End Times and Current Events
December 17, 2017, 11:08:22 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal

Shoutbox
November 24, 2017, 07:52:34 pm tennis shoe says: What happened to BA? He seems to have vanished.
November 14, 2017, 01:43:05 am Mark says:
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 7530 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« 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
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 05:56:47 am by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8

Social Buttons

Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #1 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #2 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
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #3 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
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #4 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? Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #5 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
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #6 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!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2012, 10:57:09 am »

Obama’s FBI and CIA ‘going gay’ warns pro-family activist



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
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 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?  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
shadyben
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« Reply #9 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #10 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?
Report Spam   Logged
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


View Profile
« Reply #11 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.


Report Spam   Logged
tennis shoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 386


View Profile
« Reply #12 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #13 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.
 .
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #14 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/2013/01/new-research-fewer-americans-b.html?utm
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #15 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #16 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/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #17 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

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #18 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.

Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2013, 04:11:29 pm »

It's all part of the "strong delusion" the world has.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #20 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
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #21 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/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #22 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #23 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."
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #24 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...
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #25 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...
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #26 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."
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #27 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.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20982



View Profile
« Reply #28 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
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #29 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..."
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines