End Times and Current Events
January 28, 2023, 11:48:32 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal

Shoutbox
December 31, 2022, 10:08:58 am NilsFor1611 says: blessings
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
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.
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 24023 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: January 17, 2014, 12:17:18 pm »


1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;




Psalms_97:10  Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs_8:13  The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #121 on: January 17, 2014, 12:24:07 pm »

Psalms_97:10  Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs_8:13  The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.



1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
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: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: January 23, 2014, 06:10:21 am »

Oregon: Christian Businesses Must Follow Demands of Gay Customers

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” says Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And Klein told me the family’s children were the targets of death threats.

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. Melissa posted a message that said they were vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:

“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands. ... Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”

Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If the two parties can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he says. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”

Klein says he’s not surprised by the ruling and calls it “absolutely absurd.”

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he says. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me the plight of the Klein family is another example of the consequences of redefining marriage.

“We’re seeing a steady drumbeat of the loss of religious liberty, the ability to live your life, conduct your business according to the principles and teachings of your faith,” Perkins says.

He says he is especially disturbed by the level of attacks against the Klein family.

“It shows that tolerance is one way,” he says, referring to the militant gay protests. “Those who trumpet the message of tolerance have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.”

The Kleins warn that what happened to them could happen to other Christian business owners. And it already has.

In December, a Colorado baker was ordered by a judge to either serve gay weddings or face fines. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.

New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”

And the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, filed a countersuit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network she “had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ.

Perkins told me that in many cases, gay couples are targeting businesses owned by Christians.

“Individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted using the leverage of the government through these homosexual activists,” he says. “Government has become a weapon that homosexual activists are using against Christian business owners.”

And if you have any doubts about the validity of Perkins' claims, just ask the Klein family. They know what it’s like to incur the wrath of militant homosexual bullies. And they learned that in today’s America, gay rights trump religious rights.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/42506-oregon-christian-businesses-must-follow-demands-of-gay-customers
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: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #123 on: January 23, 2014, 06:11:30 am »

Despite Gay Marriage Law, Christian B&B Owner Refuses Same-Sex Weddings

The owner of a bed-and-breakfast in Illinois has vowed not to allow same-sex marriages at his venue after they are legally recognized in the state beginning in June.

Jim Walder, a Christian who owns TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast in Paxton, Ill., does not allow civil unions to be performed at his venue, and he will not change his policy once the law changes.

“As long as I own TimberCreek, there will never be a gay marriage at this wedding venue,” Walder says, according to The News-Gazette.

A gay couple in Mattoon, Ill., filed a civil rights complaint against Walder in 2011 after he refused to host their civil union ceremony. Walder is awaiting a ruling by the Illinois Human Rights Commission and expects to face further legal troubles after Illinois legalizes same-sex marriage in June.

“I totally support exemptions for everyone doing business in the wedding industry regarding civil unions or gay marriage,” Walder says. “Our current legal predicament could be the predicament of other businesses in Paxton, as well,” such as photographers, cake bakers, caterers, DJs, floral shops and wedding planners.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is representing the couple, Todd and Mark Wathen, in their complaint against Walder. According to Walder, Mark Wathen asked him if he planned to hold same-sex civil unions but never made a request for the facility.

Walder’s attorney, Jason R. Craddock, says it would be a violation of Walder’s First Amendment rights if the Human Rights Commission sides in favor of the Wathens.

Craddock says if that happens, the decision would be appealed, and litigation would be the next step if the decision was upheld. He says the impending decision may set a precedent for future cases.

“So it’s extremely important that we keep fighting for the rights of people like Jim Walder and others who want to exercise their liberty to do business,” Craddock says.

State Rep. Josh Harms is working to draft a bill that would “protect all entities controlled by the church,” specifically private schools affiliated with churches. The current law protects “religious facilities,” but some churches operate schools that rent out space to the public.

“What we’re trying to get done right now is just something to protect all the entities that are under the control of the church,” Harms explains.

Harms says he wants business owners to be protected, but he limited the scope of his bill because it has “the highest probability for success” in passing the House and Senate, reports The News-Gazette.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/42513-despite-gay-marriage-law-christian-b-b-owner-refuses-same-sex-weddings
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 #124 on: January 23, 2014, 12:34:12 pm »

Quote
A gay couple in Mattoon, Ill., filed a civil rights complaint against Walder in 2011 after he refused to host their civil union ceremony. Walder is awaiting a ruling by the Illinois Human Rights Commission and expects to face further legal troubles after Illinois legalizes same-sex marriage in June.

I still want the issue addressed of why are these "couples" going to these Christian companies, when they know odds are they will be refused?

BINGO! They KNOW they will be refused is the whole point of the gay lobby. They are forcing their agenda through the court system, which to me is an abuse of the legal system in their intentional efforts to back "Christian" businesses into a legal corner and right into the courts.

The real moral of the story is that professed Christians need to withdraw from doing business in the world. Problem solved. Trying to be friends with the world and God don't work. You cannot serve two masters, period. You WILL suffer tribulation and failure.

Love one and hate the other, but you can't do both!

"No man can serve two masters..."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: January 31, 2014, 10:16:04 am »

Court: Transgender student's rights were violated
http://news.yahoo.com/court-transgender-student-39-rights-were-violated-180408610.html;_ylt=A0LEVzj0yutSwFoAvVlXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzYmgwY3VhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMyMl8x
1/30/14

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A transgender fifth-grader should have been allowed to use the girls' bathroom, Maine's highest court ruled Thursday, concluding that school officials violated state anti-discrimination law.

Nicole Maines' family and the Maine Human Rights Commission sued in 2009 after school officials required her to use a staff, not student, restroom.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the Orono school district's actions violated the Maine Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, overturning a lower court's ruling that the district acted within its discretion.

The ruling represented the first time a state high court concluded that a transgender person should use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify, according to Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Federal courts haven't taken up the issue.

"This is a momentous decision that marks a huge breakthrough for transgender young people," said Jennifer Levi, director of GLAD's Transgender Rights Project, who argued the case on the family's behalf before the state supreme court.

Students at the southern Maine high school Nicole now attends stood up and cheered when news of the ruling was announced, said her father, Wayne Maines.

School administrators across the country are grappling with the issue.

Colorado officials said last year that a suburban Colorado Springs school district discriminated against a 6-year-old transgender girl by preventing her from using the girls' bathroom.

