End Times and Current Events
August 22, 2017, 09:20:28 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

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

What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal

Shoutbox
August 21, 2017, 04:12:33 am Christian40 says: Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
July 24, 2017, 11:47:30 am Romans 14:21 says: Yeah, just saw Dr. Johnson talking about it in his last audio study. Haven't listened to it yet, but looking forward to hearing that.
July 23, 2017, 03:58:47 am Christian40 says: i learnt that magnesium is one of the best things for the body and should be like a number one for good health
July 18, 2017, 04:09:19 am Christian40 says: BBC International on youtube has some good videos by Dr Gene Kim
June 21, 2017, 05:50:35 pm Romans 14:21 says: Mark, I don't want to flood your pm box. But just wanted to say I emailed bro Scott about this issue.
April 29, 2017, 05:20:18 am Christian40 says: What i'm thinking a strike on North Korea possible on some occultic date May 1? the aftermath of WW3 will bring in the Antichrist? Yeah Mayhem in May?
April 20, 2017, 04:55:44 pm Mark says:
April 06, 2017, 09:26:29 pm Mark says: TRUMP LAUNCHES 50+ MISSILES AIMED AT SYRIA
March 05, 2017, 01:16:17 am Christian40 says: i hope the rapture is this year i encourage You to keep working for the Lord
March 05, 2017, 01:06:24 am Christian40 says: i'm glad that the summer is over in Australia the heat was making me feel crazy its a good month to be in now
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 7492 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2013, 04:10:19 am »

IRS Could Revoke Non-Profit Status for Religious Institutions over Same-Sex Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2013, 11:44:26 am »

"Could Revoke"? I have little doubt they WILL revoke non-profit status of those who don't tow the federal line. Now that they got the Supreme Court ruling out of the way, it's open season on anybody that opposes homosexuality.

Side Note:

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2013, 03:57:49 pm »

This is one of those read between the lines stories, but you can see the "tolerance" card being used. Funny how tollerance only ever goes one way

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


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

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

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

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
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2013, 05:41:40 pm »

Quote
Jeffress responded, saying that "there is a good case beyond the Bible for traditional heterosexual marriages."
 
"In my book, I quote Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan who said, 'if we were trying to design a situation in which to best raise a child, it would be one in which the child is connected to both of its biological parents.' That's not always possible, but it ought to be the preferred status, and government ought to promote it, instead of discourage it," the Dallas pastor said.

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

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


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

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

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

Rom 2:1  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2  But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3  And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4  Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5  But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6  Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2013, 03:20:15 am »

Quote
Countering Jeffress' statement (Democratic strategist Bernard Whitman), Whitman claimed that children who are raised by LGBT couples are better adjusted and healthier than those who are raised by heterosexual parents.

This guy is an idiot! I'm guessing he's gay too?  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2013, 11:11:51 am »

Obama To Force All Churches To Perform Gay Marriages?

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


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

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

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

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2013, 03:00:35 pm »

9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10  For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:9-12 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2013, 03:28:21 pm »

San Antonio pastors oppose city's proposed anti-discrimination law

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


http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/San-Antonio-pastors-oppose-citys-proposed-anti-discrimination-law--214134941.html
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2013, 03:28:49 pm »

Proposed Law Prohibits Christians From Working For San Antonio City Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://godfatherpolitics.com/11568/proposed-law-prohibits-christians-from-working-for-san-antonio-city-government/
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2013, 07:09:06 am »

Street Preacher Brutally Beaten During Seattle ‘Gay Pride’ Event
Posted by Erin Benziger ∙ 6 July 2013 ∙ In News   

From Christian News Network:

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

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



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

The Christian Post reports:

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

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

Report Spam   Logged

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2013, 01:57:42 pm »

Quote
Tony Miano, a retired deputy sheriff from Los Angeles County, Calif., was arrested in London, England, earlier this week for preaching on abstaining from sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, in downtown Wimbledon

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

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Matthew 5:25 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: July 12, 2013, 01:44:09 am »

Obama To Force All Churches To Perform Gay Marriages?

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2013, 07:46:48 am »

U.S. city looks to penalize Bible believers
 
Critics charge 'anti-bias' requirement punishes people with moral convictions


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





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

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

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

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2013, 04:08:16 pm »

Quote
the change creates a penalty for those who ever exhibit a “bias,” which clearly could include adopting the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, with a permanent ban on participation in city government, business or employment.

"And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Revelation 13:17 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2013, 03:33:49 pm »

Jul 26, 10:53 AM EDT
UN human rights office unveils gay-rights campaign
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UN_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-26-10-53-25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2013, 09:00:13 am »

Open Season on Christians after Pro-Gay Rulings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stage Set for Persecution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florist Refuses Gay Couple

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

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

Peters summed up Stutzman's case.

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

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

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

Gay Activists: Passivity = Bigotry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Blow to Military Readiness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2013, 02:36:34 pm »

Quote
"I mean, we've seen very recent gay pride events where there were Christians beaten because they took a stand for biblical morality."

 Roll Eyes

So churchianity thinks it's okay to go harass people at their parties, but I suspect those same church-goers would throw a fit if a bunch of gays showed at their Sunday "church" services protesting Christianity.
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2013, 08:35:46 am »

Roll Eyes

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

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

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

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

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


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

Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2013, 06:14:46 am »

Do Christians Have Free Speech Rights to Preach That Homosexuality is a Sin? British Police Asked to Confirm After Arrest

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

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

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/do-christians-have-free-speech-rights-to-preach-that-homosexuality-is-a-sin-british-police-asked-to-confirm-after-arrest-101098/#d5410vOeYDxCHyCr.99
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
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2013, 07:21:20 am »

John 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20  For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.


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

Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2013, 01:40:27 pm »

Released, with no charges, but they still got his DNA!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 09, 2013, 11:08:34 am »

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/transgender-tv-host-b-scott-sues-bet-for-gender-discrimination-200710888.html
Transgender TV Host B. Scott Sues BET for Gender Discrimination
8/8/13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2013, 12:20:57 pm »

Business owners threatened, face legal action for refusing to rent facility for gay ‘wedding’

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

Betty Odgaard

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

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

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f-k-you-f-k-your-god-f-k-your-religion-business-owners-threatened-for-refus
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: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2013, 01:26:18 pm »

California Considers Punishing Youth Groups Against Homosexuality as ‘Bathroom Bill’ Becomes Law

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

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

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

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

http://christiannews.net/2013/08/14/california-considers-punishing-youth-groups-against-homosexuality-as-bathroom-bill-becomes-law/
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
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2013, 01:58:58 pm »

Quote
"Our state values the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next generation,” Lara stated. “This is demonstrated by rewarding organizations with tax exemptions supported financially by all Californians. SB323 seeks to end the unfortunate discriminatory and outdated practices by certain youth groups by revoking their tax exemption privilege should they not comply with our non-discrimination laws.”

That's not what scripture says...

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

If you're a 501c3, then you all but gave up your constitutional rights.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2013, 03:41:03 pm »

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

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

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

"Ye cannot serve God and mammon"
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 20880



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2013, 09:31:24 am »

Judge: Foreigners can sue U.S. pastor over sermons
 
Lets Uganda 'gays'' claim of 'crime against humanity' proceed against Bible preaching


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

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

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/judge-foreigners-can-sue-u-s-pastor-over-sermons/#qI7cp8DCRQw1SQYR.99
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
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2013, 12:12:55 pm »

Didn't Rick Warren try to make Uganda, at one time, one of the "Purpose Driven" nations? I wonder if he will speak up about this? Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2013, 01:21:10 pm »

I'm noticing a pattern with these type cases, where some "Christian" is persecuted, and then in their defense, claim a constitutional right to free speech. And they keep losing. Hmm.

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

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

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

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

To me, it's the same difference as having a "public defender" appointed and payed by Caesar to defend you against Caesar's prosecutors! Talk about a kangaroo court!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Romans 14:21
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 27637


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: August 16, 2013, 01:29:21 pm »

I'm noticing a pattern with these type cases, where some "Christian" is persecuted, and then in their defense, claim a constitutional right to free speech. And they keep losing. Hmm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pt being that the defendents in these high profile cases are being defended by CONTROLLED OPPOSITION. It's also these Liberty Council types that are defending these state anti-abortion laws that are being brought to the court systems by Planned Parenthood - no wonder why they are losing them as well(not that the courts systems are compromised to begin with).
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines