houston Chronicle. “It is part of the discovery process in a lawsuit brought by opponents of the ordinance, a group that is tied to the pastors who have received the subpoenas.”

A central point of contention in the new ordinance is that if transgender people are barred access to a restroom, they may file a discrimination complaint.

The City of Houston subpoena specifically demanded the pastors turn over any all communications of any kind, written or electronic including but not limited to: sermons, emails, studies, petition circulars, training materials and any other related documents, photos and petition drafts, according to the subpoena.

The subpoena also demands, “All communications with Pastor Dave Welch or anyone else at or associated with the Houston Area Pastor Council referring or relating to HERO, restroom access in connection with HERO, the Petition, or this litigation.”

Welch has become known for his conservative views and allegedly calling upon his followers to invoke “Imprecatory prayers” that “ask God to burden, curse or even destroy wicked individuals and institutions,” against the LGBT community and its supporters, according to TFN (Texas Freedom Network)

Those failing to comply will with the subpoena will be held in contempt of court.

But the city's lawyers will face a high bar for proving the information in the sermons is essential to their case, Charles Rhodes, a South Texas College of Law professor, told the Houston Chronicle. The pastors are not named parties in the lawsuit, and the [US Constitution's First Amendment] "Church Autonomy Doctrine" offers fairly broad protections for internal church deliberations, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-city-houston-wanted-sermons-five-christian-pastors-020730663.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 16, 2014, 03:07:07 pm
Houston Mayor Backs Off Sermon Subpoena After Public Outcry
After calling the sermons “fair game,” Mayor Parker now claims subpoena wasn’t her idea, city to “narrow the scope” of investigation




After declaring late Tuesday night that the sermons of local pastors were “fair game” for the city’s review in a legal case involving a referendum, Houston Mayor Annise Parker issued a statement late Wednesday saying she now “agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastors’ sermons.” The about face comes after public outrage over the city’s demand that five pastors who opposed a new transgender rights ordinance turn over any sermons related to homosexuality or the mayor.

As TruthRevolt reported Wednesday, the city demanded five Houston-area pastors turn over “all speeches, presentations, or sermons” on sexual identity, the new ordinance, or the mayor, the first openly gay major of a major U.S. city. The five pastors had been a part of a petition for a referendum vote on the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, a transgender non-discrimination law that in part would allow men to use women’s restrooms and vice versa. Though the petition received far more than the required signatures to force a referendum, the city threw it out citing “irregularities.” The city’s move prompted a lawsuit against the city.

Though Parker clearly stated Tuesday night that she agreed with the subpoena, her office is now disavowing the move and claiming that they were not the ones who issued the subpoena in the first place. The statement from Parker’s office claimed that the subpoenas were issued by “pro bono attorneys helping the city prepare for the trial regarding the petition to repeal the new Houston Equal Rights Ordinance” and that “[n]either the mayor nor City Attorney David Feldman were aware the subpoenas had been issued until [Tuesday].” The city, Feldman explained, would now “narrow the scope” of information for the court hearing to “communications related to the petitions to overturn the ordinance.”

The city’s rationale for demanding the sermons was that they were relevant to the petition case, an argument dismissed by Alliance Defending Freedom’s Joe La Rue, who called the mayor’s reversal “wholly inadequate,” noting that the city is still demanding sermons and documents unrelated to the petition drive.

“These sermons, emails and texts have nothing to do with whether the coalition gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot,” said La Rue. ADF, a group nationally known for taking up cases involvement religious freedom, filed to have the subpoenas stopped Tuesday.

The pastors, ADF, and others involved in the petition drive say the city’s actions fly in the face of religious freedom and seem to be an attempt to vilify Christianity. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, warned that the city’s actions were a “shot across the bow of the church,” and called for unified pushback from pastors across the country against such abuses of power.


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/houston-mayor-backs-sermon-subpoena-after-public-outcry


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 17, 2014, 07:33:57 am
Twitter Blocks Campaign To Protect Pastors From Having To Hand Over Their Sermons and Emails To The Government

Twitter blocked a petition campaign Wednesday to protect Houston pastors from having to hand over to the city government all of their sermons and personal emails dealing with the issue of homosexuality.

The Christian organization Faith Driven Consumer’s Twitter hashtag campaign #HoustonWeHaveAProblem was censored by Twitter minutes after launching so that users could not Tweet the petition and a warning was placed on Twitter-based links to the petition website. The group’s previous campaign #iStandWithPhil defending Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson was also blocked by Twitter at one time.

“We are asking Twitter to immediately unblock thousands of people who have already flocked to our petition and want to spread the word from coast to coast,” Faith Driven Consumer founder Chris Stone said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.

The city of Houston this week subpoenaed from a group of pastors sermons and personal correspondences, including emails, that discuss “homosexuality, gender identity, or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor.”

UPDATE: Houston mayor Annise Parker said Wednesday night that the subpoenas “should be clarified, will be clarified” and will be less broad in scope. But as of press time the subpoenas are still active.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/15/twitter-blocks-campaign-to-protect-pastors-from-having-to-hand-over-its-sermons-and-emails-to-the-government/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 18, 2014, 08:37:42 am
Houston Pastor Refiles Subpoenas With Jail Threats

The following is a response from Tony Perkins after Houston Mayor Annise Parker agreed to revise subpoenas against pastors that drop the word "sermons" but retain the demand for 17 different categories of information—including speeches by the pastors, emails, text messages and other private communications within the church.

This head-fake might fool some, but the reality is, Mayor Parker didn't need a subpoena to access those sermons in the first place. They were already public. In this "new" filing, the mayor still insists on seeing private emails, texts and other communications related to the mayor's office and the city's "bathroom bill." While two words—"or sermons"—are dropped from the "revised" subpoena, the government intrusion into private religious affairs remains. The "revised" subpoena is a difference without a distinction.

Obviously, Houston's leadership has one goal—and information gathering isn't it. This is about political intimidation. But if the Mayor was hoping to scare off these churches, she'll have to try harder. Every pastor I've spoken to would go to jail before surrendering their God-given rights to preach the Truth free from government harassment and intimidation.

Houston has become a rallying cry for freedom-loving Americans tired of seeing their laws and liberties casually tossed aside in a stampede. This is why more than 38,000 people have signed our petition in the last two days, standing with the Houston pastors and calling on Mayor Parker to immediately retract these unconstitutional and unconscionable demands.

Click here to access the petition.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/45815-houston-pastor-refiles-subpoenas-with-jail-threats


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 18, 2014, 10:17:11 pm
Quote
Every pastor I've spoken to would go to jail before surrendering their God-given rights to preach the Truth free from government harassment and intimidation.

But they won't give up their preciouses 501c3 statuses.(b/c of the love of money)

Just wait until the IRS forces these same pastors in Houston(among every church in the country) to have sodomite weddings and hire sodomite employees.
They WILL cave in.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2014, 06:10:39 am
Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages

and it begins...

City officials in Coeur d'Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat.

    Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

    City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

    “The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.

    “The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.

This is a law that manifestly violates the Constitution so I wouldn't expect any court in America to uphold the city statutue. But the fact that it was passed in the first place should raise the alarm that the assault on religious liberty has entered a new phase. The power of government is being used in the contraceptive controversey and now the gay marriage issue to force acceptance of practices totally at odds with the religious faith of millions of people.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/new_america_ordained_ministers_threatened_with_jail_unless_they_perform_same_sex_marriages.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2014, 06:15:26 am
Ted Cruz Says There Is 'Real Risk' Of Pastors Being Jailed  For Preaching Against Homosexuality

Did you read above Ted?

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Senator Ted Cruz says pastors being hauled off to jail by the government for preaching against homosexuality is a “real risk” in the future. ““I think that is a real risk,” Cruz tells me. “Some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.” But he adds: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”   

MORE: http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2014/10/17/ted-cruz-tells-brody-file-real-risk-of-pastors-being.aspx


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 20, 2014, 06:40:13 am
HOUSTON, TEXAS: NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR PASTORS

By Chuck Baldwin
October 16, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

Thomas Jefferson rightly noted that big cities are the “bane” of freedom. And in a letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote, “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe.” Modern America is a living testament to Jefferson’s sagacity. Unlike early America, the vast majority of the U.S. population now lives in large metropolitan areas. And it is the big-government machinations of big-city politicians that are leading the charge for America’s surrender to Big Brother. Houston, Texas, is the latest example.

Writing for FOX NEWS, Todd Starnes covers the story:

“The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

“‘The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,’ Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. ‘The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.’”

Starnes continues, “‘Political and social commentary is not a crime,’ Holcomb said. ‘It is protected by the First Amendment.’

“The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.

“The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures--far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

“However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

“After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

“The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups--from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

“‘City council members are supposed to be public servants, not “Big Brother” overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,’ said ADF attorney Erik Stanley. ‘This is designed to intimidate pastors.’”

Starnes also wrote, “Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

“The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over ‘all communications with members of your congregation’ regarding the non-discrimination law.

“‘This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,’ Riggle told me. ‘The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.’

“Rev. David Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“‘We’re not afraid of this bully,’ he said. ‘We’re not intimidated at all.’

“He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.

“‘We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,’ Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.’”

Obviously, city officials in Houston, Texas, are trying to use their authority to bully and intimidate local pastors and churches from exercising their God-given duty to proclaim truth as they understand it. And, yes, such speech is emphatically recognized and protected in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is clear that Mayor Annise Parker and the Houston City Council do not believe in the freedom of speech; and their actions should be regarded as an act of tyranny by any freedom lover--be they Christian or otherwise.

The issue is NOT homosexuality or lesbianism; the issue is freedom of speech and religion. And I would say the same if the folks exercising their First Amendment freedom were homosexuals and lesbians. In fact, can you imagine the outcry of the national media if, instead of a lesbian mayor and pro-homosexual city council, the mayor of Houston and city council were conservative Christians and the clergymen being threatened with fine or imprisonment over their freedom of speech were lesbians and homosexuals? Why, the outcry of the national press corps would be deafening. As it is, for all intents and purposes, the story is completely ignored by the vast majority of the mainstream media. So typical!

The audacity of Mayor Parker and the Houston City Council to demand they examine and approve of a pastor’s sermons and private communications with parishioners! This is so egregiously offensive it is difficult to comprehend that we are talking about an American city. But this is NOT the America of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. Furthermore, it is obvious that Texas is NOT the State of Travis, Austin, and Houston. In fact, the namesake of the City of Houston must be turning over in his grave. I doubt that the Mexican tyrant, Santa Anna, ever dreamed up anything as dastardly as what we see emanating from the twisted mind of Mayor Parker and her corrupt cronies on the Houston City Council.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no doubt that the action of Houston city officials is only a precursor of forthcoming acts of tyranny.

Most of us are aware that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued a statement saying it was going to begin “monitoring” the sermons of America’s pastors after an atheist organization complained that too many of America’s pastors were violating the conditions of their non-profit tax status under section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

As an aside, I have to chuckle at the proposition that too many pastors are speaking out on political issues from their pulpits. How many churches have you attended lately? One could visit almost every church in a given community and not find ONE pastor who regularly speaks out on what some might call “political” issues. In fact, a recent Barna research project discovered that some 90% of America’s pastors deliberately refuse to address such subjects from the pulpit.

Furthermore, I am NOT IMPRESSED with the so called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” in which pastors are encouraged to deliberately speak out on topics considered taboo by the IRC on one particular Sunday of the year. Nationwide, some 1,500 pastors reportedly participated in a recent “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” That’s 1,500 out of over 300,000 evangelical pastors in America. Do the math.

I ask you, what is the big deal if a pastor decides to speak out on salient political and cultural issues on ONE Sunday? What about the other 51 Sundays? Tune in to Liberty Fellowship in Kalispell, Montana, folks. EVERY SUNDAY is “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” at Liberty.

Then again, Liberty Fellowship is NOT a 501c3 church. And that is what makes all the difference. And sooner or later, Mayor Parker and others of her ilk are going to get around to that. And when they do, the lunacy of America’s pastors and churches allowing themselves to become creatures of the state via their acceptance of the 501c3 non-profit tax status is going to come home to roost.

What these pastors and churches of Houston, Texas, (and the rest of the country) don’t realize--or have ignored--is that when they voluntarily accepted the 501c3 categorization of the IRS, they also voluntarily accepted the rules and regulations of the IRC. Therefore, the government does not recognize them as churches and pastors but as mere corporations and corporate officers. And, tragically, they are right. That’s exactly what a 501c3 “church” is.

A 501c3 “church” is nothing more than a government-created non-profit organization, equal to ten thousand other non-profit organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, Doctors of the World, American Humane Association, National Audubon Society, Greenpeace, American Red Cross, American Heart Association, March of Dimes, American Cancer Society, Lutheran World Relief, Habitat for Humanity, AARP Foundation, Common Cause, Boy Scouts of America, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, League of Women Voters, and the National Football League (NFL). Yep, you read it right: the NFL. Oh! We can also throw in the National Hockey League (NHL) and the Professional Golfers Association (PGA).

Again, sooner or later, Mayor Parker and Company will awaken to this reality. And that’s when the real battle lines will be drawn.

So, let’s acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of America’s 501c3 pastors and churches have completely abdicated their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to the IRS and make no pretense about it. Barna’s research says 90% of America’s pastors deliberately refuse to address political issues from the pulpit--the very same issues that violate the stated rules and regulations of the IRC. Then, let’s also acknowledge that the vast, vast majority of America’s church members have deliberately laid their religious convictions on the altar of IRS tax benefits for donations to “charitable organizations,” i.e. “churches.”

When push comes to shove (and it certainly will), America’s pastors and churches are going to be forced to come to grips with the fact that they have--either wittingly or unwittingly--surrendered their spiritual authority and freedom of religion to Caesar through the acceptance of the government 501c3 non-profit organization status. At this point, they then must decide whether they will continue to function as a creature of the state by continuing to accept the 501c3 non-profit organization status in exchange for their willful silence, or, will they choose to break free from the shackles of government bondage and become a true church under the authority and sovereignty of Christ by renouncing the 501c3 non-profit organization status?

The shot fired in Houston, Texas, by the mayor and city council is indeed a “shot across the bow.” And, in typical fashion, it is a large metropolitan area that is firing this shot of tyranny against the sacred principle of religious liberty. The sage assessment of Mr. Jefferson is proven dead right. And, as already noted, we can certainly expect the federal government, via the IRS, to join in the barrage.

But, as I see it, this fight is long overdue. For too many years, America’s churches have operated as creatures of the state without any seeming repercussion. This lack of aggressive intrusion into church affairs has accomplished two things: 1) It has given pastors and churches a false sense of security, and, 2) It has given time for pastors and churches to be thoroughly indoctrinated in the devilish philosophy that it’s okay for the church to operate under the auspice and “benevolence” of Caesar. Now, it appears that the façade is beginning to be lifted; the dragon is awakening.

That the Church will once again be forced to truly recognize who their Master is, what their spiritual authority is, and where real liberty comes from, is not a bad thing at all. It just might be the beginning of what America needs most: fiercely independent, unshackled pastors and churches that are courageously and fearlessly proclaiming the Biblical Natural Law principles of liberty, which have been mostly ignored for well over a century. It will also give genuine believers an opportunity to identify real Bible churches from phony, government-created non-profit organizations pretending to be churches.

It took religious persecution in Colonial America to bring about a Great Awakening, which then produced the great separation from the British Crown and American independence. It appears that it’s going to take religious persecution once again to bring about another Great Awakening, which very well could produce another great surge of liberty and independence in our land.

Houston, Texas, might be the beginning, but it most certainly will not be the ending.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin827.htm


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 20, 2014, 08:34:51 am
Ted Cruz Says There Is 'Real Risk' Of Pastors Being Jailed  For Preaching Against Homosexuality

Did you read above Ted?

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Senator Ted Cruz says pastors being hauled off to jail by the government for preaching against homosexuality is a “real risk” in the future. ““I think that is a real risk,” Cruz tells me. “Some in the media ridicule that threat saying there is no danger of the government coming after pastors. That is the usual response.” But he adds: “The specter of government trying to determine if what pastors preach from the pulpit meets with the policy views or political correctness of the governing authorities, that prospect is real and happening now.”   

MORE: http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2014/10/17/ted-cruz-tells-brody-file-real-risk-of-pastors-being.aspx

Hey Ted - why don't you start exposing the whole 501c3 issue? And while you're at it, why don't you start taking a stand for the King James Bible?


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 25, 2014, 08:59:57 am
Houston Pastor Refiles Subpoenas With Jail Threats

The following is a response from Tony Perkins after Houston Mayor Annise Parker agreed to revise subpoenas against pastors that drop the word "sermons" but retain the demand for 17 different categories of information—including speeches by the pastors, emails, text messages and other private communications within the church.

This head-fake might fool some, but the reality is, Mayor Parker didn't need a subpoena to access those sermons in the first place. They were already public. In this "new" filing, the mayor still insists on seeing private emails, texts and other communications related to the mayor's office and the city's "bathroom bill." While two words—"or sermons"—are dropped from the "revised" subpoena, the government intrusion into private religious affairs remains. The "revised" subpoena is a difference without a distinction.

Obviously, Houston's leadership has one goal—and information gathering isn't it. This is about political intimidation. But if the Mayor was hoping to scare off these churches, she'll have to try harder. Every pastor I've spoken to would go to jail before surrendering their God-given rights to preach the Truth free from government harassment and intimidation.

Houston has become a rallying cry for freedom-loving Americans tired of seeing their laws and liberties casually tossed aside in a stampede. This is why more than 38,000 people have signed our petition in the last two days, standing with the Houston pastors and calling on Mayor Parker to immediately retract these unconstitutional and unconscionable demands.

Click here to access the petition.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/45815-houston-pastor-refiles-subpoenas-with-jail-threats

Keep in mind - (501c3)churches by and large in America have flat screen tvs behind their pulpits nowdays.

Pt being that they have hidden microphones et al in these digital/flat screen tvs(where everyone has been given mandatory to switch to) - so the government can hear their sermons anyways.

Ultimately - don't fall for this little sideshow going on - besides, this Houston sodomite mayor has been around since 2009. It wasn't like she was recently elected. When she was first elected(and served during this time until now), she has been quietly under the radar without a chirp from any of these pastors and "evangelicals". And they've waited until NOW to start making a big fuss?

Yeah, had a feeling why they put Wendy Davis in the spotlight - as she has played her part too distracting away from Parker.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 28, 2014, 06:33:21 am
Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages

and it begins...

City officials in Coeur d'Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.

The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat.

    Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

    City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

    “The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.

    “The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.

This is a law that manifestly violates the Constitution so I wouldn't expect any court in America to uphold the city statutue. But the fact that it was passed in the first place should raise the alarm that the assault on religious liberty has entered a new phase. The power of government is being used in the contraceptive controversey and now the gay marriage issue to force acceptance of practices totally at odds with the religious faith of millions of people.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/new_america_ordained_ministers_threatened_with_jail_unless_they_perform_same_sex_marriages.html


Couple Look to Paul’s Example in Resisting Order to Perform Gay Marriages

Perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines and spend months behind bars. That’s the choice their Idaho town gave one Christian couple who have made marriage ministry their life’s work.

Donald and Eyelyn Knapp, ordained ministers, are married to each other. Together, they have run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, since Ronald Reagan’s last year as president.

“The Apostle Paul spent quite a bit of time in jail for his faith, so who am I to feel like I have any right to avoid the same thing?” Don Knapp says during the couple’s exclusive interview with The Daily Signal.

More…
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67053


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 28, 2014, 09:00:54 am
I'm just looking at their ministry's web site - they're not doing much in terms of following biblical principles...

http://hitchingpostweddings.com/wedding/marriage-license-info/

Before getting married at the Hitching Post, you will need to apply and purchase your Marriage License. Your marriage licence needs to be purchased from the State in which you are being married.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they want to follow Apostle Paul's example?

Ephesians 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 29, 2014, 05:12:57 am
Religious Colleges Face a New Threat over Their Sexual Policies

 Christian colleges value accreditation from secular agencies as a quality assurance mechanism, but also because without it their students will lose federal financial aid and may have trouble gaining acceptance to graduate school. So accreditation is a potential weapon in the hands of agencies influenced by the agenda of gay rights activists. This worries some education leaders in the wake of news from Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., while others say there’s nothing to fear.
 
The Gordon story, in brief: Gordon President Michael Lindsay bravely joined some other Christian leaders in signing a letter to President Barack Obama asking for religious exemptions to a proposed ban on federal funding for institutions that “discriminate” against LGBT employees. In September the Commission of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), one of six regional accrediting agencies, asked Gordon for a report about whether its conduct policy forbidding “homosexual practice” meets NEASC’s requirement for “nondiscriminatory policies and practices in recruitment, admissions, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement.”
 
NEASC President Barbara Brittingham told me, “We didn’t have any problem with any other part of the school’s policies,” which also include prohibitions of sex outside marriage, drunkenness, blasphemy, profanity, theft, and dishonesty. She also said, “We accredit Boston College, which is a Jesuit school, and they only want Jesuits to teach theology. We have no problem with that.”
 
When asked why Gordon should have to produce a special report regarding its opposition to homosexuality, Brittingham said, “How society thinks about LGBT people has changed drastically in the last 15 years or so, and Gordon seems to be saying that one group of people can do certain things, but another group of people cannot.” She also said NEASC has a good relationship with Gordon and that withdrawal of accreditation could not happen next September, when the report is due. She said the worst possibilities at that time would be some form of probation or a more formal inquiry. Later, she emailed me about the probation issue and said, “I was speaking hypothetically in the general sense, not about Gordon College.”
 
David Brown, a professor at Northland International University, says, “Leaders in Christian higher education are keeping a close watch on what is happening at Gordon. … They were anticipating this as a falling of the first domino, and they aren’t surprised it happened in Massachusetts.” Brown noted that NEASC “pinpointed one action of one leader on a topic on which good people differ, and threatened the entire future of a fine school.”
 
But a statement from the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities said, “NEASC has been clear in its communication that Gordon’s accreditation is not at risk. The Higher Education Opportunity Act requires accreditors to respect institutional mission, and in the case of religious institutions, their religious mission specifically.” Mary Ellen Petrisko, president of the Accrediting Commission for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, told me, “I do not believe that the Gordon College situation is the beginning of a trend that will endanger the accreditation of religious schools.”
 
Withdrawal of accreditation is very rare and has been done only once by NEASC since 1988—in 2010, when a school had serious financial problems. But this is also the first time that an accrediting agency has demanded a report in relation to rules concerning homosexuality. So questions remain: Will Christian colleges be evaluated based on consistency with their own mission and values, or will they be judged by someone else’s? And if accrediting agencies demand changes, will those colleges give in?

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/religious-colleges-face-a-new-threat-over-their-sexual-policies.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 29, 2014, 07:48:32 pm
Why didn't Huckabee and his 501c3 ilk do this 5 years ago?(when she first came into office) This TX sodomite mayor has quietly been under the radar since she came in(until recently, that is). Hate to say it, but 1) They should go to her and show her the gospel of Jesus Christ in truth and love, and 2) Sending her a flood of bibles is too little, too late(and they're likely not KJBs).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/28/guess-how-many-bibles-have-arrived-at-the-office-of-the-houston-mayor-after-she-subpoenaed-pastors-sermons/
10/28/14
Guess How Many Bibles Have Arrived at the Office of the Houston Mayor After She Subpoenaed Pastors’ Sermons

Houston Mayor Annise Parker has received a flood of Bibles — somewhere between 500 and 1,000 according to a spokesman for the mayor’s office — after the city subpoenaed the church sermons of five local faith leaders opposed to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which the mayor signed in May.

“This is more dangerous than anything I’ve ever seen,” Glenn Beck said last week after interviewing one of the five subpoenaed religious leaders. “This is not about equal rights. … This is about shutting people down.”

Steve Riggle, the pastor of Grace Community Church in Houston, told Beck that the city not only demanded his sermons, but anything he had said about Mayor Parker in 17 different forms of communication.

“People of faith are under attack,” Beck said. “Our churches and our institutions, our pastors, our preachers, our priests, our rabbis are under attack.”

Beck, in addition to former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R), encouraged Americans across the country to stand in support of the subpoenaed religious leaders by flooding the mayor’s office with religious texts.

“Go find the best sermons you can find on religious liberty and send them to city hall in Houston,” Beck said.

Mayor Parker acknowledged Monday that she has received a number of Bibles, telling KHOU-TV that Huckabee is “doing what he can to pump ratings for Fox News.”

But she also added that it was a “very productive way for folks who disagreed with our legal strategy to express that disagreement,” and she will be distributing the Bibles to local churches.

More on the story via KPRC-TV:



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 29, 2014, 07:55:52 pm
Matthew 10:14  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Mat 10:15  Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on October 31, 2014, 07:15:04 am
City Says Ministers Don’t Have to Wed Same-Sex Couples, but Here’s Why It’s Not Over Yet

An Idaho town is not going to force a Christian ministry couple who own a wedding chapel to perform same-sex marriages there, the town’s chief attorney told The Daily Signal.

A lawsuit filed against the town by the ordained ministers to protect themselves from prosecution was based on “a misperception,” City Attorney Michael C. Gridley said, and he had no intentions of “threatening” and “imprisoning” them.

With these conciliatory words, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, backed off enforcing its nondiscrimination ordinance against the ministers, Donald and Evelyn Knapp. The move would have subjected the couple to thousands of dollars in fines and up to six months behind bars for declining to perform gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies at their Hitching Post Lakeside Wedding Chapel.
Screen Shot 2014-10-29 at 5.35.25 PM

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho is located near the border of Washington state.

In a letter to the Knapps’ lawyer dated Oct. 23,  Gridley sought to “clarify” the town’s earlier stand in response to the couple’s lawsuit and motion for a temporary restraining order. He wrote:

    [I ]t is my opinion and the city’s position that as currently represented, the conduct by Hitching Post Weddings LLC is exempt from the requirements of the ordinance and would not be subject to prosecution under the ordinance if a complaint was received by the city.

Don and Lynn Knapp, who are Pentecostal ministers, have been married for 47 years. The couple, who have  owned the Hitching Post chapel in Coeur d’Alene since 1989, say their wedding ceremonies follow the teachings of the Bible, “which makes clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
closeupHitchingPost

Hitching Post Lakeside Wedding Chapel has been part of the regional experience since 1919.

The Knapps sued the city on Oct. 17, 10 days after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared gay marriage legal in Idaho.

Already, one same-sex couple had inquired about holding a wedding at their Hitching Post chapel.

Critics called the lawsuit “totally false” and “ridiculous,” saying the Knapps were already exempt from the nondiscrimination law, which states that places of “public accommodation” such as restaurants and hotels must offer services equally regardless of a person’s sexual orientation.

Gridley, the city attorney, now concedes that officials may have sent mixed messages to the Knapps.

How the Story Unfolded

In multiple interviews last spring, another attorney for Coeur d’Alene said the Knapps would be subject to the nondiscrimination law pending an appeal of a federal judge’s ruling against the Idaho law affirming marriage as between a man and  a woman.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” Deputy City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.

In an interview with KXLY, a local ABC television affiliate, Wilson also said:

    For-profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit.

He added:

    If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.

So on Oct. 17, when a same-sex couple asked the Knapps about holding their wedding at Hitching Post, the ministers went on the offense.

Of that decision, Don Knapp told The Daily Signal in an interview via email last week:

    If someone was told by the government that he or she would be prosecuted and face up to six months in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for exercising their First Amendment rights, they would not wait around to see if the government made good on that threat. They would file a lawsuit to protect their freedom and avoid jail and fines. And that’s what we did here.

Represented by a lawyer associated with Alliance Defending Freedom, the Knapps filed suit to prevent officials of Coeur d’Alene from prosecuting them for declining to violate their religious beliefs about marriage.

The lawsuit follows several cases that have drawn national attention because a government agency moved against a private business owner for acting on their religious beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman.

Hours after filing suit, the Knapps — ordained by a Pentecostal denomination called the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel — received another request to hold a same-sex ceremony, this time from a couple in Boston.

This put them at risk of being prosecuted over saying no to a second couple, meaning more fines and more jail time, said Jeremy Tedesco, the Knapps’ lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Filing Suit Too Soon?

Tedesco told The Daily Signal that the lawsuit isn’t pre-emptive because the city made clear on three occasions that if the Hitching Post were to decline to perform same-sex weddings, the Knapps would be in violation of the law and subject to criminal prosecution.

The city’s first response was a letter dated  Oct. 20. In it, Gridley writes that the Knapps would be exempt from the law if they were running a nonprofit religious corporation:

    If [the Knapps] are operating as a legitimate not-for-profit religious corporation then they are exempt from the ordinance like any other church or religious association. On the other hand, if [the Knapps] are providing services primarily or substantially for profit andthey discriminate in providing those services based on sexual orientation then they would likely be in violation of the ordinance.

Hitching Post has been a for-profit wedding chapel since they opened it 25 years ago, the Knapps say.

The city’s distinction between for-profit and nonprofit distinction “should not come as any surprise,” Tedesco said in an email to The Daily Signal:

    The left’s unequivocal (and incorrect) position is that for-profit companies cannot exercise religion, and thus are not entitled to any religious exemptions in these types of nondiscrimination laws. The city consistently expressed this same position before and after we filed suit. But the massive public outcry has pressured the city to alter its position and recognize that people do not abandon their faith when they open a business.

Later in the Oct. 20 letter, Gridley told the Knapps there was another way they could be exempt from the law: the First Amendment.

The city attorney wrote:

    [S ]ection 9.56.040 of the anti-discrimination ordinance states that the ordinance ‘shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with the First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion.’

Amending the Law

Tedesco said he was pleased to see the city backing off enforcement, but its response was insufficient to settle the case.

“To resolve the broader religious freedom problem with the ordinance, the city should amend it so that it is clear that the religious exemption covers for-profits, like the Hitching Post,” he said. “It is a fundamental violation of due process for the city to leave people guessing as to whether they will be subject to the criminal penalties set out in the ordinance.”

Gridley’s follow-up letter Oct. 23, meant to “clarify” the city’s stance, does not say all for-profit religious corporations are protected from prosecution — only Hitching Post.
HitchingPost2

Don and Lynn Knapp are ordained Pentecostal ministers who have been married for 47 years.

In a telephone interview with The Daily Signal late Tuesday, Gridley said town officials are talking about changing language in the law. As written, he said he realized upon review,  it “makes no distinction between profit and not.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s June 20 decision in the Hobby Lobby case, which upheld the religious liberty rights of closely held corporations, Gridley said:

    It’s not my place to add that [interpretation regarding for-profit enterprises] onto that ordinance, so that’s why I sent the letter correcting or clarifying … that a religious corporation would be exempt from this ordinance, whether they are for profit or not.


Gridley also said town officials were not maliciously targeting the Knapps. He said:

    I think there was a misperception that we were threatening the Knapps, that we were imprisoning ministers, and all that kind of stuff, and we’re really not. We have not gone there, we have not threatened anybody.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/30/city-says-ministers-dont-have-to-wed-same-sex-couples-but-heres-why-its-not-over-yet/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 31, 2014, 10:28:33 am
Don and Lynn Knapp, who are Pentecostal ministers, have been married for 47 years. The couple, who have  owned the Hitching Post chapel in Coeur d’Alene since 1989, say their wedding ceremonies follow the teachings of the Bible, “which makes clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Well, that's a shame. Hate to see the public deceived like this over how the people who are getting "persecuted" are indeed wolves in sheep's clothing.

With that being said - what we saw here and in Houston are just that...WARNING SHOTS. IOW, it's only the beginning.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 06, 2014, 09:25:25 am
England Makes A New Law: Schools That Teach Against Homosexuality Will Be Shut Down



    The homo tyranny is only getting worse and worse. With the increase of tolerance for evil, comes the increase of tyranny. Now the British government is decreeing that any school that teaches against homosexuality will be closed, according to the Daily Mail:

    Schools found ‘indoctrinating pupils about gay people’ will face being closed down under new rules designed to promote ‘British values’, the Government confirmed today.

    The Department for Education insisted it was ‘nonsense’ to suggest teachers would have to give lessons on gay rights.

    But a spokesman insisted Ofsted, which has introduced the new rules the wake of the Islamist Trojan Horse plot to radicalise pupils in Birmingham, was right to ensure schools were not breeding grounds for homophobia.

    A spokesman said: ‘Ofsted are rightly ensuring that schools do not indoctrinate pupils about gay people – or any other people – being inferior.

    ‘The same goes for schools that do things like make girls sit separately at the back of the class. Both are practices which go directly against the fundamental British values of tolerance and respect.

    ‘We believe schools should prepare all pupils for life in modern Britain. A broad and balanced curriculum is vital for this.’

    But the spokesman said it was ‘nonsense’ to say children would
    be taught gay rights.

    Labour’s shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt said Mrs Morgan ‘clearly does not believe that LGBT rights are British values’.

    He said: ‘Compulsory sex and relationship education, including LGBT rights, in all schools is common sense, not nonsense.
    ‘Nicky Morgan should apologise for the offence that has been caused by claiming that it is nonsense for all schools to teach gay rights.’

    It came after the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan – who said
    last week that she had changed her mind about gay marriage after voting against its introduction – warned schools not to ‘close minds’.

    She told the Sunday Times that schools must teach ‘pupils to respect other people even if they do not agree with them’.

    Mrs Morgan said: ‘I should have thought this is a principle with which the vast majority of people would agree. All schools of whatever type have a duty to protect young people and to ensure they leave school fully prepared for life in modern Britain.

    ‘These values — democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs — are not new. The requirement to “actively promote” them is designed to reinforce the importance this government attaches to these values.’

    Schools have been warned that those that fail to follow new rules on British values will be judged inadequate and could face closure by Ofsted inspectors.

    The move follows snap inspections by Ofsted at 40 schools, including those for Christian and Jewish pupils. They were launched in the wake of the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham as part of the government’s efforts to combat extremism.

    Mrs Morgan is backing Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw who will say that any school suspected of not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum, of rapidly falling standards or of not preparing children for life in modern Britain will face no-notice inspections.

    For the first time the rules give inspectors the powers to downgrade schools where teachers are breaching the Equality Act, which encourages respect for lesbian, gay and transgender people as well as those of other religions and races.

http://shoebat.com/2014/11/05/england-makes-new-law-schools-teach-homosexuality-will-shut/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 07, 2014, 06:51:03 am
Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Bert and Ernie Gay Marriage Cake Will Be Prosecuted

 The Christian bakers who recently made headlines for refusing to make a cake featuring Bert and Ernie and the slogan, “Support Gay Marriage,” are reportedly facing prosecution. The Equality Commission has announced that it is pursuing legal action against Ashers Baking Company, which is owned by Colin and Karen McArthur and managed by their son Daniel.
 
The Equality Commission send a letter to Ashers last week, saying that they believe the company acted unlawfully by denying to the request to make the cake and their clients will be “seeking only modest damages for the upset and inconvenience caused.” The letter continued that, “failing this, a civil bill will be issued.”
 
Daniel McArthur said that his family feels attacked for their traditional marriage values.

"It feels like a David and Goliath battle because on one hand we have the Equality Commission who are a public body, they're funded by taxpayers' money, they have massive resources at their disposal whereas we are a small family business and we have limited resources at our disposal.
 
"We're continuing to hold to the stand that we took originally because we believe it's biblical, we believe it's what God would want us to do, and we also think that if we do cave in to the Equality Commission at this point it'll put pressure on other citizens who are defending their view of traditional marriage.”

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/christian-bakers-who-refused-to-make-bert-and-ernie-gay-marriage-cake-will-be-prosecuted.html



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 07, 2014, 06:52:15 am
Red Cross Volunteer Dismissed for Voicing Views on Biblical Marriage

 A British Red Cross volunteer has been dismissed from the organization after he protested against same-sex marriage earlier this year.
 
Bryan Barkley, 71, has volunteered with the Red Cross for about 20 years. He works with the international family tracing service and helps locate and reunite families in the UK with relatives in other countries.
 
But earlier this year, Barkley was part of a protest outside Wakefield Cathedral where he held signs that read, “No Same Sex Marriage.” The protest took place on the day that the first same-sex marriages were allowed in England.
 
"What have I done wrong? I passionately believe that the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman and is the cornerstone of our society. Why is it wrong to say so in public?
 
"Freedom of expression is being stifled in this country.
 
"I have nothing against homosexuals. But I don't believe Parliament was representing the views of the people when it changed the definition of marriage."
 
Barkley is appealing his dismissal with help from the Coalition for Marriage.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/red-cross-volunteer-dismissed-for-voicing-views-on-biblical-marriage.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 07, 2014, 10:54:29 am
Speaking of Bert and Ernie - alot of us(including myself) grew up watching it - when I think about it...this is just me, but they craftily pushed alot of sexual pervertness et al(the way they touched each other).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on November 10, 2014, 07:25:54 am
Couple fined for refusing to host same-sex wedding on their farm

Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes.

“We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said.

“We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’

But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property in which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

“This is scary,’’ Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.” Fifteen years ago, Cynthia, 54, and Robert Gifford, 55, opened to the public their farm in upstate Schaghticoke, near Albany, where they’ve lived for 25 years. They host an annual, family-friendly fall festival, which ends Tuesday, offering such countrified fare as a corn maze and pig-racing shows.

In summer, wedding ceremonies and receptions also are held on the farm. But once already-booked nuptials take place, the Giffords will no longer schedule new ceremonies. Only receptions — including same-sex ones — will go on. What happened?

Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman.

Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm.

She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation. The pair then filed a formal complaint with the state Division of Human Rights. And this past August, an administrative-law judge from The Bronx, Migdalia Pares, decreed that the farm was a “public accommodation’’ and ordered the penalties, after ruling that the Giffords had violated state law by discriminating against the two women.

Incredible. The women, now both 31, currently live in upstate New York. They found another venue at which to get married, and each woman now uses the surname McCarthy. They declined my request for an interview.

“They were devastated when they heard that Liberty Ridge Farm would not take their business because of who they are,’’ the ladies’ lawyer, Mariko Hirose, of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told me.

“NYCLU supports religious freedom,’’ she said. “That still doesn’t make it OK for businesses to break existing law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, race, sex, disability, religion or other protected categories.’’

“We’ve gone from tolerance to compulsion,’’ the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor, told me. “State government should not be forcing people to violate their own religious beliefs, nor should they be forced to make a choice between making a living and violating their own faith.’’ Financial losses have forced the Giffords to let go a full-time event planner.

“I think there is an effort underway to change the social order,’’ said Trainor. “One way is by redefining marriage.’’

Trainor is allied with Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that seeks justice for people of faith. Last month, he filed an appeal with the state Appellate Division on behalf of the Giffords, seeking to get their money returned — and setting the stage for New York state’s first legal battle pitting one couple’s constitutional right to religious freedom against another couple’s right to get married wherever they please.

Readers know that I’ve come to support same-sex marriage. But I can’t understand why clergymen and women are free in New York to opt out of joining in marriage homosexual couples, but the law gives not a lick of respect to non-ordained people of faith.

In 2011, days before New York state’s Marriage Equality Act legalized same-sex marriage statewide, I wrote about two New York state Refuseniks — town clerks who refused to unite Jills and Janes and Adams and Steves. One woman quit her job, another quit performing all weddings, due to their religiously held beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Since then:

     In Oregon, Christian bakers who refused to sell a wedding cake to two lesbians face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

    In Washington state, an elderly Christian florist could face hefty fines after she refused to provide wedding flowers to two gay men.

    A Christian Colorado baker is appealing a judge’s decision ordering him to start baking wedding cakes for homosexuals and to provide his staff with sensitivity training, after he refused to create a wedding cake for two gay guys.

     The US Supreme Court this year declined to hear the case of a Christian photographer from New Mexico who claimed that refusing to shoot the commitment ceremony of two lesbians was not only an expression not only of her constitutional right to religious freedom, it was protected by her First Amendment right to free speech. New Mexico’s Supreme Court and the state’s Human Rights Commission have decreed that her refusal to shoot equaled unlawful discrimination.

Robert and Cynthia Gifford are decent people being punished for acting on their faith. This kind of government bigotry should appeal to no one, whether he or she (or one of no gender) identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, androgynous . . . or even straight.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: tennis shoe on November 10, 2014, 08:13:26 am
This needs to stop. It’s gone beyond “bullying”, tolerance, or even acceptance. Now it’s becoming illegal to not openly promote this lifestyle.

There is a spirit behind this. And it is wicked. It destroys families and human lives.

Quote
One thing I noticed about this Sodomite Parade was that it was attended mostly by young people. At other Homosexual Parades that I have been to, there are usually attended by older people. But this parade was unique in that most of the attendance were young. This shows how effective the homosexual movement has been at brainwashing the minds of the youth. No wonder places like Russia have outlawed Gay Pride Parades to protect the minds of their young people. I suspected that many of these young people were university students and definitely public schoolers, of course. Those seem to be the primary places liberals and demons have used to brainwash our culture and make them think that right is wrong and wrong is right. These kids thought that homosexuals were right for their perversions and that we were wrong for rebuking them. The mind of our society has become very reprobate.

http://openairoutreach.wordpress.com/2014/08/26/open-air-outreach-fall-tour-jesse-morrell/

The sodomite response to open air street preaching says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSpSJOuZhIA


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 10, 2014, 08:50:21 am
Quote
One thing I noticed about this Sodomite Parade was that it was attended mostly by young people. At other Homosexual Parades that I have been to, there are usually attended by older people. But this parade was unique in that most of the attendance were young. This shows how effective the homosexual movement has been at brainwashing the minds of the youth. No wonder places like Russia have outlawed Gay Pride Parades to protect the minds of their young people. I suspected that many of these young people were university students and definitely public schoolers, of course. Those seem to be the primary places liberals and demons have used to brainwash our culture and make them think that right is wrong and wrong is right. These kids thought that homosexuals were right for their perversions and that we were wrong for rebuking them. The mind of our society has become very reprobate.

When I started college in the early 90's, yes, pretty much the sodomy agenda started getting floating around. As a lost man, I also bought into this propaganda how "gays deserve equal rights". And come to think of it too - it was in my Catholic HS "religion" class a couple of years prior which showed some Hellywood pro-sodomite movie(about a HS boy who finds out his long-time best friend is a sodomite).

And worst of all - the entertainment media has played a large role - with all the hoopla Ellen Degenerous got in 1997, the tv show "Will and Grace" just quietly went under the radar.(if anything, the latter show played a big role) Or for that matter too - remember the early 90's Saturday morning tv sitcom "Saved by the Bell". No, it didn't explicitly push sodomy, but remember all of the masculine-acting female characters and effeminate-acting male characters in it. When I watched that show, it was like a "shock and awe" to me b/c of this very slant.

Yes, I'm a Gen-Xer, and I was once a lost man getting caught up in this hoopla - can't tell you how BLINDED I became. This is exactly what I see with this young generation of today - everything they've become indoctrinated it has all but blinded and deceived them. Honestly, I don't think they even know what they're doing.

Luke 23:34  Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

2Timothy 3:13  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: tennis shoe on November 10, 2014, 09:23:06 am
Beyond tolerance or respect for freewill. Now there is a penalty for not embracing and promoting this wickedness.

These are USAF active duty members at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan.

(http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/getting-ready-for-the-performance.jpg)
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z3eHX3xZGyw/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-2572920-1C07850100000578-948_634x364.jpg)

Support the troops? See how evil exploits natural family affection, or even a nation’s affection for their military, in order to normalize wickedness?

The only way this could have happened is through enforced policies of a sodomite Commander in Chief.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 10, 2014, 07:32:02 pm
Just saw that video clip you posted - this is why I(personally) want to do open air preaching to these particular places(where alot of younger people are). They desperately need to hear the gospel. I'll admit I once had this very rebellious mindset when I was lost(I just HATED Jesus).

With that being said - whenever I see this, it makes me think how this is a preview of Genesis 19(Lot's last day in Sodom, when a multitude of great and small surrounded and threatened his home).


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 15, 2014, 07:22:19 pm
http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/392697/introducing-homosexuality-based-affirmative-action-jennifer-kabbany
Introducing Homosexuality-based Affirmative Action
11/14/14

The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper at the University of Pennsylvania, reports that admissions officials are actively trying to guess who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or “ally” based on their applications.

Or as my colleague Greg Piper at The College Fix notes: UPenn is practicing gaydar in reading student applications. And although it’s unclear what exactly admissions officers consider “gay” and how that affects applicants’ chances, apparently they are pretty good at it.

“Since 2010 when the tracking of LGBTQ applicants started, the Office of Admissions has seen huge growth in the number of LGBTQ or ally applicants, plus a 152 percent jump in those admitted and 270 percent jump in accepted applicants who ultimately matriculate,” The Daily Pennsylvanian reports.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 12, 2014, 08:19:33 am
New York Requires Insurers to Cover Sex Change Surgery

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced on Thursday, that insurers can no longer deny coverage of gender reassignment surgery or sex change treatment for the transgendered.

This makes New York the ninth state to mandate coverage, according to the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.

    In a letter sent this week to insurers, the state Department of Financial Services said they "may not deny medically necessary treatment otherwise covered by a health insurance policy solely on the basis that the treatment is for gender dysphoria."

“Respecting the rights and dignity of all New Yorkers is paramount,” Cuomo said in a statement. “By taking this action, we are ensuring that principle rightfully extends to transgender people across our state."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/new-york-requires-insurers-cover-sex-change-surgery


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 12, 2014, 05:34:28 pm
I just watched a YT video over the meaning of sons of Belial from one of our YT brethren(who exposed it with scripture after scripture) - apparently, this means sodomites.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 14, 2014, 06:56:17 am
Scottish monk arrested for distributing leaflets promoting sexual morality

A Scottish monk has been arrested for distributing a series of leaflets in the Cambridgeshire area critical of homosexuality, fornication, contraception, euthanasia, abortion, and divorce.

Brother Damon Jonah Kelly, head of the Glasgow based charity the Black Hermits, was arrested by Cambridgeshire Police on December 8 on suspicion of a Section 5 (religious/racial) public order offence after he wrote a letter to the homosexual news publication, Pink News, claiming responsibility for the distribution of leaflets in the city of Ely, as well as in Cambridge, King’s Lynn and several other Cambridgeshire towns and cities.

Initially police declined to take any action following a number of complaints about the leaflets, saying that neither the distribution of the leaflets nor the messages they contain were a crime, and in fact protected by free speech laws.

A spokeswoman for Cambridgeshire Police said in a statement to Ely News, "Leaflets of a homophobic nature were distributed in Cambridge earlier this year. Additionally, similar material has been distributed in other areas of the county and indeed, the country.”

"While the material being distributed earlier this week will in many cases offend, irritate, shock or disturb, the content, context and actions of the male concerned fall short of any criminality at this time,” the spokeswoman added.

However, once the source of the leaflets identified himself, the police arrested him. They then released him on bail with a promise to appear on January 20.

The leaflets in question have titles such as "The Works of Darkness," "Homosexuality," and "Christmas, Christ and AntiChrist."

"Homosexuality" states that "God created man and woman for their mutual compatibility and for the procreation of children," and that, "all sexual activity outside of matrimonial union of one man and one woman is sin, and therefore immoral."

Warning that "through the sin of lust the Devil tempts man to sexual impurity, excess and perversion," the leaflet states that homosexuality is in reality a mental illness, but has become a cult that belongs to the culture of death.

“Homosexuality, as well as being a sin and a vice, is essentially a neurosis, a pathological condition; the result of several factors including childhood experiences. It is a dangerous temptation rather than a healthy orientation,” it reads.

“If the practice of homosexuality is acceptable, then in time any form of sexual deviation, perversion and experimentation will be acceptable, including the progressive lowering of the age of consent, taking it below the age of puberty and thus legalizing paedophilia. A common form of homosexuality is pederasty."

The leaflet goes on to say, “The condition of homosexuality can be treated and healed, as all distorted sexuality can be healed, and as many cases in recent years have proved," adding that homosexual people should not be persecuted but that homosexual inclinations should “not be encouraged."

“They need healing, not approval,” the leaflet says.

"The Works of Darkness" leaflet states that, "The deliberate killing of the baby in the womb is infanticide, is homicide, and those who perpetrate such an act are guilty of murder," and that, "Divorce wreaks havoc in society and is part and parcel of the plague of the 'one-parent family' which is a great evil."

It states that, "Homosexuality is not inborn, it is a development disorder, a traumatized condition arising out of a dysfunctional family, or it is a lifestyle choice. It is utterly opposed to the law of God and to nature, and should in no way be condoned or promoted."

This leaflet also comments on fornication, contraception, assisted fertilization, pornography, transgenderism, euthanasia, and atheism as serious societal problems.

"Christmas, Christ and AntiChrist," which was delivered in Cambridge last week, states that, “Christmas is the invasion by God into the world He created out of pure love; which through man’s evil has become a polluted landscape of de-humanized people, debasing themselves with their false gods and fetishes."

In his letter to Pink News, Brother Damon claims to have been arrested on nine occasions for leafleting, and despite this has brought his 2014 campaign to a “satisfactory conclusion.”

He closed the letter saying, "I wouldn’t be a good monk if I didn’t exhort you to repentance and conversion to Christ."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/scottish-monk-arrested-for-distributing-leaflets-promoting-sexual-morality


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 20, 2014, 07:21:33 am
Where homosexuals are protected, will Christians be persecuted?

The leader of a sports ministry believes the new protections for homosexuals in the Olympics may open the door to hypocrisy, particularly against Christians.

The International Olympic Committee is now providing special protections for homosexuals and will possibly keep the Olympics out of countries where officials are perceived to have discriminatory policies against homosexuals.

"I'm concerned that this discrimination will come back on Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin," poses Steve McConkey of 4 WINDS Christian Athletic Association, who also operates BigPlanetWatch.com and TrackandFieldReport.com. "So if a Christian is in a church, for example, and they do a message or something, and they mention that homosexuality is a sin, are they going to come back to them and take away their awards? -- not necessarily their medals."

McConkey believes evidence proves that could happen. He also does not see much sense in some of the committee's actions.

"The world championships are going to be in Qatar, and in that country there, if you become a Christian, you get the death penalty," the sports ministry leader explains. "So what I'm concerned about is a lot of hypocrisy, like, for example, they put the games in these countries where you can be killed as a Christian."

But the committee could lash out at countries and individuals who refuse to accept homosexuality or gender identity disorders as acceptable. And while he believes the new policy is firm, McConkey encourages Christians to pray, specifically for international revival.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/12/19/where-homosexuals-are-protected-will-christians-be-persecuted#.VJV3u__ANM


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 20, 2014, 07:22:29 am
Different standards for 'gay' bakers and Christian bakers

With numerous lawsuits being filed against Christian bakers over the past few years for respectfully declining to compromise their conscience by not filling orders for "gay" or lesbian marriage wedding cakes, a bit of irony recently surfaced when the tables were switched on the LGBT community — when pro-homosexual bakers were asked to make cakes opposing their cause.

A Closer LookWith the objective of revealing if tolerance, anti-bigotry and compassion are really at the heart of the homosexual agenda when it comes to same-sex "marriage," Shoebat.com made some not-so-startling observations about those who profess to stand for open-mindedness and acceptance.

Testing their true spirit, Theodore Shoebat set out on a quest with his website crew to see how bakers advocating homosexual behavior respond when asked to bake a cake for those who don't reflect their progressive views on homosexuality. But before going into their findings, Shoebat showcased the sheer lack of tolerance that lawsuits and subsequent rulings have demonstrated against those who refuse to support the homosexual agenda due to their sincerely held religious convictions.

"Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center," Shoebat asserts. "They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses."

And besides Christian bakers, many marriage photographers, wedding planners, florists and reception hall owners are also under attack for opposing same-sex marriage and declining to offer homosexual partners their wedding services.

Let the experiment begin …

When Shoebat.com set out and contacted 13 popular bakers that publicly support same-sex marriage, requesting them to bake a cake displaying the message, "Gay marriage is wrong," a less-than-tolerant response was invoked.

All of the LGBT-friendly respondents didn't meet their own standards of understanding, tolerance and inclusion. "Each one denied us service, and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us," Shoebat reported.

Remarks such as "Go away" and "We won't serve you" were amongst the more tame responses, which graduated to expletive-laden tirades condemning the potential customers for their "intolerance."

"One baker even said that she would make me a cookie with a large phallus on it just to insult us because we are Christian," Shoebat continued. "We recorded all of this in a video that will stun the American people as to how militant and intolerant the homosexual bakers were."

And the outbursts didn't stop there, as many of the homosexual business owners receiving the potential orders gave Shoebat callbacks condemning the prospective clients for making such "insensitive" requests.

"[We received] a ton of hate messages saying that we were 'hateful' for simply giving them a taste of their own medicine," Shoebat shared, recalling some of his conversations shortly after the experiment.

Reviewing the evidence

Noting what kind of reactions from the media that Christian bakers would have received had they responded in such a distasteful manner, Shoebat clarified exactly what his experiment divulged about the war against traditional marriage.

"Here is our point," Shoebat explained. "A Christian making a homosexual cake with 'Support Gay Marriage' goes against his faith, and a homosexual putting 'Gay Marriage Is Wrong' goes against his faith as well."

Shoebat extrapolated on his observations.

"Now of course we honor their right to say no; this is not the issue, but what about honoring the Christian's right to also say no?" Shoebat posed. "The big lie of the homosexual agenda is this: They claim that they are only fighting for equality and tolerance."

Shoebat went on to remind homosexual activists that they live in a free country where soldiers died to give Americans the right to agree and disagree — also known as the freedom of speech.

"Men and women bled for your right to be free to call us 'bigoted,' 'phobic' 'hate mongers,' but the same men and women who bled and died for your right to call us 'bigoted,' 'phobic' 'hate mongers' also died for our right to be free and not to care," Shoebat continued.

Leftists or elitists?

Referring to one of the responses he received from a pro-homosexual baker, Shoebat demonstrated the elitist and discriminatory language and mindset shared by many in the LGBT community.

"Are you aware that we gays have larger brains, superior cognitive functions, spatial memory and verbal skills?" an LGBT-supporting baker said to Shoebat on the phone in response to his order. "It's a biological fact of life."

Shoebat says that those kind of responses showcase the very dangerous temperament shared by many in the homosexual movement — a mindset eerily reminiscent of notorious fascists and dictators of the not-so-distant past.

"The Nazis and others believe in such nonsense," Shoebat insisted. "Tyrannies use false pseudo-science, and they all have a superiority complex."

He is afraid that such a dangerous worldview can lead to genocides in the spirit of Darwin's "natural selection" — the basis behind many evolutionists' claim that some people are more evolved than others.

"It is the case with every deviant cult and tyrannical movement," Shoebat argued. "Why target Christian bakeries in the first place? Such a view is no different than what Christoph Meiners promoted."

Meiners argued that Negroes have smaller brains than all other humans, but bigger skulls.

"The gay agenda argues that straight folks have a smaller brain," Shoebat highlighted. "So to all these who call us 'bigoted' 'homophobic' and such … in reality they are applying what is to be applied to them."

Running Christians out of the wedding industry

But Leftist media sources continue to paint Christians on the other side of the same-sex marriage debate as the intolerant and elitist group. The New York Times recently posted a story titled "Can't have your cake, gays are told, and a rights battle rises," about a Christian baker in Colorado, Jack Phillips, who respectfully refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding because of his biblical convictions on marriage.

The Lakewood, Colorado-based baker's same convictions have restricted him from honoring orders for Halloween cakes, erotic baked goodies and other cakes themed on practices that go against his Christian faith. But those objections don't stir up as much controversy, Shoebat implies, because they do not have as well-defined and well-funded political agendas opposing them.

While the Rocky Mountain lawsuit moves forward in the courts, Phillips has been ordered to retrain his bakery employees so that they will become more homosexual-compliant toward their customers. Included on the list of bakery staff members who must yield their convictions to fall in line with the state-promoted homosexual agenda is Philips' 87-year-old mother.

Other same-sex wedding cases listed off by the Times involve an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based Christian photographer who was fined for not shooting a lesbian couple's wedding; a Christian couple who were fined $13,000 for declining to host a lesbian wedding ceremony in their New York State farmhouse; Arlene's Flowers and Gifts of Richland, Washington, whose owner was sued for not providing flowers for a gay wedding; a Phoenix, Arizona-based wedding planner who is being sued for not organizing a lesbian wedding and another bakery case; Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon, which had to shutter its business after refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

There are now 35 states that have legalized same-sex marriage, leaving just 15 that honor marriage as only the union between one man and one woman. Legal action is already under way in the remaining traditional marriage states to overturn marriage amendments that protect traditional — or natural — marriage. In the 35 states conforming to the homosexual agenda on marriage, lawsuits continue to be rife, with many fearing that such legal action will usher in the extinction of Christians from the wedding industry.

Being fed-up with the intolerance and suing frenzy targeting Christians for not endorsing the new state-backed progressive ideals, Shoebat decided to give advocates of the homosexual agenda a taste of their own medicine by silencing their views — which happen to run in opposition to his own — on his website.

"There were a few folks upset, saying that we were not fair since we had no right to impose our anti-homosexual views to be posted on a cake made by pro homosexuals," Shoebat concluded. "So we honored their rule and for the first time in our history, we deleted their views from our comment section since they had no right to post their anti-Shoebat views on our cake."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/12/18/different-standards-for-gay-bakers-and-christian-bakers#.VJV3-__ANM


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on December 24, 2014, 05:47:13 am
13 Pro-Gay Bakers Refuse Christian Cake Order

 Theodore Shoebat, communications director for Rescue Christians, recently completed an experiment to determine if gay bakery owners would fill an order for a cake that featured the slogan “Gay Marriage is Wrong.”
 
Shoebat was inspired to complete the experiment after hearing about a Christian-owned bakery in Ireland that is facing legal action for refusing to make a cake with a picture of Bert and Ernie with the words “Support Gay Marriage.”
 
Charisma News reports that Shoebat called 13 bakeries that are owned by homosexuals and asked them to make a “Gay Marriage is Wrong” cake for a traditional marriage appreciation event. All 13 bakeries refused the order and one owner used foul language against Christians in response.
 
Shoebat said, "A Christian making a homosexual cake with 'Support Gay Marriage' goes against his faith and a homosexual putting 'Gay Marriage Is Wrong' goes against his faith as well. Now of course we honor their right to say no, this is not the issue, but what about honoring the Christian right to also say no?"
 

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/13-pro-gay-bakers-refuse-christian-wedding-cake-order.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 04, 2015, 05:55:10 am
Did Christians Parents Drive Their Child to Suicide?


The headline alone is painful to read: “Transgender teenager, 17, leaves heartbreaking suicide note blaming her Christian parents before walking in front of tractor trailer on highway.” The story itself is even more painful to read, while the loss of life is absolutely tragic.

Is there blood on the hands of these Christian parents?

What makes this story all the more heartrending is that the teenager, born Joshua Alcorn but who used the name Leelah to identify as a female, left a suicide note that was scheduled to be posted in the event of his death. (If you are a transgender advocate and are already furious with me for using the male pronoun for Joshua-Leelah, please hold your fury long enough to finish reading the article.)

In the note, Joshua explains how he began feeling that he was a girl at the age of four, writing, “When I was 14, I learned what transgender meant and cried of happiness. After 10 years of confusion I finally understood who I was.

“I immediately told my mom, and she reacted extremely negatively, telling me that it was a phase, that I would never truly be a girl, that God doesn’t make mistakes, that I am wrong.”

Did the mother respond in the right way, or did her lack of understanding lead to Joshua’s death?

Joshua says that his parents sent him to Christian therapists who allegedly told him that he was “selfish and wrong,” and on his 16th birthday, “when I didn’t receive consent from my parents to start transitioning, I cried myself to sleep.”

He added, “I’m never going to be happy. Either I live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself.”

Not long after composing this note, on Sunday night, December 27th, he walked into the path of a tractor trailer and ended it all.

There has been an immediate outpouring of support in his memory (along with condemnation of his parents), while a new Facebook page has been launched, called “Justice for Leelah Alcorn,” receiving more than 12,000 likes almost overnight. The page links to a petition on Change.org entitled, “Enact Leelah's Law to Ban Transgender Conversion Therapy.” By the evening of December 30th, it had received almost 20,000 signatures.

As conservative Christians who believe in the Scriptures, how do we respond to a tragedy like this? And should we oppose the concept of “transgender conversion therapy”?

Without a doubt, we must recognize that issues of transgender identity often run very deep and cannot be trivialized or taken lightly. Although I have often been dubbed “transphobic” because of my strong opposition to many aspects of LGBT activism, often focusing on transgender issues, at the same time, I have constantly drawn attention to the depth of struggle experienced by many who identify as transgender.

I interacted at length with one man who now identifies as a woman, asking him why he would destroy a 37-year marriage and become alienated from his own children. He explained to me that after decades of trying to resolve his issues, it was either suicide or sex-change. He opted for the latter and says he is very glad he did.

Another man, whose story I know well, decided to come out as a woman in his mid-to-late 60’s, also affecting his marriage. (I’m not sure how things stand today with his children.) He explained to me that I had no idea the pain he lived with all his life. I don’t believe he was making any of this up.

And there are the many stories of children trying to hide or even mutilate their genitals, growing increasingly agitated as they come into puberty.

Surely, this cannot be taken lightly, nor can we look to glib clichés or superficial fixes. And parents need to do their best (with the help of professionals when possible) to spot signs of depression and potential suicide. In other words, handle with extreme love and care.

But that is not the end of the story.

I personally know individuals who once identified as transgender and who no longer do, and they are so thankful to God that they found a better way. They emphatically discourage parents from affirming their children as transgender (while even more emphatically urging those parents to show unconditional love to their kids). Should we ignore what they have to say? (For more on this, see the important, recent article, “Trouble in Transtopia: Murmurs of Sex Change Regret.”)

Some of these individuals remained suicidal even after having sex-change surgery, and in some notable cases, which I mentioned in my article “Sex Change Regret,” some have committed suicide after coming out as the opposite of their biological sex.

Don’t their deaths count as much as the death of Joshua-Leelah?

Why are people so free to condemn Joshua’s parents when they wouldn’t dare criticize doctors who performed (or recommended) sex-change surgery on someone who then killed himself or herself, unhappy with their new identity? Shouldn’t all these suicides give us pause for thought?

According to a major, 30-year study of “sex-reassigned” persons in Sweden, and as cited in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Paul McHugh, formerly chair of the Johns Hopkins psychiatric department, “their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population.”

And so, while the suicide of Joshua-Leelah is absolutely tragic, and while I understand the passion of those who want to ban so-called transgender conversion therapy, I respectfully submit that wisdom and compassion call for a better path, one that invests more time and energy into looking for the root causes of transgenderism, as we encourage therapists and counselors and psychologists to listen and learn even more, with the goal of finding non-surgical ways to help them find wholeness.

In short, rather than having an emotional, gut-level response (which is quite understandable, given this heartbreaking story), let us seek to do what is right and best. That is the way of love.

links in article: http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/01/01/did-christians-parents-drive-their-child-to-suicide-n1937483/page/full


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 04, 2015, 06:07:28 am
Florida Counties End Courthouse Ceremonies to Avoid Performing Same-Sex ‘Weddings’

While agreeing to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as per a federal court ruling, several counties throughout Florida have decided to no longer allow weddings to be held at their courthouses in order to avoid being required to officiate homosexual ceremonies.

According to reports, officials in Duval, Clay and Baker counties have concluded that they must discontinue utilizing the county courthouse for weddings altogether to protect the rights of conscience for their clerks.

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Duvall County Clerk of Courts Ronnie Fussell, a Southern Baptist, told the Associated Press. “Personally it would go against my beliefs to perform a ceremony that is other than that.”

Baker County Clerk Stacie Harvey stated that the room that had been used for weddings will now be used for domestic violence injunctions.

“I needed the space, and our county, we’re in the Bible Belt,” she said. “If we’re made by the law to issue a gay marriage license [we will] do that, but we are not mandated to marry couples in our courthouse.”

As previously reported, in August of last year, U.S District Judge Robert Hinkle declared Florida’s marriage amendment, which enshrined marriage as being solely between a man and woman, as unconstitutional.

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized,” the amendment reads.

Hinkle compared uniting those of the same gender with marriages between men and women of different racial backgrounds, and said that society must tolerate that with which they disagree.

“Those who enter opposite-sex marriages are harmed not at all when others, including these plaintiffs, are given the liberty to choose their own life partners and are shown the respect that comes with formal marriage,” he opined. “Tolerating views with which one disagrees is a hallmark of civilized society.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi filed several appeals about the matter, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay on the ruling, which permitted licenses to be issued beginning on Jan. 6. The state also awaited a ruling from Hinkle as to whether his decision applied statewide or only to a specific county.

On Thursday, Hinkle ordered all county clerks within the state to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses–a directive that clerks in Duvall, Clay and Baker, as well as others, state that they will comply with. However, since county courthouses are not required to be used for marital ceremonies, they will discontinue the practice altogether to avoid being compelled to officiate homosexual events.

But some would say that the clerks should resist the order to issue the licenses as well, exercising the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates.

As previously reported, talk show host and former pastor Mike Huckabee stated in September during a conference call with the organization Vision America that Christians need to be more active in resisting evil in the land.

“I would remind people that the judicial branch is not the supreme branch, and the Supreme Court is only the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Being,” he said. “And I feel that we have failed in civics to understand that there are three branches of government, and one can’t overrule the other two, and all three of them together can’t overrule the people.”

“Yet, we have people who say, … ‘The courts have ruled on same-sex marriage, we have to live with it,’” Huckabee continued. “I would suggest no, we don’t. We shouldn’t just accept things that are ungodly and that will cause us to have to stand before God with bloody hands. I think that’s where we’ve failed.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/01/02/florida-counties-end-courthouse-ceremonies-to-avoid-performing-same-sex-weddings/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on January 09, 2015, 04:51:43 pm
Stand with Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran

 Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired from his job this week by the mayor because of his Christian views on marriage.

After serving a one-month suspension for writing a book expressing sex outside marriage (including homosexuality) as sinful, Chief Cochran faced the wrath of homosexual activists and Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed and was  publicly chastised and summarily fired from his position.

Chief Cochran, a devoted Christian, wrote a short book, a portion of which conveys the biblical view of homosexuality. He gave copies of the book, Who Told You That You Were Naked? (published in November 2013), to a few co-workers he knew to be strong Christians – but three city employees also received a copy without asking for one.

Chief Cochran said he referenced homosexuality on less than half a page in the 160-page book.

According to OneNewsNow and other news sources, the mayor was praised by openly homosexual councilman Alex Wan for terminating Chief Cochran.

"When you're a city employee, and [your] thoughts, beliefs and opinions are different from the city's, you have to check them at the door." – Councilman Alex Wan

"I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs…" – Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed.

For his Christian faith, he was fired from his job.

Christian expresses biblical worldview, gets sacked by mayor

A fresh campaign has been launched on behalf of an official with the Atlanta fire department – a Christian – who was fired after making public his biblically based views on homosexuality.

Kelvin Cochran, chief of the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, was suspended in November after he wrote a short book, a portion of which conveys the biblical view of homosexuality. He gave copies of the book, Who Told You That You Were Naked? (self-published in November 2013), to a few co-workers he knew to be strong Christians – but three city employees also received a copy without asking for one.

Mayor Kasim Reed now has fired Cochran after suspending him for a month without pay, saying "his actions and decision-making undermine his ability to effectively manage a large, diverse work force." Cochran, a firefighter for more than three decades, otherwise had no blemish on his record.

Gary Cass of DefendChristians.org responds to news of Cochran's firing and Mayor Reed's remarks.

"It appears that simply upholding a traditional Christian view of morality automatically makes you unfit for any kind of leadership in this morally upside down world of political correctness," Cass tells OneNewsNow. "It seems that Chief Cochran is being fired not for his actions, but simply for holding a biblical worldview."

The mayor has stated publicly that Cochran's "personal religious beliefs are not the issue," but that the city's nondiscrimination policy is "nonnegotiable."

Cochran is a strong Southern Baptist – and Cass points out that Mayor Reed is a member of Cascade United Methodist Church in Atlanta.

"So here's somebody [Reed] who ostensibly identifies as a Christian, who thinks he can be fair in the way that he conducts his business but apparently [thinks] Chief Cochran can't be fair," Cass surmises. "So it's an interesting confluence of hypocrisy and double standards all at the same time."

He asks on his website: "Does Mayor Reed believe what the Bible says about the sin of homosexuality? If so, shouldn't he resign, too?"

At the end of the day, adds Cass, the action taken against Cochran is "an overt violation of Chief Cochran's First Amendment liberties." Cass is hopeful Christians will continue to contact Reed's office on Cochran's behalf.

Following Cochran's suspension, the Georgia Baptist Convention initiated an online petition calling for the chief's reinstatement. Another petition is available at ExtinguishIntolerance.com.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2015/01/08/christian-expresses-biblical-worldview-gets-sacked-by-mayor#.VLBbhHtrWk4


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 19, 2015, 03:22:59 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/washington-state-judge-rules-against-florist-refused-gay-064637207.html;_ylt=AwrTWVVRU.ZUqDQA_1HQtDMD
Washington state judge rules against florist who refused gay wedding
2/19/15

(Reuters) - A judge in Washington state on Wednesday ruled that a florist who refused to sell flower arrangements for a gay couple's wedding violated state anti-discrimination law, court records show.

Florist Barronelle Stutzman was sued by both the state Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, in 2013.

The pair were longtime customers of Stutzman's Richland business, Arlene's Flowers, and asked her to provide decorations for their wedding following the state's legalization of same-sex marriage.

Stutzman maintained that her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling flowers for the same-sex wedding, "because of (her) relationship with Jesus Christ," according to court documents.

"Confirming the enactment of same-sex marriage, there would eventually be a direct and insoluble conflict between Stutzman's religiously motivated conduct and the laws of the state of Washington," Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom said in his 60-page opinion.

"For over 135 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief," Ekstrom added, according to a copy of the document published online by the Los Angeles Times.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kristen Waggoner, who is representing Stutzman, said in a statement, "You put your home, your family business, and your life savings at risk by daring to defy a government mandate that forces you to promote views you believe are wrong."

Attorneys for the group will appeal the ruling, the statement said.

Ingersoll and Freed, who filed the suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State, hailed the ruling.

"We were hurt and saddened when we were denied service by Arlene's Flowers after doing business with them for so many years," Freed and Ingersoll said in a statement.

"We respect everyone's beliefs, but businesses that are open to the public have an obligation to serve everyone," they added.

Ekstrom deferred ruling on fines and damages sought by the couple to a later date.

(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Richard Pullin)


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on February 21, 2015, 09:19:13 pm
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=30907
THE NOOSE OF PERSECUTION AGAINST CHRISTIANS WHO REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS TIGHTENING
Donna Wasson | February 19, 2015 | 28 Comments

“A GOVERNMENT THAT TELLS YOU WHAT YOU CAN’T SAY IS BAD ENOUGH, BUT A GOVERNMENT THAT TELL YOU WHAT YOU MUST SAY IS TERRIFYING.”

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, ‘The servant is not greater than his lord.’ If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” John15:18-20 (KJV)

Washington State Benton County Superior Court Judge, Alex Ekstrom, has issued a summary judgment in the case against a Christian florist whose faith prevented her from providing service for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The case was set to go to trial in March, but the judge’s judgment serves as the final word. Basically, he has authorized the “personal ruin” of Barronelle Stutzman.

This ruling makes her personally liable for the claims against her, which places not only her business assets at risk but also her home and personal savings as well! World Net Daily reports that this reprobate judge ordered that the state as well as the sodomite plaintiffs, each of whom filed lawsuits, could collect damages and attorney’s fees from Stutzman.

Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, with the Alliance Defending Freedom stated, “The message of these rulings is unmistakable: The government will bring about your personal and professional ruin if you don’t help celebrate same-sex marriage.”

She reports the two men had plenty of other options in the marketplace, and even received offers of free flowers from other vendors. However, this wasn’t good enough for either Groom because Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed, sued Stutzman for politely refusing to engage in a business transaction that interfered with her faith.

Why do you never hear of these homosexual couples demanding wedding cakes or flower arrangements from MUSLIM business owners? Hmmmm?
Ironically, Ingersoll had bought flowers for his lover from Ms. Stutzman for years, and she was well aware they were a gay couple. The problem only surfaced when he asked her to arrange the flowers for their wedding. According to her deposition, she put her hands over his, and told him that she couldn’t “because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,” and because of her belief that marriage should only be between the opposite sex.

The State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, also sued based on details he learned in the news. According to arguments in the case, the state of Washington apparently believes the state’s statutory protections for sodomites trump the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty, even though the flower corporation was set up under a state law that protects personal assets except in cases of deception, theft or knowing fraud. None of these circumstances occurred in this case.

The defendant, Ms. Stutzman, said, “America would be a better place if citizens respected each other’s differences and the government still protected the freedom to have those differences. Instead, the government is coming after me and everything I have just because I won’t live my life the way the state says I should.”

She continues, “I just want the freedom to live and work faithfully and according to what God says about marriage without fear of punishment. Others have the freedom to say or not say what they want to about marriage and that’s all I’m asking for as well.”

Attorney Waggoner stated, “A government that tells you what you can’t say is bad enough, but a government that tell you what you must say is terrifying. The lesson from the court’s decisions is that you put your home, your family business, and your life savings at risk by daring to defy a government mandate that forces you to promote views you believe are wrong.”

Unfortunately, Judge Ekstrom’s summary judgment means he gets to decide the case one way or another without having witnesses testify or a jury trial. How convenient for the plaintiffs. Here’s the question of the day…

Why do you never hear of these homosexual couples demanding wedding cakes or flower arrangements from MUSLIM business owners? Hmmmm?


I propose someone set up a PayPal account for this sister in Christ, so donations can be made to help cover her court costs and the possible loss of her entire livelihood and home. I will be happy to donate the first $100.00 if someone will do that!

In the meantime, should anyone feel the need to express their opinion to the court, you can reach the judge at: alex.ekstrom@co.benton.wa.us office: 509.736.3071 fax: 509.736.3057

Maranatha, and fast!


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on February 28, 2015, 06:43:50 am
Where do you get punished for defending free speech? At a university, of course

A Wisconsin university is punishing a professor who criticized an instructor for telling her students to support same-sex marriage in her class.

Professor John McAdams, a conservative political science professor, posted comments about the philosphy class on his Marquette Warrior blog, naming the instructor and describing the students' account of the pro-homosexual propoganda he opposed. 

Marquette is now trying to take away McAdams' tenure after suspending him last December pending a review.

Bonilla, Peter (FIRE)Peter Bonilla of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education says McAdams' suspension is a free-speech rights issue.

If a faculty member can have his tenure revoked because of blog comments, says Bonilla, "then if Marquette gets away with that, then I don't think academic freedom is really going to mean much there anymore."

After students were instructed by the instructor to support "gay rights," McAdams wrote, the student and instructor, after class, debated the issue until the instructor accused the student of making "offensive" comments. Adams writes:

Then things deteriorated further as the student said that it was his right as an American citizen to make arguments against gay marriage. Abbate replied that “you don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.”

Marquette is a private Jesuit university in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. About 11,700 students attend the school.

FIRE says the school is holding McAdams personally responsible for the harassing and even threatening criticisms the instructor has received from those who read his blog.

If a college or university holds a speaker responsible for how others react to that opinion, then Bonilla predicts that the foundation of free speech "will collapse on itself."

FIRE has written a letter to Marquette, calling for McAdams' immediate reinstatement because his freedom of speech and academic freedom have been violated.

In the same blog post, McAdams says the student is dropping the class after other professors, including the dean of Arts and Sciences, refused to help.

Descibing another case of "political correctness" at Marquette, McAdams writes that the same dean once took offense when a colleague called an all-female faculty dinner a "girls night out." The colleague was reprimanded for the "sexist" remark.

Bonilla wrote a lengthy story defending McAdams in a FIRE story here.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/2015/02/16/where-do-you-get-punished-for-defending-free-speech-at-a-university-of-course#.VPG3wC6K_CY


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 03, 2015, 05:10:12 am
Christian Clubs Rejected on College Campuses for Being Discriminatory

 A Christian club at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo will not be allowed to set up a table at the annual Open House this April. Cru, formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, will also not be allowed to meet with guests at Chico State during its fall recruitment drive.
 
Cal Poly San Luis and Chico State are just two of the 23 Cal State universities that Christian student clubs are no longer allowed to recruit at, according to The College Fix.
 
Earlier this school year, the Cal State University administration called the Christian groups “discriminatory” after those groups refused to allow non-Christians into the clubs. The campuses have officially derecognized those clubs.
 
To rent a room on campus at Cal Poly, Cru must pay $6,000 a year as an outside organization. Recognized student organizations pay nothing to rent a room. Chico State charges $900 for a one-time use for outside organizations.
 
“The effects of [the policy] severely reduced the ability of Christians and other religions on campus to practice their faith and be an integral part of the CSU community,” said engineering senior Matt Susank. “Not only does that speak against the mission at Cal Poly but of higher education and it is in a way discriminatory towards our ability to do that which is a huge part of campus life.”
 
Since the changes, Cru participation at Cal Poly has fallen from 10 to 20 people per Bible study to recently, when only two people showed up, a Cal Poly senior told The College Fix.
 
Chico State lost about 50 members of Cru, Greg Jao, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s national field director, said.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/christian-clubs-rejected-on-college-campuses-for-being-discriminatory.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 07, 2015, 12:45:33 pm
Campus Crusade for Christ? The same NWO-runned organization founded by the New Apostle Reformation, which is doing its part to help usher in the One World Religion? And also the same wolves which the Tim Tebow family were active members while in college?

Matthew 12:24  But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26  And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27  And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.



Christian Clubs Rejected on College Campuses for Being Discriminatory

 A Christian club at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo will not be allowed to set up a table at the annual Open House this April. Cru, formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ, will also not be allowed to meet with guests at Chico State during its fall recruitment drive.
 
Cal Poly San Luis and Chico State are just two of the 23 Cal State universities that Christian student clubs are no longer allowed to recruit at, according to The College Fix.
 
Earlier this school year, the Cal State University administration called the Christian groups “discriminatory” after those groups refused to allow non-Christians into the clubs. The campuses have officially derecognized those clubs.
 
To rent a room on campus at Cal Poly, Cru must pay $6,000 a year as an outside organization. Recognized student organizations pay nothing to rent a room. Chico State charges $900 for a one-time use for outside organizations.
 
“The effects of [the policy] severely reduced the ability of Christians and other religions on campus to practice their faith and be an integral part of the CSU community,” said engineering senior Matt Susank. “Not only does that speak against the mission at Cal Poly but of higher education and it is in a way discriminatory towards our ability to do that which is a huge part of campus life.”
 
Since the changes, Cru participation at Cal Poly has fallen from 10 to 20 people per Bible study to recently, when only two people showed up, a Cal Poly senior told The College Fix.
 
Chico State lost about 50 members of Cru, Greg Jao, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s national field director, said.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/christian-clubs-rejected-on-college-campuses-for-being-discriminatory.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 13, 2015, 05:34:15 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/utah-lgbt-antidiscrimination-law-could-chart-path-compromise-202900679.html
Utah LGBT antidiscrimination law could chart new path for compromise

Backed by the Mormon church, Utah's Republican-led legislature voted overwhelmingly to provide explicit legal protections for all of its LGBT residents, while shielding religious institutions that oppose homosexuality from prosecution.

3/12/15

Utah, reddest of the red and one of the most religiously fervent states in the union, is poised on Thursday to become the 19th US state to provide explicit legal protections for all of its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents.

With the full support of the Mormon church, the Utah state legislature, with massive super majorities of Republicans in both its Senate (24 to 5) and House (60 to 15), voted overwhelmingly to add both sexual orientation as well as gender identity to the state’s existing antidiscrimination laws in housing and employment. At the same time, the “Utah Compromise,” as it is called, also shields religious institutions that oppose homosexuality.

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert is expected to sign the bill Thursday evening.

 The “monumental” law, hailed by many on both sides as a new path for compromise between religious conservatives and LGBT advocates across the country, would in some ways make the state’s protections more “progressive” than New York’s, New Hampshire’s, or Wisconsin’s. These states protect discrimination against lesbians and gays, but do not explicitly include transgender people, as Utah’s law, joining those of 18 mostly blue states, now will.

“The passage of [the bill] is historic—a Republican majority has voted to expand Utah’s existing non-discrimination protections to include the state’s LGBT community for the very first time,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign, in a statement Thursday.

But the process could not have even begun, many say, without the support of the state’s influential Mormon leaders, who this year have begun a profound shift in their tone toward LGBT people, after being outspoken in their opposition to gay marriage for years.

Last fall, after federal court rulings made gay marriage legal in Utah, church leaders urged its members to be gracious and civil. Dallin Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the governing body of the church, said members should reject persecution “of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation.”

Since then, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had begun discussions with LGBT advocates, opening an unprecedented dialogue that led to this week’s expansion of legal protections. In January, Mormon leaders emphasized the need for new legislation to protect religious freedoms, which they believed were under assault, while announcing they would now support certain anti-discrimination legislation.

“Despite the challenges and difficulties, the complexity of negotiations, a spirit of respect and goodwill has allowed all involved to respect the differences of one another to bring about [this bill],” said Elder D. Todd Christofferson in a statement last week.

The church has not shifted its doctrines toward homosexuality, however, and still opposes same-sex marriage. Instead, it has in many ways emphasized the civic duties of Americans engaged in the democratic process.

“In a society which has starkly diverse views on what rights should be protected, the most sensible way to move forward is for all parties to recognize the legitimate concerns of others,” the church said in a statement supporting the bill. “After a considerable amount of hard work, we believe that the Utah legislature has wisely struck that balance.... While none of the parties achieved all they wanted, we do at least now have an opportunity to lessen the divisiveness in our communities without compromising on key principles.”

The bill does not address whether businesses, such as bakers, florists, or wedding photographers, could refuse service to same-sex couples, which has become a thorny question in many states.

Gay-marriage advocates say they remained concerned about another bill passed by the Utah legislature this week that would allow individual state clerks and public officials to opt out of issuing marriage licenses if it violated their religious consciences. 

“Legislation like [this] simply isn’t necessary, and the spirit behind it is deeply disappointing,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement. “Individuals who apply for jobs that serve the public should be prepared to serve the whole public equally and without reservation.”

Since the Supreme Court could rule same-sex marriage a constitutional right later this year, a host of mostly conservative states have been considering similar religious conscience laws that would allow people in public roles to refuse to accommodate services that violate their religious beliefs.   

 But gay-rights advocates in Utah celebrated the emotional passage of the anti-discrimination bill, calling it a “monumental day for Utah.”

“This vote proves that protections for gay and transgender people in housing and the workplace can gracefully coexist with the rights of people of faith,” said Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah. “One does not exist at the expense of the other.”


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 14, 2015, 06:03:55 am
Utah Lawmakers Pass Anti-Discrimination Bill with LGBT, Mormon Support

 After seven years of debate and a historic compromise, the Utah House of Representatives on Wednesday (March 11) voted final passage of a bill to enact the state’s first statewide nondiscrimination protections for the gay and transgender community, while providing safeguards for religious liberty.
 
The 65-10 vote was the last legislative hurdle for the bill, just one week after it debuted with the blessing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the LGBT community.
 
Utah’s Republican Gov. Gary Herbert was expected to sign the bill at a ceremony on Thursday.
 
Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams hailed the vote as a “monumental day for Utah. This vote proves that protections for gay and transgender people in housing and the workplace can gracefully co-exist with the rights of people of faith. One does not exist at the expense of the other.”
 
Under the bill, existing anti-discrimination laws for housing and employment would be amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity and clarify exemptions for religious institutions and provide protections for religious expression.
 
The legislation would make it illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Religious organizations and their affiliates, along with the Boy Scouts of America, would be exempt from the bill’s requirements.
 
The measure’s other religious protections would prevent workers from being fired for expressing beliefs on marriage, family or sexuality unless they conflict with the employer’s business interests.
 
The bill grew out of weeks of negotiations between lawmakers, the LGBT community and Mormon leaders, who stated their rare — some have said historic — support for the legislation.
 
Critics’ concerns over process and legalities frustrated the House’s only black member, who said the bill was long overdue. “I stand before you today disturbed that in 2015, we have individuals in our community who are standing before us asking to be treated equally. This is embarrasing,” said Rep. Sandra Hollins, a Salt Lake City Democrat.
 
GOP Rep. Brad Wilson supported the bill by trying to assuage the fears of those worried about changing Utah’s fundamental character, which is dominated by the LDS Church. The faith claims membership of more than 60 percent of Utahns and more than 80 percent of state lawmakers.
 
“This legislation does not — contrary to what some people claim — wash away the character of the religious community that we live in. In fact, it strengthens that character in many ways,” Wilson said. “This is a place where we want all people to feel welcome and loved.”
 
With its enactment, Utah will become the 19th state to provide protection for the LGBT community in housing and employment based on both sexual orientation and gender identity, according to data tracked by the national Human Rights Campaign. No federal laws provide such protections.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/utah-lawmakers-pass-anti-discrimination-bill-with-lgbt-mormon-support.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 14, 2015, 06:09:35 am
‘If I Hear One Homophobic Word, I Will Arrest You:’ Street Preacher on Trial for Biblical Preaching

TAUNTON, UK – A street preacher in the UK who is charged with making “homophobic” and “Islamophobic” remarks has just completed a two-day trial and awaits a verdict on whether or not biblical speech about the issues is considered a crime in the country.

Mike Overd, a street preacher for five years, is accused of speaking against homosexuality and Islam last June and July on two separate occasions. He is now facing two charges of using threatening and abusive words and a charge of causing racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act.

A police officer had appeared on local television last fall to urge residents to record Overd’s speech as it had been reported that he was causing offense.

“I’d advise people that if they’re offended to record any incident on their mobile phone and send it to us,” Sgt. Neil Kimmins told reporters.

“It’s clear that this officer is determined to stop me preaching the gospel, which is a terrible attack on freedom of speech,” Overd said following the incident. “I find it extraordinary that the police are trying to make it illegal to preach the gospel in the streets of our country, simply because the gospel at times confronts the sinner.”

Three witnesses appeared in court this week the to claim that they had heard Overd making statements against homosexuality and/or Islam.

“If I don’t tell people about what is in the gospel and that they are sinning, then that makes me a wicked, selfish man,” Overd told the court on Thursday.

    Connect with Christian News

He presented two videos as evidence to what occurred as he was preaching from the Bible on the street. In one of the clips, a woman with a little boy approaches Overd and says that she wants to ask him a question. The woman then opines that God loves homosexuals.

“Just because I don’t like their sins does not mean I don’t like them,” Overd says as he continues preaching.

In another video, a police officer approaches the street preacher and tells him that he has received complaints for making “homophobic” statements.

“If I hear one homophobic word out of your mouth here today, I will arrest you,” the officer threatens.

According to the Somerset County Gazette, the officer then advised Overd that he has freedom of speech, but may not offend others.

“I do not set out to hate or make people upset,” Overd told the court. “I have no personal hatred. “I have Muslim friends. We don’t agree on certain things … [but] I have every right to bring facts to the table and compare them. I don’t understand what I’m doing wrong.”

Overd’s case is being heard by a Muslim, Judge Shamim Qureshi, who also serves as the presiding judge at the Sharia law-based Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. During this week’s trial, Qureshi reportedly asked the street preacher questions about the death penalty in the Old Testament, as well as whether or not he would take issue with other religions preaching about their faith in public.

“You are in dire trouble. You need to be born again,” Overd replied, according to The West Country. “You’re deluded. I care for your soul.”

A verdict is expected on March 23.

Overd, who faced a similar charge in 2012 and was found not guilty, is not the first street preacher to face charges for allegedly preaching from the Bible about homosexuality. As previously reported, English evangelist Rob Hughes was jailed in 2013 after a lesbian accused him of speaking against homosexuality, but was later released and charges were dismissed as he denied speaking on the topic that day.

American evangelist Tony Miano was also jailed earlier that same year after speaking against sexual immorality on the streets of London. Miano states that he was preaching from 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12 when a woman became agitated by his message and began to curse. He was placed under arrest and marched down to the police station where the was then questioned about his beliefs.

“It was surreal because I was interrogated about my faith in Jesus Christ,” Miano said. “I was asked if I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I was asked what portion of the Bible I was reading. I was asked if a homosexual was hungry and walked up to me, would I give them something to eat.”

“This idea that open air preachers only preach about homosexuality is fallacious. We talk about all forms of sin,” he further explained. “We usually take people through the Ten Commandments. We explain to people that no liar, no thief, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no homosexual, will enter into the kingdom of God.”

Like Hughes, Miano was released and went back out on the streets to preach the following day.

http://christiannews.net/2015/03/13/if-i-hear-one-homophobic-word-i-will-arrest-you-street-preacher-on-trial-for-biblical-preaching/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 19, 2015, 10:27:38 am
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-videographer-faces-legal-action-after-refusing-to-work-lesbian-wedding-says-its-against-her-biblical-beliefs-135888/
Christian Videographer Faces Legal Action After Refusing to Work Lesbian Wedding, Says It's Against Her Biblical Beliefs
3/18/15

A wedding videographer in Ohio could face legal action after she declined to shoot a lesbian couples' wedding ceremony because it would have conflicted with her biblical understanding that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

When Jenn Moffitt and her partner Jerra Kincely were searching in February for a videographer to film their wedding, they sent an email inquiry to a local video production company called Next Door Stories in Bexley, Ohio, a town in the Columbus suburbs.

CNN reports that the couple got an email back from the company's owner, Courtney Schmackers, on Feb. 4 politely informing them that she doesn't offer her services for same-sex weddings.

"Hello, Thank you for reaching out about wedding videography. How did you hear about Next Door Stories?" Schmackers' email asked. "Unfortunately at this time I do not offer services for same-sex weddings, but thank you for your inquiry!"

In an interview with CNN that was published Monday, Moffitt said that she was stunned by Schmackers' response to her request.

"I couldn't believe it," Moffitt explained. "It is a small business, and I thought this was a tight-knit community. We wanted to support local commerce and to get that kind of response was astounding."

Moffitt and Kincely have filed a complaint against Next Door Stories with the Bexley Area Chamber of Commerce. The couple has also taken to Facebook to explain the conflict, which has stirred outrage among gay rights advocates, which has shined a negative light on Schmackers' business.

Although Schmackers' refused to provide a comment to CNN on why she refused to provide her services to the lesbian couple, The Daily Mail reports that Schmackers took to Facebook to explain her decision.

"I made a business decision based on my spiritual beliefs and the biblical definition of marriage because I thought that I had a right to that," Schmackers wrote. "Unfortunately, I gave the wrong answer to the wrong person, who decided to make a private issue into a public platform and now I am fully experiencing the consequences. I am sorry you had to be exposed to it, and I'm open to any and all conversation regarding it."

Although the couple filed the complaint, Ohio is one of 13 states that does not allow same-sex marriages, and Bexley is also a municipality that does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Additionally, the Bexley Chamber of Commerce does not prohibit its members from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

The Bexley Chamber of Commerce issued a statement through Facebook on Monday condemning Schmackers' refusal of service. The post CONTINUED by stating that board members have decided that the chamber's policy must be changed so that this type of "discrimination" does not happen again.

"At our Feb. 11 board meeting, we discussed in detail how the Bexley Area Chamber of Commerce could ensure this does not happen again. The Chamber Board believes that discrimination in any form is wrong and should not be tolerated. At this meeting, the board agreed that our membership policy must be revised to reflect this. We began the process of re-writing [sic] our policies and guidelines."


 


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 25, 2015, 07:21:49 am
Street Preacher Found Guilty of Using Threatening Language by Quoting Leviticus

 A judge has found that a street preacher used “threatening” language when he quoted the Bible while speaking about homosexuality.
 
Christian Today reports Mike Overd was convicted under the Public Order Act after he quoted the Bible when preaching about homosexuality in Taunton in June 2014.
 
The judge at Bristol Crown Court said Overd should not have used the Leviticus 20:13, which uses the word “abomination.”
 
"The judge is effectively censoring the Bible and saying that certain verses aren't fit for public consumption,” said Libby Towell, spokesperson for the Christian Legal Centre.
 
Overd has been fined about $200 and is required to pay another $1,300 in costs and compensation to a homosexual man, who was listening to Overd preach.
 
Overd, who is a former paratrooper, has been preaching on the streets for about five years. In the last few years, he has faced similar charges.
 
Also in 2014, he was charged after he said that Mohammed could not compare to Jesus. He said if a man marries a 9-year-old, “we call that paedophilia.”
 
"There's been a concerted campaign to stop him speaking the word of God on the streets of Taunton," Towell said. "Today was the result that the police had been looking for.
 
"He's not preaching his opinion. He's preaching what God's word says."

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/street-preacher-found-guilty-of-using-threatening-language-by-quoting-leviticus.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2015, 06:45:12 am
NFL, Big Ten reviewing implications of Indiana religious freedom bill

A year after potential action by the National Football League hung over Arizona's veto of a religious freedom bill, an NFL spokesman said Friday the league is "studying" Indiana's religious freedom law.

"We do not have a comment at this time," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "We are in the process of studying the law and its implications."

The Big Ten Conference, which has major events scheduled in Indianapolis annually through 2022, said in a statement that it is aware of the law and that its impact will be reviewed at the next meetings of athletic administrators (May 18-20) and presidents/chancellors (June 7).

"The Big Ten Conference and its member institutions believe in promoting an inclusive environment in which athletic competition can operate free from discrimination," the statement said. Unless your a Christian, than its free game

One event that may be under review by the NFL is the annual Scouting Combine in Indianapolis, where about 300 players are evaluated for the NFL Draft.

The weeklong combine, which has been in Indianapolis since 1987, has grown into a national media event, with live television coverage by the NFL Network.

During last month's combine, a spokesman for Visit Indy said it was trying to make a multiyear deal to be host of the combine. Agreements with the NFL have previously been year-to-year, Visit Indy vice president Chris Gahl said.

Visit Indy negotiates with the NFL for use of the Indiana Convention Center and Lucas Oil Stadium for the event. Gahl said last month the deal was "probably a few months from being finalized."

Visit Indy estimated the economic impact of this year's NFL Combine at $8.27 million based on an "economic impact calculator" developed for Indianapolis by consultant Rockport Analytics.

Visit Indy took a position against the religious freedom bill before it was signed into law.

The NFL has taken action based on social issues before. It moved the 1993 Super Bowl out of Arizona after the state's voters rejected a Martin Luther King holiday.

In February 2014, less than a year before Arizona was to play host to this year's Super Bowl, governor Jan Brewer vetoed a "religious freedom" bill.

The NFL did not make an explicit threat to move the Super Bowl, but Sports Illustrated reported that the league was looking at options to move the game if Brewer had signed the bill.

At the time, Aiello said, "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law."

The local Super Bowl host committee there spoke out against the bill.

"We do not support this legislation," a statement said. "Instead, we look forward to continuing to promote the NFL's values while focusing on the economic momentum apparent in Arizona and capturing the positive worldwide attention associated with hosting Super Bowl XLIX."

The Big Ten football championship game is scheduled for Indianapolis through 2021.

The men's basketball tournament is in Indianapolis in 2016, 2020 and 2022. The women's basketball tournament is in Indianapolis from 2016-2022.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/27/indiana-religious-freedom-rfra-nfl-indianapolis-colts/70543984/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 11:49:33 am
Notice how the Hegelian Dialectic minions are going to Plan B - first the "fight" is at the federal level, then when the so-called "religious conservatives" lose, they go to the state level(like they are doing now where states are trying to push these "religious freedom" bills).

Look at the abortion agenda - recently states have passed anti-abortion measures...only for the federal courts to strike them down. And that's what's going to happen to these state "religious freedom" bills.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2015, 04:18:25 pm
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces decision to prohibit Indiana travel for city employees after passage of state's new law; 'none of our taxpayer dollars should go toward supporting this discriminatory law' - @KING5Seattle

http://www.breakingnews.com/

discriminatory law?? against who ?


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 05:02:27 pm
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announces decision to prohibit Indiana travel for city employees after passage of state's new law; 'none of our taxpayer dollars should go toward supporting this discriminatory law' - @KING5Seattle

http://www.breakingnews.com/

discriminatory law?? against who ?


I've never visited Indiana, but nonetheless regardless, they're making a big deal out of a small state that doesn't attract too many tourists?

Unless of course you like auto racing. :P


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 05:39:42 pm
Yeah, I wonder why they're targeting Indiana...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
3/27/15
19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting

Indiana has come under fire for a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Mike Pence (R) that would allow businesses to refuse service for religious reasons. The NCAA has voiced its concern ahead of Final Four in Indianapolis next week, there are calls to boycott the state, and Miley Cyrus has even weighed in, calling Pence a name that we can't reprint on this family Web site in an Instagram post.

But Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:

Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.

A federal RFRA signed by President Clinton in 1993 shares language with Indiana and other states' bills, prohibiting the government from "substantially burdening" individuals' exercise of religion unless it is for a "compelling government interest" and is doing so in the least restrictive means.

[Indiana is the battle over religious freedom that Arizona never was]

The fact that legislation like this is so widespread probably gave Pence some confidence in signing the bill, despite the controversy in Arizona last year over its bill that was ultimately scrapped, and in other states, like Georgia, which are considering similar measures this year (the NCSL found 13 additional states are considering their own RFRA legislation).

Pence has begun to feel the fallout from his decision. But while Indiana is being criticized, the NCAA didn't say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky's RFRA when games were played there last week, there aren't any plans to boycott states like Illinois or Connecticut, and Miley Cyrus has yet to post a photo of President Clinton or any of the 19 other governors who have also signed RFRAs.

Indiana might be treated as if it's the only state with a bill like this, but it's not.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2015, 06:34:28 pm
Quote
Yeah, I wonder why they're targeting Indiana...

SWING STATE


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 07:02:43 pm
SWING STATE

True, but it's not like they have alot of electoral votes. I believe Romney "won" that state in 2012.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2015, 09:06:21 pm
Thousands protest 'religious freedom' law in Indiana

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Jhn 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.


Thousands of people gathered in downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of a controversial "religious freedom" law that critics say could allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their displeasure with Republican Gov. Mike Pence, who signed the legislation Thursday.

"No hate in our state," "Whose State? Our State!" and "Fix the bill" were some of the chants heard in the background at the rally.

An unidentified State Police trooper estimated that as many as 3,000 were in attendance at the height of the rally,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/28/thousands-protest-religious-freedom-law-indy/70596032/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on March 28, 2015, 09:20:01 pm
Angie's List freezes Ind. expansion in wake of anti-gay law

When did this become an anti-gay law? Seems to be an anti Jesus movement. Also angies list is a shakedown is a shakedown job.



Angie’s List is the latest amongst a slew of companies taking a stand following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a new Indiana law which allows business owners to deny service to gay customers for religious reasons.
“Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement, according to Mashable.
 
A $40 million expansion project of the company – which is headquartered in Indianapolis and reports over 3 million paid subscribers -- was scheduled to begin within days of the company’s announcement that it had suspended its plans.
 
The plans “would have included the purchase of a former Ford assembly plant and potentially added 1,000 jobs over the next five years,” details Mashable. Angie’s List, however, said it won’t proceed until it can "fully understand" how the law might affect its employees.
 
As previously reported, the measure – which passed Thursday -- prompted negative reactions nationwide from LGBT advocates, lawmakers, civil liberties groups and numerous businesses.
 
“Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was ‘deeply disappointed’ with the new law; Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the week when he canceled all programs that require customers and employees to travel to Indiana. And Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman penned an open letter on the topic,” Mashable reports.
 
On Saturday, nearly 3,000 protesters gathered at Indianapolis' Monument Circle to march in protest of the RFRA.


http://www.jrn.com/now-trending/Angies-List-freezes-Ind-expansion-in-wake-of-anti-gay-law-297904261.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 11:08:36 pm
Look out for any sodomite rallies like this in your area - pt being that this would be THE perfect time to preach the gospel and hand out tracts. Jason Cooley and his ministry have done the same at sodomite rallies in his area.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 28, 2015, 11:10:05 pm
And don't forget the Jesuits are behind these "rallies" as well - another thing, it seems like alot of people marching in these "rallies" are NON-sodomites.

Angie's List freezes Ind. expansion in wake of anti-gay law

When did this become an anti-gay law? Seems to be an anti Jesus movement. Also angies list is a shakedown is a shakedown job.



Angie’s List is the latest amongst a slew of companies taking a stand following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a new Indiana law which allows business owners to deny service to gay customers for religious reasons.
“Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement, according to Mashable.
 
A $40 million expansion project of the company – which is headquartered in Indianapolis and reports over 3 million paid subscribers -- was scheduled to begin within days of the company’s announcement that it had suspended its plans.
 
The plans “would have included the purchase of a former Ford assembly plant and potentially added 1,000 jobs over the next five years,” details Mashable. Angie’s List, however, said it won’t proceed until it can "fully understand" how the law might affect its employees.
 
As previously reported, the measure – which passed Thursday -- prompted negative reactions nationwide from LGBT advocates, lawmakers, civil liberties groups and numerous businesses.
 
“Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was ‘deeply disappointed’ with the new law; Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the week when he canceled all programs that require customers and employees to travel to Indiana. And Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman penned an open letter on the topic,” Mashable reports.
 
On Saturday, nearly 3,000 protesters gathered at Indianapolis' Monument Circle to march in protest of the RFRA.


http://www.jrn.com/now-trending/Angies-List-freezes-Ind-expansion-in-wake-of-anti-gay-law-297904261.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 29, 2015, 12:11:48 am
http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2015/03/28/swarens-gov-mike-pence-push-clarification-religious-freedom-law/70611906/
Swarens: Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of ‘religious freedom’ law
3/28/15

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“I support religious liberty, and I support this law,” Pence said in an exclusive interview. “But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there’s a way to clarify the intent of the law.”

The governor, although not ready to provide details on what the new bill will say, said he expects the legislation to be introduced into the General Assembly this coming week.

Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”

Amid the deepest crisis of his political career, Pence said repeatedly that the intense blowback against the new law is the result of a “misunderstanding driven by misinformation.”

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he did acknowledge that Indiana’s image — and potentially its economic health — has been hurt badly by the controversy.

I spoke with Pence on the same day that thousands of people rallied at the Statehouse in opposition to the law. And the same day that Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle announced that his company will abandon a deal with the state and city to expand the company’s headquarters in Indianapolis because of RFRA’s passage.

Oesterle’s statement is a telling sign that the outrage over RFRA isn’t limited only to the political left. Oesterle directed Republican Mitch Daniels’ 2004 campaign for governor. And it’s a signal that the damage from the RFRA debacle could be extensive.

Behind the scenes, Pence and his team have been scrambling to mitigate that damage — both to the state and to the governor’s political career.

Pence said, for example, that he had a “cordial and productive” conversation with Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, who announced shortly after Pence signed the RFRA legislation on Thursday that the company will cancel all corporate-related travel to Indiana. That conversation, however, has not led to a reversal of the Salesforce decision.

I asked the governor if he had anticipated the strongly negative reaction set off by the bill’s passage. His response made it clear that he and his team didn’t see it coming.

“I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state,” he said. “I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill.”

In defense of the legislation, he noted that 19 other states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws similar to Indiana’s. And he pointed out that President Barack Obama voted for Illinois’ version of RFRA as a state senator.

The governor also criticized the news media’s coverage of the legislation. “Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination,” he said. “If it was, I would have vetoed it.”

Yet, those justifications, cited repeatedly by the governor’s supporters in recent days, have done little to quell the controversy.

Which is why the proposal to clarify the law’s intent with a new bill has gained traction among Pence’s advisers in the past couple of days.

Pence also plans to fight back in the state and national media. He’s scheduled, for instance, to defend the law Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. “I’m not going to take it (the criticism) lying down,” he said.

As we wrapped up the conversation, I asked Pence: What answer do you have for the many gays and lesbians — and their friends and families — who’ve asked this past week if they are still welcome in Indiana?

“First, this law is not about discrimination. It’s about protecting religious liberty and giving people full access to the judicial system,” he said. “But, yes, Hoosier hospitality is about making all people feel welcome in our state. We did that with the Super Bowl and with many other events, and with bringing businesses here. We will continue to do that.”

Whether Pence can get that message across — whether he still has the credibility to get people to believe it — will help determine the extent of RFRA’s damage. First, and most important, for the state. But also for Mike Pence’s political future and legacy.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 30, 2015, 09:22:56 am
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indiana-didnt-actually-pass-an-anti-gay-bill-2015-03-30?siteid=yhoof2
3/30/15
Indiana didn’t actually pass an anti-gay bill

If you want to know why the so-called wisdom of crowds is a load of B.S., just take a look at the widespread reaction last week to Indiana’s new religious-freedom law.

If you listened to all the voices who have weighed in on this subject, from TV to radio to the Internet, you’d think Indiana just passed a law giving a green light to anti-gay bigotry.

But after talking to some legal experts who had actually read the law in question, I found out Indiana had done no such thing.

The outcry is so violent that one law professor declined to talk on the record. He had already offered a legal opinion about the law in public — and he, and his family, had been swamped by hate mail and personal abuse a result. (So I’m glad we’re all fighting hate speech.)

Another legal professor initially took the view that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, was anti-gay, but added that his knowledge of it so far was based on media coverage. While we were speaking, I found the text of the law online and emailed it to him. Then I called him back a few minutes later, when he had had a chance to read it.

His opening words when he got back on the phone? “Forget everything I just said.”

The law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so.
The law, he said, was actually no different from the federal religious-freedom law that has been on the statute books since 1993. All the reports and commentary he’d heard had been wrong.


Another law professor, Daniel Conkle at Indiana University, said the new law is also the same as those currently in place in 30 other states. Nineteen state legislatures have passed such laws, and in another 11 states the courts have made rulings in a similar vein, he said.

What the legal experts told me: In a nutshell, the new law does not give anyone carte blanche to refuse to serve homosexuals, or any other group, based on religion (or any other grounds).

Instead, the law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so — the “compelling interest” rule. If it tries to do so, you can go to court and plead legal objection under the religious-freedom law. The court will have to decide if there is a compelling reason to override your religious freedom, or not. Combating discrimination, incidentally, might well be such a reason.

Legal professors gave me examples where these laws had already been used elsewhere in America.

In Texas, for example, a school required all boys to cut their hair short. A Native American boy claimed that violated a religious requirement to let his hair grow. He took the school to court under the religious-freedom law and won.

In Philadelphia, the city tried to stop people handing out food in public parks. A church group that had been giving food to the homeless as part of its mission claimed an objection to the law on religious grounds and won.

A prison in Arkansas demanded prisoners be clean-shaven. A Muslim prisoner claimed the right to grow a short beard on religious grounds. He also won under the freedom of religion statute.

A small religious sect from Brazil uses a hallucinogenic tea in its services, and pleaded for an exemption from anti-drug laws on the grounds of religion. The courts upheld that too.

None of this, I should add, means that the new Indiana law will not be used to justify discrimination against gays in some contexts. No one can prove a negative, and we will have to wait for it to be tried in court.

Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the law might be used to justify discrimination against gays — if the courts agree that that was the intent of the legislators who passed it, and if the courts cannot find a compelling public interest against such discrimination.

In other states, professors said, the laws had not so far been used to justify such discrimination, although that doesn’t mean the same will be true in Indiana. A florist in Washington state tried to plead religious objection against providing flowers at a gay wedding, but the courts ruled against the business owner.

Professor Conkle at Indiana University notes that, ironically, the law won’t change much in many parts of Indiana anyway. Indiana has no statewide laws banning discrimination against gays in the first place (although some counties have local ordinances). In many parts of the state, a business owner who didn’t want to serve gays wouldn’t have to plead exemption from the law on the grounds of religion. There’s no law to be exempt from. Conkle, who adds that he is a supporter of marriage equality, is a professor of law and of comparative religion.

Feelings run high on these topics, and no wonder. (For what it’s worth, I’ve been a supporter of marriage equality since long before the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in the Goodridge case, when everyone else started to get on board.) But I can’t really imagine wanting to make someone do something that went against his deeply held religious beliefs except in a case of necessity. I also do not find it particularly “liberal” to want to stamp out personal religious freedom — any more than it is to want to stamp out personal sexual freedom.

But what really interests me here is, once again, how the alleged “wisdom of crowds” is completely bogus. From the stock market to opinion polls to television ratings to Twitter to the Internet quest for “eyeballs,” we are all becoming slaves to the “crowd.” Some people will tell you that’s OK because the crowd is “wise,” and when lots of people get together and jabber, the result is usually sweet reason, wisdom and truth. Hooey.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 30, 2015, 01:52:36 pm
 ::)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/indiana-anti-gay-law_n_6969286.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
3/30/15
Indiana GOP Leaders Say They're Totally Shocked 'Religious Freedom' Law Is Seen As Anti-Gay

WASHINGTON -- Indiana's Republican leaders said they were shocked, confused and completely caught off-guard by the backlash to their new "religious freedom" law, telling reporters Monday that they had not expected criticism calling the measure anti-gay.

"I don't think anyone anticipated that the characterization of the bill would be, this denies to services to a specific class to Hoosiers. It does just the opposite. It includes all Hoosiers in the religious freedom standard. And it's a misperception that it denies services," said Indiana state House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) during a Monday morning press conference with Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R).

Long acknowledged that the GOP-controlled legislature did not work with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups on crafting the language of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the lawmakers didn't think the bill would affect that community.

"The reason we didn't is because this law doesn't discriminate against anyone," he said. "If we thought it did, we would have dealt with that. We don't believe it does."

That denial is hard to believe. Last year, Arizona's legislature passed a similar piece of legislation. But after national backlash, particularly from businesses concerned about how the law would affect LGBT individuals, then-Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed it. LGBT groups have consistently been sounding the alarm on these so-called "religious freedom" bills as well, warning that they open the door to widespread discrimination where businesses could deny service to same-sex couples.

There were also people in Indiana warning of the consequences before the legislation became law. Even Indianapolis' Republican mayor said it would send the "wrong signal" for the state. Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country, also threatened to stop holding its event in Indiana if RFRA became law.

And many of the proponents of the law specifically cited discrimination against same-sex couples as the reason the legislation was so important.

Bosma and Long said those proponents were mistaken in what they believed RFRA would do.

The GOP leaders also confirmed Monday that they plan to introduce clarification to the law underscoring that it does not allow discrimination, although they haven't yet worked out what that language will look like. But they made clear they have no plans to explicitly add protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

"That's a big policy step," Bosma said. "There's only -- of the 30 states that have a RFRA standard, 10 of those have done that. Big policy discussion here to toss in the middle of four weeks before the end of the session."

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) has also said he would support clarification in RFRA but does not want specific LGBT protections.

"I will not push for that," Pence said during an interview with ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "That's not on my agenda and that's not been the -- that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana. And it doesn't have anything to do with this law."

But without such a move, RFRA critics argue LGBT discrimination will still be legal. Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, tweeted the need for such protections last week.

Pro-LGBT rights group Lambda Legal is advocating for the legislature add this language to the law: "This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination."

“If Governor Pence meant it when he said that SB101 isn't intended to allow discrimination against LGBT people, then why were amendments designed to make that explicit repeatedly rejected during the legislative process?" said Jennifer Pizer, national director of Lambda Legal’s Law and Policy Project, in a statement Sunday.

Freedom Indiana, a pro-LGBT rights organization, is pushing the "Fairness For All Hoosiers Act," which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in employment, housing and public accommodations and also would clarify that RFRA cannot be used to undermine local or statewide civil rights protections.

Indiana's Democratic leaders, state Sen. Tim Lanane and Rep. Scott Pelath, also held a press conference on Monday, where they said they want to see full repeal of RFRA.

"People are angry, they're upset and they're insulted," Pelath said. "Some sort of patchwork solution isn't going to get it done."

"When you have a bill which is this tainted, this corrupted, there's no fix to it," Lanane added. "You just get rid of it. My mother used to tell me, if you bring home a bag of potatoes and you've got a rotten potato in there, you throw it out. You don't let it contaminate the rest of the. And I think that's what we have here."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 31, 2015, 07:31:51 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/31/mike-pence-just-handed-gay-hoosiers-and-liberals-a-significant-victory/
3/31/15
Mike Pence just handed gay Hoosiers and liberals a significant victory

Despite the backup he was getting from every Republican presidential candidate who has discussed the issue and pretty much every conservative commentator who has mentioned it, Indiana governor Mike Pence gave gay people and liberals a victory today when he announced that he’s expecting his legislature to send him a bill “clarifying” the legislation he recently signed on religious freedom.

Pence wouldn’t characterize it that way, of course. He’d say (and did say, about a hundred times) that nothing in the law gave anyone a license to discriminate, and the new legislation would merely make that explicit. But no matter how many times he said it, that was indeed what the law would likely have done. That issue is somewhat complicated and has to do with the conflict between this law and local ordinances in some places in Indiana (I discussed that at some length yesterday). But certain aspects of the law, including the fact that it specifically applies to for-profit businesses and disputes between individuals (unlike the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) made it all but certain that eventually we’d get cases in Indiana in which people were claiming to discriminate against gays. And if the law stood as it was, they probably would have prevailed.

But the pressure Pence got from people both within Indiana and around the country has essentially forced him to be true to his word. Up until now, Pence has been saying that the law was not intended to give businesses in Indiana the right to discriminate against gay people. Now he’s saying that he wants to put that explicitly within the law itself. That’s a huge win for gay people who don’t want to be discriminated against, and makes it more likely that the next state that passes a law like this one — and there are similar bills pending in multiple states — will include a similar clarification.

Not only that, Pence went so far as to say, “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe. I believe it with all my heart.” The “who they love” part is not the kind of language one usually hears about LGBT people from Republicans, particularly those as conservative as Pence.

Nevertheless, what’s important isn’t what Mike Pence believes in his heart. He wrote in an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal: “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore.” But he isn’t a restaurant critic, he’s a governor, and the real question is what kind of laws he’ll advocate and sign. Now he seems to have answered that question, at least in part: he says he’s going to sign a law that won’t legalize just that kind of discrimination.

What he won’t do, however, is sign a law outlawing that kind of discrimination. So if this “clarification” is what he says it will be, the state will revert to the status quo: where there are local ordinances in Indiana forbidding discrimination against gay people, as there are in Indianapolis and other places, that kind of discrimination will continue to be illegal. Every place else, it will still be legal.

Now let’s be honest: there’s a very particular context in which the Indiana law was passed. It’s part of a movement among conservatives to expand the notion of “religious freedom” beyond how you worship and your own conduct to the interactions religious people have with other people, particularly in the realm of commerce. Many conservatives want religious people to have a set of special rights that allows them to claim an exemption to certain laws because of their religious beliefs. Those exemptions would not be available to people who wanted to do the same thing but justified it on the basis of a non-religious philosophy, or just their opinions.

What we all need to acknowledge is that the place where these laws really get tested involves zero-sum conflicts where there is going to be a winner and a loser: the florist doesn’t want to make flowers for the same-sex wedding, and the couple wants to be treated equally. One side is going to prevail (I discussed this in greater detail here). Liberals know exactly where they stand on those cases, but some conservatives want to pretend they’re irrelevant. The Indiana controversy may show that when even a staunch conservative is forced to confront the implications of the laws Republicans would pass, he feels like he has no choice but to shuffle a few steps to the left.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 01, 2015, 11:14:58 am
Yes, Indiana was just the testing ground...

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-governor-urges-changes-religious-objection-bill-154925529.html
4/1/15
Arkansas governor urges changes to religious objection bill

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Republican governor said he wants changes to the bill lawmakers sent him prohibiting state and local government from infringing upon someone's religious beliefs without a compelling interest. Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law.

Hutchinson had initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.

The move comes after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week. Pence this week said he wants follow-up legislation to address concerns that the law allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Similar proposals have been introduced in more than a dozen states, patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Nineteen other states have similar laws on the books.

Echoing the reaction to Indiana's law, Hutchinson has faced pressure from the state's top employers, including retail giant Wal-Mart, which complained that the measure was discriminatory and would stifle economic development. Little Rock's mayor, the city's Chamber of Commerce and Arkansas-based data services company Acxiom all urged the governor to reject the measure in recent days.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group, has run ads in Silicon Valley targeting technology firms Hutchinson hopes to attract to the state.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 05, 2015, 04:59:46 am
Hmmm, seems its ok to discriminate when its Christians....

Big Ruling in Case of Bakery That Refused to Decorate Bible-Shaped Cakes With Anti-Gay Messages

A Colorado bakery didn’t discriminate against a Christian who wanted two cakes decorated with anti-gay messages, the state’s civil rights division has ruled.

Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery, told the division that she told the customer that her bakery “does not discriminate” and “accept[s ] all humans,” KMGH-TV reported.

Silva reportedly said the words “God hates gays” were part of Bill Jack’s request, but the founder of Worldview Academy, a Christian organization, said that wasn’t true.

Rather he asked for two Bible-shaped cakes that included references to Psalm 45:7 and Leviticus 18:22, among other Bible verses.

“I requested two cakes each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22′,” Jack told the Christian Post. “On the second cake I requested on one page, ‘God loves sinners,’ and on the facing page, ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.’” Jack also wanted an image of two men holding hands with something like an “X” through it.

The bakery told Jack they’d make the Bible-shaped cakes without the requested words and images, but Jack said that amounted to unequal treatment and the denial of goods and services based on his religion.

“If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery,” Silva told KMGH in January.

More from KMGH:

    The agency’s decision found that the baker did not discriminate against Jack based on his creed. Instead, officials state the evidence shows Silva refused to make the cakes because the customer’s requests included “derogatory language and imagery.”

    The baker said “in the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” according to the decision.

    “The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed,” the civil rights agency’s decision stated.

Jack also told the Post that he had requested the cake and filed the subsequent complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Division in an effort to expose how anti-discrimination laws — which typically place Christian bakers and business providers in the crosshairs for refusing to provide services to same-sex couples — are not equally applied across the board.

VIDEO: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/04/big-ruling-in-case-of-bakery-that-refused-to-decorate-bible-shaped-cakes-with-anti-gay-messages/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 07, 2015, 08:39:19 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-lawmakers-oppose-changing-religious-objection-law-160906158.html
4/7/15
Some Texas lawmakers oppose changing religious objection law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas lawmakers and top business leaders vowed Tuesday to kill two proposed constitutional amendments they say will promote anti-gay discrimination and could lead to backlash similar to recent reactions in Indiana and Arkansas.

Opponents say the proposals, sponsored by Republicans Rep. Matt Krause and Sen. Donna Campbell, would morph the business-friendly Lone Star State into a costly state for corporations and negatively affect tourism.

Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1999 allows a Texas resident to sue state and local governments if he or she feels that a government entity is burdening their religious beliefs or practices. Lauded as "carefully crafted" by gay rights advocates, the act explicitly states it cannot be used to undermine federal or state civil rights or take precedence over local ordinances.

The proposed amendments do not explicitly say the law can't be used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation, mirroring the original language of the laws passed recently in Indiana and Arkansas that sparked boycotts and strong opposition. Those states' Republican-controlled legislatures both revised their laws last week.

Krause said his proposed amendment would give constitutional strength to Texas' law. It would also trump local laws, including cities' nondiscrimination ordinances already in place, such as Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.

Dozens of states have similar religious freedom laws, largely modeled after a federal law enacted in 1993 with broad bipartisan support. Texas is one of 29 states that have no protections for gays and lesbians in nondiscrimination laws. Similar debates are going on in other statehouses, as Republican governors in Michigan and North Dakota are urging lawmakers to extend anti-discrimination protections for gays.

Flanked by Democratic lawmakers at a news conference, Texas Association of Business' Chief Executive Officer Bill Hammond called the GOP-backed measures "misguided legislation."

Dallas Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia said that, like in Indiana and Arkansas, people in Texas are concerned about the economy. He added a bipartisan group of legislators "will stop this thing in the House."

Krause said he's still confident in his proposal. He said the amendments wouldn't change the protections already in the act. "Our system's worked well for 16 years," he said Tuesday.

But others fear that's not the case.

Under current law, a governmental entity facing a civil rights lawsuit cannot use religious liberty as a defense, according to Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

"The constitutional amendments would sweep away that language," Robertson said.

If the amendments clear committees — neither proposal is set for a hearing yet — they would require approval by two-thirds of the Legislature and the governor. Finally, they would face approval from Texas voters.

Kathy Miller, president of the advocacy group Texas Freedom Network, said the amendments are dangerous, but 18 other bills would open the door for even more discrimination. Some proposals target local nondiscrimination ordinances, while others would prohibit ax dollars from being used to license, register or recognize same-sex marriage licenses.

"They go further than the irresponsible bills that sparked the backlash in Indiana and Arkansas," she said. "These bills are bad for Texas."


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 17, 2015, 07:45:11 am
Evangelist May Face Hate Crime Charges for Requesting Anti-Gay Marriage Cake

An evangelist who requested an anti-gay marriage cake could see his day in court.

Sharon Haller, of Cut the Cake Bakery in Florida, has reportedly sought the FBI in a hate crime investigation against Josh Feuerstein, Breitbart News reports.

Feuerstein called Cut the Cake on April 1, asking for a sheet cake saying, "We do not support gay marriage."

Haller told him she couldn't accommodate his request and hung up.

Feuerstein recorded the video, saying: "Have we gotten to the point in America where the left is so 'open minded' that they're close minded to anybody that doesn't agree with them, or is America big enough for different points of view? Christian bakeries should never be forced to do something that violates their Christian principles. That's not American."

 The video went viral, resulting in threats to the bakery.

Feuerstein removed the video after the threats, saying it was never his intention for the Haller to be attacked. Rather, he wanted to point out the hypocrisy of religious freedom in the country.

"You have one side who demands that Christians' first amendment rights be violated by being forced to bake a cake that violates their religious principles and yet they refuse to do the same," Feuerstein wrote in an email to the Orlando Sentinel.

So where is the standard? Sound off!

http://www.charismanews.com/us/49229-evangelist-may-face-hate-crime-charges-for-requesting-anti-gay-marriage-cake


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 05:47:39 am
GoFundMe Shuts Down Fundraising Page for Oregon Bakery Owners

 The fundraising website GoFundMe has shut down a donation page for Aaron and Melissa Klein, the former owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore.
 
“The GoFundMe account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of GoFundMe because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose,” the Kleins said Saturday morning in a post on the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Facebook page. “We are working to get the account reinstated.”
 
A supporter of the Kleins had set up the fundraising page after an Oregon judge on Friday set a fine of $135,000 for the couple as punishment for declining to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians. The page had raised more than $66,000 before GoFundMe shuttered it. GoFundMe said the Kleins would be able to access the money raised so far.
 
“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions and have removed this campaign,” the company told The Oregonian.
 
In the meantime, the Kleins said supporters could donate to their cause through Samaritan’s Purse.
 
The fine comes almost three months after Administrative Judge Alan McCullough ruled the couple violated an Oregon statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The funds will go to the lesbian couple for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering.”
 
The ruling is more consistent with the actions of a fascist state than of a democracy, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
 
“An Oregon judge made clear in no uncertain terms to the Kleins and all Oregonians that the state has the right to demand that citizens engage in activities that violate their beliefs and if they refuse, they will lose their ability to make a living,” he said in a prepared statement. “In a free country, this is a ruling that cannot and must not stand. … A government able to bankrupt people for standing by their deepest beliefs is a government of unbridled power and a threat to everyone’s freedom.”
 
The Kleins shuttered their storefront in Gresham, a suburb of Portland, Ore., in 2013 shortly after Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman filed a civil rights complaint against them. At that time, same-sex marriage still wasn’t legal in Oregon.
 
Perkins said he hoped the ruling would be overturned, implying the Kleins plan to appeal. But based on previous cases in which wedding vendors have been accused of discrimination, they might not have much luck. The U.S. Supreme Court declined last year to hear the case of Elaine Huguenot, a New Mexico photographer fined $6,637.94 for declining to photograph a same-sex wedding.
 
The New Mexico case was among the first of a host of discrimination claims filed against Christian wedding business vendors. So far, none have prevailed in their appeals.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraising-page-for-oregon-bakery-owners.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 06:39:05 am
The Johns Hopkins Chick-fil-A Ban and the Coming Gay-Marriage Witch Hunt

A new spirit of intolerance has arisen on the Johns Hopkins University campus, and conservative Christians are the targets. The JHU student government’s vote this week to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from campus because of the company owner’s support for traditional marriage, coming on the heels of the JHU Spring Fair’s censorship of a pro-life fetal-model display as “disturbing” and “triggering,” sends a clear message that students who disagree with liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on the Hopkins campus.

The student government’s vote went beyond merely expressing support for same-sex marriage. The Chick-fil-A ban seeks to introduce unprecedented discrimination against companies owned by religious conservatives into the university’s contracting policies, even though only a few years ago, prominent liberals like Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama had held the same views on marriage. In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for “homophobia,” the JHU student government is only a short step from similarly giving the boot to socially conservative Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, and Jewish student groups from campus, as we have seen happen at Vanderbilt University, the 23 campuses of California State University, and others throughout the country.

Whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage, the JHU student government’s idea that the mere presence of Chick-fil-A on campus would promote “homophobia” and amount to discrimination against the LGBT community is absurd. This view is premised, first of all, on the assumption that advocates of traditional marriage are devoid of rational argument and inspired only by hatred, and second, on the notion that allowing a company owned by someone who supports traditional marriage to operate on campus is equivalent to endorsing that support.

Such a narrow-minded view is possible only because JHU, like so many other colleges, has become dominated by an intolerant strain of liberalism that is intent on silencing dissent. One need only think back to JHU medical students’ successful 2013 campaign to remove the neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a member of the JHU faculty, as their commencement speaker for his comments against same-sex marriage, or the student government’s fierce though unsuccessful crusade to keep a pro-life student group from forming on campus.

In a free-market economy, the company that makes the best food at the lowest price usually wins more business. At a university, the robust free market of thought similarly should allow the best ideas to win out in an unfettered debate. The Chick-fil-A ban hurts both types of free market on campus. If the argument for redefining marriage into a genderless contract for any two consenting adults is so strong, then advocates for it should not need the student government’s version of the thought police to silence dissenting voices.

JHU’s ban on Chick-fil-A, like its censorship of pro-life fetal models on campus, amounts to a moralistic paternalism that has no place on a tolerant and pluralistic university of intelligent students and our nation’s future leaders. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine JHU ever accommodating conservative students who are offended daily by advocates of abortion and same-sex marriage, or “triggered” by their peers’ hateful bigotry toward their beliefs.

 The entire notion of keeping the University a “safe space,” free from scary or offensive viewpoints, especially on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, is absolutely antithetical to Johns Hopkins’ stated commitment to the free and robust exchange of ideas. The JHU Task Force on Academic Freedom had barely released its recommendations this month before the university twice violated its own commitments to intellectual tolerance and diversity:

Speech on academic, political or cultural matters . . . even when deemed offensive to some, is not alone grounds for sanctions. . . . The more appropriate response to such statements . . . is objection, persuasion and debate.

If the Hopkins student government wants to begin a witch hunt against social and religious conservatives on campus, or at the very least bully them into silence, then Johns Hopkins University is fulfilling its own version of the aphorism apocryphally attributed to George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth — or, in this case, eating a chicken sandwich
 — becomes a revolutionary act.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417305/johns-hopkins-chick-fil-ban-and-coming-gay-marriage-witch-hunt-andrew-guernsey


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 06:42:36 am
Will Christians be Fitted with Yellow Crosses?

Amid the cross-country race to election 2016, the secular left’s utter disdain for both our Creator Christ and His faithful followers is fast approaching critical mass. Self-styled “progressives” – that is, America’s cultural Marxist agents of ruin – typically disguise their designs on despotism in the flowery and euphemistic language of “reproductive health,” “anti-discrimination” and “multiculturalism.”

We see this Orwellian newspeak at play right now in Washington, D.C., where congressional Republicans endeavor to prevent, if only timorously, two unconstitutional pieces of legislation from taking effect. The first, the District of Columbia’s so-called “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act,” would force pro-life groups, including churches and para-church organizations, to hire pro-abortion zealots and other godless rabble-rousers with worldviews and socio-political agendas overtly hostile to the express mission of those churches and organizations.

The second, the farcically mislabeled “Human Rights Amendment Act,” would jettison the longstanding “Armstrong Amendment,” which, as notes the Daily Signal, “was enacted by Congress in 1989 to exempt religious schools in D.C. from being forced into violating their beliefs about human sexuality by ‘promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.’”

In other words, under this new legislation churches and religious schools will be forced, under penalty of law, to deny the Christian sexual ethic and, instead, promote, encourage and condone homosexual behavior and other pagan sexual immorality.

So much for “human rights.”

Still, while most on the left are careful to mask their totalitarian goals and anti-Christian animus by coating these poison pills in sugar sweet jargon, on occasion one of these God-denying goose-steppers will let down his guard, drop the euphemistic BS, and vomit forth that acidic bile, unfiltered “progressivism.”

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Tayler is one such goose-stepper. In an April 19 Salon.com screed headlined, “Marco Rubio’s deranged religion, Ted Cruz’s bizarre faith: Our would-be presidents are God-fearing clowns,” “freethinking” Jeffrey, a paragon of paganism, ably puts the “bigot” in anti-Christian bigotry.

In reference to the 2016 presidential candidates who call themselves Christian, Tayler bemoans that these “God-fearing clowns and faith-mongering nitwits [are] groveling before Evangelicals.” He further protests Christians’ “nattering on about their belief in the Almighty and their certainty that if we just looked, we could find answers to many of our ills in the Good Book.”

Right, it’s called the Gospel, Jeffrey. It’s the only hope that either you or any of us has.

“There will almost certainly be no (declared) atheist or even agnostic among the candidates,” he laments. “This is scandalous, given the electorate’s gradual, relentless ditching of religion.”

Gradual? That’s a gaping understatement when one considers that even today over 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian with the vast majority of those who don’t nevertheless acknowledging the transcendent reality of a Creator God. Every man, woman and child understands through both general revelation and human reason that this unfathomably intricate, staggeringly fine-tuned universe didn’t create and fine-tune itself. It’s a tiny minority of angry, self-deluded materialists like Jeffrey Tayler who deny this self-evident truth. Scandalous? Hardly.

Continues Tayler: “With the dapper Florida Sen. Marco Rubio we move into the more disturbing category of Republicans we might charitably diagnose as ‘faith-deranged’ – in other words, as likely to do fine among the unwashed ‘crazies’ in the red-state primaries, but whose religious beliefs would (or should) render them unfit for civilized company anywhere else.”

Sound familiar? Such hubristic elitism is so 1939. It was similarly “faith-deranged,” “unwashed crazies” in Germany who, at that time, were numerically branded “unfit for civilized company.” Shall we Christians be fitted with yellow crosses, Herr Tayler?

Our Darwinian disbeliever then distills the timeless Christian faith to “far-fetched fiction and foolish figments” before launching into a tirade against the left’s favorite candidate to hate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, while, likewise, knifing twixt the shoulder blades, the richly diverse, 100 thousand-plus student body at Liberty University.

“Cruz pandered fulsomely to the faith-deranged by choosing to announce at Liberty University, that bastion of darkness located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Once administered by the late Jerry Falwell, Liberty promises a ‘World Class Christian education’ and boasts that it has been ‘training champions for Christ since 1971' – grounds enough, in my view, to revoke the institution’s charter and subject it to immediate quarantine until sanity breaks out.”

Are you getting this? Tayler’s not joking about revoking Liberty’s accreditation and otherwise consigning all faithful Christians to a constructive encampment beyond the margins of functional society. That’s their end-game. That’s the way their boxcars roll.

Neither do our papist friends escape unscathed. Tayler smears the Catholic Church as a “fanatical homophobic cult,” while blaspheming his own Creator. He inquires in litmus of some obscure atheist candidate, “f you are indeed an atheist, will you come out of the closet about it? Will you utter that vilest of stock phrases ‘God bless America!’ to close speeches, thereby lending undue credence to the nonsense notion that an invisible tyrant rules us from on high?”

“Atheists can dream,” he pines. “They can dream of a candidate (and future president) who will, one day, say ‘I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a hereafter.’”

And why not? Russia had its Stalin and China its Mao. Who needs an “invisible tyrant” when we can elect one at the ballot box?

Or didn’t we already do that.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2015/04/26/will-christians-be-fitted-with-yellow-crosses-n1990467/page/full


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 28, 2015, 01:16:05 pm
What were the early steps that Germany took when persecuting the Jewish people?

1933 – Nazi brown shirts start to boycott of Jewish shops

1934 – Jews were banned from public places such as public parks and swimming pools. At the same time teachers, lawyers and servants were fired from their jobs if they were Jewish.

nazi-a-jew-with-star-of-david

1935 – The Nuremberg laws are enacted. Jews are no longer allowed to be German citizens. Jews cannot marry non-Jews and Jews cannot have sexual relations with non-Jews.

1936 – Jews are banned from working, owning and running a business. They are also banned from having any German property.

1938 – Kristallnacht took place the nights of November 9th & 10th. It is known as “the night of broken glass”. What took place were a series of attacks from Nazi brown shirts, SA Stormtroopers and Nazi sympathizing civilians against Jews throughout Nazi Germany. This also bled over into parts of Austria and other German controlled lands. German authorities looked on without lifting a finger to stop it. The attacks left streets covered with broken glass from the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings and synagogues. At least 91 Jews were killed in the attacks and 30,000 Jews were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps. Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were ransacked as the attackers demolished the buildings with sledgehammers. Over 1,000 synagogues were burned and over 7000 Jewish businesses destroyed or damaged.

1939 – Warsaw Ghettos were opened and Jews living under the Nazi regime were forced to wear a white / yellow start of David armband or actually have one sewn onto the outside jacket. It was aganst the law to not identify ones Jewishness.

The Five Steps Leading To Persecution

History shows that there are five general steps that are followed by a government or ruling power when they start harassing a group like Christians. These steps then lead to outright persecution which then leads to imprisonment, torture and eventually martyrdom - death.

The steps are as follows…

1. Identifying: This involves finger-pointing by the ruling authority for the purpose of placing the blame for the nation’s troubles on one particular group. In 1 Kings 18:17, King Ahab identifies the prophet Elijah as being the one responsible for the drought that took place in the land of Israel. He accused Elijah by asking the question, "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" The true body of Christ and Biblical Christianity in America today are blamed for being the greatest obstacles to the liberal establishment’s plans for a totally humanistic "utopian" society.

2. Marginalizing: By this means, the "politically incorrect" portion of the Church is looked upon as not being part of the mainstream of society. This is done by an organized smear campaign conducted by the ruling authorities through the national news media. They do this by the use of such trigger words as radical, extremists, separatists, and fringe.

3. Vilifying: By this means, the persecutors employ such methods as uttering slanderous and abusive statements against targeted groups as to cheapen and debase their worth and significance in society. The accusers need no factual evidence for their accusations, but innuendoes, insinuations, hints and making associations with other previously known undesirables of society.

4. Criminalizing: In implementing this step of persecution, it gives the state "legal" justification for arresting and incarcerating the accused. Here the state charges the persecuted with accusations of alleged criminal wrong-doing. The state naturally picks on the most vulnerable segment of the Church in order to send their threatening message to all the rest who adhere to similar views and practices. Incarceration of a few means intimidation of the many. Victimization of a government- protected group is a direct result of the incrimination of the accused. This gives the state "legal" authority to take a heavy-handed control in "protecting" its citizens. Presently, our federal government has several groups which they deem as "victims" for whom they feel responsibility to protect.

5. Terrorizing. This is the blatant and outright acts of terrorism carried out by the police powers of the state against the persecuted. These are acts of coercion by threat or by violence and are intended to create anxiety and fear in the hearts of its victims, with the purpose of silencing and neutralizing the opponents of the tyrannical government in power. (1)

Like it or not, believe it or not, our nation has now reached stage 5. The state has begun to “Terrorize” Christian beliefs and as the case in Coeur d‘Alene Idaho, pastors are now being threatened with jail time and fines.

Persecution is not starting, persecution is here. Stages one through five are now in place. That means that Stage 5 will continue to progress and things will get worse.

http://www.prophezine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1108:stand-strong-in-perilous-times-&catid=41:top-headlines


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on April 30, 2015, 07:10:01 am
GoFundMe Shuts Down Fundraising Page for Oregon Bakery Owners
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraising-page-for-oregon-bakery-owners.html

Florist’s Funding ‘Not Found': GoFundMe Shuts Down Second Fundraiser for Christian Businesses

After recently shutting down the fundraising page for persecuted Christian bakers in Oregon, the popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe has now removed a page for a Christian florist who is at risk of losing her business, home and/or life savings for declining to use her services for a same-sex “wedding.”

The removal of the fundraising effort for Arlene’s Flowers came just 48 hours after the site had taken down the page for Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which had been ordered to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to two lesbian women that filed a complaint after the owners stated that they could not assist with their ceremony.

As previously reported, Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit in March 2012 by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that she had violated the law by offering a referral rather than servicing the event herself.

Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that may help.

“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.

Weeks later, Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.

In January, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident. The ruling drew concerns that fines could consequently place Stutzman at risk of losing her business, home and/or bank accounts.

In February, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. Last month, he ordered her to pay $1,000 to Ferguson as a civil penalty, a punishment that is stated to be “only the first punch” financially against the business owner since Eckstrom found that Stutzman may be required to pay damages and attorney’s fees to Ingersoll and his partner, which will be far more costly.

A GoFundMe page was then created for Stutzman, which before it was taken down, had raised over $174,000. But by Monday, supporters noticed that the page no longer existed.

Just two days before, the popular crowdfunding site had removed the fundraiser for Sweet Cakes by Melissa due to the urging of same-sex advocates. It released an explanation for pulling the page, stating that the fundraising site doesn’t allow crowdfunding campaigns for those who have been found guilty of violating laws.

“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our terms and conditions,” it wrote. “[T]he subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

“The GoFundMe account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of GoFundMe because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose,” Melissa Klein said that she had been told by the outlet. “We have told GoFundMe that the money is simply going to be used to help our family, and there is no legitimate breach of their terms and conditions.”

Not FoundA spokesperson for GoFundMe told the DailySignal that its decision “to remove the ‘Arlene’s Flowers’ campaign was [likewise] based on a violation of GoFundMe’s terms.”

“The same conclusion was recently reached in regards to the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ campaign based on a similar violation of terms,” the spokesperson added.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told the outlet that she believes homosexual activists are seeking to bully and shut down Christians by any means possible.

“It’s not enough to have the government redefine marriage or to punish those who disagree. The opponents of freedom have to ruin every aspect of the lives of those who disagree—denying them a living, the ability to feed their families, and the opportunity to raise money to pay the so-called ‘victims,’” she said. “This type of vindictive, hateful behavior is terrifying.”

“Corporations like Apple, Salesforce, and GoFundMe want to make sure they can live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage, but then deny that same right to people like Barronelle Stutzman who lovingly served her customer for nearly a decade but simply couldn’t participate in the celebration of his same-sex wedding,” Waggoner stated.

Some Christians are now calling for the creation of a Christian crowdfunding site where believers can support each other in their time of need.

http://christiannews.net/2015/04/29/florists-funding-not-found-gofundme-shuts-down-second-fundraiser-for-christian-businesses/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 03, 2015, 05:10:35 am
GoFundMe Changes Policy to Ban 'Discriminatory Acts'

Unless your a Christian, than they will just discriminate against you

 GoFundMe, the crowdfunding site that pulled two Christian businesses from its site, has expanded its policy.
 
The site recently took down the pages of Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Arlene’s Flowers after the two businesses refused to service same-sex weddings.
 
The old policy said the site could not support: “Campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”
 
According to the Washington Times, the site’s new policy includes a ban on campaigns that attempt to defend “claims of discriminatory acts.”
 
“Who will determine what a ‘discriminatory act’ is? Will the term be decided according to legal standards? If so, which standards?” said Travis Weber, a lawyer and director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. “Or will it be subject to the same arbitrary decision-making we’ve seen from GoFundMe so far?”
 
The old policy was in place when the website pulled the bakery and florist crowdfunding campaigns. Lawyers interviewed earlier by The Washington Times said the policy wasn’t enough cause to kill the campaigns.
 
“GoFundMe may want to appear as if it has a neutral policy prohibiting funds from being raised for certain activities,” Weber said. “But it is apparent that GoFundMe is seeking to slap several words onto their ‘policy’ merely to cover up the reality that they actually dropped the Kleins’ page because they were scared of cranky LGBT activists.”
 
The Klein campaign for the bakery raised $109,000. The florist business campaign raised more than $174,000.
 
GoFundMe has said in statements that the Kleins and Ms. Stutzman will be able to keep the fundraising dollars.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-changes-policy-to-ban-discriminatory-acts.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 05, 2015, 10:46:54 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnPIN_Rh_60


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 09, 2015, 05:36:11 am
Students Wearing Chick-fil-A Shirts at LGBT Event Leads to Suspensions
But not for who you would expect


Two students at a Pennsylvania high school wore Chick-fil-A T-shirts as protest to a LGBT event held at the school, causing offended classmates to chastise them on Twitter. Subsequently, the school issued suspensions, not for the wearers of the shirts surprisingly, but to the fifteen students who used social media, complete with vulgarities, during school hours.

The week-long event was organized with the help of senior Erin Snyder, 18, member of the school's Gay-Straight Alliance group. According to The Morning Call, students were asked to wear different color shirts each day of the week for the various causes they were supporting, including suicide and disabilities. For the last day of the week, students were encouraged to wear rainbow colored T-shirts in support of LGBT issues.

It was during that morning's televised announcements that the two boys donning Chick-fil-A attire were spotted. Snyder told The Morning Call that though they said nothing against the club or the LGBT community, she "knew what they were doing."

One of the girls who was among the students suspended, indicated that at least 15 students were given the same punishment, while others received detention.

TMC published Snyder's tweets, which was a response to someone who expressed support of one of the students who wore a Chick-fil-A shirt which read, "You're expressing your feelings … Why can't he?" Snyder replied, "Being an offensive [expletive] is not expressing your feelings."

Another student suspended for violating school policy and for using speech the school deemed "threatening" tweeted, "Shout-out to the [expletive] in the Chik-fil-A shirts."

His mother spoke out against the school, telling TMC, "You want to encourage everyone to be their own person, and for someone to decide it's OK for those two students to go on a morning show and wear a shirt like that with no repercussions, what is the school saying? That it's OK?"

Now, the incident has been taken up for investigation by the state's American Civil Liberties Union, which calls the punishments "pretty harsh." They will look into whether or not the free speech of the suspended students' was violated.

Though Snyder used Twitter to shame her peers, she maintained that the event was all about "support and anti-bullying."

"I think our school is very open for the most part, which is why it's so upsetting to see something like this happen," she said. "It's really disappointing [those two students] felt the need to protest against a day that was supposed to be about support and anti-bullying."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/students-wearing-chick-fil-shirts-lgbt-event-leads-suspensions


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 20, 2015, 08:33:28 am
Louisiana Religious Liberty Bill Goes Down in Defeat

Louisiana Republican lawmakers sided with Democrats, big business and LGBT activists to kill a bill that would have protected individuals and religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage. In doing so, lawmakers defied the objections of an overwhelmingly majority of voters and handed Gov. Bobby Jindal a significant defeat for his legislative agenda.

https://stream.org/louisiana-religious-liberty-bill-goes-defeat/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 21, 2015, 10:58:33 pm
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33175
JOE BIDEN SAYS BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS VIOLATE LGBT RIGHTS BY SIMPLY EXISTING
Geoffrey Grider | May 19, 2015 | 145 Comments

STATEMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Vice President Joe Biden say today that the rights of the LGBT people are violated by “religious condemnation”. He is directly referring to Bible verses like the one posted at the top of this article. The Progressive Liberals are well aware that it is God, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, that condemns homosexuality in all it’s many forms. According to Joe Biden, the American Bible believing Christian who takes the Bible literally, is violating the “rights” of the LGBT by trusting in God’s word. And this is why old-fashioned preaching will soon be classified as a “hate crime”. Because Liberals can’t stand it. Biden is also saying that the rights of the Christian are inferior to the rights of the LGBT individual.

Here is the full transcript of his remarks:

My father taught me the simple notion that everyone, everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the right direction.

Progress has also been made in many places around the world. But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.

The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve. source

Instead of “respecting universal human rights”, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination that needs to be repented of. Jesus Christ went to the cross to redeem the homosexual, that’s true. But He did not go to the cross to preserve homosexuality. He came to abolish that, and all sin.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, anymore than say a man marrying his dog would constitute a wedding. Sleeping in your garage does not make you a car. There is not one example in the Bible of God supporting, at any time, anything having to do with homosexuality. Churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies do it completely outside the blessing of God, and indeed bring down the wrath of God. The mark of Ichabod gets carved into the doorposts of every church that supports the LGBT movement.

Obama’s America, with it’s sky-high abortion rates, free-flowing 24 x 7 gambling, legalized pot, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and now as the champion of the LGBT Movement, is rapidly becoming everything that the Bible says God hates.

Just the other day I was verbally assaulted and attacked by a vicious lesbian who said that “had no right” to my beliefs, and that this website was “hate speech”. Kinda funny, though, that she said this while all the while demanding that I respect her “right” to be gay. What about my right to believe and follow the Bible? Apparently, I am not entitled to my rights. And this is exactly why Biden’s remarks today should be taken very seriously. As we have always told you and will continue to tell you, the LGBT is not interested in “tolerance”. They don’t want “acceptance”. What they want is complete and total domination, which is exactly what Obama and his minions are giving them.

“Woe unto them that call evil good…”


Title: Joe Biden Says Bible Believing Christians Violate LGBT Rights By Simply Existing
Post by: Mark on May 25, 2015, 10:31:28 am
Joe Biden Says Bible Believing Christians Violate LGBT Rights By Simply Existing

Statement by the Vice President on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Vice President Joe Biden say today that the rights of the LGBT people are violated by “religious condemnation”. He is directly referring to Bible verses like the one posted at the top of this article. The Progressive Liberals are well aware that it is God, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, that condemns homosexuality in all it’s many forms. According to Joe Biden, the American Bible believing Christian who takes the Bible literally, is violating the “rights” of the LGBT by trusting in God’s word. And this is why old-fashioned preaching will soon be classified as a “hate crime”. Because Liberals can’t stand it. Biden is also saying that the rights of the Christian are inferior to the rights of the LGBT individual.

Here is the full transcript of his remarks:

    My father taught me the simple notion that everyone, everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the right direction.

    Progress has also been made in many places around the world. But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.

    The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve. source

Instead of “respecting universal human rights”, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination that needs to be repented of. Jesus Christ went to the cross to redeem the homosexual, that’s true. But He did not go to the cross to preserve homosexuality. He came to abolish that, and all sin.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, anymore than say a man marrying his dog would constitute a wedding. Sleeping in your garage does not make you a car. There is not one example in the Bible of God supporting, at any time, anything having to do with homosexuality. Churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies do it completely outside the blessing of God, and indeed bring down the wrath of God. The mark of Ichabod gets carved into the doorposts of every church that supports the LGBT movement.

Obama’s America, with it’s sky-high abortion rates, free-flowing 24 x 7 gambling, legalized pot, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and now as the champion of the LGBT Movement, is rapidly becoming everything that the Bible says God hates.

Just the other day I was verbally assaulted and attacked by a vicious lesbian who said that “had no right” to my beliefs, and that this website was “hate speech”. Kinda funny, though, that she said this while all the while demanding that I respect her “right” to be gay. What about my right to believe and follow the Bible? Apparently, I am not entitled to my rights. And this is exactly why Biden’s remarks today should be taken very seriously. As we have always told you and will continue to tell you, the LGBT is not interested in “tolerance”. They don’t want “acceptance”. What they want is complete and total domination, which is exactly what Obama and his minions are giving them.

“Woe unto them that call evil good…”

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33175


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 26, 2015, 08:03:06 am
NY Times: Importance of Mothers and Fathers an ‘Absurdity’

In its euphoria over the victory of gay marriage in Ireland, the New York Times editers abandoned all pretenses of objectivity and, in an apparently unguarded moment, declared biological motherhood and fatherhood to be absurd.

This opinion wasn’t voiced by some crank writing a letter to the editor, but rather by the official editorial board itself.

The Iona Institute, a conservative Irish think tank that led the campaign to defend traditional marriage, put out a magnanimous statement after the referendum, congratulating the opposing side for “winning such a handsome victory” and for fighting “a very professional campaign.”

David Quinn, the director of the Institute, said that he knew it was going to be an uphill battle, but wanted to “provide a voice to the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who did vote no.”

The statement proceeds, however, with a simple declaration that the Institute will continue to uphold the fundamental principles that make man-woman marriage so vital, especially for children.

“Going forward, we will continue to affirm the importance of the biological ties and of motherhood and fatherhood,” it said.

In its editorial, the New York Times cited these words, and then asserted: “The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself.”

One cannot help but wonder in which parallel universe the Times editors live where motherhood and fatherhood are self-evidently an “absurdity.” It also bodes poorly for the future of reasoned moral discourse, when professional journalists simply write off the deepest convictions of their adversaries as unworthy of serious consideration.

It is also curious that the conviction that the Times find so “absurd” is not some freakish tenet of the lunatic fringe, but was the common consensus of the American people less than a generation ago. After all, we are not talking about stories of alien abductions here, but simply the importance of mothers and fathers, something even the Times editors probably experienced firsthand as children.

But perhaps the most troubling line in the editorial was not the one declaring the absurdity of motherhood and fatherhood, but rather the thinly veiled threat to those who still consider homosexual relations to be immoral.

“The outcome in Ireland sends an unmistakable signal to politicians and religious leaders around the world who continue to harbor intolerant views against gays and lesbians,” the editors warned.

It was the same newspaper, after all, that not long ago also proposed coercing religious leaders into changing doctrine to affirm the morality of sodomy.

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, a gay activist, wrote that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and must be obliged to rewrite their moral code.

Bruni trashed all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

“Religion,” he wrote, “is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination.” Therefore, religions should be made to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”

In its statement following the Irish marriage referendum, the Iona Institute ended with an appeal that the New York Times chose not to quote: “We hope the Government will address the concerns voters on the No side have about the implications for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.”

These are freedoms that the New York Times and its followers seem prepared to bulldoze in order to pave the way for a new world order where religions either comply or face the consequences.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/25/ny-times-importance-of-mothers-and-fathers-an-absurdity/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 28, 2015, 10:08:39 am
‘Gay’ Activist’s Call for Churches to Be Forced to Take Homosexuality Off ‘Sin List’ Draws Concerns

Concerns are arising among Christians and online commentators after a homosexual activist recently told a national publication that churches “must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”

Mitchell Gold is the founder of Faith in America, an organization that aims to “end the harm to LGBT youth and families from misguided religious teaching.” He served on the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign for seven years, and was named on of the “Top 50 Most Powerful Gay People in America” in 2007 by Out Magazine.

In an article written by Frank Buni of the New York Times, Gold is quoted as stating that he believes churches ought to be forced to stop considering homosexual behavior as being sinful.

“Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’ he wrote.

“His command is worthy—and warranted,” Buni commented. “All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense.”

The Times article centered on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act and Buni’s assertion that Christian Americans should “jettison” their mindsets about homosexual behavior. He contended that the interpretation of biblical text about homosexuality is “subjective” and “debatable” and said that Christians disregard the “biases and blind spots of [the Bible’s] authors, cultures and eras.”

“So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Buni wrote. “Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia.”

But some have expressed dismay at Buni’s writing, as well as Gold’s suggestion that churches should be forced to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”

“Not ‘must be persuaded,’ but ‘must be made.’ Compelled. Forced. And not forced to change our behavior, but forced to change what we believe. Because you must approve,” wrote Rod Dreher of the American Conservative. “Can you imagine the outcry if the Times published a column saying that Jews or Muslims must be ‘made’ to quit believing a tenet of their religion? If socialists must be ‘made’ to disavow any of their political convictions? But not when the target is conservative Christians…”

“So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy?” asked Thomas Williams PH.D. “Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?”

“People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business,” he continued. “[A]ttempts to force [Christians] to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness, but intolerance, chauvinism and hate. These are the attitudes that have no place in America.”

Kevin Leininger of the News Sentinel made similar comments, stating that forcing Christians to change their beliefs runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“Just as with debate over man-made global warming, the theology of homosexuality is no longer open for discussion, and anyone who suggests otherwise must be forcibly silenced, presumably by the government. How that could be consistent with the First Amendment, Bruni did not say,” he wrote.

“[Gold’s] call for censorship of the church—of God himself—is noteworthy not only for its brazenness but because it was so predictable,” Leininger continued. “As I have mentioned before, it can be considered a hate crime to accurately quote Scripture in some countries, and that free speech-chilling sentiment, clearly, exists here as well and will only grow bolder if it is not resisted.”

But he noted that Scripture puts all men on an equal playing field—and that all are under sin without the transforming power of Jesus Christ.

“When [Gold] talks about taking homosexuality off the sin list, he fails to understand (or at least acknowledge) that the Bible puts everybody on the sin list,” he said. “That’s why we need a Savior in the first place.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/05/27/gay-activists-call-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-take-homosexuality-off-sin-list-draws-concerns/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on May 29, 2015, 06:42:14 am
Religious Charities Must Accept LGBT Employees or Lose Grants

White House behind push  who didnt see that coming?



Religious-based charities that accept federal dollars to carry out their work may soon be forced to hire LGBT employees or lose their grant money, according to the Center for Family and Human Rights. Citing a government source, the lobby group and watchdog says the White House is extending an executive order that President Obama signed last July requiring the same of federal contractors:

    However, the White House has recently directed federal agencies to include the “sexual orientation and gender identity” clause in all grant agreements. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has agreed to make this change and is said to be weeks away from implementation.

    The source added that federal agencies are being pressured to make this change without a subsequent executive order and that the State Department legal office has advised the White House that this is not a legal matter but a matter of policy.

The changes would apply to religious groups that cited faith reasons as an objection. Much of the charity work carried on around the world is done by religious groups, often with the aid of tax dollars provided to those groups. Some may now face the choice of staying true to religious convictions or ceasing their assistance to some of the poorest people on the planet.


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/religious-charities-must-accept-lgbt-employees-or-lose-grants


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 01, 2015, 11:34:05 am
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/sodomite-calls-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-stop-calling-sodomy-sin/
5/29/15
Sodomite Calls for Churches to Be Forced to Stop Calling Sodomy Sin

I have said for months that this is where we would end up.  That the ultimate goal of the sodomite movement is the silence and destruction of the Church.  It began as a subtle movement for acceptance by the culture and grown into a political battering ram for control.  The left and their socialist allies cannot have an America and a strong Church.

Christian News reports:
Concerns are arising among Christians and online commentators after a homosexual activist recently told a national publication that churches "must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'"

Mitchell Gold is the founder of Faith in America, an organization that aims to "end the harm to LGBT youth and families from misguided religious teaching." He served on the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign for seven years, and was listed on of the "Top 50 Most Powerful Gay People in America" in 2007 by Out Magazine.

Gold wants to force the Church to remove sin as a sin.  This means that they could not preach against sodomy, and they could not council against sodomy.  The Church would then be taken out of the discussion entirely.  This would remove any moral ground for opposing sodomy publicly.
In an article written by Frank Buni of the New York Times, Gold is quoted as stating that he believes churches ought to be forced to stop considering homosexual behavior to be sinful.

"Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list,' he wrote.

"His command is worthy—and warranted," Buni commented. "All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they're an offense."

This call for censoring the Church should not be a surprise.  This has been coming for some time now.  There is no doubt that this has been the end game all along.  What is so surprising is the fact that the church has been so silent and even open to this kind of thinking.  Many have allowed the enemy to creep in and take over.  As the watchman slept, the city fell.

The reason that this is so important is not that these deviants want to be accepted.  It is not even that they wish to make you agree with them, but they want power.  They can only come to power through force, and they know the people have no hope without the Church.  When the Church is destroyed, the people will kowtow to the tyrants' demands.  With the Church out of the way, the State becomes the center of the citizens' universe.
The sodomite seems to be using reason to get this done for now.


He contended that the interpretation of biblical text about homosexuality is "subjective" and "debatable" and said that Christians disregard the "biases and blind spots of [the Bible's] authors, cultures, and eras."

But just wait until your pastor or youth leader is reported for continuing to teach that sodomy is a sin.  Wait until they begin to drag church leaders to jail.  How do you boil a frog alive?

If is getting warm yet Christian?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/sodomite-calls-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-stop-calling-sodomy-sin/#we2c62pAmPlgwBtT.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 02, 2015, 05:25:17 am
Fake Homophobia Complaint Lands Street Preacher in Jail

 A British street preacher was put in jail for 11 hours after a woman accused him of homophobia.
 
The Daily Mail reports Pastor Rob Hughes had been preaching in Basildon for 20 minutes when a woman approached him, saying that she was “gay and proud.” She accused him of homophobic speech and reported him to authorities.
 
Hughes, who had been recording his speech, had not mentioned homosexuality.
 
The pastor was ordered to go to the police station where he was questioned, fingerprinted and his mugshot was taken.
 
The incident occurred in September 2013, but Hughes has now told the story in a video.
 
Hughes said, “The whole experience left me feeling that street preachers - it's now a case of being presumed guilty until found innocent, which is really the wrong way round.”
 
The preacher filed a lawsuit for the wrongful arrest and imprisonment supported by the Christian Legal Center. Hughes was awarded $3,800 in an out-of-court settlement.
 
He said, “Christians should be gracious in the midst of persecution, but at the same time we have a right to submit a legal defence.”

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/fake-homophobia-complaint-lands-street-preacher-in-jail.html


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 03, 2015, 08:48:56 am
North Carolina Senate Overrides Governor’s Veto of Same-Sex ‘Wedding’ Judicial Opt-Out Bill

The North Carolina Senate has voted to override the governor’s veto of a bill that would allow some judges to opt out of participating in same-sex ceremonies.

As previously reported, S.B. 2 was introduced earlier this year by Sen. Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) to allow magistrates to recuse themselves from officiating over the services, as well as to permit register of deeds workers to opt out of issuing licenses due to religious objections. The bill comes with one condition: that the individual remove themselves from the marriage business altogether.

“Every magistrate has the right to recuse from performing all lawful marriages … based upon any sincerely held religious objection,” it reads. “Such recusal shall be upon notice to the chief district court judge and is in effect for at least six months from the time delivered to the chief district court judge.”

“Every assistant register of deeds and deputy register of deeds has the right to recuse from issuing all lawful marriage licenses under this Chapter based upon any sincerely held religious objection,” the bill continues. “Such recusal shall be upon notice to the register of deeds and is in effect for at least six months from the time delivered to the register of deeds.”

In February, the Senate voted 32-16 in favor of the bill, sending the matter on to the House, which likewise passed the measure 67-43.

But homosexual advocates in the state urged Gov. Pat McCrory to veto the legislation, stating that judges shouldn’t have the right to decline to participate simply because of their religious convictions. On Thursday, McCrory, who was raised Presbyterian, vowed to do just that.

“I recognize that for many North Carolinians, including myself, opinions on same-sex marriage come from sincerely held religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said.

“However, we are a nation and a state of laws,” McCrory stated. “Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.”

He officially vetoed the bill hours later.

But legislators decided to take the matter up for a second vote to override McCrory’s veto. A three-fifths majority vote is needed to do so.

On Monday, the Senate voted 32-16 in favor of the override, sending the matter on to the House, which is expected to vote today.

“If someone takes a job, they don’t park their First Amendment rights at the door,” sponsor Phil Berger declared. “They are entitled to exercise those rights.”

He noted that federal law requires that “reasonable accommodations” be made surrounding the convictions of religious employees. House Speaker Tim Moore has made similar notations.

“Senate Bill 2 is necessary because a bureaucracy failed to make reasonable accommodations, and instead forced some magistrates to make an impossible choice between their core religious beliefs and their jobs,” he said.

http://christiannews.net/2015/06/03/north-carolina-senate-overrides-governors-veto-of-same-sex-wedding-judicial-opt-out-bill/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 03, 2015, 10:05:48 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMDa1q1aLFo


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 10, 2015, 02:23:26 am
  Will Obama Require Christian Groups With Gov't Grants to Hire LGBT?



U.S. President Barack Obama waves before he signs an Executive Order to protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination while in the East Room at the White House in Washington, July 21, 2014.

Is the Obama administration moving to require Christian nonprofits that receive government grants to follow LGBT non-discrimination rules in hiring?

A May 29 blog post by Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family & Human Rights (C-Fam), claimed that an "unnamed source within the federal government" informed him that "the White House is quietly moving forward" with an LGBT non-discrimination policy for nonprofit organizations receiving government grants.


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/will-obama-require-christian-groups-with-govt-grants-to-hire-lgbt-140129/#qEOUYxpMZbhGVESE.99


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 12, 2015, 05:07:11 pm
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/233087
Rick Scott signs bill that repeals gay-adoption ban in Florida
By Mitch Perry -  Jun 11, 2015

It took him awhile, but Florida Gov. Rick Scott today signed HB 7013, an adoption bill that offers financial incentives for qualifying employees of state agencies who adopt a child from the child welfare system. The measure would provide $5,000 payments to government workers who adopt foster children, with the payments increasing to $10,000 for adopting children with special needs.

It also awards incentive payments to community-based care lead agencies (CBCs) and their subcontractors for achieving specified adoption performance standards.

But what will dominate the headlines is that the bill also repeals the 1977 law banning same-sex couples from adopting. As the governor noted in his letter to Secretary of State Ken Detzner, the law has not been enforced in Florida since 2010 after the Third District Court of Appeal ruled Florida’s law prohibiting adoption based on sexual orientation to be unconstitutional.

But it became a flashpoint during this year’s session after Miami Beach Democrat Dave Richardson added the amendment to the larger adoption bill.  Once that measure passed in the House, Sanford Republican Jason Brodeur then introduced a “conscience protection” bill that would give cover to private adoption agencies whose religious or moral convictions prevent them from placing children with gay parents. The bill would have protected the agencies from losing their licenses or state funding if they refused to facilitate adoptions on religious or moral grounds.

Critics called it unconstitutional, claiming it would allow faith-based child placement agencies to continue to discriminate against same-sex couples from adopting. But while Brodeur’s bill passed in the more conservative House, it failed to win approval in the state Senate.

That led to social conservatives like John Stemberger with the Florida Family Planning Council to rally its members, calling on them to tell Scott to veto HB 7013.

Scott wrote today that “Florida has a long history of protecting religious liberty and expression, and it is my belief that signing this bill codifies the state’s current practice into law and does not harm those fundamental rights. To be clear, some of our faith-based child placement agencies do not place children in homes with same-sex parents, and this is a matter of their sincerely held religious beliefs, consistent with religious freedom rights granted in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I of the Florida Constitution.”

He went on to write that it’s his “hope and expectation” that the Legislature will take “future action to make clear that we will support private, faith-based operators in the child welfare system and ensure that their religious convictions continue to be protected.”

That remains to be seen.

But now state law says what has been the de facto law since 2010: gays are legally allowed to adopt in the state of Florida.


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 23, 2015, 08:19:03 am
IBM Cancels Louisiana Ribbon-Cutting to Protest Gov. Jindal Defending Religious Liberty
Punishment for religious freedom?




Tech conglomerate IBM canceled Monday's ribbon-cutting in commencement for their new National Service Center in Baton Rouge in protest of Gov. Bobby Jindal's executive order allowing citizens to opt out of servicing same-sex weddings based on religious convictions.

After the Marriage and Conscience Act failed to pass Louisiana's state legislature, Gov. Jindal, a devout Roman Catholic, immediately issued an executive order that mirrored the bills language, which prohibited the government from taking "any adverse action against a person" due to that person’s "religious belief[s ] or moral convictions[s ] about the institution of marriage."

Similar to the firestorm that erupted Arizona, Indiana and Arkansas when they attempted to implement similar religious freedom bills, gay activists decried Bobby Jindal's order as unjustly discriminatory towards the LGBT community. IBM along with other corporations then threatened to boycott the state if Gov. Jindal did not rescind his order, which culminated in the corporation canceling Monday's ribbon-cutting.

In a letter addressed to Gov. Jindal himself back in April, IBM Senior State Executive James Driesse warned that a bill which "legally protects discrimination based on same-sex marriage status will create a hostile environment for our current and prospective employees, and is antithetical to our company’s values."

"IBM will find it much harder to attract talent to Louisiana if this bill is passed and enacted into law," the letter continued.

No major or formal declarations were made by IBM to cancel the ribbon-cutting – estimated to bring in over 800 jobs – and was only quietly taken off their schedule. Though no announcements have been made, another ceremony may take place in the fall.

In defense of his executive order, Gov. Jindal said, "It just means if an entity acts in accordance with a religious belief in traditional marriage, then the state can’t take away its license to operate."

Multiple leftists from ThinkProgress to The Advocate have cheered on the actions of IBM, saying Louisiana deserved punishment for offending the LGBT community. 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/ibm-cancels-louisiana-ribbon-cutting-protest-gov-jindal-defending-religious-liberty


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 06:21:09 am
‘There Are Still … Minds to Change': Obama Hosts ‘Gay Pride’ Reception at White House

 Barack Obama hosted a “gay pride” reception at the White House on Wednesday as part of LGBT month recognized by his administration each June, declaring that there are still “minds to change” on the issue.

Obama spoke to a crowd in the White House East Room while being accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. He touted the achievements that his administration had made in the six years that he has been president.

“Together, we ended ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We passed a historic hate-crimes bill named in part after Matthew Shepard. We lifted the HIV entry ban, and this summer, we’re going to be updating our national HIV/AIDS strategy, which will focus on eliminating disparities that gay and bisexual men and transgender women face,” Obama said.

“When I became President, same-sex marriage was legal in only two states. Today, it’s legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia,” he continued. “A decade ago, politicians ran against LGBT rights. Today, they’re running towards them.”

At one point, Obama was heckled by an transgendered attendee who protested the deportation of homosexual and transgendered immigrants.

“Hey, listen. You’re in my house,” he responded. “You know what? It’s not respectful when you get invited [by] somebody. You’re not going to get a good response from me by interrupting me like this. … Shame on you, you shouldn’t be doing this. … You know, my attitude is if you’re eating the hors d’oeuvres and drinking the booze…”

After the person was escorted out, Obama went back to his speech, asserting that he had further goals to change the nation’s mind about homosexuality.

“There are still battles to wage, more hearts and minds to change. As long as there’s a single child in America that’s afraid they won’t be accepted for who they are, we’ve got more work to do,” he stated. “But if the people in this room and our friends and allies across the country have proven anything, it’s that even in the toughest of circumstances, against the greatest possible odds, in America, change is possible.”

“And, of course, we’re now awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether same-sex couples nationwide have the equal right to marry,” Obama said.”There are a few decisions coming down these next few days that I’m paying close attention to. But however the decision comes down on the marriage issue, one thing is undeniable—there has been this incredible shift in attitudes across the country.”

But after video of his speech was posted to the White House Facebook page, some expressed disgust at the presidents priorities and agendas.

“I am ashamed. I voted for you, but not for this,” wrote one commenter named Arthur. “LGBT people have rights and I defend those. But marriage is between one man and one woman.”

“It’s absolutely shameful that this actually took place in the White House and I am so totally upset that Obama supports this,” said another named Margo. “I actually thought you were a Bible believing, God fearing man, Mr. Obama. Very, very disappointed in you to hear of this!”

“Thanks for destroying the value of God’s design for marriage,” a third commenter named Rhonda wrote. “I’ve seen their parades and it ain’t about true love; it is perversion for men to wear nothing and shake in front of families with children and cause confusion.”

“If you really were a Christian, you sure don’t act like Christlike, but you conform to worldly values. Asking God to do judgment on our country by changing His values and design this country was founded on when He sent the godly believers here,” she continued. “So keep it going to [the] pit and you will see the writing on the wall, so to speak. His kingdom come, His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Sin is sin and correction is what our heavenly Father will have to do on the just and unjust. God help us America!”

http://christiannews.net/2015/06/25/there-are-still-minds-to-change-obama-hosts-gay-pride-reception-at-white-house/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 26, 2015, 02:57:22 pm
And it begins....

THE SILENCING: Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a **** stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

    “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared.

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

    “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”

    “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”

    And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”

    “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

The board explained the newspaper’s policy to allow limited freedom of speech on the matter. (Bolded emphasis, mine.)

    “In the more than four decades since, a union that was viewed as unnatural and even a hideous provocation to violence is now commonplace and celebrated. On Friday, the United States crossed a similar threshold, continuing a long road to acceptance of same-sex unions. And this news organization now crosses another threshold. As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

The editorial went on to compare a stance against gay marriage to an intolerance to interracial marriage or women being treated as inferior to men. The board will not be tolerate any of the above.

    “These unions are now the law of the land. And we would not entertain such criticisms that these unions are morally wrong or unnatural any more than we would entertain criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law. We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds critical of the high court’s decision and its legal merits.“

The Mirror sought comment from Micek. He explained his views in a lengthy response, which I am running in its entirety:

Main points:

*The online comment section will not be shut down.

*He regrets not being clearer in the initial posting.

*“Certain forms of speech do not advance the discussion in a civil society.”

*Some letters critiquing the Supreme Court decision will be accepted.

“No one’s talking about limiting free speech on PennLive,” he wrote by email. “Nor is anyone talking about shutting down our online comments. That would be contrary to our mission as a news organization. And I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea at all.

“As PennLive’s Opinion Editor, I’m fully aware that a healthy debate is vital to a free society. And if the takeaway from our editorial on today’s decision is that we’re somehow trying to stifle free speech, then I regret not being clear enough in our initial posting.

“As you’ve likely noticed, the editorial has been revised to provide further clarity and specificity in response to the concerns voiced by our readers.

“With that in mind, I think we can all recognize that there are certain forms of speech that, while Constitutionally permissible, really do nothing to advance the discussion in a civil society.

“As I noted in the comments section of the editorial, no reasonable person would publish anti-Semitic speech, racist speech or sexist speech. It seems entirely reasonable to me to specifically add homophobic speech to that list.

“While that sort of speech has long been banned under our community guidelines for commenting, the Opinion page had never explicitly stated such a policy. Today’s decision seemed like an opportunity to provide that clarity.

“As the last week as has shown us, hate can have a terribly destructive effect when it is allowed to flourish. I’m trying to combat it by limiting its corrosive effect on our dialog. As I note, PennLive/The Patriot-News will accept letters and op-Eds critical of the Supreme Court’s decision on its merits or legal grounds.

“But we will not accept letters/op-Eds that use the Court’s ruling as a pretext to engage in hate speech.

“As to how long we’ll accept such submissions, I can’t really say. But there comes a point where matters are simply settled — as is the case in Loving v. Virginia. I guess we’ll just recognize that point when we’ve hit it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/#ixzz3eCT3EPgm



Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 27, 2015, 06:07:33 am
Next Round After Gay Marriage Ruling: ‘Decades and Decades’ of Religious Freedom Litigation

The Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage may be settled law, but how to reconcile it with religious freedom could mean “decades and decades” of litigation, a religious freedom law expert said, reflecting some of the concerns raised in the dissent that called a clash “all but inevitable.”

The high court’s 5-4 ruling that gay marriage must be legal in all 50 states will likely prompt future cases such as whether a church opposed to gay marriage could be required to perform ceremonies, if a religious college would have to accommodate same-sex married couples in married student housing or if Christian marriage counselors would have to accommodate same-sex couples.

(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-26-at-6.04.07-PM.png)

Just look at that guy, and compare it to Jack Chicks image?

(http://www.freesmfhosting.com/gallery/endtimesandcurrentevents/0/1_26_06_15_9_31_46.jpeg)

 :o These are the people that are coming for us

The majority opinion spoke to religious freedom, but did not delve deeply on the matter.

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” said the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” the majority opinion in favor of gay marriage continued. “The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

The door cracked open for more legal challenges, said Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, such as gay couples demanding public accommodation from religious institutions.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t say anything emphatically how to deal with religious freedom issues and this is something that over decades and decades will have to play out in the courts,” Tedesco told TheBlaze Friday.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an Arizona-based public interest law firm that defends religious freedom cases across the country.

Regarding the majority opinion, Tedesco credited Kennedy with at least recognizing the potential conflicts.

“There are important recognitions of freedoms, but I don’t think the majority opinion touched on every area,” he said.

Already gay couples have sued to force privately-owned businesses such as bakeries, catering services and wedding photographers do business with them for weddings, regardless of the conscience of the business owners.

“There isn’t any question the other side’s endgame is coercion,” Tedesco said. “This decision emboldens those who want to coerce people to agree with them. Unfortunately that is there agenda.”

Event President Barack Obama made passing reference to religious liberty in his Rose Garden speech Friday celebrating the high court’s ruling.

“All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact; recognize different viewpoints; revere our deep commitment to religious freedom,” Obama said.

In one of four dissents, Chief Justice John Roberts argued the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”

“Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every state that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice,” Roberts wrote. “The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations.”

“Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage – when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts continued.

Justice Clarence Thomas said “the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our nation has long sought to protect.”

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

Tedesco said the ADF will identify and respond when cases come up.

“There will be pushback when this decision is used to try to restrict religious freedom or free speech,” Tedesco said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/next-round-after-gay-marriage-ruling-decades-and-decades-of-religious-freedom-litigation/


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 27, 2015, 06:39:05 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U35-wjLkHmk


Title: Re: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal
Post by: Mark on June 27, 2015, 07:23:45 pm
Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country

Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision “a threat to democracy,” and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.

It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.

Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.

This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.

One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.

Last fall, I spoke with the prior of the Benedictine monastery in Nursia, and told him about the Benedict Option. So many Christians, he told me, have no clue how far things have decayed in our aggressively secularizing world. The future for Christians will be within the Benedict Option, the monk said, or it won