In California, there's an effort afoot to try to repeal a law that allows public school students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their expressed genders.

In the Maine case, Nicole Maines was using the girls' bathroom in her elementary school until the grandfather of a fifth-grade boy complained to administrators. The Orono school district determined that she should use a staff bathroom, but her parents said that amounted to discrimination.

Nicole is a biological male who identified as a girl beginning at age 2.

Nicole, who's now 16, said after arguments before the high court last summer that she hoped the justices understood the importance of going to school, getting an education and making friends without having to be "bullied" by other students — or school administrators.

Nicole's father said all he had ever wanted was for his daughter to be treated just like her classmates. He said he was overcome with emotion when he learned of the decision.

"It sends a message to my kids that you can believe in the system and that it can work," Wayne Maines said. "I'm just going to hug my kids and enjoy the moment, and do some healing."

Melissa Hewey, lawyer for the school district, said the ruling provided clarity not just to Orono, but to schools around the state.

"The court has now clarified what has been a difficult issue and is a more and more common in schools, and the Orono School Department is going to do what it needs to do to comply with the law," she said.

In the 5-1 ruling, the court had to reconcile two separate state laws, one requiring separate bathrooms based on gender and the other prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In this case, where there the child had a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, "it has been clearly established that a student's psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity," Justice Warren Silver wrote.

The Supreme Judicial Court pointed out that its ruling was based on the circumstances of the case in which there was ample documentation of the student's gender identity. "Our opinion must not be read to require schools to permit students casual access to any bathroom of their choice," he wrote.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: January 31, 2014, 10:17:56 am »

Quote
Nicole's father said all he had ever wanted was for his daughter to be treated just like her classmates. He said he was overcome with emotion when he learned of the decision.

Try telling that to Stephen...

Acts 7:51  Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52  Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53  Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Act 7:54  When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
Act 7:55  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56  And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Act 7:57  Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
Act 7:58  And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
Act 7:59  And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
Act 7:60  And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 10:20:25 am by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #127 on: February 05, 2014, 10:04:39 am »

What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?

Enlarged February 5, 2014 (first published August 5, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve--one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.

After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family--the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign--the nation’s largest gay activist group--posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn't Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores.

John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent:

“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is.  He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people.  His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012).

After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hated of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint.

In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.

In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).

In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh--known as the supreme civil court of Scotland--ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton--an antiques-dealer--and Richards-Hill--an education technologist--exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. ... Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Record interview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”

On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorites Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING

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

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

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,” Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE

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

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

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

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

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

The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’”

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its students loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”

The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. ... Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. ... ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,” The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.

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

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

CONTINUED BELOW
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: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #128 on: February 05, 2014, 10:04:51 am »

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

In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elane and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Elanes took the matter to court, but they lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart, Aug, 22, 2013). Justice Richard Bosson said that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is “the price of citizenship.” The case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia.

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

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

Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same=sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”

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

When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.”

The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. ... After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue--both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ ... Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”

The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ ... attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”

The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands”

In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013).

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

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

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.

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

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

In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).

On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,” American Thinker, March 9, 2013).

In April 2013 the California Assembly Education Committee approved a bill that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender (“California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms,” Christian News, Apr. 18, 2013). “AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration. ‘We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,’ Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.”

The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. ... Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as--and identify as--a girl.”

In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law--setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student's gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want--and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. ... Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It's an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. ... All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals--particularly young girls and young women--who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.

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

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.


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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html
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 #129 on: February 05, 2014, 10:30:40 am »

Quote
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.

That statement to me is conditioning by the opposition. A red herring.

Yes, you CAN turn down a person who is gay, just not for being gay.

There is a very simple existing solution to the matter; "right to work" laws. You hire the person, then simply fire them days later. The employer doesn't have to have an excuse under "right to work" laws. You can be legally fired and not be given a reason, and it has stood up in court.

Now let's see how the courts handle "right to work" laws.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: February 06, 2014, 05:22:26 am »

Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction

California can ban offering religious-viewpoint therapy to people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions, a federal appeals court ruled late last year in a matter that may now go to the Supreme Court.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/05/Federal-Appeals-Court-Rules-Against-Religious-Liberty-on-Same-Sex-Attraction
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 #131 on: February 06, 2014, 01:13:43 pm »

Quote
California can ban offering religious-viewpoint therapy to people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions

That's a result of the gay lobby, pure and simple. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all, and I do think it's an infringement on a person's right to seek counseling.

Considering all the outright crazy "therapies" in the psychiatric industry, and they want to ban "religious-viewpoint therapy"? Can they be any more obvious in wanting to silence any opposition to sodomy? This has nothing at all to do with science. It's all personal bias.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: February 08, 2014, 08:05:19 pm »

U.S. Justice Department to expand rights of same-sex couples
http://news.yahoo.com/holder-adopts-spousal-privilege-same-sex-couples-u-190547146--finance.html
2/8/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder plans widespread changes within the U.S. Justice Department to benefit same-sex married couples, such as recognizing a legal right for them not to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.

The changes, being unveiled by Holder in a speech on Saturday in New York, are designed to keep pushing for gay rights in the United States after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year said the federal government cannot refuse to recognize same-sex marriages carried out in states that allow them.

Gay marriage is permitted in only 17 of the 50 U.S. states, as well as the District of Columbia.

U.S. law has long included a "spousal privilege" that protects communications between a husband and wife so that they cannot be forced to incriminate one another in court.

In addition to extending the privilege to same-sex couples in situations involving the Justice Department, Holder said he plans to put same-sex couples on the same legal footing as opposite-sex couples in other areas, including how certain debts are handled in federal bankruptcy proceedings and visitation policies at federal prisons
.

"In every courthouse, in every proceeding, and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections, and rights as opposite-sex marriages under federal law," Holder said in excerpts of the speech released in advance.

The excerpts were released ahead of Holder's speech at an event for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights lobbying organization.

**FYI, Emergent Church leader Bill Hybels brings these "human rights" activists to his annual global leadership summit meetings every August at his Willow Creek Assoc church.(Hybels, along with Warren, have the 2 largest megachurches in America) Even some of these so-called "conservative" Baptist churches will advertise this.

A written memo to department employees will follow on Monday. It will "formally instruct all department employees to give lawful same-sex marriages full and equal recognition, to the greatest extent possible under the law," according to the excerpts.

The Supreme Court in June struck down part of a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Edith Windsor, a lesbian widow, sued after the government forced her to pay additional estate taxes because it did not recognize her marriage.

Since then, President Barack Obama's administration has aggressively implemented the ruling in contexts such as immigration and federal employee benefits.

Holder will also make same-sex married couples equally eligible for death benefits paid to the surviving spouses of law enforcement officers who have died on duty and for benefits from the September 11 victims' compensation fund, according to the speech excerpts. The Justice Department runs both programs.

'LAWLESSNESS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'

Opponents of gay marriage condemned Holder's action.

"The news that the Justice Department will extend sweeping recognition to 'marriages' of same-sex couples, even in states that do not recognize such unions, is yet another illustration of the lawlessness of this administration," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement.

Perkins noted that while the Supreme Court last year required the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states that allow them, the justices were "conspicuously silent on the status of such couples when they reside in a state which considers them unmarried."

"The Obama administration's haste to nevertheless recognize such unions in every state actually runs counter to the Windsor decision's emphasis on the federal government's obligation to defer to state definitions of marriage," he added, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in the United States v. Windsor case.

Comparing the gay-rights movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when Robert Kennedy served four years as attorney general, Holder said it was important for his department to act. "As attorney general, I will not let this department be simply a bystander during this important moment in history," he said, according to the excerpts.

"This landmark announcement will change the lives of countless committed gay and lesbian couples for the better," Chad Griffin, president of Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement.

"While the immediate effect of these policy decisions is that all married gay couples will be treated equally under the law, the long-term effects are more profound. Today, our nation moves closer toward its ideals of equality and fairness for all," Griffin added.

In states where same-sex marriage is not legal, spousal privilege for same-sex couples is not guaranteed.

In politically conservative Kentucky, for example, a state judge in September denied a woman's request for spousal privilege to shield her from testifying against her partner in a capital murder case. (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wdrb/news/bobbijo.pdf)
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: February 09, 2014, 06:31:09 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/methodists-crisis-over-gay-marriage-church-law-174414898.html
Methodists in crisis over gay marriage, church law
2/9/14

NEW YORK (AP) — The dispute among United Methodists over recognition of same-sex couples has lapsed into a doctrinal donnybrook, pitting clergy who are presiding at gay weddings in defiance of church law against proponents of traditional marriage who are trying to stop them.

Since 2011, Methodist advocates for gay marriage have been recruiting clergy to openly officiate at same-sex ceremonies in protest of church policy. In response, theological conservatives have sought formal complaints against the defiant clergy, which could lead to church trials. One scholar has warned that Methodists are "retreating into our various camps" instead of seeking a resolution over an issue the church has formally debated since the 1970s.

"At this point, we have kind of come to the place where we know what the brute facts are," said Matt Berryman, executive director of Reconciling Ministries Network, which advocates for gay and lesbian Methodists. "Most folks, after 40 years of trying legislative solutions, realize they won't work. The way forward is to claim what we know to be true. And we're going to continue doing it in an aggressive way."

The intensity of the conflict was laid bare over the last several months, when the church tried, convicted and defrocked Frank Schaefer, a Pennsylvania pastor who presided at the wedding of his son to another man. Berryman said the case galvanized Methodists advocating for recognition of gay marriage, increasing donations to the group and traffic on Reconciling Ministries' online sites. Schaefer has since been traveling the country giving talks and sermons on gay acceptance.

Opponents have also stepped up their organizing. Through statements, videos and conference calls, a theologically conservative Methodist movement called Good News has been pressing church leaders to act when church law, contained in the Methodist Book of Discipline, is violated. "When people choose to break the covenant that holds us together, there has to be some accountability," said the Rev. Rob Renfroe, Good News' president.

Last month, a new Methodist group formed called the Wesleyan Covenant Network to support theologically conservative Methodists and keep them from leaving the denomination. The meeting in Atlanta drew about 130 clergy and others. One speaker choked back tears while telling the group his son is considering entering ministry — but not in the United Methodist Church.

"The present atmosphere is the worst I've ever seen it," said the Rev. Maxie Dunnam, a retired president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky who helped organize the Wesleyan Covenant Network. "We are a divided church already."

Several other high-profile cases are pending. The Rev. Thomas Ogletree, a retired Yale Divinity School dean and retired elder in the church's New York district, will be tried March 10 for officiating at the same-sex wedding of his son. The Council of Bishops has also called for a formal complaint against retired Bishop Melvin Talbert, who presided at the wedding of two men last October in Alabama over the objections of a local bishop. The Rev. Stephen Heiss of Binghamton, N.Y., is expected to face a church trial for presiding at his daughter's same-sex wedding in 2002 and at other same-sex marriages.

Thomas Frank, a Wake Forest University professor who specializes in Methodist history and governance, wrote an open letter to the church's bishops, urging them to end the trials. He warned that Methodists have been "retreating into our various camps" and were in desperate need of an open conversation.

"The continuation of church trials is a disgrace to our heritage," Frank wrote. "It is divisive, bringing interference from interest groups outside the annual conference and introducing the language of 'prosecution' 'defense team,' 'conviction,' 'judge,' and 'jury' to our church as if we were all players in 'Law and Order.' We are not considering criminal acts; we are deliberating about pastoral judgment."

Since 1972, the Book of Discipline has called same-gender relationships "incompatible with Christian teaching" and has banned clergy from taking actions contrary to that position: No ordinations or clergy appointments are allowed for "self-avowed practicing homosexuals." No "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions" are permitted in churches. No clergy can preside at the ceremonies no matter where the events are held.

The church has also declared itself "dedicated to a ministry of Christ-like hospitality and compassion to persons of all sexual orientations" and has committed to supporting "certain basic human rights and civil liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation."

Theological conservatives see no inconsistencies among those positions. Advocates for gays and lesbians do. They have debated at every national legislative meeting, or General Conference, for four decades with the same result: the "incompatible" language — and the related prohibitions — have stayed.

Frustration over the lack of change fueled the new movement to openly defy church law, starting in 2011 in Minnesota and New York. Methodist ministers had already been quietly officiating at same-gender ceremonies in some communities for years. A few of the more publicly defiant clergy had faced formal complaints or had been tried by the church. But the public marriage pledges brought new energy to the campaign.

By the spring of 2012, when General Conference had gathered in Florida, more than 1,100 clergy had signed on. But within the legislative meeting, delegates were unmoved. The conference once again voted to keep the status quo.

On the final day of the assembly, at a gathering of Methodists who support gay marriage, Talbert announced, "The time for talking is over."

"I declare to you that the derogatory language and restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience," Talbert told the cheering crowd. "I call on the more than 1,100 clergy who have signed the pledge to stand firm on their resolve to perform marriages among same-sex persons, same-sex couples, and to do so in the normal course of their pastoral duties, thus defying the laws that prohibit them from doing so."

He called the weddings "an act of biblical obedience" to the teaching that all people are created in God's image. Dorothee Benz, of Methodists in New Directions, a New York advocacy group spearheading the gay marriage drive, said, "that language of biblical obedience became a messaging touchstone."

The situation for United Methodists stands out because their fellow mainline Protestants have moved toward accepting gay relationships. The United Church of Christ began ordaining people with same-sex partners in the 1970s, and by 2005, had endorsed gay marriage. In 2003, the Episcopal Church elected the first bishop living openly with a same-sex partner, Bishop Gene Robinson. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have both struck down barriers to ordaining gays and lesbians. United Methodists are the second-largest U.S. Protestant group and have about 12.5 million members worldwide.

Demographics largely explain why the Methodists have maintained their marriage stance. The church, which once had a presence in nearly every county in the U.S., has become "more red state-y than it ever was," said David Steinmetz, a specialist in Christian history and retired professor at Duke Divinity School. Sandwiched between the liberal-leaning Northeast and Western districts are the more theologically conservative Methodist conferences, which tend to have larger and faster-growing congregations. Reconciling Ministries Network took on the geographic challenge last fall by adopting a new Southern outreach strategy.

Boosting the theologically conservative numbers are the burgeoning Methodist churches overseas, where the predominant views are traditional. At the next General Conference in 2016, the share of delegates from U.S. will drop to about 58 percent, while the contingent from Africa will rise to 30 percent, according to United Methodist News Service. Most U.S. Protestant denominations belong to some kind of international fellowship, but largely set their own policies at home. Methodists are the rare mainline group structured to give overseas members a direct say.

"The church is already partly in schism. You've got bishops not obeying the law of the church. You have pastors not obeying the law of the church," Steinmetz said. "How long can they live with two mindsets? I just don't know."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: February 20, 2014, 09:58:06 pm »

Article deals with politics, but nonetheless this candidate makes some very good points...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnells-gop-challenger-suggests-233008056.html
2/20/14

A spokeswoman for Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Matt Bevin disputed that Bevin had suggested a radio interview on Wednesday that legalizing gay marriage could lead to marriages between parents and their children.

"Again, where do you draw the line, even on that?" Bevin said on  The Janet Mefferd Show, discussing the issue of spousal benefits.

"If it's all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital, and there's other repercussions and things that come with it," Bevin said.

"So a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise. Where do you draw the line?"

Bevin was discussing a recent ruling by a federal judge that struck down part of Kentucky's ban on gay marriage. His comments were picked up by Right Wing Watch.

Bevin spokeswoman Rachel Semmel said that the immediate interpretation of the comments was a " gross misrepresentation of what Matt said."

"He sees no comparison between gay marriage and incest," she said in an emailed statement. "He was discussing the implications of the legal rights related to this issue such as hospital visitations and benefits. To imply otherwise is ridiculous."

Bevin has taken heat from both the left and right this week. Republicans have criticized him amid new revelations that he signed a letter expressing support for the financial bailout program . That had The Herald-Leader questioning whether it was "the end for Matt Bevin."
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #135 on: February 21, 2014, 04:39:37 am »

Quote
because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital, and there's other repercussions and things that come with it," Bevin said.

That argument does hold water, at all. Any patient can name any person as having a right to access to you and your medical information. All it takes is a single sheet of paper and a signature, then it's placed within the patient's medical record of the facility they are at.

Now if by chance the patient is not able to articulate their wishes, it will fall back on the person who does have right to speak on behalf of the patient before the patient came to not be able to speak for themselves. Usually, no person has officially been listed within the patient's medical record other than the intake forms you fill out as a new patient. The patient can name on that form, or update later, anybody the patient wants on that form, but the patient in sound mind must name them. Once a patient can't speak for themselves, it's too late legally.

Keep in mind, a patient's medical records are NOT the property of the patient.

The patient only has rights to view what those records contain, and to obtain a copy, or share them with another medical facility that requests them as part of the patient's care somewhere else. Here again, this is where the patient can name or allow, or disallow access to those records, to a limit. Doctor to doctor is the primary need usually, and that is done professionally between offices by a standard request, done with every records request.

Again, the patient is the one that dictates release of records in virtually every situation.

Ultimately, this all boils down to money, the love of money. The secular world doesn't really care who is related or married to whom, just so long as they  know who to tax and how much. That's it.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #136 on: February 23, 2014, 07:24:45 am »

Arizona Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners to
Refuse Service to Gays Based on Religious Beliefs


http://www.christianpost.com/news/arizona-passes-bill-allowing-business-owners-to-refuse-service-to-gays-based-on-sincerely-held-religious-beliefs-114903/
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: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: February 24, 2014, 11:15:27 am »


John McCain, Jeff Flake want Arizona gay bill veto

Monday morning, Sen. John McCain tweeted his hope that the governor will veto Senate Bill 1062, echoing a tweet sent Saturday by Sen. Jeff Flake

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html#ixzz2uGE7uYZ9

of course he does,


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html?hp=r3
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 #138 on: February 24, 2014, 12:45:52 pm »

John McCain, Jeff Flake want Arizona gay bill veto

Monday morning, Sen. John McCain tweeted his hope that the governor will veto Senate Bill 1062, echoing a tweet sent Saturday by Sen. Jeff Flake

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html#ixzz2uGE7uYZ9

of course he does,


http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/john-mccain-jeff-flake-want-arizona-gay-bill-veto-103850.html?hp=r3

John McCain - the man most remembered for helping Obama getting elected in 2008, and he also managed to get Churchianity on board to follow him blindly that year.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: February 24, 2014, 08:10:23 pm »

"playing games" is an understatement here...

http://news.yahoo.com/3-arizona-republican-senators-urge-veto-bill-172541858.html
2/24/14
3 Arizona Republican senators urge veto of bill

PHOENIX (AP) — Three Republican Arizona state senators who voted for a bill allowing business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to refuse service to gays sent a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday urging her to veto the legislation.

The letter came as more prominent Republicans pressed the GOP governor for a veto, including Sen. John McCain. Five of seven Republican candidates for governor also have called for the bill to be vetoed or withdrawn. The latest is Frank Riggs, a former California congressman, who said it is a "solution in search of a problem."

State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce sent their letter urging the veto just days after they joined the entire 17-member Senate GOP caucus in voting for the bill.

"I think laws are on the books that we need, and have now seen the ramifications of my vote," Worsley told The Associated Press. "I feel very bad, and it was a mistake."

The legislation has set off a firestorm across the nation from gay rights backers and politicians of all stripes. Arizona's two Republican U.S. senators, Jeff Flake and McCain, are urging a veto, as are business groups like the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. McCain weighed in Monday with a tweet saying, "I hope Gov. Brewer will veto #SB1062."

The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

CAP President Cathi Herrod is urging Brewer to sign the legislation and deriding what she called "fear-mongering" from its opponents.

"The attacks on SB 1062 ... represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate," Herrod wrote in a weekend posting on the group's website. "Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting.

"Our elected leaders have a fundamental duty to protect the religious freedom of every Arizonan, and that's what SB 1062 is all about."

If SB1062 is vetoed, it will be a major defeat for Herrod's group, which is seen as a powerful force on the Arizona political scene. Herrod suffered a similar defeat last year when she tried to get the Legislature to tack anti-abortion language onto a Medicaid expansion bill that Brewer was pushing. That effort angered Brewer, herself a strong opponent of abortion.

The bill is expected to be formally transmitted to Brewer as early as Monday, and she'll then have five days to act. Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

But with the business community lining up against the plan, Brewer could have cover for a veto. She's worked hard to return Arizona's economy to pre-recession levels with business-friendly incentives and tax cuts.

Pierce said he and the others went along to present a solid Republican front, despite misgivings.

"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," Pierce said. "We really didn't want to vote for it, but we made a mistake and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."

But their letter also said while the intent of their vote "was to create a shield for all citizens' religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance."

The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination.

Opponents call it a license to discriminate against gays.

Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

Republicans stressed that the bill is not about discrimination but protecting religious freedom. They frequently cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. They said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts.

Another frequently cited example is a suit brought against an Oregon baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The businesses were sued, but those efforts came under state laws that extended protected-class status to gays. Arizona has no such law protecting people based on sexual orientation.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #140 on: February 25, 2014, 12:49:47 am »

Quote
But with the business community lining up against the plan, Brewer could have cover for a veto. She's worked hard to return Arizona's economy to pre-recession levels with business-friendly incentives and tax cuts.

WHAT? Arizona's economy hasn't recovered! Maybe business is better for businesses, but for citizens it's at least no better, if not worse. And there is no business community "lining up against the plan". That is just not true. There has been no indication from here of any kind of business community uprising.

It's wishful thinking, and really, lies, in an attempt to make their cause look stronger than it is, along with the help of supportive journalists who are writing pro-gay articles that aren't telling the whole truth, and sometimes even outright lie about the facts.

Politicians just love to blow smoke up the backside, only to tell you that your being fined for polluting the environment!

Quote
Republicans stressed that the bill is not about discrimination but protecting religious freedom. They frequently cite the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple. They said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts.

No, the state is suppose to protect people and the state from frivolous lawsuits by the gay lobby. The courts are just playing sides rather than making people abide by the laws in place.

And they still ignore the fact that in EVERY case, the suing customers had the freedom to shop and buy elsewhere, but instead they chose to pursue a specific business, and then targeted them with a lawsuit, regardless of state law, because they are being supported by federal pressure.

This takes the cake though...

Quote
Pierce said he and the others went along to present a solid Republican front, despite misgivings.

"We were uncomfortable with it to start with and went along with it thinking it was good for the caucus," Pierce said. "We really didn't want to vote for it, but we made a mistake and now we're trying to do what's right and correct it."

See a problem with that statement? Any American citizen should, especially the people that clown represents. He just openly admitted that they voted and acted based on the party line, rather than do what his constituents want. It's an open admission it's about what the Republican or Democrat parties official line is, not what the citizens want.

Better wake up America!
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 12:56:26 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: February 25, 2014, 12:17:24 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/governor-jan-brewer-39-likely-39-veto-arizona-170400685.html;_ylt=A0LEVxes3AxTFkIA9jhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0bmhzcGJhBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1NNRTQwMl8x
Governor Jan Brewer Is 'Likely' to Veto Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill
2/25/14

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is likely to veto the controversial bill that would allow businesses in the state to refuse service to gay people on the grounds of “religious freedom,” three sources close to the governor told NBC News.

Economic pressure largely dictates Brewer's potential decision to veto the bill, as source close to her said she doesn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize Arizona’s economic “momentum.” The state’s top business leaders have sent a letter to the governor urging the bill’s veto, and some of the biggest business names in the country, including the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, American Airlines, Marriott, and Apple have all expressed their concern over the measure. Arizona is hosting the Super Bowl next year. 

And it's not just businesses that are calling out their concern. Three Republican state senators that originally voted for the bill sent Brewer a letter urging her to undo their work in a move of regret fueled by national outcry and evidence of damage already done to Arizona's image. Chuck Coughlin, a longtime adviser to Brewer, told NBC, “It’s been her proclivity in the past to focus on the priorities she wants them [the legislature] to accomplish, and this was clearly not part of her agenda."

Sources also told NBC that Brewer is concerned about her public image, and took particular offense at an article calling her a “puppet” to the state legislature. It’s good to know the bill might be vetoed for all the right reasons.

Brewer has until Saturday morning to decide the bill's fate. She will meet with both sides on Wednesday and will make her decision on Thursday or Friday, NBC News reports. Hundreds of people also gathered in front of the Arizona Capitol on Monday night to protest the bill, according to AZCentral.com.

Arizona has seen backlash and boycotts over restrictive measures before, notably with Brewer’s approval of a 2010 immigration law that eventually played out in the Supreme Court. Arizona lost an estimated $140 million in revenue to that bill, which included granting police the right to request immigration papers from people they suspected of being undocumented immigrants.

Arizona senators John McCain and Jeff Flake tweeted that they hope Brewer vetoes the bill, with Flake adding that he personally asked her to do so in Washington. 
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: February 25, 2014, 06:02:05 pm »

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/could-arizona-s--religious-rights--law-cost-the-state-the-super-bowl-223127356.html
Could Arizona's 'religious rights' law cost the state the Super Bowl?
2/25/14

A controversial religious-rights bill awaiting the signature of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has drawn opposition on both social and economic grounds. There's now even concern that if Brewer signs the bill, Arizona could lose the 2015 Super Bowl.

SB 1062 would protect from lawsuits any Arizona businesses that refuse service to gays and others on religious grounds.

Arizona's Super Bowl Host Committee opposes the bill on the basis that it would create a business-unfriendly climate in the state. "On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential," the committee said in a statement. "We do not support this legislation,"

Meanwhile, the NFL is keeping a close eye on the Arizona goings-on: "Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. "We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time."

There's precedent here, and it's even in Arizona. The NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl to Pasadena after Arizona voters refused to honor Martin Luther King's birthday as a holiday in a 1990 vote. When the state re-voted and approved the measure in 1992, the NFL awarded it the 1996 Super Bowl.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #143 on: February 26, 2014, 01:29:29 am »

Quote
Economic pressure largely dictates Brewer's potential decision to veto the bill, as source close to her said she doesn’t want to take any action that would jeopardize Arizona’s economic “momentum.

That's a Republican for ya!  Roll Eyes

Corporations dictating state law, regardless of what the citizens want, is the problem.

This is why it's such a problem with allowing state officials the power to make decisions without consulting citizens. Most things done by politicians are done so without input from citizens.

Now, it's been turned 180 degrees, so that politicians who are suppose to represent citizens, are now telling citizens how it will be, rather than asking the public how the public wants things. That indicates the public has lost control of their own country, and voting is now worthless.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: March 03, 2014, 05:58:20 pm »

http://www.christianpost.com/news/conservative-nyt-columnist-on-what-to-expect-when-gay-marriage-becomes-legal-in-50-sates-115485/
Conservative NYT Columnist on What to Expect When Gay Marriage Becomes Legal in 50 States
3/3/14

A conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, writes that it's perhaps only a matter of time when same-sex marriage becomes legal in all 50 states, ruminating on what it might be like for those who believe in traditional marriage when that happens.

The Supreme Court is likely to be "forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence" on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all states, writes Douthat, former senior editor at The Atlantic, in an op-ed piece for the Times.

This will finish the national debate but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage, he says.

This will lead to one of two possibilities, he argues.

This division "will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it." And in this case, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture, he says.

"And where conflicts arise – in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding – gay rights supporters would...let the dissenters opt out 'in the name of their freedom – and ours.'"

The other possibility is that "the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South" is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion, Douthat suggests. "In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business," he adds.

Meanwhile, "pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power," leading to harassment of agencies and businesses that promote the older definition of marriage, the columnist adds.

This seems more likely after last week's "debate" in Arizona over a bill that would make a way for business owners to refuse service to gay people on religious grounds, he argues.


While such bills have been seen, in the past, "as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender – to accept same-sex marriage's inevitability while carving out protections for dissent…now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don't get to negotiate anymore," Douthat says.

"The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform," he adds.

The writer then blames Christians for it, saying they had "plenty of opportunities – thousands of years' worth – to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance." He says they must "remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution."

In conclusion, Douthat wonders what settlement the "victors" will impose for the "defeated."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: March 04, 2014, 05:32:08 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-rights-groups-care-about-a-supreme-court-birth-control-case-211337519.html
3/4/14
Why gay rights groups care about a Supreme Court birth control case

Access to hormonal birth control hasn’t typically been a goal of the gay rights movement. But after a near miss on an anti-gay bill in Arizona last week, LGBT advocacy groups are rallying around a Supreme Court birth control case, arguing that gay people’s rights will be collateral damage if the court rules that for-profit businesses do not have to provide contraceptives to female employees.

On March 25, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Oklahoma-based crafts store chain Hobby Lobby that the federal health care law is infringing on its religious liberty by forcing the company to provide contraceptive coverage in its health plan. The case is unusual because the family owned company is arguing that for-profit corporations — not just individuals and religiously affiliated nonprofits — have religious beliefs that should be protected under the Constitution and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Most of the dozens of “friend of the court” briefs in the case, filed in January, are from religious and anti-abortion individuals and organizations on the Hobby Lobby side, and reproductive rights groups on the government’s side. Only two gay rights organizations filed amicus briefs laying out the potential implications the case could have on gay and lesbian people. (The briefs favored Hobby Lobby’s side by a 3 to 4 ratio.)

But on Monday, just a few days after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a law that would have allowed  businesses with religious objections to refuse service to gay people, more than 30 LGBT groups signed on to a statement that says the birth control case is “cut from the same cloth” as the recently vetoed Arizona law.

If the conservative-leaning court rules that companies may deny contraceptives based on the religious beliefs of their owners, corporations would have more latitude to argue that serving gays and lesbians violates their religious beliefs, the groups argue.

“People from all across the country would face very real harm if corporations get a license to discriminate under the guise of religious liberty,” the statement says. The groups say the case could allow businesses to deny health care to employees with AIDS or HIV, or for hotels or restaurants to refuse to serve LGBT people.

“The case is directly about women’s access to reproductive health care and we don’t mean to suggest that that’s not the core issue there, but it is important to expand the lens,” said Jenny Pizer, general counsel for Lambda Legal, the gay rights groups that filed an amicus brief in the case.

The Arizona law served as a wake-up call for the general public and the gay rights community that a case about religious objections to birth control could have a big impact on gays.

“We’ve come to see the Hobby Lobby case as the biggest Supreme Court case that nobody’s heard about,” said Eric Ferrero, spokesman for Planned Parenthood. “What really happened with Arizona is it brought to life in very real terms what this agenda looks like.”

Interestingly, many of the nightmare scenarios the groups lay out of businesses turning away gays en masse are actually legal under existing law. There are few existing federal protections for discrimination against employees or customers based on sexual orientation, but advocates hope that Congress and states will move to adopt them soon. (Some gay discrimination cases can be brought as gender discrimination, but courts are split on the claims.) If Hobby Lobby prevails, businesses will have an argument in their back pocket going forward that religious objections to serving gays supersede any future anti-discrimination laws.

“Likely in the future we will have anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people so [this case] is attempting to get pre-emptive religious exemption from that,” said Doug NeJaime, a law professor specializing in gay rights at the University of California, Irvine.

More immediately, a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby could also serve as a shield for businesses based in the 21 states that prohibit businesses from turning away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Hobby Lobby supporters argue that it’s far from clear that a ruling in the company’s favor would help a business owner who believes homosexuality is a sin and does not want to provide certain services to gay people.

“I know of no American religious group that teaches discrimination against gays as such, and few judges would be persuaded of the sincerity of such a claim,” writes Doug Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #146 on: March 05, 2014, 06:13:01 am »

The Terms of Our Surrender

IT now seems certain that before too many years elapse, the Supreme Court will be forced to acknowledge the logic of its own jurisprudence on same-sex marriage and redefine marriage to include gay couples in all 50 states.

Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.

In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”

But there’s another possibility, in which the oft-invoked analogy between opposition to gay marriage and support for segregation in the 1960s South is pushed to its logical public-policy conclusion. In this scenario, the unwilling photographer or caterer would be treated like the proprietor of a segregated lunch counter, and face fines or lose his business — which is the intent of recent legal actions against a wedding photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, and a baker in Colorado.

Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked.

In the past, this constant-pressure scenario has seemed the less-likely one, since Americans are better at agreeing to disagree than the culture war would suggest. But it feels a little bit more likely after last week’s “debate” in Arizona, over a bill that was designed to clarify whether existing religious freedom protections can be invoked by defendants like the florist or the photographer.

If you don’t recognize my description of the bill, then you probably followed the press coverage, which was mendacious and hysterical — evincing no familiarity with the legal issues, and endlessly parroting the line that the bill would institute “Jim Crow” for gays. (Never mind that in Arizona it’s currently legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation — and mass discrimination isn’t exactly breaking out.) Allegedly sensible centrists compared the bill’s supporters to segregationist politicians, liberals invoked the Bob Jones precedent to dismiss religious-liberty concerns, and Republican politicians behaved as though the law had been written by David Duke.

What makes this response particularly instructive is that such bills have been seen, in the past, as a way for religious conservatives to negotiate surrender — to accept same-sex marriage’s inevitability while carving out protections for dissent. But now, apparently, the official line is that you bigots don’t get to negotiate anymore.

Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution.

But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html?ref=rossdouthat&_r=2
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 #147 on: March 05, 2014, 10:45:00 am »

Quote
Once this happens, the national debate essentially will be finished, but the country will remain divided, with a substantial minority of Americans, most of them religious, still committed to the older view of marriage.

So what then? One possibility is that this division will recede into the cultural background, with marriage joining the long list of topics on which Americans disagree without making a political issue out of it.

Hate to say it, but it seems like even elderly professing Christians have stood down on this issue too(at least from my experiences), as well as other important issues. For example, I commented to one elderly a couple of years ago how these heretical Emergent Church leaders like Rick Warren have endorsed sodomite pastors. And she responded, "What if my son was gay?!". And on another occasion, another elderly told me how we need to "tolerate" this "Christian" rock music coming into churches nowdays b/c young people(including young "pastors") grew up with this "mindset", so therefore we can't "discriminate" against them.

Don't get me wrong, the elderly are people you want to hang out with a lot b/c of their wisdom, but nonetheless they too have been deceived by this Churchianity mindset.

Quote
In this scenario, religious conservatives would essentially be left to promote their view of wedlock within their own institutions, as a kind of dissenting subculture emphasizing gender differences and procreation, while the wider culture declares that love and commitment are enough to make a marriage. And where conflicts arise — in a case where, say, a Mormon caterer or a Catholic photographer objected to working at a same-sex wedding — gay rights supporters would heed the advice of gay marriage’s intellectual progenitor, Andrew Sullivan, and let the dissenters opt out “in the name of their freedom — and ours.”

Andrew Sullivan is a long-time "conservative" writer/journalist who has been well-respected among professing conservatives, and is also a long-time sodomite. Pt being that enemies come from WITHIN, NOT from WITHOUT like these Obama-types. No surprise why ultimately, the sodomite agenda has ripened a lot of really bad fruit now.(ie-you never saw Jerry Falwell nor Hal Lindsey expose the sodomite wing of the Republican Party, the Log Cabin Republicans)

Quote
Meanwhile, pressure would be brought to bear wherever the religious subculture brushed up against state power. Religious-affiliated adoption agencies would be closed if they declined to place children with same-sex couples. (This has happened in Massachusetts and Illinois.) Organizations and businesses that promoted the older definition of marriage would face constant procedural harassment, along the lines suggested by the mayors who battled with Chick-fil-A. And, eventually, religious schools and colleges would receive the same treatment as racist holdouts like Bob Jones University, losing access to public funds and seeing their tax-exempt status revoked.

Side note - Chick-fil-A has a lot of other serious issues...one of them being that they're just like these other wicked fast-food restaurants like McDonald's, Wendy's, etc - they put a lot of ingredients like Aspertame, MSG, etc in their products that cause a lot of illnesses(both physical and mental) in people. And they have the same hierarchies, infrastructures, etc that these other fast-food restaurants have(ie-minimum wage slave labor). Pt being that this whole "But we close on Sundays to honor the Lord and we're anti-gay marriage" is nothing but a smokescreen on their part.

And yes - the reason why a lot of these religious institutions et al are/will be giving into pressure is b/c of their tax-exempt statuses, which is rooted out of the love of money.

Quote
Which has a certain bracing logic. If your only goal is ensuring that support for traditional marriage diminishes as rapidly as possible, applying constant pressure to religious individuals and institutions will probably do the job. Already, my fellow Christians are divided over these issues, and we’ll be more divided the more pressure we face. The conjugal, male-female view of marriage is too theologically rooted to disappear, but its remaining adherents can be marginalized, set against one other, and encouraged to conform.

And let's not forget too that the growing number of pastors in these "churches" are in that Millenial gen 20-35 range - for one, they were brainwashed in their respective seminaries(which has all but been taken over by Catholic teaching now). And two, they haven't been through all the wars and hardships like the elderly have, so deception and the enemies are able to creep past them much easier.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: March 05, 2014, 08:59:35 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/state-senator-fought-recent-bill-says-hes-gay-220032424--election.html
State senator who fought recent bill says he's gay
3/5/14

PHOENIX (AP) — A veteran Arizona lawmaker who was a vocal critic of a bill that touched off a national debate over discrimination came out as gay on Wednesday, saying "I wanted to let everyone know I am gay, I'm a Latino and I'm a state senator and it's OK."

State Sen. Steve Gallardo said he felt the need to come out publicly partly because of the recent battle against a bill approved by the Arizona Legislature that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays based on religious beliefs.

"In the middle of that discussion, it dawned on me that this bill affects me directly, and seeing all the people come to the Capitol protesting and rallying around this bill solidified my thought and that it's time for me to stand up and say, 'This is who I am,'" he said.

Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after strong opposition from the business community.

Gallardo, 45, said he also wants to send a message to members of the LGBT community who struggle with coming out as gay. He added that his family and friends have known about his sexuality for a long time.

The Phoenix Democrat is running for the open U.S. House seat being vacated by the retirement of Rep. Ed Pastor.

Gallardo served in the state House of Representatives from 2003 to 2009 and has been a state senator since 2011. He is one of three openly gay legislators in Arizona: Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, and Rep. Demion Clinco, D-Tucson. U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, has said she is bisexual.

Pastor's announcement last month that he would not run for re-election is expected to set the stage for a contested Democratic primary in the 7th Congressional District. The heavily Hispanic District is located entirely in Phoenix and is solidly Democratic.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: March 09, 2014, 06:20:02 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/miss-lawmakers-feel-pressure-over-religion-bill-003239513.html
3/7/14
Miss. lawmakers feel pressure over religion bill

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Lawmakers in conservative Mississippi find themselves in a tug-of-war over a religious-practices bill that some say is uncomfortably similar to one recently vetoed by Arizona's Republican governor.

A group that lobbies for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention is urging lawmakers to pass the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Others say that Mississippi, with its history of racial oppression, should avoid any law that could lead to discrimination against gay people and other groups.

Similar religious-freedom bills were filed this year in several states, including Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee. A bill was withdrawn in Ohio, and similar measures stalled in Idaho and Kansas. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a bill after critics said it would hurt the state's image by allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people.

One version of the Mississippi bill passed the Senate and awaits House debate by next week. Trying to assuage fears about discrimination, a House committee removed portions similar to the Arizona measure — provisions that some attorneys said could give cover to private businesses that choose to discriminate. But critics say the Mississippi bill is still vaguely worded and subject to broad interpretation, and should be killed rather than tweaked.

In its current form, it says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion without a compelling reason. It says a person whose religious practice has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened may cite that violation in either suing others or as a defense against a lawsuit.

"Why are they trying to enact this?" former state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz asked Friday. "No one's religious beliefs are being trampled upon in Mississippi. My goodness, we have more churches per capita than any state in the nation."

**Uhm, church buildings are unscriptural.

Jimmy Porter is executive director of the Mississippi Baptist Convention's lobbying group, Christian Action Commission. In an email this week, he urged lawmakers to pass the bill, saying a law would allow a person of any faith to cite his or her religious beliefs as a defense in a lawsuit.

"The national media pundits, the ACLU, LGBT lobby, and others have declared this bill as discriminatory and hateful," Porter wrote. "That's not true; the bill is about religious freedom."

Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights lobbying group, opposes the bill, as does the American Civil Liberties Union.

**Coincidence how the HRC attends Emergent Church leader Bill Hybels' annual global leadership conference every August at his Willow Creek Assoc church - pt being that these same SBC/"conservative" churches in America that cry for religious freedom are also the same "churches" that have a lot of respect for this reprobate Hybels.

Todd Allen, an openly gay ordained minister who serves at a Unitarian-Universalist church in the small Mississippi town of Ellisville, said Friday that the bill seems to clear the way for businesses to use their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays and lesbians. While same-sex marriage is illegal in Mississippi, Allen said he hopes to be able to marry a man someday, and he doesn't want to be tossed out of a restaurant, for example, for holding hands.

"What the provision is doing is saying the restaurant owner can delegitimize my Christian marriage because of his own interpretation of Christianity," said Allen, vice president of the Jackson area group Parents, Friends and Family of Lesbians and Gays.

Mississippi has long been burdened by poverty, health problems and struggling schools. Some lawmakers are disgusted to be spending time and energy on legislation they see as divisive and pointless.

Rep. Kevin Horan, a Democrat from Grenada, said his biggest concern is attracting businesses to Mississippi. He said he worries that the specter of discrimination could hurt those efforts
.

"I haven't had a report of anything that would justify the need for this legislation," Horan said.

Rep. Brian Aldridge is a Republican from Tupelo, hometown of American Family Association, a conservative religious group that opposes same-sex marriage. Aldridge said he's hearing from constituents who support the bill because "they just want to make sure that they limit themselves against any kind of lawsuit."

When the bill was debated and passed the Mississippi Senate, nothing was said about its similarities to the Arizona legislation. Rather, the debate focused entirely on an amendment to fulfill Republican Gov. Phil Bryant's request to add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

Matt Steffey, a constitutional law professor at the private Mississippi College School of Law, helped the House committee draft the changes. He said that after the Arizona-like portions were removed, the Mississippi bill is similar to religious protection laws previously enacted by about 18 states. The bill says government could not put a substantial burden on religious practice. Steffey said, for example, that if a state employee wants to use a regularly scheduled daily work break to say prayers, the employee's manager could not prohibit that practice without a compelling reason.

"I don't see how this amended act serves to facilitate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Steffey said.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Friday, Diaz said the bill is still open to broad interpretation. The former Supreme Court justice said that even if the amended version becomes law, it would allow people to cite religious beliefs to deny services to gay people or others with whom they disagree. He compared people's arguments for the religious restoration bill to Jim Crow-era arguments that used religion to justify discrimination and racial separation.

"I think that this bill goes too far in that it gives individuals and the government an opportunity to allow their religious beliefs to impact the general public," Diaz said. "It's like the old analogy: Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins."
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 15   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
Privacy Policy