End Times and Current Events
February 04, 2023, 06:59:33 pm
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 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 24025 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #150 on: March 17, 2014, 05:56:53 am »

Maine college: We won't tolerate intolerance of Bible believers!



College officials in Maine have banned husband and wife Bible teachers from Bowdoin College after they refused to bow to the demands of homosexual activists.

Rob Gregory and his wife, Sim, have led the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship on the campus for almost 10 years.

Carroll Conley of the Christian Civic League of Maine says the Gregorys were banned after refusing to sign an agreement allowing homosexuals to be considered for leadership in the group.

The administration has made it "absolutely clear" the Gregorys are not welcome if they don't sign a statement declaring "sexual orientation" is not considered for leadership positions, says Conely.

News website The Main Wire reported the Gregorys' must be gone by May, when the academic year ends.

The college newspaper, The Bowdoin Orient, reported that the couple agreed to sign  the agreement only if they could include a Reservation of Rights to Religious Beliefs and Practices. But the dean of Student Affairs, Tim Foster, denied the request.

Rob Gregory, an attorney and minister, sought the exemption to allow him to interpret and teach the Bible as he wanted.

Conley, Carroll (Christian Civic League of Maine)"It is simply unacceptable to have College-recognized student organizations effectively discriminate against individuals in violation of Maine law," Foster told the Gregory's in an email, which stated that Muslim and Catholic volunteers have signed the statement.

Conley says Bowdoin is a perfect example of the intolerance liberals display when demanding tolerance.

"They are the example of intolerance in the name of tolerance," he tells OneNewsNow.

Foster told the Orient the agreement protects people who are "LBTIQA," or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and asexual.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/2014/03/17/maine-college-we-wont-tolerate-intolerance-of-bible-believers
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 #151 on: March 17, 2014, 10:58:36 am »

Quote
Conley, Carroll (Christian Civic League of Maine)"It is simply unacceptable to have College-recognized student organizations effectively discriminate against individuals in violation of Maine law," Foster told the Gregory's in an email, which stated that Muslim and Catholic volunteers have signed the statement.

 Huh

I hope I'm wrong, but at the same time it seems like these agendas have deeper roots than everyone is lead to believe - if they're throwing Muslims and Catholics in the same boat as the "discriminated", I don't like where this is going.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: March 24, 2014, 11:18:02 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-doesn-t-signal-move-same-sex-134607642--politics.html
Supreme Court doesn’t signal move in same-sex photography case
3/24/14

The United States Supreme Court didn’t say on Monday morning if it would accept or deny a highly publicized case about a New Mexico photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

The Court released a list of orders on its website at 9:30 a.m., but the case of Elane Photography v. Willock wasn’t on the list of cases that learned their fate, even though the Justices discussed the Elane Photography in private last Friday.

If accepted, the case would be heard in the Court’s next term, starting in October. But for now, Court watchers will need to wait.

Elane Photography v. Willock received even more publicity during the recent controversy in neighboring Arizona over a proposed change to that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The case started in 2006, when Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque , N.M., contacted Elane Photography to ask whether the business would take pictures of her commitment ceremony to another woman.  Elane Photography said it would only take photos of “traditional weddings,” and turned away the business.

Later, the couple hired a different studio, and the commitment ceremony proceeded. Willock filed a discrimination complaint under New Mexico law, which protects people against discrimination based on sexual orientation under its own public accommodations laws.

Republican lawmakers in Arizona decided to pursue their own legal changes after the Elane Photography ruling, but Arizona’s outgoing governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed the Arizona bill.

In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the key question in the case centered on the photographer’s claim that the New Mexico law creates a conflict with her religious beliefs and violates the First Amendment’s ban on compelled speech.

The federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act dates back to 1993, when it was passed by Congress after a controversial Supreme Court decision in 1990 angered liberals and conservatives. But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states.

Currently, 21 states have their own versions of RFRA laws and the future of those acts could hinge on developments at the federal level and in cases like the Elane Photography case.

In the New Mexico case, the defendant couldn’t invoke that state’s version of RFRA, because it was a lawsuit between two parties not involving the state.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #153 on: March 28, 2014, 06:09:22 am »

Catholics & Mormons Warned They Too Must Get Liberal Or Lose Congregants To Coming Super-Church

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the sweeping acceptance of gay marriage in recent years is owed in large part to Christianity. Rejecting the rigidly hierarchical and stratified societies of the ancient world, Jesus Christ taught the equal dignity of all persons, proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth, and declared that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The Western world has been working out the logic of these subversive teachings ever since, with the institutional transformation of marriage being the latest, though surely not the last, example of its social, moral, and political consequences. But what if the next institutions to be leveled by the Christian ideal of equality are the churches themselves?
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 #154 on: March 28, 2014, 06:52:23 am »

Catholics & Mormons Warned They Too Must Get Liberal Or Lose Congregants To Coming Super-Church

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how the sweeping acceptance of gay marriage in recent years is owed in large part to Christianity. Rejecting the rigidly hierarchical and stratified societies of the ancient world, Jesus Christ taught the equal dignity of all persons, proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth, and declared that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. The Western world has been working out the logic of these subversive teachings ever since, with the institutional transformation of marriage being the latest, though surely not the last, example of its social, moral, and political consequences. But what if the next institutions to be leveled by the Christian ideal of equality are the churches themselves?

Could you post the link to this?

Anyhow - yeah - hate to say it, but it's coming to these church buildings. These church buildings are just so corrupt right now - having been in them recently, you have no idea over all of the rotten stuff they've brought in. They may say they're anti-gay marriage until they're blue in the face...well, they also were staunch pre-trib rapture believers once upon a time ago. They were also anti-rock music once upon a time ago...but not anymore. Just saying.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: April 04, 2014, 12:29:22 pm »

Miss. governor signs religious practices bill
http://news.yahoo.com/miss-governor-signs-religious-practices-bill-221425867.html
4/3/14

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a bill Thursday that supporters say will assure unfettered practice of religion without government interference but that opponents worry could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill, called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, will become law July 1. It also will add "In God We Trust" to the state seal.

An early version of the bill, considered weeks ago, was similar to one Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed after business groups said it could hurt that state's economy. Supporters say the final Mississippi bill bears little resemblance to the failed Arizona measure.

**As in there's CONDITIONS in this bill? Yeah, beware of all the potential agendas behind these things!

Outside the state Capitol on Thursday, more than 75 gay-rights supporters protested against the bill. Jeff White of Waveland, a founder of the Mississippi Gulf Coast Lesbian and Gay Community Center, said as someone who is gay and Jewish, he worries such a new law could make him more vulnerable to unfair treatment.

"It's the first time in my life that I've actually considered moving out of Mississippi," said White, 32. "It made me physically ill the past few days, realizing what they're trying to do."

Bryant signed the measure within hours of receiving it Thursday, during a private ceremony. The bill says government cannot put a substantial burden on the practice of religion. Though the bill is vaguely worded, supporters said an example of would be a zoning law to limit the location of a church, mosque or synagogue but not limiting the location of a secular business.

The small signing ceremony was attended by a few elected officials, lobbyists for the state's influential Southern Baptist Convention and Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. The council, a conservative Washington-based group, has pushed states to enact laws that mirror the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that President Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

Perkins said Mississippi becomes the 19th state to enact its own religious-practices law since 1996.

**FYI, Perkins is a Council for National Policy member.

"Those who understand the importance and cherish the historic understanding of religious freedom are grateful for leaders who respond to fact and not fictitious claims of those who are trying to quarantine faith within the walls of our churches or homes," Perkins said in a statement.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 12:31:25 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: April 07, 2014, 10:50:58 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/u-justices-decline-photo-companys-free-speech-case-134611387.html
Supreme Court declines free speech, gay marriage case
4/7/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether a New Mexico photography company had free speech grounds to refuse to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.

The court's refusal to intervene means an August 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court decision against the company remains intact. Albuquerque-based Elane Photography had said its free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be a valid defense to the state's finding that it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The law, similar to laws in 20 other U.S. states, bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The company's owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to "express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," their attorneys said in court papers. Elane Photography has previously declined requests to take **** maternity pictures and images depicting violence, its lawyers said.

The dispute arose in 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the company if it would photograph the commitment ceremony between her and her partner, Misti Collinsworth. When Elane Photography declined, Willock filed a successful complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.

Willock and her partner had their commitment ceremony in 2007, using a different photographer.

Elane Photography appealed the commission's decision, raising objections under both the First Amendment and a state law protecting religious freedom. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled for the state in an August 2013 decision. The company's Supreme Court appeal was limited to the First Amendment question.

Attitudes toward gay relationships have changed rapidly in the United States in recent years. New Mexico is one of the 17 states where gay marriage is now legal.

Recent court and legislative decisions making gay marriage legal have gained momentum since the Supreme Court's rulings in two cases last summer, one striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and another allowing gay marriage in California to proceed.

In February, Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, vetoed a bill viewed by critics as a license to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the name of religion. The law, heavily criticized by the business community, would have allowed business owners to claim their religious beliefs as legal justification for refusing to serve same-sex couples or any other prospective customer.

The case before the Supreme Court is Elane Photography v. Willock, U.S. Supreme Court, 13-585.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Jonathan Oatis)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 11:00:36 am by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #157 on: April 11, 2014, 06:11:51 am »

Transgender Student Files Complaint Against Christian University for Denying Use of Male Dorm

A transgender student who was born biologically as a female and now seeks to identify as a male recently filed a federal complaint against a Christian university in Oregon for denying her the use of the male dorms.

The student, identified only as “Jayce,” lodged the sexual discrimination complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Friday, stating that officials at George Fox University “denied [their] request to live with other male students on campus.”

Jayce is sophomore and has been changing her appearance from female to male over the past few years. She first approached officials about her desire to live in the male dormitory in December, but officials denied her request, stating that because she is biologically a female, she must use the female dorms.

The student later obtained legal counsel after officials continued to stand their ground over the matter due to its Christian beliefs.

“The university’s decision makes me feel rejected, misunderstood and punished for something I cannot change,” Jayce told local television station KGW. “It also makes me anxious and nervous about where I’ll be able to live next year, and the year after that.”

But George Fox University issued a statement on the same day that the complaint was filed, reiterating its commitment to the Scriptures and asserting that it had been more than understanding to the student.

“George Fox strives to be a Christ-centered community and our residential facilities are single gender because of our theological commitments,” the statement read. “The student’s request to switch from female-only on-campus housing to male-only on-campus housing is one that many institutions would struggle with.”

It outlined that the school went so far as to refer to Jayce as a male, while drawing the line at allowing her to live with the men in the male dorms.

“Over the past several months, George Fox Student Life staff has spent many hours with this student hearing his story and offering support,” the statement continued. “Out of respect for the student’s wishes, university staff refers to the student using the masculine pronoun. At this time, the student has not legally changed genders.”

“While the university did not grant his request to live on campus with males, the student was not denied on-campus housing. He was offered the option of an on-campus single apartment with a commitment from Student Life to ensuring he stayed socially connected to the community,” it said. “The university has researched the student’s attorney’s legal claims and believes they are without merit, especially given the religious nature of the university.”

George Fox University was founded in 1885 as a school for Quakers, and is a private institution. Students on campus are largely Christian, and “all … employees—faculty, staff and administrators–are committed Christians.” The university holds to a lifestyle statement that expects staff and students to walk in holiness in their personal lives and be “transformed into the image of Christ.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/04/10/transgender-student-files-complaint-against-christian-university-for-denying-use-of-male-dorm/

No matter how bad you mutilate your body, you will always be a girl. No way around it, that is how the Lord Jesus made you, and that is how you will be for all eternity.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 06:13:24 am by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

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

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

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: April 11, 2014, 01:35:52 pm »

And the irony of all of this is that this "Christian" university is a 501c3 - IOW, when all is said and done, they likely will have no defense case.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #159 on: April 19, 2014, 06:23:12 am »

Liberals announce plan to 'purge' Christians
Exclusive: Matt Barber sounds alarm over leftist plot to punish pro-family Americans


They were always deadly serious about criminalizing Christianity and killing free speech, but now the American left has stopped pretending otherwise. In a recent column titled, “Why Are They Called ‘Homofascists’? Here’s Why,” I wrote that “progressive,” “Christian-hating fascists” – but I repeat myself – are “hell-bent on criminalizing Christianity and pushing to the fringes anyone who publicly acknowledges natural human sexuality and the age-old, immutable institution of legitimate marriage as created by God.”

I was referring specifically to the left’s well-organized and highly disturbing character assassination of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for his private support of natural marriage. I was also addressing the larger goal of the American left to completely shut down free speech and freedom of religion, and to severely punish anyone who maintains both biblically and biologically correct views on human sexuality.

I closed with this:

“They smell blood in the water. I’ve often said that these folks want those who speak biblical truth about human sexuality and legitimate marriage either 1) dead, 2) imprisoned or, if they can have neither of these, 3) marginalized to the point where they can’t even support their families.

“Check No. 3 off the list. I guess they’re working backwards.”

The very next day, and as if right on cue, lefty rag Slate magazine vomited proof of my claims. It could not have been better scripted if I’d written it myself. In an article titled, “Purge the Bigots,” Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words:

“Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.

“More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.’ …

“Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.”

No, this is not parody. It is not a bad joke. It is not Mr. Saletan satirically assuming the role of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi propaganda minister, in an effort to underscore how utterly out of control his own “progressive” movement has become and, in the spirit of argumentum ad absurdum, gently coax his fellow bohemians from madness.

Neither was Slate joking. They were not joining in on Saletan’s fun, pretending, for a day, to be “Nationalsozialistischen Briefe,” Goebbels’ parallel publication, in a clever endeavor to use the power of metaphor as a scrub brush to wash away the stench of totalitarianism from an American left bathed in it.

No, these ruthless cultural Marxists are as serious as Josef Salin’s heart attack.

Continued Saletan: “To organize the next stage of the purge, I’ve compiled the financial data into three tables.” He then listed details from, and linked to, the Proposition 8 hit-list reportedly leaked by the Obama IRS and meticulously assembled and published by the Los Angeles Times.

This was all by design. It’s what led to Brendan Eich’s career beheading. But Eich was just the opening act. The list provides the exact names, employers, places of residence and dollar amounts of every single person in America who donated even a dime to the Golden State’s campaign to protect natural marriage. (I realize it’s hopelessly symbolic, but as matter of principle I will not link to the list.)

This is a level of voter intimidation and journalistic terrorism on the part of the Obama administration, the L.A. Times and Slate magazine that is unprecedented in American history. With their blessing, indeed their encouragement, Herr Saletan then gave his fellow rainbow-shirts their jackbooted marching orders:

“If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list,” he said, candidly closing, “Otherwise, perhaps we should put down the pitchforks.”

You do understand this, right? Obama, the L.A. Times, Slate and America’s larger “progressive” movement are dead serious about purging Christians and other traditionalists from the workplace. It’s coming. Mozilla was just the opening salvo.

In the very same way Eich’s forced resignation was deliberately calculated to terrorize any American who might resist the left’s sexual anarchist agenda, and support some future, legally executed pro-family ballot initiative, the clear purpose behind releasing both the Prop 8 donor list and publishing the Slate article was to, likewise, instill terror in the hearts of Christians and other traditionalists who support natural marriage, family and human sexuality. It was a not-so-subtle shot over the bow.

It was also a call to arms.

It’s fight or flight time, America.

I’ve made my choice.

What about you?

I say that if we once crushed fascism from without …

We can sure as hell crush it from within.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/liberals-announce-plan-to-purge-christians/
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 #160 on: April 22, 2014, 05:04:36 am »

As Public Opinion Approves Gay Marriage, Evangelicals Less Certain

 An ABC News/Washington Post poll that sampled 1,002 random adults found that the majority of the American public approve of gay marriage, but evangelical Christian support is not as strong as the rest of the population.

Specific statistics found in the study are as follows:

    59 percent of responders approve of gay marriage

    75 percent of responders under the age of 30 approve of gay marriage

    33 percent of evangelical Christians approve of gay marriage

    43 percent of evangelical Christians under 30 approve of gay marriage

According to the survey, Americans under the age of 30 were more likely to approve of gay marriage, whether or not they identified as an evangelical Christian.

Cokie Roberts, of ABC News said, “The reason the numbers have changed so fast and so dramatically on this question of gay marriage is because everybody in America now has experience with someone who is gay. People have come out of the closet and said, ‘I am your brother. I am your sister. I am your cousin. I am your friend.’ And then they have seen these families raising children and see these loving families.”

Still, many evangelical leaders oppose gay marriage on a religious basis. Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham said, “...I’m no better than a gay person. I’m a sinner. But I’ve been forgiven, and I’ve turned away from my sins. For any person that’s willing to repent in turn, God will forgive.”

The full study can be viewed as a PDF here. http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1159a2GayMarriage.pdf

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/as-public-opinion-approves-gay-marriage-evangelicals-less-certain.html
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 #161 on: April 22, 2014, 08:21:33 am »

UK Childcare Worker Fired After Explaining Biblical Position on Homosexuality to Co-Worker

A childcare worker has been fired for ‘gross misconduct’ after she explained the biblical position on homosexuality to her co-worker.

According to reports, Sarah Mbuyi, 30, was repeatedly asked about her beliefs over a period of several months at Newpark Childcare in Highbury after her lesbian co-worker discovered that she is a Christian. The latest discussion occurred in January, when her co-worker remarked that she was unhappy that she could not ‘marry’ her partner because of the Church’s beliefs, and stated that she thought God had nothing against homosexual behavior.

When Mbuyi replied by explaining the biblical position on the matter, she was reported to her boss.

“When I said ‘No, God does not condone the practice of homosexuality, but does love you and says you should come to Him as you are’, she became emotional and went off to report me to my manager,” Mbuyi stated in a press release.

“I never ever condemned her, or accused her, but when she asked me directly what I believed, I was open about sharing the Bible’s teaching that homosexual sex (not the people) is wrong,” she continued. “It’s clear that this offended her and she was determined to get me sacked, simply because I expressed traditional Christian beliefs.”

Mbuyi was then asked to attend a disciplinary hearing where she was confronted with her co-worker’s accusations. However, she said that some of the claims were false, such as that it was Mbuyi who had initiated discussions about homosexuality with her co-worker.

“My disciplinary hearing was hopelessly one-sided because they put my accuser’s claims to me as fact, without any forewarning and so I wasn’t prepared,” Mbuyi stated. “It seemed to me they had already made up their minds to justify sacking me, before hearing my side of the story.”

She was immediately fired for gross misconduct.

Now, Mbuyi is filing a complaint against her employer, charging religious discrimination and an unfair dismissal. The Christian Legal Centre is providing assistance in representing Mbyui.

“Sharing Biblical truths out of genuine love and concern for colleagues is being outlawed in the workplace by a dominating cultural correctness,” stated CEO Andrea Williams. “There is a culture of fear which closes down freedom of speech and the manifestation of faith. This culture brands the liberating good news of the gospel as oppressive and regressive.”

“Sarah’s case demonstrates the confusion we’re experiencing in current times,” she added. “David Cameron has given public recognition of the enormous positive impact that Jesus Christ has had on our nation but he wants to mold Christianity to his political agenda [by expressing support for homosexual 'marriage'].  … If he is serious in his support for Christianity, he will intervene in Sarah’s case and ensure that those who believe in marriage, as defined in the Bbible, between one man and one woman, will not lose their jobs but be wholly and properly protected by the law.”

http://christiannews.net/2014/04/22/uk-childcare-worker-fired-after-explaining-biblical-position-on-homosexuality-to-co-worker/
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 #162 on: April 22, 2014, 09:19:44 am »


    59 percent of responders approve of gay marriage

    75 percent of responders under the age of 30 approve of gay marriage

    33 percent of evangelical Christians approve of gay marriage

    43 percent of evangelical Christians under 30 approve of gay marriage

According to the survey, Americans under the age of 30 were more likely to approve of gay marriage, whether or not they identified as an evangelical Christian.

Yes, I know this "polls" are fixed too, but nonetheless - from everything else I've read, yes, America as a whole, INCLUDING the Apostate church and Millenials, have softened their stance(at bare minimum) on sodomy marriage.

It's not only the entertainment media and secular public schools, but worst of all the Apostate church has embraced all of these phony bible versions, which have endorsed fornication. And not to mention too this CCM junk - which is nothing but repackaged satanic rock music, and has corrupted the minds of people for the worst.

Ultimately - I don't think they "support" it, per se - but nonetheless it's come to a point where the masses care much more about their earthly material wealth, then things that are of the Lord's. No wonder why a non-natural born citizen has crept into the White House recently.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: May 19, 2014, 05:09:42 am »

City Council Demands Churches Conduct Same-Sex Weddings

A local council in the U.K. has been forced to apologize after issuing a letter that incorrectly demanded churches be licensed to perform same-sex marriages.

Essex County Council wrote to all churches in the county registered as wedding venues telling them that with “immediate effect” they “must” be licensed to “conduct same sex marriages.”

The words immediate and same were bold and underlined, with the latter also capitalized.

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute says the council’s letter shows the need for churches to know their legal rights.

He says, “There is no legal reason whatsoever for churches to stop holding marriages in the ways they always have. They are free to do so.”

The Christian Institute has produced a new free legal guide, which gives reassurance that churches are well within their rights to say no to same-sex marriages.

“The behavior of Essex County Council goes to show why churches need to know their legal rights, because bureaucrats who want to push for gay marriage will try and go beyond the law,” warns Calvert.

He adds, “We want to be clear that Christians still have the right to express their belief that marriage is between a man and woman. Christians have every reason to be confident and bold in upholding the truth about marriage.”

“This is just the kind of thing we feared would happen,” says Colin Hart, campaign director of the Coalition for Marriage, which spearheaded opposition to the introduction of same-sex marriage.

“If this has already happened in Essex, there is a real danger that this kind of pressure will be applied by unelected officials across the country,” he warns.

The letter “lifts the lid on the Orwellian future that this ill-thought-through law creates,” Hart says.

Hart calls on the government to urgently issue advice to all local authorities in light of the new law and says Essex Council should conduct an urgent investigation as to “why this threatening letter was sent out to churches that are supposed to be exempt from the effect of the legislation.”

A spokesman for Essex County Council says, “Essex County Council’s guidance on registering a building certified as a Place of Religious Worship for same-sex marriages applies only to those institutions which want to conduct such ceremonies.

“A letter sent to churches in April may have created a different impression, and we issued a clarification within a week explaining the correct procedure.”

http://www.charismanews.com/world/43866-city-council-demands-churches-conduct-same-sex-weddings
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 #164 on: June 12, 2014, 08:28:21 am »

What Rights Will Others Lose When Homosexuals Gain Their Rights?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In April 2014, Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla (maker of the popular web browser Firefox) because of his support for traditional marriage. In 2008, he contributed $1,000 to back California’s Proposition 8 referendum which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman. A firestorm of criticism by intolerant homosexual activists and supporters, like a bunch of howler monkeys, forced Eich’s resignation within two weeks of his election to head Mozilla. Newt Gingrich called the pressure against Eich as a “blatant example of the new fascism.” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist.” RedState called it “a fascist purge.” Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia.” Even homosexual media personalities condemned the action. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce called it the “gay gestapo.” Andrew Sullivan condemned the “intimidating of free speech” and likened it to the inquisition of heretics.

In May 2014, a Miami Dolphins player was fined and sent to “educational training” after he tweeted a negative comment about the drafting of the first homosexual professional football player. When Michael Sams was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, Don Jones tweeted, “OMG” and “Horrible” (“NFL Player Fined,” The Blaze, May 11, 2014). The speech Nazis didn’t waste a minute in condemning this “homophobic” behavior, and Jones quickly apologized, saying that his comments were “inappropriate.”

In May 2014, AIDS expert Brendan Bain was fired for saying that homosexual sex acts are dangerous to those who practice them and to public health in general (“AIDS Expert Fired,” CharismaNews, May 21, 2014). In 2012, Professor Bain testified on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place, showing from his own research that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. Because of this testimony, he was fired this month from his position as director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. The homosexuals who are served by CHART believe that criminalizing homosexual acts forces the HIV epidemic underground and increases the HIV risk. The reality is that they don’t want to face the truth about their actions, so they seek to quiet every voice of opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California’s ban against “religious-viewpoint therapy for people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” And in January 2014 the federal court refused to review the case (“Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction,” Breitbart, Feb. 5, 2014). The court rejected the Liberty Counsel’s argument that the statue violates First Amendment rights of both counselors and patients. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 #165 on: June 12, 2014, 08:28:38 am »

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

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

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

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

In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Huguenins took the matter to court, but they have lost at every level. They lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart.com, Aug, 22, 2013). The judges went so far as to say that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is the price of citizenship. Justice Richard Bosson said, “The Huguenins are free to ... pray to the God of their choice ... But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. But in April 2014, in an ominous ruling against first amendment rights, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand against Elene Photography.

Legal pundits say that it is probable that the Supreme Court will wait until a federal appeals court rules on this issue before taking it into consideration, but it is ominous that the judges had no interest in giving immediate relief to Christians who are being oppressed by homosexual activists and by a government bent on advancing a “new morality.” This will create a climate in which it will be nearly impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to own a business or hold a job, particularly in government and education, if he or she is not willing to accept the government’s view of morality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In February 2014, Maine’s supreme court ruled that a local school district discriminated against a fifth grade male student that “identifies as a female” when it refused to let him use the girls’ restroom (“Main Supreme Court Rules School Discriminated Against Boy,” Christian News, Feb. 4, 2014). The school offered to let the student use the staff bathroom, but on a 5-1 decision the court deemed that unacceptable. Lower courts had sided with the school district, but the state supreme court has overturned this ruling. Justice Warren Silver wrote on behalf of the majority. “Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.”

Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute observed, “It is imperative that parents in every state contact their elected officials to demand increased protections for student privacy. It is alarming that the Maine decision and similar pushes by transgender activists are blatantly ignoring the constitutional rights of the more than 99% of students who do not identify as transgender.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html
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 #166 on: June 16, 2014, 01:45:03 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sign-order-extending-lgbt-protections-160246439--finance.html
Obama to sign order extending LGBT protections
6/16/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, a White House official said Monday.

The move follows years of pressure from gay rights groups for Obama to act on his own while a broader employment non-discrimination measure languishes on Capitol Hill. The Senate passed the legislation last year but the bill stalled in the Republican-led House and there is little sign that lawmakers will take it up in an election year.

There is currently no federal law that explicitly bans workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. While Obama does not have the authority to extend that protection to all Americans, he can take unilateral action that impacts federal contractors, which make up nearly one-quarter of the U.S. workforce.

Obama has used this tactic before, signing executive orders that raise the minimum wage for federal contractors and expanding the number of workers who would be eligible for overtime pay. White House officials have cast the approach as part of the president's effort to work around a Congress that continues to be mired in gridlock.

But those moves increased the frustration among gay rights supporters who have long pressed Obama to extend workplace discrimination protections to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals working for federal contractors. The White House publicly offered little explanation as to why the president moved forward on the wage-related orders but not the anti-discrimination measure.

The official would not say when Obama planned to sign the order, only that the president had asked his staff to prepare a measure for his signature. The official insisted on anonymity, lacking authorization to discuss the president's decision by name.

The official said the White House wanted to preview the president's upcoming action because of the "intense interest" in the executive order.

The announcement comes one day before Obama travels to New York for the Democratic National Committee's annual gay and lesbian fundraiser. LGBT donors have used previous fundraisers to press Obama on this issue.

Obama's plan to sign the order was welcomed by gay rights groups. Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called it a "major step forward."

"Through his actions, the president has demonstrated again his commitment to ending discrimination," Carey said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: June 16, 2014, 07:39:20 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/prez-takes-gay-rights-own-hands-232500679--politics.html
Prez Takes Gay Rights Into His Own Hands
6/16/14

Excerpt:

This is a big deal. LGBT activists have generally regarded employment nondiscrimination as the “third leg of the stool”—the other two being same-sex marriage and the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But it’s also the thickest of the three. Many more LGBTs have jobs than get married or serve in the military—including some of the most vulnerable. To get a sense of the crisis, check out this incredible spread of “LGBT People Fired in 2013” from the gay newspaper The Advocate.

Perhaps most important, Obama’s executive order is said to include gender identity and gender presentation. Transgender people routinely are fired when they transition, especially if they don’t yet conform to stereotypes of how ladylike ladies and manly men are supposed to look.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: June 17, 2014, 10:33:54 pm »

Jeremiah 25:27  Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you.
Jer 25:28  And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.
Jer 25:29  For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the LORD of hosts.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: June 19, 2014, 11:45:59 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/coming-gay-marriage-witch-hunt-094500911--politics.html
6/19/14
The Coming Gay Marriage Witch Hunt

The war is over. Or at least it is nearing its end.

In November 2012, same-sex marriage was legalized at the ballot box in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, while Minnesota defeated a constitutional ban. Since then, bills legalizing same-sex marriage have been passed in Rhode Island and Delaware. Courts in deeply conservative states like Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kentucky have ruled that marriage bans violate the Constitution. Nearly every Democratic office holder in the land supports same-sex marriage, and each day seems to bring another Republican over.

Savvy conservatives and evangelicals are acknowledging, often privately, that public opinion is not in their favor. And they fear what will happen in the future to those who fought against the rising tide of public opinion.

“We have people who are losing their jobs, being smeared publicly because they hold the view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical think tank and lobbying organization. “They are called bigots. Homophobes. That is not the way we operate in a free society.”

Perkins was speaking to The Daily Beast in the lobby of a New Orleans hotel in between sessions of the Republican Leadership Conference, a semi-annual gathering of conservatives from around the country. At an address to the delegates earlier in the day, Perkins railed against what he called, “The New McCarthyism,” which “would force every corporate leader, university official, public contractor, or media figure to answer a question: ‘Are you now or have you ever been involved in an effort to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman?’”

“No, I’ll go further than that,” Perkins continued. “This New McCarthyism demands, ‘Do you now think or have you ever thought that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman?’ Answer incorrectly, and watch your career be taken from you and your reputation smeared on a thousand websites.”

Many of these fears burst out into the open earlier this year when Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla, was run out of his position after it was revealed that he had donated money to the anti-gay marriage cause in California. Although some supporters of gay rights even thought the Eich affair was handled poorly, it sent a signal “that you have to be politically correct if you want to attain a higher position,” said Warner Todd Huston, a conservative activist and writer.

“That is the fear, that traditional American values are being criminalized as opposed to simply being out of fashion,” he said.

For gay rights activists, such concerns appear overblown and can be used to stoke paranoia on the right.

“This is a tactic. We have to call this out,” said Alvin McEwan, author of How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America and a blogger at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, a site, he says, that is dedicated to showing “how religious-right groups distort legitimate research and rely on junk studies to stigmatize the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities.” The Eich case, McEwan said, was not proof of a witch hunt but proof that the American free enterprise system that conservatives extol was working properly.


“People have a right to boycott a business if they don’t like you,” he said.

And even though McEwan said he does not think that gay marriage opponents should be cast out of public life, conservatives, he added, have been warning the citizenry about “the gay agenda” for years.

“They have this entitlement thing,” he said. “They have a right to believe what they want to believe, but they have to share the country.”

Same-sex marriage is, of course, not the first issue to divide Americans. Slavery, segregation, and abortion led to civil war, vigilante violence, and massive protest movements.

But opponents of same-sex marriage say that even in those instances there was détente after passions cooled. One-time segregationists remained in the upper echelons of American public life through the 1990s. This time, opponents of same-sex marriage fear that supporters will not be happy until their side has been run out of polite society and forced to retract their previously held views.

Even supporters of abortion don’t go around saying that people who believe that life begins at conception are evil people,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization of Marriage. “But this is not the case here, and the problem is that the establishment gay marriage groups have not condemned this view that those of us who favor traditional marriage are bigots and therefore should be abolished.”

Brown’s group has fought to keep the names of its donors secret for just that reason. He has been threatened and targeted, he said, and pointed to an incident last year in which a gunman attempted to shoot up the headquarters of the Family Research Council while holding a bag of food from Chik-fil-A, the conservative Christian company that was a target of boycotts over its owner’s anti-gay views. Brown noted that according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the FRC is a “hate group, in the same category as the KKK.”

Another difference between earlier American civil rights conflicts and this one, he said, was that slavery, or discriminating against someone on the basis of race, was considered immoral around the world for centuries while the practice was ongoing in parts of the U.S. Hardly anyone in politics, on the other hand, was pushing for gay marriage “until about 10 years ago, but the people who don’t totally want to redefine a definition of marriage that has lasted for thousands of years need to be shunned.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say that even liberals have started to feel the effects of the witch hunt. While to many listeners Hillary Clinton’s interview with Terry Gross last week was an example of a politician fumbling through a response to a question about her evolution on gay marriage, to conservatives it was proof that everyone who once held a different view must now apologize and be publicly flogged for it.

Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has argued against legalizing same-sex marriage, said he does not think opponents will be treated the same way those who opposed, say, interracial marriage are now. And he cited an example that proponents of gay rights often use to describe the evolution of greater acceptance of their ideas.

Even proponents of same-sex marriage, Anderson said, “may have family members who are against gay marriage. It is hard to believe that my mom or my great-uncle or someone is a bigot.”

Yet Anderson himself was involved in an incident that anti-gay marriage activists point to as an example of the increasing threat they are under. After he was booked to speak at Stanford earlier this year, an uproar ensued and gay student groups demanded that the organization that invited Anderson be stripped of its funding to put on the event.

Anderson said he had spoken at the university without incident the previous year, and he attributed the change in tone to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s ruling in the Supreme Court’s gay marriage case, in which he wrote that the purpose of bans was to “disparage and injure” gay couples.

“He was essentially saying that opposing viewpoints don’t have a right to be heard,” Anderson said.


In the meantime, as this particular culture war fades out, it is unclear when the soldiers will be free to leave their trenches, and conservatives know who to blame.

“The pro-gay marriage people need to accept that even though we disagree, we are not hateful,” said Brown. “This notion that our position is one that doesn’t belong in the public square is something we should all be worried about.”
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: June 20, 2014, 08:57:28 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-extends-family-leave-rights-gay-couples-040353756.html
Obama extends family leave rights of gay couples
6/20/14

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Friday will announce a rule that makes legally married same-sex couples eligible for benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act in all 50 states, a White House official said.

Currently, legally married couples are eligible for those benefits if they reside in a state in which same-sex marriage is legal. Obama is directing the Department of Labor to propose a rule extending the FMLA rights even to states where gay unions are not legal.

The rule is being issued as Attorney General Eric Holder announces the results of a review of U.S. laws in the wake of the landmark 2013 Supreme Court Windsor decision that held that the survivor of a same-sex couple could claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

The decision forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and has paved the way for the Obama administration to take steps to expand the legal rights of gay couples.

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for family and medical purposes.

Holder is due to issue a review on Friday of how the more than 1,000 different federal rights and obligations linked to a marriage or a spouse are affected by the Windsor decision.

Obama on Tuesday said he would sign an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on their sexual orientation, but he also told gay rights activists they need to keep up the pressure on Congress to pass a broader law.

In February, Holder announced widespread changes within the Justice Department to benefit same-sex married couples, such as recognizing a legal right for them not to testify against each other in civil and criminal cases.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: June 21, 2014, 04:08:57 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights-133650286.html
Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights
6/21/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Barack Obama, who established his bona fides as a gay and lesbian rights champion when he endorsed same-sex marriage, has steadily extended his administration's advocacy to the smallest and least accepted band of the LGBT rainbow: transgender Americans.

With little of the fanfare or criticism that marked his evolution into the leader Newsweek nicknamed "the first gay president," Obama became the first chief executive to say "transgender" in a speech, to name transgender political appointees and to prohibit job bias against transgender government workers. Also in his first term, he signed hate crime legislation that became the first federal civil rights protections for transgender people in U.S. history.

Since then, the administration has quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to update their passports, obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, get treatment at Veteran's Administration facilities and seek access to public school restrooms and sports programs — just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama's presidency.

"He has been the best president for transgender rights, and nobody else is in second place," Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said of Obama, who is the only president to invite transgender children to participate in the annual Easter egg roll at the White House.

Religious conservative groups quick to criticize the president for his gay rights advocacy have been much slower to respond to the administration's actions. The leader of the Traditional Values Coalition says there is little recourse because the changes come through executive orders and federal agencies rather than Congress.

The latest wins came this month, when the Office of Personnel Management announced that government-contracted health insurers could start covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for federal employees, retirees and their survivors, ending a 40-year prohibition. Two weeks earlier, a decades-old rule preventing Medicare from financing such procedures was overturned within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Unlike Obama's support for same-sex marriage and lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on openly gay troops, the White House's work to promote transgender rights has happened mostly out of the spotlight.

Some advances have gone unnoticed because they also benefited the much larger gay, lesbian and bisexual communities. That was the case Monday when the White House announced that Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In other instances, transgender rights groups and the administration have agreed on a low-key approach, both to skirt resistance and to send the message that changes are not a big deal, said Barbara Siperstein, who in 2009 became the first transgender person elected to the Democratic National Committee.

"It's quiet by design, because the louder you are in Washington, the more the drama," said Siperstein, who helped organize the first meeting between White House aides and transgender rights advocates without the participation of gay rights leaders.

The 2011 meeting came 34 years after Jimmy Carter's administration made history by meeting with gay rights groups. Obama's Cabinet and federal agencies have followed up with actions significantly expanding transgender rights without congressional approval.

For instance, Health and Human Services said in 2012 that it would apply the non-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act to investigate federally funded health plans and care providers that refused to serve transgender individuals.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Education Department informed public schools that under its reading of Title IX, the 1972 law that bans gender discrimination in education, transgender students are entitled to federal civil rights protections. The information was included in a memo on schools' obligations to respond to student-on-student sexual violence.

Obama has made clear the guidance has potentially broad implications.

"Title IX is a very powerful tool," he said last week. "The fact that we are applying it to transgender students means that they are going to be in a position to assert their rights if and when they see that they are being discriminated on their college campuses."

Meanwhile, religious conservative groups' opposition to transgender advocacy has trickled in.

The Traditional Values Coalition has lobbied against a bill that would provide federal workplace protections for gay and transgender people by warning that it would require schools to permit teachers to remain on the job amid gender transitions. Group President Andrea Lafferty said no one should mistake the absence of vocal opposition for acquiescence.

"There are other people who are concerned about these things, definitely. I think America is just overwhelmed right now," she said. "Everybody is going to have to take a step back, and that step back is going to be this November."

The stage was set for Obama to become a champion of transgender rights when the LGBT community split over an earlier version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that Lafferty's group is fighting.

In fall 2007, openly gay Rep. Barney Frank pursued, with the blessing of the nation's largest gay rights group, legislation prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians, but not transgender people. As Frank put it plainly, there were not enough Democratic votes to get a "trans-inclusive" law through the House.

Transgender advocates who had lobbied for legal recognition of same-sex relationships were livid and persuaded more than 100 civil rights groups to oppose a bill that left transgender rights for another day.

"The community was forced to decide: Where are you going to stand?" recalled Diego Sanchez, who was the first openly transgender person appointed to the DNC's platform committee and later became the first transgender staff member on Capitol Hill as Frank's top senior policy adviser.

At the 2008 Democratic convention where Obama was nominated, 28 years after the party pledged to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation, language was added to accomplish the same for gender identity.

As president, Obama has embraced the task of putting that pledge into practice, said Sanchez, now national policy director at Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"It's easier for voices to be heard once you are already in the room," he said. "What has changed is who is listening."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: June 25, 2014, 05:41:15 pm »

1Corinthians 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

First off, I am NOT defending transgenderism whatsoever - but nonetheless was researching it just now, and apparently THIS part of the sodomy agenda is by far THE most complex of them all, why? B/c apparently it's not necessarily a male/male and female/female lust attraction issue, but WHICH GENDER they IDENTIFY with(which is why for years and years, this part of the sodomy equation was really not accepted by the sodomites). IOW, even heterosexuals are part of this transgender group.

The reason why I researched this is b/c there was a Yahoo story today over some football player who committed adultery with a transgender(his wife is a famous reality show star).

It reminded me of this verse - how the EFFEMINATE shall not inherit the kingdom of God - honestly, really could never completely, until I researched transgender and saw the true definition of it(and how Obama endorsing it this week was BIG news).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Transgender people and the LGBT community
See also: LGBT

The concepts of gender identity and transgender identity differ from that of sexual orientation.[61] Sexual orientation describes an individual's enduring physical, romantic, emotional, and/or spiritual attraction to another person, while gender identity is one's personal sense of being a man or a woman.[30] Transgender people have more or less the same variety of sexual orientations as cisgender people.[62] In the past, the terms homosexual and heterosexual were incorrectly used to label transgender individuals' sexual orientation based on their birth sex.[63] Professional literature now uses terms such as attracted to men (androphilic), attracted to women (gynephilic), attracted to both (Bisexual) or attracted to neither (Asexual) to describe a person's sexual orientation without reference to their gender identity.[64] Therapists are coming to understand the necessity of using terms with respect to their clients' gender identities and preferences.[65] For example, a person who is assigned male at birth, transitions to female, and is attracted to men would be identified as heterosexual.

Despite the distinction between sexual orientation and gender, throughout history the gay, lesbian, and bisexual subculture was often the only place where gender-variant people were socially accepted in the gender role they felt they belonged to; especially during the time when legal or medical transitioning was almost impossible. This acceptance has had a complex history. Like the wider world, the gay community in Western societies did not generally distinguish between sex and gender identity until the 1970s, and often perceived gender variant people more as homosexuals who behaved in a gender-variant way than as gender-variant people in their own right. Today, members of the transgender community often continue to struggle to remain part of the same movement as lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens, and to be included in rights protections.

http://news.yahoo.com/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights-133650286.html
Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights
6/21/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Barack Obama, who established his bona fides as a gay and lesbian rights champion when he endorsed same-sex marriage, has steadily extended his administration's advocacy to the smallest and least accepted band of the LGBT rainbow: transgender Americans.


Also - the NIV and these other perversions REMOVE this very effeminate word!
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: June 25, 2014, 05:54:10 pm »

And speaking of transgender women(described only transgender men above)...

Romans 1:25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


Not only the men, but the women too are doing JUST THAT when they insist on "identifying" themselves with the male sex(change the natural use into that which is against nature...).

And also wanted to bring this up(while discussing this) - personally, was never a fan of NASCAR(or auto racing for that matter too) - but aren't all of these women competitors in this largely dominated male sport acting as just that in this sport...a TRANSGENDER, b/c deep down inside they're all but identifying themselves to compete against mostly men in this dangerous sport? Like I said, I'm no fan of auto racing, but it occured to me recently when I was looking more into this sodomy agenda.

1Timothy 2:9  In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Ti 2:10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.


1Peter 3:1  Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2  While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3  Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4  But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6  Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1Pe 3:7  Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Report Spam   Logged
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: June 29, 2014, 12:47:47 pm »

towleroad
http://touch.towleroad.com/all/2014-06-grindr-pride-survey-reveals-workplace-discrimination-concerns.html#1


"It’s a great time to be gay -- not just because it’s pride season, but because the tide is shifting for our community,” said Grindr CEO Joel Simkhai in an email statement. “Our voices are being heard as laws are changing, people are getting married and we have more allies than ever before."

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #175 on: June 30, 2014, 03:16:25 pm »

And this is the same USSC that voted for "religious liberty" earlier today! Shocked

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-clears-ban-gay-conversion-therapy-194053503--politics.html
Supreme Court clears ban on gay conversion therapy
6/30/14

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for enforcement of a first-of-its-kind California law that bars psychological counseling aimed at turning gay minors straight.

The justices turned aside a legal challenge brought by supporters of so-called conversion or reparative therapy. Without comment, they let stand an August 2013 appeals court ruling that said the ban covered professional activities that are within the state's authority to regulate and doesn't violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that therapies designed to change sexual orientation for those under the age of 18 were outside the scientific mainstream and have been disavowed by most major medical groups as unproven and potentially dangerous.

"The Supreme Court has cement shut any possible opening to allow further psychological child abuse in California," state Sen. Ted Lieu, the law's sponsor, said Monday. "The Court's refusal to accept the appeal of extreme ideological therapists who practice the quackery of gay conversion therapy is a victory for child welfare, science and basic humane principles."

The law says professional therapists and counselors who use treatments designed to eliminate or reduce same-sex attractions in their patients would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards. It does not cover the actions of pastors and lay counselors who are unlicensed but provide such therapy through church programs.

Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal aid group, had challenged the law, as did other supporters of the therapy. They argue that lawmakers have no scientific proof the therapy does harm. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill outlawing the practice in his state last year and Liberty Counsel has been fighting that law as well.

"I am deeply saddened for the families we represent and for the thousands of children that our professional clients counsel," Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver said in a statement Monday. "The minors we represent do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior."

California's law was supposed to take effect last year, but it has been on hold while a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn it made their way to the Supreme Court.

Now that the high court has declined to take the case, the state will be able to start enforcing the law after the 9th Circuit lifts an injunction it put into place during the litigation, an action that is expected to come within days, according to Christopher Stoll, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: July 08, 2014, 10:53:20 am »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/07/california-bill-replacing-words-husband-wife-in-marriage-law-signed-by-gov/?intcmp=latestnews
7/7/14
California governor signs bill replacing words 'husband' and 'wife' in state law

The terms “husband” and “wife” have been deleted from California’s marriage law under a bill signed into law Monday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The terms will be replaced with “spouse” to accommodate same-sex marriage, which became legal in the state last year after the Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved ban on it.

SB1306, the bill signed Monday by Brown, takes effect Jan. 1 and reflects the legality of gay marriage after a decade of litigation. The law also removes limits on recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state.

The language was enacted after voters approved Proposition 22 in 2000. The initiative was struck down by the California Supreme Court in 2008, prompting voters to amend the constitution and ban gay marriage.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision ruling the ban unconstitutional. The bill was authored by state Sen. Mark Leno of San Francisco, who said Monday the bill is necessary to update existing state law.   

“I am pleased Governor Brown has recognized the importance of this bill, which makes it explicitly clear in state law that every loving couple has the right to marry in California,” Leno said. “This legislation removes outdated and biased language from state codes and recognizes all married spouses equally, regardless of their gender.”
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21755



View Profile
« Reply #177 on: July 09, 2014, 12:01:52 pm »

Chilling Implications? Largest Bank Asks Workers if They Support Homosexuality

The largest bank in the United States now allegedly requires its employees to state whether or not they are supporters of the homosexual lifestyle.

JPMorgan Chase, headquartered in New York City, is the United States’ largest bank, with total assets of over $2.5 trillion. The bank has overtly supported homosexuality for several years, appearing in several “gay pride” events and even offering a number of special benefits to bank employees who identify as “LGBT.”

Now, JPMorgan Chase has taken their LGBT support even further, reportedly requiring all their employees to voice whether or not they support the so-called “LGBT community”. According to Princeton University Professor Robert George, the bank recently surveyed their workers, asking them to state which of the following descriptions applied to them:

    A person with disabilities;
    A person with children with disabilities;
    A person with a spouse/domestic partner with disabilities;
    A member of the LGBT community;
    An ally of the LGBT community, but not personally identifying as LGBT.

An unnamed individual, who has worked at JPMorgan Chase for 11 years, first alerted George of the unprecedented survey. The employee told George, who is chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, that the questionnaire “had many of us scratching our heads.”

“What?! What kind of question was that?” the employee had wondered. “An ‘ally’ of that community? What’s the alternative if you don’t select that option? You’re not [an] ally of the LGBT community?”

The employee further explained that the survey was not anonymous, since it required everyone to enter personal identification information. The implications, he suggested, are chilling.

“With the way things are going and the fact that LGBT rights are being viewed as pretty much tantamount to the civil rights movement of the mid-50s to late 60s, not selecting that option is essentially saying ‘I’m not an ally of civil rights’; which is a vague way to say ‘I’m a bigot,’” he told George. “The worry among many of us is that those who didn’t select that poorly placed, irrelevant option will be placed on the ‘you can fire these people first’ list.”

    Connect with Christian News

George agreed, writing in a blog post that JPMorgan Chase could quickly quash any dissenters who do not support the homosexual lifestyle.

“The message to all employees is perfectly clear:  You are expected to fall into line with the approved and required thinking,” George stated. “Nothing short of assent is acceptable. Silent dissent will no longer be permitted.”

After George first drew attention to the JPMorgan Chase survey, another employee of the bank contacted him to confirm the initial report.

“I just wanted to confirm the Chase employee survey,” the second employee said. “It did have the last two options about being an LBGT ally. … was blown away by this question. I have no idea what they were thinking when they asked that.”

As previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that “closely held corporations” can operate according to their owners’ religious beliefs. However, because JPMorgan Chase is a publicly-traded banking company, the same standards likely do not apply. The bank’s questioning of employees’ beliefs on homosexuality is therefore concerning to many Christians.

http://christiannews.net/2014/07/07/chilling-implications-largest-u-s-bank-asks-workers-if-they-support-homosexuality/
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 #178 on: July 18, 2014, 06:07:40 pm »

Obama to sign orders protecting gay employees
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_RIGHTS_RELIGION?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-07-18-15-47-07
7/18/14

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama plans to sign executive orders Monday prohibiting discrimination against gay and transgender workers in the federal government and its contracting agencies, without a new exemption that was requested by some religious organizations.

Obama's action comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed some religiously oriented businesses to opt out of the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Senior administration officials said Friday that ruling has no impact on non-discrimination policies in federal hiring and contracting.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the plans publicly.

Since Obama announced last month that he would sign the orders, he's faced pressure from opposing flanks over the religious exemption and given no indication of where he would come down. Many religious leaders and conservative groups wanted him to exempt religious organizations from the order, while liberal clergy and gay advocacy groups adamantly opposed such an exemption.

Until last month, Obama long resisted pressure to pursue an executive order for federal contractors in hopes that Congress would take more sweeping action banning anti-LGBT workplace discrimination nationwide. A bill to accomplish that goal - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - passed the Senate last year with some Republican support, but has not been taken up by the GOP-controlled House.

The senior officials said Obama's action planned for Monday at the White House would amend two executive orders. The first, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, gender or nationality in hiring. Obama plans to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protections, and order the Labor Department to carry out the order. The officials said that means the change will probably take effect by early next year.

President George W. Bush had amended Johnson's order in 2002 to allow religious groups to hire and fire based upon religious identity. Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit. The senior administration officials said Obama will not change those exemptions.

The second order Obama will amend was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 to prevent discrimination against federal workers based on race, religion, gender, nationality, age or disability. President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation, and Obama will include gender identity in a change to immediately take effect.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said: "With two strokes of a pen, the President will have a very real and immediate impact on the lives of millions of LGBT people across the country."

The administration officials said the change for federal contracting will impact some 24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. Many large federal contractors already have employment policies barring anti-gay workplace discrimination, as do 21 states. However, the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that the executive order would extend protections to about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not have such nondiscrimination policies.

While few religious organizations are among the biggest federal contractors, they do provide some valued services, including overseas relief and development programs and re-entry programs for inmates leaving federal prisons.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #179 on: July 21, 2014, 11:38:53 am »

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-gives-protection-to-gay-transgender-workers
Obama gives protection to gay, transgender workers
7/21/14

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Monday gave employment protection to gay and transgender workers in the federal government and its contracting agencies, after being convinced by advocates of what he called the "irrefutable rightness of your cause."

"America's federal contracts should not subsidize discrimination against the American people," Obama said at a signing ceremony from the White House East Room. He said it's unacceptable that being gay is still a firing offense in most places in the United States.

Until last month, Obama long resisted pressure to pursue an executive anti-discrimination covering federal contractors in the hope that Congress would take more sweeping action banning anti-LGBT workplace discrimination across the landscape of employment in America. A bill to accomplish that goal — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — passed the Senate last year with some Republican support, but has not been taken up by the GOP-controlled House. "We're here to do what we can to make it right," Obama said.

Since Obama announced that he would sign the orders, he's faced pressure from opposing flanks over whether he would include an exemption for religious organizations. He decided to maintain a provision that allows religious groups with federal contracts to hire and fire based upon religious identity, but not give them any exception to consider sexual orientation or gender identity. Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit.

Obama's action comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Hobby Lobby case that allowed some religiously oriented businesses to opt out of the federal health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. Obama advisers said that ruling has no impact on non-discrimination policies in federal hiring and contracting.

Obama said 18 states and more than 200 local governments already ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as a majority of Fortune 500 companies. But he noted that more states allow same-sex marriage than prohibit gay discrimination in hiring.

"It's not just about doing the right thing, it's also about attracting and retaining the best talent," Obama said.

The change for federal contracting will impact some 24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. Many large federal contractors already have employment policies barring anti-gay workplace discrimination. However, the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that the executive order would extend protections to about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not have such nondiscrimination policies.

While few religious organizations are among the biggest federal contractors, they do provide some valued services, including overseas relief and development programs and re-entry programs for inmates leaving federal prisons.

Obama amended two executive orders. The first, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, gender or nationality in hiring. President George W. Bush had amended Johnson's order in 2002 to add the exemption for religious groups.

Obama added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protections, and ordered the Labor Department to carry out the order. Administration officials said that means the change will probably take effect by early next year.

Obama also amended an order signed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 to prevent discrimination against federal workers based on race, religion, gender, nationality, age or disability. President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation, and Obama will include gender identity in a change that will immediately take effect.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 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