End Times and Current Events
November 21, 2019, 11:31:21 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
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.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 11173 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #300 on: July 15, 2015, 06:41:40 am »

Pro-gay activists react to gay ‘marriage’ resistance: ‘Too many Christians, not enough lions’

There has been no shortage of anti-Christian rhetoric from various media outlets in the fallout from the Supreme Court decision decreeing homosexual "marriage" across the country.

"Too many Christians, not enough lions," a derisive reference capitalizing on the Christians martyred in ancient Rome, was also how one LGBT activist responded to Catholic Vote's (CV) pro-marriage "Not Alone" video, according to CV President Brian Burch.

Released the day of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, the CV video logged more than 1.3 million views in the first 10 days.

"Seeing the power of our message, LGBT activists have now mounted a massive campaign to mock, ridicule, and shame us," Burch wrote to supporters. "They have used every curse word (and more) to attack us personally. They threatened our staff with phone calls. And now some are openly calling for the persecution of Christians."

Defaming of Christians, and Christ, continued over at The Huffington Post, where a column by Jules Suzdaltsev titled "Was Jesus Gay?" was picked up July 8.

"After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage," the column began, "it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people."

"As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise," Suzdaltsev wrote. "Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic."

The piece went on to make derogatory comments about the crucified Lord and conservatives.

The original July 6 article came from the website Vice, where the author interviewed openly homosexual pastor Bob Shore-Goss, first asking whether Shore-Goss thought Jesus Christ was gay.

"I would hope he is. I would project that he is," Shore-Goss responded. "For my own spirituality, I would love to jump into bed with Jesus. At the very least, Jesus was queer."

The piece then endeavored to present biblical evidence of Jesus's homosexuality, including asserting that St. Paul was a closeted homosexual.

Elsewhere on the Huffington Post, in a vulgarly titled piece, blogger Domenick Scudera called the CV video supporting marriage "offensive."

"Yes, it is harsh being labeled a bigot," he wrote, addressing the young adults in the video. "But you brought that on yourself."

The anti-conservative website Media Matters complained on June 29 about NPR, The New York Times, USA Today, and CNN booking representatives of the Family Research Council (FRC) on their programs to comment on Obergefell v. Hodges, calling FRC an "extreme anti-gay hate group" with a "track record of dishonesty."

Responding to the Supreme Court ruling that same day, a Raw Story report by Valerie Tarico stated that the Bible endorses polygamy, sexual slavery, and coerced marriage, and also said that Christians citing biblical morality for not supporting homosexual "marriage" were ignorant of the Bible's actual contents and simply opposed to change.

"Many who call themselves Bible believers are simply, congenitally conservative – meaning change-resistant," Tarico wrote. "What really concerns them is protecting the status quo, an ancient hierarchy with privileged majority-culture straight males at the top, which they justify by invoking ancient texts."

In his June 30 entry titled "2 Ways Homophobes Will Cope with Post-Obergefell America" for The Good Men Project, website columnist Matthew Rozsa predicted "symbolic acts of defiance from the dying fragments of the anti-gay marriage movement" and warned that "[m]ore than ever, anti-LGBT activists are going to paint themselves as the victims."

Rozsa pointed to a National Review editorial as an example of marriage supporters crying victim, ridiculing it for its mention of the spread of homosexual and gender ideology into U.S. education and for making "suffering stigma for holding intolerant views seem like a form of oppression."

"Just as open proponents of segregation eventually became a fringe element in American society, so too are opponents of marriage equality eventually going to fade into political irrelevance," Rozsa wrote. "Until that happens, though, this is the show we can expect."

Rozsa was not alone in articulating hope that pro-marriage Christians will become marginalized now that homosexual "marriage" has been legally mandated across the U.S. 

Liberal political commentator and open lesbian Sally Kohn called at The Daily Beast for ostracizing marriage supporters.

"Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized? I sure hope so," Kohn stated. "To those who remain in the fringe minority stubbornly mired in hatred and the dark rationalizations of the past, please try to lose gracefully. You are not being exiled. The world is simply moving on without you."

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/activists-react-to-gay-marriage-resistance-too-many-christians-not-enough-l
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: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #301 on: July 20, 2015, 12:39:49 pm »

Christian Universities: Will They Obey God or Man?

It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony. Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space.

The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian university’s immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.

In a July 14 article in The Atlantic headlined, “Gay Marriage and the Future of Evangelical Colleges,” University of Tampa professor David R. Wheeler asks, “Now that same-sex couples have the right to wed, will higher-ed institutions that condemn LGBT students still be eligible for federal funding?”

Wheeler is not alone in asking. “As cultural evolution on the issue of LGBT rights continues to accelerate, it’s inevitable that some Americans will start asking hard questions about whether it makes sense to allocate scarce public resources to institutions that are not only anti-gay, but proud of it,” opines anti-Christian bigot Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “For starters, can federally supported educational institutions bar married same-sex couples from living together in student housing? I doubt it,” he adds.

In other words, Christian universities must together embrace and facilitate homosexual sin, or lose, at once, both tax-exempt status and access to all students who choose to fund their education via federal loans and grants (which is most of them).

This presents quite a conundrum. It’s also a test. Christian universities must either obey God, disobey man and suffer unsavory temporal consequences, or obey man, sell their souls for mammon and suffer a-little-more-than-unsavory eternal consequence.

This is where faith comes in.

German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a man who faced the gallows for faithfully opposing the Nazi Holocaust. He once wrote, “For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.”

It’s really not that complicated. The Christian university that chooses the path of least resistance and conforms to the world – that is, disobeys God and adopts the world’s morally relative (read: unbiblical) standards (or lack thereof) on sex and sexuality – immediately becomes at enmity with God. The Christian university that intentionally turns a blind eye to sexual immorality of any kind, or otherwise allows and recognizes sin-based “same-sex marriage,” ceases to be a Christian university and, instead, becomes an apostate university – a university better identified as “Christian in name only.”

As Jesus admonished, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

Indeed, on the question of whether Christian universities will capitulate on sodomy-based “marriage,” the path of least resistance is the broad road that stems from the wide gate and leads to destruction.

By way of example, and to its shame, formerly Christian Baylor University, located in Waco, Texas, has chosen the path of least resistance. This hits especially close to home for me. I was born in Waco and my parents both attended Baylor. Two of my uncles graduated from Baylor Law, and my grandfather, J. Dell Barber, was a Baylor benefactor. In fact, he has a room in the law school named after him and, before he died, set up the Bertha J. Barber memorial scholarship fund in honor of my great grandmother.

Reports Baptist News Global: “Baptist-affiliated Baylor University has quietly removed a ban on ‘homosexual acts’ from its sexual conduct code. …”

“Lori Fogleman, assistant vice president for media communications, said the change is part of an ongoing review ‘to ensure that the university has the necessary policies and processes in place to comply with the many legal and ethical mandates to which universities are subject as institutions.’ She said a review of the sexual conduct policy was contemplated for a couple of years, because officials didn’t believe the language in the old policy ‘reflected Baylor’s caring community.’”

And so, under Baylor University’s new apostasy, it is somehow “caring” to affirm students, faculty and staff in a mortal sin that, in the absence of repentance, will lead them to eternal separation from God – to destruction.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

It breaks my heart to be so closely affiliated with a Christian university that has so lost its way.

A colleague of mine once praised yet another for being a person who “applies biblical ethics in ways both faithful and nuanced, both orthodox and relevant.” I’m not exactly sure what that means, but, in my experience, and in the context of biblical exegesis, the term “nuanced” is usually invoked to rationalize some unbiblical behavior or otherwise cave on some fixed biblical principle.

“Nuance” is the bucket of dirt used to muddy crystal clear living waters.

And how does the faithful, Bible-believing Christian remain “both orthodox and relevant”? How can a Christian be both in the world and of the world? To the world, biblical orthodoxy is, in every way imaginable, irrelevant. Biblical orthodoxy represents absolute truth, who is Christ, and the world denies that Truth.

It hates Him in fact.

Pastor Brian Houston, founder of the popular Hillsong movement, recently said, “It can be challenging for churches to stay relevant. … Many mainstream churches upheld what they would believe is the long established view of what the Bible says about homosexuality. But the world has changed around and about them. …

“So the world’s changing and we want to stay relevant as a church,” he continued. “So that’s a vexing thing. You think, ‘How do we not become a pariah?’”

Pastor Houston, respectfully, you have it exactly backwards. We, as Christians, are obliged to become pariahs. We must pick up our cross and follow Christ, the ultimate pariah – the one and only God-man who was such a pariah, in fact, that he was scourged, mocked, spat upon and tortured to death on a tree so that all who are willing to become pariahs right along with him, might have eternal life.

No, to remain faithful, Christian universities must abandon efforts to become “nuanced” and “relevant.”

It’s a fool’s errand.

If Christian universities wish to remain faithful, they must, instead, become pariahs.

They must obey God.


http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2015/07/20/christian-universities-will-they-obey-god-or-man-n2027261?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
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: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #302 on: July 25, 2015, 05:22:56 am »

State forbids pastors calling homosexuality 'sinful'
Sets religious test for volunteer counselors for juvenile offenders


The state of Kentucky has begun imposing a religious test on volunteer pastor counselors in its youth division, insisting that they refrain from calling homosexuality “sinful” and dismissing those who cannot bend their religious faith to accommodate the state requirements.

The policy was uncovered by Liberty Counsel, which has sent a letter to Bob Hayter, commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, demanding that the state religious test be dropped and that a dismissed counselor be reinstated.

“Liberty Counsel writes regarding the blatantly unconstitutional revocation of volunteer prison minister status of ordained Christian minister David Wells, who has provided voluntary spiritual counseling and mentorship to juvenile inmates under the control of the Department of Juvenile Justice. … This revocation was issued by Warren County Regional Juvenile Detention Center on the basis of the April 4, 2014, DJJ Policy 912, which mandates full DJJ support of homosexuality and transvestism.

“With no evidence of any violation of DJJ policy on Mr. Wells’ part, his volunteer status was revoked by the Warren RJDC superintendent because he could not sign a state-mandated statement that homosexuality was not ‘sinful,’ among other things,” the letter said.

The policy states that DJJ staff, volunteers and others “shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

WND requested a comment from the state agency, but there was no immediate response.

Get “Takedown,” and learn how the American family and marriage are being sabotaged by the ideas of extreme-left radicals, starting with Karl Marx.

The state agency was told in the letter it has until July 31 to reinstate Wells’ volunteer visitor credentials.

“Many juveniles are in DJJ custody because of sexual crimes,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Pastor Wells must be able to discuss what the Bible says about matters of sexuality with the juveniles he is trying to help. To remove the Bible from a pastor’s hands is like removing a scalpel from a surgeon’s hands. Without it, they cannot provide healing.”

Wells had volunteered more than 10 years at the facility under the prison ministry of Pleasant View Baptist Church in McQuady

But Supt. Gene Wade dismissed him in a terse note on July 7.

He wrote, “I must terminate your involvement as a religious volunteer serving the youth in this facility per DJJ Policy 112, Section IV, Paragraph H, (Cool.”

Liberty Counsel reported Policy 912, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” states that volunteers cannot refer to homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyles as “sinful.”

“DJJ 912 equates the teaching of biblical morality with ‘derogatory,’ ‘biased” and ‘hateful’ speech,” added Staver.

“In so doing, the DJJ policy creates an unconstitutional, religious litmus test for DJJ access. The First Amendment prohibits the government from viewpoint discrimination. This detention center may not prohibit the expression of biblical morality simply because a few DJJ policymakers object to the Bible and its teaching,” the letter said.

Liberty Counsel’s letter noted Wells was ordered to sign a form “promising to refrain from telling any juvenile inmates that homosexuality was ‘sinful.’”

But Liberty Counsel argues the Bible “explicitly prohibits any expression of sexuality outside of the confines of man-woman marriage.”

“It recognizes that every person, regardless of personal proclivities or attractions, is separated from God because of sin, whatever form that sin may take. Many juveniles are in DJJ custody because of sexual crimes, and Mr. Wells must be able to discuss the Bible and matters of sexuality with inmates, and he therefore was unable to sign the form.”

The letter says many inmates have been sexually abused and need such counseling.

“Second, at no time in more than 12 years of ministry has Mr. Wells or any of the other volunteer ministers who assist him ever used ‘derogatory language’ in a manner that ‘conveys bias towards or hatred of’ children.’

“Third, any religious services or spiritual counseling offered by Mr.Wells is always completely voluntary in attendance; and no juvenile offender is ever required to attend the services or meet with him or other volunteers,” the letter said.

Wells has dealt with cases ranging from “a young man who sexually abused his sister, and then killed her … to children who have been molested and sodomized by adults and older teens.”

“All of these children have asked Mr.Wells if there was any hope for them in this life, and in the life to come. He has told them without exception that Christ can, and would, forgive them, if they would repent and believe the gospel.”

The policy even conflicts with other department policy, Liberty Counsel explained, because DJJ 345 states: “A volunteer minister, pastor or religious counselor, approved by the facility religious coordinator, shall have access to each area of the facility identified for religious programming. Clergy shall be allowed to have confidential communications with youth pursuant to clergy privilege.”

The state demand “violates the First Amendment by prescribing an official state religious ‘orthodoxy:’ now, only a religious belief that homosexuality is not ‘sinful’ may be expressed in DJJ facilities.”

That’s even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe that shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion and force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that speech restrictions cannot be based on viewpoint.

The practice also creates similar conflicts with the Kentucky Constitution, Liberty Counsel said.

“There is simply no evidence that any pastor or volunteer minister, much less Mr. Wells, has ever expressed ‘derogatory’ language toward, or ‘bias’ or ‘hatred’ of DJJ youths who have sexuality issues. For that matter, it is not ‘hatred’ or ‘bias’ to lovingly point out the harms of homosexuality,” the letter said.

The result is that the state of Kentucky “singles out a particular theological viewpoint as expressly disfavored.”

This the state cannot do,” the letter said.

The issue of counseling sexually confused youth has come up several other states already. In California, Oregon and New Jersey, officials already have adopted rules that prohibit people from offering help during counseling sessions to juveniles who have unwanted same-sex attractions.

Several other states have rejected the idea.

Most recently, it was a judge’s “bias” toward homosexuality that prompted a jury to award about $72,000 to plaintiffs who sued under a New Jersey consumer fraud law.

They claimed their counseling sessions aimed at getting rid of unwanted same-sex attractions failed, according to a licensed counselor.

The verdict recently was announced in New Jersey for plaintiffs who brought their case, with the assistance of an organization that has been linked to domestic terror, against JONAH, or Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing.

The verdict was “the consequence of liberal judicial bias,” licensed professional counselor Christopher Doyle told Anglican Mainstream, a publication for orthodox Anglicans.

“Before and during the trial Judge Peter Bariso stripped JONAH of so many opportunities to really defend themselves, disqualifying five of the six expert witnesses for the defendants because their opinions contradicted the so-called mainstream view that same-sex attractions are not at all disordered, even if a client is distressed by these unwanted sexual feelings because of their sincerely held religious and spiritual beliefs,” Doyle’s report said.

Get “Takedown,” and learn how the American family and marriage are being sabotaged by the ideas of extreme-left radicals, starting with Karl Marx.

A decision on whether the case will be appealed is looming, Liberty Counsel said.

“The judge’s bias against religious freedom was so ruthless that he even refused to allow JONAH’s chief attorney to mention the First Amendment freedom of religion in his closing argument,” Doyle said.

“This verdict sends a chilling message to anyone of faith who either offers counseling or wants to receive counseling to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions,” he said.

The jury verdict ordered JONAH to pay $72,400 to five plaintiffs for the fees they paid for counseling.

The case was brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposed racism and discrimination during its early years. However, three years ago it was linked to domestic terrorism in a court case. That was when homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins on Aug. 15, 2012, walked into Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C., armed with a semi-automatic pistol, 95 bullets and a sack of Chick-fil-A sandwiches with the intent, he later confessed, of killing “as many people as I could.”

Corkins admitted he picked FRC, which promotes traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about family and sexuality, because it was listed as an “anti-gay” hate group by SPLC on its website.

See video of the attack:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/state-forbids-pastors-calling-homosexuality-sinful/#IVttMGUUBjMSuKIx.99

The judge actually had pre-ordained the conclusion against JONAH, writing early in the case “the theory that homosexuality is a disorder is not novel but – like the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it – instead is outdated and refuted.”

For that reason, he gutted much of the organization’s defense.

Doyle explained that the jury probably was less convinced about consumer fraud claims but more by the actions of “a liberal judge who hamstringed the defendants while feeding the jury a steady diet of mischaracterizations on the work of JONAH.”

WND reported JONAH was defended by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.

Spokeswoman Maggie Gallagher earlier told WND that SPLC’s goals are to put “out of existence” any counseling in America that helps those with unwanted same-sex attractions.

Essentially, she said, it’s a campaign to “impose a new public morality” on the nation, concluding that for those who have same-sex attractions, “there’s nothing you are entitled to do except say it’s great and I want to live a gay life.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/state-forbids-pastors-calling-homosexuality-sinful/#IVttMGUUBjMSuKIx.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
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #303 on: July 30, 2015, 10:42:52 am »

Christian Man Fired for Calling Homosexuality 'Immoral' Files Suit against Ford

 A Michigan man is suing Ford Motor Company after the company fired him for calling homosexuality “immoral.” The Christian Post reports Thomas Banks, a contract engineer, was terminated without warning in August 2014 after Ford updated its policies to become more LGBT friendly.
 
The company reportedly posted an article about the new policies on its Intranet with a comments section. When Banks stated his opinion against the changes, he was swiftly fired for “harassment” without permission to discuss the matter with officials.
 
Banks wrote, "For this Ford Motor Company should be thoroughly ashamed. Endorsing and promoting sodomy is of benefit to no one. This topic is disruptive to the workplace and is an assault on Christians and morality, as well as antithetical to our design and our survival. Immoral sexual conduct should not be a topic for an automotive manufacturer to endorse or promote."
 
Radio host Mitch Albom said, "If you don't want people to complain about something, why are you having a comment section?"

The Liberty Institute says that Banks was discriminated against for his Christian faith. According to the legal group, Banks’ case "is just one in a line of instances of competent employees being stripped of their jobs because they expressed their religious beliefs."

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/christian-man-fired-for-calling-homosexuality-immoral-files-suit-against-ford.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: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #304 on: August 13, 2015, 04:48:00 am »

Kentucky tells prison chaplains: Sign pledge to never say homosexuality is a sin, or you’re out

I know what some of you are going to argue. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is not telling preachers they can’t preach 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. They can do that in their churches all they want, no problem. But if they want to work in the prisons on behalf of the commonwealth, they have to agree not to go there. It’s not about the right to freedom of religion. It’s about your right to a gig with the commonwealth.   

http://canadafreepress.com/article/74480
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 #305 on: August 13, 2015, 01:45:38 pm »

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/colorado-bakery-refuse-service-gay-couple-appeals-court-ruling-121331.html?hp=l5_4
8/13/15
Appeals court rules Colorado bakery can’t refuse service to gay couple

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a dessert shop could not refuse service to a same-sex couple that wanted to order a wedding cake, affirming previous rulings.

The American Civil Liberties Union and its Colorado chapter filed the lawsuit on behalf of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. The two visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood with Craig’s mother in July 2012 to order a cake for their wedding, when owner Jack Phillips turned them away, citing his religious beliefs. Phillips told the couple that it was his standard business practice. Phillips had said on multiple occasions that he would rather go to jail than make a gay wedding cake.

The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate back in Colorado, as same-sex marriage was not legal in the state at the time.

According to the opinion issued Thursday, Craig and Mullins filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on their sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In 2014, the division affirmed a previous judge’s ruling that Phillips had discriminated against them, and Phillips’ business appealed.

In its opinion, the court made clear that Masterpiece’s argument that the anti-discrimination act exempts “places used for religious purposes” does not apply to the bakery, a fact that the business does not dispute.

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

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #306 on: August 18, 2015, 11:19:47 am »

Government Orders Christian Baker Jack Phillips To Receive LGBT Reeducation Training

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop said Christian business owners are under attack – especially those providing goods and services to the wedding industry.

“Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Matthew 24:9 (KJV)

As many of you know, Jack Phillips bakeshop has been in court recently over his refusal to create a cake celebrating a sodomite wedding. But what you may not know is that his business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, was targeted by the LGBT Mafia because they knew he would refuse to make the cake. There are plenty of area bakeries who would gladly fill the order, but they chose his shop simply and only because he’s a Christian with a strong testimony for Jesus Christ. This is not about cakes, people, it’s about control, power, and LGBT Agenda.
jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-colorado-loses-lgbt-court-fight-reeducation-camp

“The ALJ found that Phillips had been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.”

The court affirmed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s order that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act when he refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. Jack, a devout Christian who honors God through his baking, had argued that he could not participate in same-sex ceremonies because it would violate his religious beliefs. The appeals court ruled otherwise. Phillips lost on appeal. Now here is where it gets scary.

Phillips is not only required by law now to make gay wedding cakes, the government also has demanded that he and his entire staff be sent away to “receive training” in the LGBT agenda and policies. We are getting closer and closer to the rounding of dissenters and having them placed in the FEMA Camps that they swear don’t exist. About the order to attend reeducation camp, Phillips said this:

    “My mom is on my staff and she said she will not be retrained,” he defiantly said. “And I’m not going to make same-sex wedding cakes.” “A lot of Christians are under attack – bakers and florists, wedding chapels,” he said.

In Nazi Germany, the stain of oppression crept so slowly that most were not even aware until it was too late. America, in 2015 under Obama, is going in exactly the same direction. Each day we lose another mouthful of our liberties, not very much when compared to the freedoms we still have, but each new day returns less than the one before. At some point, perhaps when you are sitting on the train that’s taking you away, you will think back on this time and wonder why you did nothing about it. With tears streaming down your face you will wish to have this time back when you were still free, to open up your mouth and  say “no” to your governmental masters.

We are living in the time where the end is coming, why sit ye idle and do nothing? While freedom yet remains, open your mouth for Jesus Christ and BOLDLY proclaim the gospel to a lost and dying world. Yes, you will suffer financial losses. Yes you will be hauled into court. Yes you will be openly mocked and beaten down by the New World Order’s LGBT Mafia agenda. But if you’re a Christian, this is what you signed on for. These are the days of prophecy, now is the time. Order a box of NTEB Gospel Tracts, and strike a defiant blow to the heart of Satan’s plan. What are you waiting for?

“Only one life, ’twill soon be past, and only what’s done for Christ will last.” – Missionary CT Studd

Are you ready for what comes next?

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=34867
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 #307 on: August 18, 2015, 08:22:40 pm »

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/18/tennessee-courts-replace-mother-and-father-with-parent-1-parent-2.html?intcmp=hplnws
8/18/15
Tennessee courts replace 'mother' and 'father' with 'Parent 1,' 'Parent 2'

Children will now have “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” instead of a mommy and a daddy, according to Tennessee’s Administrative Office of the Courts.

Shortly after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, the state’s Office of the Courts revised its documents. A spokesperson for the courts confirmed to me that the words “Mother” and “Father” had been replaced by the terms “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.”

Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch for Conservative Conversation!

I was alerted to the gender-neutral parenting documents by Kendra Armstrong, a family law attorney in Memphis and one of my longtime readers.

“Why are heterosexual parents having their rights violated?” she asked. “So now it’s improper and inappropriate in a court of law to refer to a parent as a mother and a father?

The court spokesperson did not elaborate on why they felt compelled to change the longtime wording or whether Parent 1 brings home the bacon or whether Parent 2 wears the pants in the relationship.

“It’s absolutely ludicrous to make the term mother and father obsolete,” Armstrong told me. “Quite frankly, the terms ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ seem more offensive than mother and father. It’s implying that one parent is the first parent and the other parent is secondary.”

Armstrong said she was incredulous when her paralegal discovered the document changes – shocked that something like this would happen in, of all places, the Bible Belt.

“This is political correctness gone absolutely amuck,” she told me. “It’s just ridiculous.”


It’s not the first time the government has tried to redefine traditional family roles. In 2011 the State Department removed the words mother and father from U.S. passport applications.

The State Department released a statement at the time noting that the changes reflected “improvements” that were being made to “provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.”

Brenda Sprague, the deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services, said the changes had nothing to do with political correctness.

“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said.

Sounds to me like they’ve got an issue with old-fashioned baby-making – back when it took a mommy and a daddy to make a bundle of joy.

I know, I know. It’s old-school. But no matter how hard the Supreme Court and the cultural revolutionaries try to redefine what God defined – it still takes two to tango – ahem.

As for attorney Kendrick, she said she plans on ignoring the court-mandated changes – no matter the consequences. She plans on replacing all references to “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” with the words “mother” and “father.”

“I am exercising my right to free speech, freedom of religion and I am being a conscientious objector,” she declared. “I refuse to go to court with a parenting plan that refers to Parent 1 and Parent 2 instead of mother and father.”

On a side note – I suggested in my latest book that the true motive behind the gay marriage activists was to deconstruct the traditional American family – hence the ban on mommy and daddy.

I reckon it’s only a matter of time before Tennessee completely conforms to the demands of the gender-neutral crowd and begins referring to children as “Thing One” and “Thing Two.”
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #308 on: August 25, 2015, 09:18:19 pm »

Denver City Council halts Chick-fil-A’s airport operation because its owners believe the Bible

Forcing you to bake a gay wedding cake is just the start. The gay marriage fascists are pretty resourceful when it comes to using the power of government to enforce their orthodoxy. And by the way, this is one of the less-discussed problems with the perpetual expansion of government into everything. If you can’t do business without government contracts, or without tax exemptions, you inevitably empower someone in the political realm to judge your worthiness to be in business at all.

When the Denver City Council chooses a concessionaire for the Denver International Airport, the decision is supposed to be based on the applicant’s operational prowess, its quality, its track record and, of course, its ability to make the arrangement profitable for both parties while pleasing airport patrons with products and service.

But it’s not about that for what appears to be a majority of the Denver City Council. It’s about gay marriage, and the now airtight requirement that anyone doing business with the government must not agree with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It makes no difference if all you do is sell chicken sandwiches, which has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you’re like Chick-fil-A, and your owners have made it clear they believe the Bible, you’re not running concessions at the DIA:

    Chick-fil-A’s reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain’s potential return to Denver International Airport, with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement.

    Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA “really, truly a moral issue on the city.”

    His position comes despite ardent assurances from the concessionaires — who have operated other DIA restaurants — that strict nondiscrimination policies will include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” She was first to raise Chick-fil-A leaders’ politics during a Tuesday committee hearing.

    The normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee on Tuesday stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks.

This is where we’ve gotten with gay marriage politics in the United States. It used to be that if a politician had it in for a business for some reason that had nothing the legitimate terms of a proposed contract, the politician would at least invent some phony pretext for stalling the deal. Not anymore. Now they come right out and admit that they’re only doing it because the business doesn’t agree with them on a social issue. Even the editors of the Denver Post, which backs gay marriage, is warning the City Council to be careful about the precedent it’s setting here:

    Think this one through, Denver City Council. If you block Chick-fil-A from returning as a vendor at Denver International Airport, how far might you then go in imposing political litmus tests on corporations seeking to do business there — or elsewhere in the city?

    And what are the implications for free speech in America if such political vetoes by cities were to become the norm?

    At a committee meeting this week, Councilman Paul Lopez described opposition to the chain at DIA because of its CEO’s hostility toward same-sex marriage as “really, truly a moral issue on the city.” Some other council members clearly agreed.
    Special: Tight Skin With No Surgery - Get Rid of Wrinkles Instantly

    Same-sex marriage is indeed a moral issue. But it’s hardly the only one. Abortion, the Second Amendment, immigration, affirmative action, even climate change are among numerous issues considered by their ardent advocates and opponents to be matters of principle and conscience.

    Are corporate executives supposed to muzzle all opinion, or make sure their views mesh with the predominant outlook of politicians in cities where they’d like to do business?

That’s exactly the point. This is only an issue because Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy (who died last year) spoke publicly about his belief in biblical marriage and backed that up by giving financial support to some organizations who advocate for the same. Chick-fil-A has no history of discriminating against anyone in employment or in customer service, and Mr. Cathy never expressed any belief that it would be appropriate to do so. He simply believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, which simply means he agrees with the Bible.

To the members of the Denver City Council, this is an offense so egregious they are prepared to deny Chick-fil-A a concession contract at the airport even though it has nothing to do with the terms required in the contract.

The supporters of gay marriage are conspicuously lacking in confidence where their position is concerned. How do I know that? Because when you’re confident you’re right, you don’t set out to destroy everyone who disagrees with you. You don’t force people to bake cakes celebrating your belief if it’s not theirs. You don’t set out to damage their businesses. You just make your case, figuring people of goodwill are going to accept it on its merits.

By the way, this supports a broader theory of mine about atheists. I have argued for some time that atheists know God exists, and that’s why they constantly obsess over Him - trying on a continual basis to convince themselves and others He is not real, and having very little success. That applies here too. You can’t be very confident your position is correct if the Word of God disagrees with you, and while you can sit there all day long and call it a 2,000-year-old book of fairy tales written by men, something inherent to your spirit knows that’s a lie. So you have to shut up people who acknowledge and live the truths you’re struggling so hard to deny.

It seems pretty absurd to think you’d want to keep them from serving chicken in an airport, but we live in pretty absurd times.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/74733
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 #309 on: August 31, 2015, 07:15:10 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/reckoning-nears-clerk-resisting-same-sex-marriage-ruling-202230268.html
Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marriage case
8/31/15

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying a federal judge who could pummel her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail.

"She's going to have to think and pray about her decision overnight. She certainly understands the consequences either way," Mat Staver, founder of the law firm representing Davis, said on Monday, hours before a court-ordered delay in the case expired. "She'll report to work tomorrow, and face whatever she has to face."

A line of couples, turned away by her office again and again in the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation, plan to meet her at the courthouse door.

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the landmark decision. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience."

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. Kagan joined the majority in June when the court legalized gay marriage across the nation.

Meanwhile, a couple that had been turned away went to Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins to ask that she be charged with official misconduct, a misdemeanor defined by state law as a public official who "refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office." The crime is punishable by up to a year in jail.

Watkins cited a conflict of interest and forwarded the complaint to Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, whose office will decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor, generally a county attorney from a surrounding jurisdiction, who would decide whether to file charges.

As the clock wound down for Davis on Monday, the tension intensified between dueling groups of protesters outside her office window on the courthouse lawn.

Hexie Mefford has stood on the lawn waving a flag nearly every day for more than two months. The flag is fashioned after Old Glory, but with a rainbow instead of the red and white bars.

Mike Reynolds, a Christian protesting in Davis' defense, shouted at her that he found the flag offensive: He is an Army veteran, he complained, and they had desecrated the American flag. The two groups roared at each other. The Christians called on the activists to repent; the activists countered that their God loves all.

It was a marked difference from the cordial protests that unfolded there every day since Davis declared she would issue no licenses.

Rachelle Bombe has sat there every day, wearing rainbow colors and carrying signs that demand marriage equality. One particularly hot day, Davis, the woman she was there to protest against, worried Bombe would get overheated and offered her a cold drink. In turn, Bombe said she's checked in on Davis, whose lawyer says she's received death threats and hate mail, to make sure she's holding up despite the difficult circumstances.

"She's a very nice lady, I like her a lot," Bombe said of Davis. "We're on the opposite sides of this, but it's not personal."

On Monday, the Christians stood on the grass and sang "I am a Child of God."

The marriage equality activists chimed in after each refrain: "So are we."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #310 on: September 03, 2015, 07:41:08 pm »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=go-share&_r=0
Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses
9/3/15

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

Five of the six deputies told Judge David L. Bunning of Federal District Court that they would issue the licenses, though some of them said they would do so reluctantly. The lone holdout was Ms. Davis’s son, Nathan.

Ms. Davis, a Democrat, had argued that the Supreme Court order that she issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples infringed upon her religious beliefs and liberties. But after a hearing, Judge Bunning said that “her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” and ordered Ms. Davis to jail.

“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” said Judge Bunning, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”

“I myself have genuinely held religious beliefs,” the judge said, but “I took an oath.” He noted: “Mrs. Davis took an oath. Oaths mean things.”

The clerk’s stance has put her at the center of political storm that has divided the country.

The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said he had not discussed the developments with President Obama. But he said Ms. Davis should not defy the Supreme Court.

“Every public official is subject to the rule of law,” Mr. Earnest said. “No one is above the law. That applies to the president of the United States and it applies to the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, as well.”

Rand Paul, the Republican presidential candidate and a senator from Kentucky, said it was “absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, another Republican candidate, said the jailing of Ms. David “removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.”

“We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny,” Mr. Huckabee said, adding that “the Supreme Court is not the Supreme branch and it’s certainly not the Supreme Being.”

Judge Bunning’s ruling also drew sharp condemnation from one of Ms. Davis’s lawyers, Roger Gannam.

“Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is,” he said. “This is unprecedented in American law.”


But a lawyer for the couples who sued, William Sharp, said the ruling signaled that “religious liberty is not a sword with which government, through its employees, may impose particular religious views on others.”

Two couples who had previously been denied licenses by Ms. Davis’s office said they would seek the licenses on Friday.

Earlier Ms. Davis, an Apostolic Christian, tearfully testified that she had not hesitated to follow her religious beliefs and defy the courts. “I didn’t have to think about it,” she said. “There was no choice there.”

Ms. Davis was asked how she defined marriage.

“Marriage is between one man and one woman,” she replied, before a lawyer asked her whether she had “the ability to believe marriage is anything else.”

Ms. Davis offered a terse response: “No.”

Later, one of the women who has unsuccessfully sought a marriage license in Rowan County, April Miller, told Judge Bunning that Ms. Davis’s stand “marginalizes us again.”

Judge Bunning left little doubt about his thinking, and said Ms. Davis’s explanation for disobeying his order was “simply insufficient.”

“It’s not physically impossible for her to issue the licenses,” he said. “She’s choosing not to.”

Lawyers for the same-sex couples seeking licenses had asked Judge Bunning to fine Ms. Davis and not send her to jail, but the judge said he thought that a fine would not be enough to prompt the clerk’s compliance.

As marshals led her from the courtroom, Ms. Davis said, “Thank you, Judge.”

The hearing Thursday was the first since the Supreme Court on Monday turned down Ms. Davis’s appeal of an Aug. 12 ruling by Judge Bunning directing her to issue marriage licenses. The justices’ decision was expected to clear the way for same-sex marriages in Rowan County. But on Tuesday, the clerk and her employees again refused to issue licenses in Morehead, the seat of Rowan County.

Within hours lawyers for the couples who had initially sued Ms. Davis asked Judge Bunning to hold her in contempt.

Legal experts said it was uncertain how long Ms. Davis could kept in jail.

“Civil contempt is not supposed to be punitive, it’s supposed to coerce the person to obey the judge’s order,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Once she promises to obey, or once the judge determines that more jail time will not encourage her to obey, they’ll let her out. But she could be in there for a year, it’s conceivable. Judges really don’t like it when people disobey their order.”

The standoff in Kentucky, many law professors said, is reminiscent of the 1960s civil rights battles, with Ms. Davis in the role of George C. Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama to block two black students from registering.

“In a way, she’s out George Wallace-ing George Wallace,” said Howard M. Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University. “It does now feel like the civil rights era, with people ignoring court orders, taking a stand and being held in contempt.”

Supporters and opponents of Ms. Davis gathered outside the federal courthouse here Thursday hours before court began. One man waved a rainbow flag — a symbol of the gay rights movement — while another clutched a flag that said, “Liberty.”

“We’re supporters of the rule of the law,” said David Wills, a computer programmer from West Virginia who was first in line and said he had arrived at 4 a.m. for a hearing scheduled to begin seven hours later. “It’s just really important to me that people be treated equally, fairly.”

Ms. Davis’s supporters, gathered ahead of a hearing they called critical to protecting religious liberty in Kentucky and elsewhere.

“They’re taking rights away from Christians,” Danny Kinder, a 73-year-old retiree from Morehead, said of the courts. “They’ve overstepped their bounds.”

“I’ve been praying about it, and we just have to turn it over to the Lord,” he said. “She has got to stand for what she believes, and I have to stand for what I believe, and I’m behind her 100 percent.”

Correction: September 3, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated Kim Davis’s political affiliation. She is a Democrat, not a Republican.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #311 on: September 05, 2015, 08:21:10 pm »

A MUCH needed correction on my part - Kim Davis is a one-ness Pentacostal(a brethren pointed this out to me just now). She is not born-again.(1st John 4:1-3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)

Personal life
Davis is described as an "Apostolic Christian"[7] who worships three times a week[49] at the Solid Rock Apostolic Church near Morehead.[50] It is a congregation in the Apostolic Church, a Pentecostal Christian denomination.[51][52] She experienced a "religious awakening" in 2011, following her mother-in-law's "dying wish" that she attend church.[50] Davis has held Bible study for inmates of the Rowan County jail.[50]

Davis has been married four times to three different men.[3] The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, who were adopted by her second husband, Joe, who is also her fourth and current husband.[31]

Joe supports her stance against same-sex marriage.[30] One of Davis' twin sons, Nathan, works in her office as a deputy clerk and has taken the same position of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[53]
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #312 on: September 06, 2015, 08:26:20 am »

Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality to Be Re-Educated

 Following yesterday’s jailing of a county clerk for stating that it is not possible for her to obey an order to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals against God’s law, it is now being noted that the same federal judge also once ordered Kentucky students to be re-educated about homosexuality despite their objections.

In 2003, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the same group that filed suit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis—sued the Boyd County Board of Education to force it to agree to allow a “gay-straight” alliance club to meet at Boyd County High School. A number of parents had strongly opposed the group following its initial formation, with approximately 70 attending a school council meeting to speak out on the matter.

The school board temporarily suspended the meeting of all student groups due to controversy over the matter, but the Bible and drama clubs allegedly continued to meet despite the ban. Students with the alliance subsequently contacted the ACLU, which filed suit over the matter.

Bunning then ordered Boyd County education officials to allow the alliance to meet on campus, declaring that they must be granted the same privileges as other groups, including using the intercom during school hours.

“Absent a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs will be unable to meet at school, unable to benefit from a forum for discussion with other students who are suffering the effects of harassment based on sexual orientation, and unable to work with other students to foster tolerance among all students,” he wrote.

But Bunning also required the school district to implement training as part of a settlement, which mandated school staff and students to undergo diversity education, “a significant portion of which would be devoted to issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment.”

However, a number of students objected to being forced to watch a video that asserted that it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person’s sexuality cannot be changed. They discovered that they could not opt-out of the training without being penalized, and contacted the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) for assistance.

    Connect with Christian News

ADF then sued the Boyd County Board of Education over the matter on behalf of student Timothy Morrison and his parents, who said that the re-education requirement “effectively forces the students to speak in agreement with the school district’s view that homosexuality is a safe and healthy lifestyle that cannot be changed.”

But in 2006, Bunning again ruled that the students must watch the video and could not opt-out because of their Christian identity, stating that the education “rationally related to a legitimate educational goal, namely to maintain a safe environment.” He said that the training wouldn’t mean that students would have to change their religious beliefs, therefore, an opt-out was unnecessary.

“Plaintiffs are not requesting that a student absent from the training be considered an ‘excused’ or that the Board offer an alternate assignment on the issue of diversity. Rather, they seek to opt-out of the training altogether,” Bunning wrote.

“Given the requirements of the consent decree, the Board cannot meet this demand. Moreover, as there is no burden on plaintiffs’ freedom of speech, free exercise or other constitutional right, there is simply no basis for an opt-out,” he said.

Bunning pointed to a First Circuit ruling in making his decision.

“We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, ‘You can’t teach your child German or send him to a parochial school,’ than for the parent to say to the state, ‘You can’t teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me,'” the noted ruling stated.

“If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school’s choice of subject matter,” it reasoned.

Bunning’s decision was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned his ruling in October 2007 and sided with Morrison. It stated that the student could seek damages from the school district because the policy and training “chilled” his ability to express his Christian beliefs about homosexuality to his fellow students.

“Although a favorable decision cannot provide Morrison an opportunity to travel back in time and utter the speech he withheld, it can provide him with nominal damages,” the three-judge panel ruled in the 2-1 decision. “Even though these damages amount to little, they serve to vindicate his rights.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/09/04/judge-who-jailed-kim-davis-ordered-students-who-opposed-homosexuality-to-be-re-educated/
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: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #313 on: September 15, 2015, 05:28:45 am »

At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?

Religious Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have been under strict scrutiny by the activist courts for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for simple, peaceful, and innocuous displays of religious symbols.  Some of these religious symbols, such as a replica of the Ten Commandments, or references to God, such as the one in the Pledge of Allegiance, have been a part of this country since its founding.  Yet, the legal community feels that anything short of eradicating public display of Judeo-Christian symbols violates the constitutional directive against establishing a national religion.  Why shouldn’t paganism and secular agenda items, which are adhered to with more fervor and devotion than any major religion, be subjected to the same scrutiny?

Let’s be clear, nobody is being fined or thrown into jail for not being a Christian.  Nobody has had their property rights violated for opposing Christian beliefs.  On the other hand, individuals are now being jailed or fined for not servicing homosexual weddings.  And I’m not just talking about Kim Davis.  There have been endless cases of private business owners who have been fined or forced to abandon their livelihood for refusing to service the homosexual religion with their private property and private labor.

Why shouldn’t paganism and secular agenda items, which are adhered to with more fervor and devotion than any major religion, be subjected to the same scrutiny?

At what point is this not a government-sponsored religion infringing upon the most unalienable rights of religious liberty and property rights, in violation of the Establishment Clause?  As James Madison wrote in an essay on Property in 1792, “conscience is the most sacred of all property.”  His original draft of the First Amendment was even more effusive than the final version adopted by Congress.  "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship...nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed...."

Yet, we now have actual property rights and the most sacred property – conscience – being forced to yield to a new super right – an entitlement to force states to redefine marriage – in order to service the fervency of the homosexual agenda.  How can this be anything but the establishment of a national religion?

In 2013, just two years before Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy played legislature and God from the bench, he declared marriage to be fully within the domain of the states.  In the Windsor case striking down DOMA, when it was convenient to invoke state power over marriage, Kennedy cited the following precedent from Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942):

“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” (Page 17)

How can this be anything but the establishment of a national religion?

He went on to say that “[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” And  “[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”

Kennedy also admitted that “until recent years,. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” (Page 13)

How could it be that a state like Kentucky, which did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law; it merely defined marriage as it had always been defined, as Kennedy conceded, and exercised its “exclusive province” over marriage to reinforce that interpretation with 75% of the vote, is now in contempt of court just two years later?  How can this man have the power to overturn his own writings just two years prior in order to assert a new federal right superseding everything the state has ever done in defining marriage?

The only answer is that Kennedy has created a national religion in the year 2015 that will coerce state officials and even private land owners to obey the homosexual religion or face jail time.  Who else would go to jail for peacefully declining to sign a document like that?  A gay Texas judge is not being threatened with jail time for refusing to marry heterosexual couples, even though that was the law of the land since the state’s founding.

How can this man have the power to overturn his own writings just two years prior in order to assert a new federal right superseding everything the state has ever done in defining marriage?

This is exactly what our Founders had in mind when they prohibited the establishment of a national religion.  They did not mean to eradicate all religious symbolism, they merely desired that one religious denomination not persecute the other and violate their unalienable rights.  That is exactly what is occurring under this pagan inquisition.

Ask yourself this question: why should Christianity and Judaism be any worse off – precisely because they are “deeply rooted in history and tradition” – than a new religion that is the antithesis of something rooted in our history and tradition?  Does the fact that the homosexual agenda is not deeply rooted – the very litmus test required to assert a fundamental right – instill it with more legitimacy to imprison violators than the Christian religion which has been the dominant religion since the founding of the country?  Why should the display of the Ten Commandments at government buildings garner less legitimacy than Obama’s display of the rainbow at the White House?           

During the House floor debate over the First Amendment on August 20, 1789, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” [Emphasis added].

Here’s a parting question: if the primary concern of Madison was to ensure that the elected branch of the federal government not compel individuals by the force of law to service a particular religion (as opposed to the innocuous display of religious symbols or public prayer), what would he say about an unelected branch of government compelling individuals to serve paganism in any manner contrary to their conscience?   

- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/09/at-what-point-does-the-homosexual-agenda-become-a-national-religion#sthash.BFbIfLdh.dpuf

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 #314 on: October 19, 2015, 10:36:09 pm »

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-investigators-apologize-deleting-evidence-paedophile-ring/#l3SGpOKVUezL1dhD.99
Govt Conveniently Deleted Entire Database of Evidence Documenting **** Rings
10/19/15

London, UK — The Independent Inquiry Into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) apologized this week after vital testimony from victims of child sexual abuse was “instantly and permanently deleted” from their servers. The agency said that the loss of data was due to a technical malfunction, which dumped an untold number of testimonies that were submitted to their official website. The agency now claims that there was no security breach, and that while the testimonies were lost, the privacy of the victims is not at risk.

An Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) was established by the British Home Secretary, Theresa May, on 7 July 2014. The inquiry was intended to investigate why **** rings seemed to be exempt from capture.

IICSA posted the following statement on their website:

“Due to a change in our website address to http://www.iicsa.org.uk on 14 September, any information submitted to the Inquiry between 14 September and 2 October through the online form on the Share your experience page of our website, was instantly and permanently deleted before it reached our engagement team. We are very sorry for any inconvenience or distress this will cause and would like to reassure you that no information was put at risk of disclosure or unauthorised access.

Due to the security measures on our website, your information cannot be found or viewed by anyone else as it was immediately and permanently destroyed.We would like to apologise again to anyone who submitted details to the Inquiry during this time and to ask you to please resubmit your information through the online form. Alternatively you can call the Inquiry helpline on 0800 917 1000 to submit your information over the phone, or email our team at contact@iicsa.org.uk.”

The commission is being ran by New Zealand judge Lowell Goddard, who is paid over a half million dollars for her work with the group.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #315 on: November 10, 2015, 06:41:06 pm »

BARACK OBAMA IS OUT MAGAZINE’S LGBT COVER BOY OF THE YEAR

So it comes as no surprise that Barack Obama is the cover boy on a magazine that exists to out and promote homosexuals. Just as it will come as little or no surprise the day it is revealed that Obama is a homosexual himself.


OUT100 2015 COVER REVEALED: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

From the LGBT Out Magazine: This is the first time a sitting president has been photographed for the cover of an LGBT title, a historic moment in itself, and a statement on how much his administration has done to advance a singularly volatile issue that tarnished the reputations of both President Clinton and President Bush. It might have tarnished this president, too, but for his late-hour conversion in 2012, which set the stage for the extraordinary succession of events that led to this year’s Supreme Court ruling, on June 26, making it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to wed. Many things led up to that decision—“decades of our brothers and sisters fighting for recognition and equality” as the president notes—but once his administration decided to join that fight it created what people like to call a “transformative” moment. It helped tip the balance, and it put our elected leader on the right side of justice.

In the Bible, God destroyed the twin cities of both Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality, and He did it by raining down fire and brimstone on them. The Bible also says that God is “no respecter of persons”, meaning that if He judged them for homosexuality then He certainly will judge us also. So why does He appear to be waiting on issuing that judgment? Because the Bible says that God allows you time to either let your cup fill up to the top, or to allow you to get right and empty it yourself.

“For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture; and he poureth out of the same: but the dregs thereof, all the wicked of the earth shall wring themout, and drink them.” Psalm 75:8 (KJV)

So it comes as no surprise that Barack Obama is the cover boy on a magazine that exists to out and promote homosexuals. Just as it will come as little or no surprise the day it is revealed that Obama is a homosexual himself. Why do we say that? Because of this:

Obama campaigned as a Christian, but as president has supported the cause of Islam and the Muslims.

Obama said in 2008 that “marriage is between a man and a woman”, but as president turned America into an LGBT nation.

Obama said that”if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”, and as soon as Obamacare rolled out, almost no one got to keep their doctor at a price they could afford.

Obama said that his “red line” with Syria was if they used chemical weapons, well they did and he did nothing about it.

Obama said he would have the “most transparent regime administration in US history”, but has been one of the most secretive of all time.

Liberal poet Maya Angelou once said that “when someone shows you who they are, believe them”. Obama sat in a studio and posed specifically for that photo and specifically for that magazine cover. It’s called OUT Magazine, could he be any more obvious or intentional?

Look closely at the cover of this month’s Out Magazine, America, Barack Obama is showing you who he is.

Believe him. I do.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/barack-obama-is-out-magazines-lgbt-cover-boy-of-the-year/
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #316 on: November 11, 2015, 10:46:04 pm »

Same-Sex Marriage Was Just the Start: White House Champions Equality Bill
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-marriage-just-start-white-house-champions-202852921.html
11/11/15

A sweeping federal bill that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, employment, education, housing, jury service, and credit was endorsed by President Obama on Tuesday. Although the Equality Act is not expected to succeed in a Republican-controlled Congress, the president’s support is a strong acknowledgment from the White House that discrimination against LGBT Americans didn’t end when the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June.

“Upon…review it is now clear that the administration strongly supports the Equality Act,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest announced. “That bill is historic legislation that would advance the cause of equality for millions of Americans.”

Advocacy groups who have supported the bill celebrated the White House’s announcement as an important step toward full equality for all people regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. In spite of important gains made for equality, LGBT people are still routinely discriminated against by employers, evicted by landlords, and denied service in restaurants and businesses.

“By endorsing the Equality Act, the White House sent a strong message that it’s time to put the politics of discrimination behind us once and for all,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement. “Now it’s time for Congress to act.”

The bill’s proposed route to ending bias against the LGBT community has attracted some controversy from some civil rights groups. The bill, introduced by congressional Democrats in July, would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include LGBT people. Civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights have expressed hesitance to support altering the historic civil rights legislation.

Though the civil rights community “supported the concept of the Equality Act from its very inception,” Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights told The Washington Post, “there are questions that could benefit from further analysis. Before it moves forward, there’s hope that those can be addressed.”

Civil rights leaders like Henderson have expressed concern that amending the Civil Rights Act could open the door to amendments that aren’t in line with the original intent of the bill, according to LGBT news outlet The Washington Blade. The Obama administration seems well aware of these concerns: As recently as early October, Earnest told reporters that the bill was still being “carefully reviewed” by the White House.

“There’s significant consequences to this bill going into effect,” Earnest said. “It has an impact on housing law and a variety of other policies in the federal government.”
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #317 on: November 13, 2015, 03:09:16 pm »

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/1113/Starbucks-to-become-an-LGBT-safe-place
Starbucks to become an LGBT 'safe place'
Starbucks is the latest, and largest, company to join Seattle's 'Safe Place' program.

11/13/15

Starbucks announced Wednesday that its Seattle stores are officially "Safe Places" for members of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) community.

Partnering with the Seattle Police Department’s “Safe Place” program, 97 of Starbucks’ stores in the Seattle area will finish specific employee training early next week on “how to respond to and engage with LGBT victims of violence and effectively report hate crimes to police."

"Safe Place," started by openly gay Seattle Police Officer Jim Ritter, is a campaign against bias crimes. Since May, Officer Ritter has spoken with 650 businesses across Seattle, all of whom have supported the campaign, displaying rainbow-badge decals in their windows.

While the fight for LGBT rights remains in many cities an uphill battle, Seattle appears to be leading the nation in acceptance.

“I haven’t been turned down by a single business,” Ritter told the Seattle Times. “It is heartening and reinforces that people in Seattle get it and don’t support hate of any kind.”

Starbucks may serve as precedent for other large companies to support the initiative as well. With 2,000 extra pairs of eyes, Ritter is convinced the program will help “put bullies on notice that they can’t get away with victimizing people.” 

Starbucks has shown its support for the LGBT community in other ways recently, raising a gay pride flag at its Seattle headquarters and airing a commercial featuring contestants from "RuPaul's Drag Race," Bianca Del Rio and Adore Delano.

In general, American companies have been supportive of LGBT rights. Some 379 companies filed amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs in March supporting the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage. Tech companies stated that lack of support for LGBT rights inhibits them from hiring the best possible candidates.

“American corporate capitalism has...become one of the nation’s most powerful drivers of the social changes that have led to a mainstream acceptance of homosexuality,” reported The Christian Science Monitor's Harry Bruinius in March.

Corporate consultant Farah Parker suggests that a shift in business audience has also affected companies open views on social issues.

“Businesses can no longer remain completely silent on social issues. As more corporations strive to create communities and not just consumers, the target audience now picks products based on quality and the company's cultural platforms,” she told the Monitor.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #318 on: December 18, 2015, 08:58:37 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/half-u-states-towns-cities-scoring-high-lgbt-230456091.html
Half of U.S. states have towns, cities scoring high on LGBT index
12/18/15

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Towns and cities in half of the United States' 50 states earned perfect scores in an index measuring their treatment of LGBT people, a mark of progress for the historically discriminated community, an advocacy group said on Thursday.

Perfect scores on the Municipal Equality Index reflect measures that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people from discrimination, said the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which compiled the index.

The study "absolutely demonstrates wonderful forward progress at the city level," Cathryn Oakley, the index's author, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Newly top-scoring cities this year include Detroit, a Midwestern city struggling to recover from economic hardship, and Louisville, Kentucky, located in the nation's conservative "Bible Belt."

Oakley said she was pleased by the geographic distribution of cities with perfect scores.

"Every region of the country - Northeast, Southeast, Plains, Great Lakes, Southwest, West and Northwest - had at least one 100-point score," she said.

"People have this idea that it's only going to be folks on the coasts who are going to be acting on these things, and that is absolutely not the case."

While the proportion of U.S. cities scoring high on the index has remained more or less constant, the addition of varied cities around the nation is cause for optimism, Oakley said.


Perfect scores on the index, started in 2012, require laws that do not discriminate, benefits and protections for LGBT municipal employees and efforts to include them in city services and programs. Also, law enforcement must have taken specific measures to protect LGBT individuals.

States which lacked a perfect score in any municipality - following an assessment of laws and policies in at least five of their largest cities - ranged from Alaska to Wyoming in the West to Mississippi in the Deep South.

"In too many communities, LGBT Americans continue to face barriers to equality, overt discrimination, and even violence," said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement.

To compile the index, the Washington-based group looked at 408 U.S. cities.

(Reporting by Sebastien Malo, Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, corruption and climate change. Visit www.trust.org)
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #319 on: December 18, 2015, 03:12:00 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-just-released-bold-184100626.html
Hillary Clinton Just Released a Bold New Platform for LGBT Equality
12/18/15

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton unveiled a comprehensive LGBT equality agenda on Thursday, declaring that six months after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling for nationwide marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, the fight for LGBT rights "remains unfinished."

"As president, I will continue to fight so that LGBT Americans and families can live, work and pray free of discrimination. I will not settle for anything less," Clinton said in a statement released by her campaign. "It is unacceptable that LGBT kids continue to be discriminated against and bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home."

The plan: The linchpin to Clinton's platform is her support for the Full Equality Act, a piece of legislation proposed this summer that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes like race, sex, religion and national origin. The proposal would thereby prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.

Gay and transgender Americans currently lack any federal nondiscrimination protections. Although some states have enacted LGBT civil rights laws in lieu of federal action, 28 states have no nondiscrimination laws protecting lesbians, gays and bisexuals, while 32 states have yet to ban anti-transgender discrimination, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

While the Full Equality Act faces long odds of passage so long as Congress remains in Republican hands, Clinton also pledged to continue carrying out President Barack Obama's executive actions prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination targeting federal employees and contractors. Those actions may be in jeopardy if a strong social conservative, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), becomes president.

Homing in on problems afflicting LGBT youth, Clinton called for an end to ex-gay "conversion therapy" plans for minors, legislation to combat bullying, full equality for same-sex parent families and increased social services funding for homeless LGBT youth. Up to 40% of the youth homeless population identifies as LGBT.

Laura Durso, director of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress and an expert on LGBT youth homelessness, applauded Clinton's focus on the issue. Homeless LGBT youth "are more likely to experience victimization while on the streets compared to their peers," Durso told Mic, underscoring the urgency of securing shelter and services.

"Services are needed and we need to look at prevention," Durso added. "And we need to be looking not only at things like family rejection, but also things like poverty and families that simply can't afford sometimes to have children in their homes or young people who might leave as a result of abuse."

Meanwhile, Clinton laid out a series of measures to combat HIV/AIDS, including urging Republican governors to expand Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Doing so would help patients access treatment, impose a $250 cap on out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drug costs and expand access to pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a daily treatment regime that blocks HIV transmission.

The New York Times reports that since Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York stepped up funding for PrEP as part of a comprehensive anti-HIV/AIDS agenda in mid-2014, the state has seen a threefold increase in prescriptions for the treatment. There have been zero cases of mothers transmitting HIV to their newborn children in New York over the same amount of time.

Clinton also endorsed the right of transgender people to serve openly in the military (the 2010 repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allowed open service only for gays, lesbians and bisexuals) and urged more funding for the Global Equality Fund, which she established during her tenure as secretary of state to support LGBT rights and civil society organizations around the globe.

"What's at stake": The rollout of Clinton's LGBT platform sharpens the contrast with her Republican rivals. Though the leading GOP candidates vary in tone and emphasis on LGBT issues, all oppose marriage equality and many, including establishment favorites like Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, have argued that businesses and individuals should be allowed to refuse services to LGBT people on religious liberty grounds.

In recent days, Rubio — regarded by many Democrats as one of Clinton's most formidable possible foes — has ramped up his rhetoric on LGBT issues, potentially undercutting his general election appeal to more socially moderate voters. On Sunday, Rubio suggested he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn the court's marriage equality ruling. In a new campaign ad and in his opening statement at Tuesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas, the senator lamented that supporters of "traditional values" are now considered "bigots."

JoDee Winterhof, vice president of policy and public affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said that the differences between Clinton and the GOP are a reminder of "what's at stake" for LGBT rights in 2016.

"On the one hand we have witnessed pro-equality candidates put forward robust plans to address LGBT discrimination at the federal level, fight the epidemic of violence against transgender Americans, advance equality around the globe and more," Winterhof told Mic. "And on the other side, we've seen an unprecedented level of vocal opposition to LGBT equality from vowing to overturn marriage equality and rushing to Kim Davis' side to treating transgender people as a punchline."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #320 on: December 19, 2015, 11:51:20 am »

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/sexual-orientation-discrimination-pepperdine-basketball-players-000014
A new window for gay rights just opened
How a California ruling could force an issue Congress has been avoiding

By Richard Primus
12/18/15 02:45 PM EST

What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.

Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.

The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.

When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.

Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.

On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination.

This marks the second time this year that theory has been upheld. The first was by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July, when adjudicating a federal air traffic controller’s claim that he was denied a promotion for being gay. The controller wanted to sue under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and the EEOC ruled that he could, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.

It’s not a stretch to say these decisions—and the Pepperdine case in particular—signal a departure in antidiscrimination law, one whose implications are immediate and far reaching. It would make every remaining instance of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as hard to defend as garden-variety “no girls allowed” discrimination—without the need for a single legislature to approve a single bill not already on the books.
Not everyone in the gay-rights world will cheer this development. Indeed, many leading gay-rights advocates dislike this strategy—so much so that in the suits that led to the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage ruling, they deliberately refused to pursue it. For many of the people involved, same-sex marriage was an issue about gay and lesbian identity as such. They wanted to win in a way that would vindicate and recognize the particular identities of gays and lesbians, not one that would smooth out the complex terrain of the LGBTQ world into just another manifestation of a familiar dynamic between men and women.

But now that the sex-discrimination theory of gay rights has been deployed successfully, we can expect a cascade of similar rulings as a new approach to sexual-orientation discrimination is consolidated. In every area of life where sex discrimination is illegal but no statute specifically protects gays and lesbians, plaintiffs will begin walking into court and arguing that the existing laws against sex discrimination are enough. The same theory would have attracted quizzical stares from most judges a few years ago, but now it’s easy to foresee a future in which that claim will regularly prevail.

Will it hit the Supreme Court? Eventually, it probably will, most likely in a case arising under some federal antidiscrimination statute, perhaps even Title IX, whose text specifies sex but not sexual orientation. In principle, the Court might turn back the sex-discrimination theory at that point by saying that Congress didn’t intend to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians when it passed sex-discrimination laws in the 1960s and 70s. And as a historical matter, that’s surely true. But it is at least as likely that the 21st-century Court will bow to the logic of the sex-discrimination argument and say that regardless of how Congress originally imagined those laws would apply, there’s no getting around the fact that they also outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

There would then be one potential move left in the game: Congress could amend the antidiscrimination statutes to clarify that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination specifically don’t apply to sexual orientation. But passing that measure through a 21st-century Congress would be no easier than passing overt protection for gays and lesbians has been so far. So once the courts come fully on board to the sex-discrimination theory, which is likely to happen quickly, the issue will as a practical matter be settled.

After trying and failing for decades to get Congress to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics in federal antidiscrimination statutes, gay-rights advocates may now be told that they don’t need to win that battle after all.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #321 on: December 23, 2015, 04:02:14 pm »

Massachusetts Court Rules Religious School Must Hire Homosexuals for Non-Teaching Positions

A state court in Massachusetts has ruled that a religious school in the state can’t decline to hire homosexuals for non-teaching positions despite their lifestyle being contrary to the school’s mission and beliefs.

In 2013, Matthew Barrett accepted a job as food service director at Fontbonne Academy in Milton, an all-girls school that is sponsored by the Roman Catholic Sisters of Saint Joseph of Boston. However, when he listed his “husband” as his emergency contact on his initial employment forms, the job offer was rescinded because his lifestyle ran contrary to the school’s values.

Barrett then sued the school, alleging discrimination. Fontbonne Academy argued that it had a right to hire those in accordance with Roman Catholic teachings, as it believes that homosexual behavior is sinful. It said that being forced to hire those engaged in open homosexuality would violate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion and freedom of association.

On Wednesday, Superior Court Associate Justice Douglas Wilkins ruled against Fontbonne Academy, agreeing that Barrett had been discriminated against. One of his reasons for ruling against the school was that Barrett was hired for a non-teaching position.

“As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message,” Wilkins wrote. “It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesman for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex marriage.”

He noted that the school also hires those that are not Roman Catholic, and that Barrett was never asked to sign a contract to live in accordance with the school’s values.

“He was not denied employment for any advocacy of same-sex marriage or gay rights; he only listed his husband as an emergency contact on a ‘new hire’ form,” Wilkins said.

Barrett applauded the decision, telling reporters, “What happened to me was wrong, and I truly hope it doesn’t happen to anyone else.”

But Roman Catholic groups and others said that they were disappointed with what the decision means for religious liberty.

“Religious liberty is guaranteed not only by the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but even more broadly, by Article II of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution,” said Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle in a statement. “Religious freedom consists not merely of the right to worship, but of the right of religious institutions to govern their internal affairs free of state interference.”

“Judge Wilkins’s decision would compel Catholic institutions to hire those who reject and despise Catholic teaching, fatally impairing the constitutionally protected right of those institutions to carry on their mission,” he continued. “This is precisely the sort of ‘excessive entanglement’ of government with religion decried and prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court…”

Fontbonne Academy says that it is considering its appeal options.

http://christiannews.net/2015/12/23/massachusetts-court-rules-religious-school-must-hire-homosexuals-for-non-teaching-positions/
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 #322 on: December 28, 2015, 08:10:42 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/robert-spitzer-most-influential-psychiatrist-dies-83-045457942.html
12/27/15
Robert Spitzer, 'most influential psychiatrist,' dies at 83

SEATTLE (AP) — Dr. Robert Spitzer — a psychiatrist who played a leading role in establishing agreed-upon standards to describe mental disorders and eliminating homosexuality's designation as a pathology — died Friday in Seattle. He was 83.

Spitzer died of heart problems, said his wife, Columbia University Professor Emerita Janet Williams.

Dr. Spitzer's work on several editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the D.S.M., defined all of the major disorders "so all in the profession could agree on what they were seeing," said Williams, who worked with him on D.S.M.-III, which was published in 1980 and became a best-selling book.

"That was a major breakthrough in the profession," she said.

Spitzer came up with agreed-upon definitions of mental disorders by convening meetings of experts in each diagnostic category and taking notes on their observations, the New York Times reported.

"Rather than just appealing to authority, the authority of Freud, the appeal was: Are there studies? What evidence is there?" Spitzer told the New Yorker magazine in 2005. "The people I appointed had all made a commitment to be guided by data."

Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University and editor of a later edition of the manual, told the Times that Spitzer "was by far the most influential psychiatrist of his time."

Gay-rights activists credit Dr. Spitzer with removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the D.S.M. in 1973. He decided to push for the change after he met with gay activists and determined that homosexuality could not be a disorder if gay people were comfortable with their sexuality.

At the time of the psychiatric profession's debate over homosexuality, Dr. Spitzer told the Washington Post: "A medical disorder either had to be associated with subjective distress — pain — or general impairment in social function."

Dr. Jack Drescher, a gay psychoanalyst in New York, told the Times that Spitzer's successful push to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders was a major advance for gay rights. "The fact that gay marriage is allowed today is in part owed to Bob Spitzer," he said.

In 2012, Dr. Spitzer publicly apologized for a 2001 study that found so-called reparative therapy on gay people can turn them straight if they really want to do so. He told the Times in 2012 that he concluded the study was flawed because it simply asked people who had gone through reparative therapy if they had changed their sexual orientation.

"As I read these commentaries (about the study,) I knew this was a problem, a big problem, and one I couldn't answer," Dr. Spitzer told the Times. "How do you know someone has really changed?"

Dr. Spitzer and his wife moved to Seattle from New Jersey this year.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #323 on: January 20, 2016, 12:03:46 pm »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/20/this-is-a-looming-danger-for-full-lgbt-equality/
1/20/16
This is a looming danger for full LGBT equality

Since before the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June, leaders in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community have warned that the fight for equality was far from over. Noted gay rights activist and radio host Michelangelo Signorile wrote a book on it. In “It’s not over: getting beyond tolerance, defeating homophobia, and winning true equality,” he urged LGBT Americans not to succumb to “victory blindness.” But a new poll shows that straight people are susceptible to it, too.

According to a new survey from Harris Poll commissioned by GLAAD, the nation’s LGBT media advocacy organization, “A growing complacency appears to be developing” among non-LGBT Americans. When asked if they agreed that “gay people have the same rights as everybody else” in the United States, 50 percent said yes. The poll will be released later this morning.

 
(Courtesy GLAAD)
The poll split respondents into three groups based on their “comfort” with seven LGBT-centered situations. These include seeing a same-sex couple holding hands, learning a family member, one’s doctor or child’s teacher is gay and seeing a coworker’s wedding picture. “Allies” were the most comfortable. “Detached supporters” were comfortable depending on the situation. And “resisters” were the least comfortable.

As worrying as the “victory blindness” is among straight people, the survey shows that a disturbing level of straight Americans in those three groups don’t think some of the biggest problems facing the LGBT community are all that serious. About a quarter of respondents don’t think HIV/AIDS, depression and acts of violence are serious.   

[This is the problem facing LGBT equality, Moore or less]

The level of ambivalence about LGBT Americans demonstrated by the survey is also deeply troubling. “Roughly a third of non-LGBT Americans profess no strong opinion about important LGBT issues,” the GLAAD/Harris Poll report notes. “Interestingly, this ambivalence appears across segments, including allies.”

 
(Courtesy GLAAD)
That’s being too polite. The “ambivalent” couldn’t care less whether the LGBT community has influence or the support of politicians. For instance, 38 percent “neither agreed nor disagreed” that the LGBT community “has more influence than any other minority community.” And 37 percent were neither here nor there on whether “most politicians” support policies for the LGBT community.

Sure, marriage equality is the law of the land. But same-sex couples who live in 28 states with no discrimination protection for LGBT people can be fired for who they married. Those who live in the 21 states with so-called religious freedom laws have to contend with state-sanctioned discrimination masquerading as moral conviction. States such as Florida are entertaining a bill that could scuttle adoptions by same-sex parents, deny LGBT people care and protect from litigation anyone professing to uphold their religious beliefs while withholding services to LGBT people. And then there is the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court who brazenly defies the U.S. Supreme Court.

[The new year promises more attempts to legally discriminate against LGBT Americans]

The one bright spot is the Equality Act wending its way through both houses of Congress. This bill would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the landmark anti-discrimination statute. The Senate version has 37 Democratic and two independent sponsors. The House version has 172 sponsors, including Rep. Bob Dold, the only Republican to sign on and who is in a tough reelection fight in his swing district in Illinois.

But the House bill is doomed. Here’s the “prognosis” when you look it up at govtrack.us: “0% chance of being enacted.” That’s because the Republican leadership will ensure that it goes nowhere. Public pressure is needed to improve that prognosis and thwart the ugly efforts happening at the state level. So, now is not the time for ambivalence. Not from the LGBT community and certainly not from folks who profess to be allies in the continuing fight for equality. Now is not the time to slow down in the quest for full LGBT equality.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #324 on: January 31, 2016, 10:01:04 pm »

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

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #325 on: February 29, 2016, 07:18:18 pm »

Anti-Gay Stickers At High School In Indio Touch Off Debate: Hate Speech Or Free Speech?

Students displaying anti-LGBT stickers at a high school in Indio have touched off a debate: is that free speech or hate speech?

The stickers show a rainbow — the symbol of the gay community — with a line crossing through it. Officials said the stickers have increasingly shown up over the past two weeks on some students’ school ID badges at Shadow Hills High School, as well as on social media websites.

The increasing number of the stickers caused an outcry at the school among students and faculty. Many called it hate speech. Shadow Hills senior and vice president of the Gay Straight Alliance Michelle Bachman said on Twitter that the stickers were “definitely hate speech, but legally, we can’t do anything until these students start to physically harass us, which I believe is an injustice.”

School district administrators said the students have the right to display the stickers, just as pro-LGBT students would.

In an email sent to staff Wednesday, Desert Sands Unified School District administrators wrote, “After consulting with district level personnel and our legal counsel, it was determined that these students do have the protected right to freedom of speech, just as students portraying rainbows in support of the LGBT would.”

The school district said that is the stickers led to actual verbal or physical harassment, that would be going too far.

“Every person can have an opinion, but if there’s harassment or bullying then it does cross the line,” DSUSD Assistant Superintendent Laura Fisher told KESQ.

“If at any point students are interrupting class time to express their beliefs, they are to be sent to the discipline office with a referral for disruption,” the school district’s Wednesday email said. “We all have a right to freedom of speech, but students also have a right to be educated without fear. This has always been our policy, and we will continue to enforce it.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/02/28/anti-gay-stickers-at-indio-high-school-touch-off-debate-hate-speech-or-free-speech/
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
christistruth
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


View Profile
« Reply #326 on: February 29, 2016, 07:50:07 pm »

Anti-Gay Stickers At High School In Indio Touch Off Debate: Hate Speech Or Free Speech?

Students displaying anti-LGBT stickers at a high school in Indio have touched off a debate: is that free speech or hate speech?

The stickers show a rainbow — the symbol of the gay community — with a line crossing through it. Officials said the stickers have increasingly shown up over the past two weeks on some students’ school ID badges at Shadow Hills High School, as well as on social media websites.

The increasing number of the stickers caused an outcry at the school among students and faculty. Many called it hate speech. Shadow Hills senior and vice president of the Gay Straight Alliance Michelle Bachman said on Twitter that the stickers were “definitely hate speech, but legally, we can’t do anything until these students start to physically harass us, which I believe is an injustice.”

School district administrators said the students have the right to display the stickers, just as pro-LGBT students would.

In an email sent to staff Wednesday, Desert Sands Unified School District administrators wrote, “After consulting with district level personnel and our legal counsel, it was determined that these students do have the protected right to freedom of speech, just as students portraying rainbows in support of the LGBT would.”

The school district said that is the stickers led to actual verbal or physical harassment, that would be going too far.

“Every person can have an opinion, but if there’s harassment or bullying then it does cross the line,” DSUSD Assistant Superintendent Laura Fisher told KESQ.

“If at any point students are interrupting class time to express their beliefs, they are to be sent to the discipline office with a referral for disruption,” the school district’s Wednesday email said. “We all have a right to freedom of speech, but students also have a right to be educated without fear. This has always been our policy, and we will continue to enforce it.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/02/28/anti-gay-stickers-at-indio-high-school-touch-off-debate-hate-speech-or-free-speech/

The Gov should stay out of these students social media. But as get closer and closer to the rapture, things like this will become more common.
Report Spam   Logged

Luke 21:28

Jesus is the answer for our moral ills. Conservative principals are the answer to our government corruption.
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #327 on: February 29, 2016, 08:09:09 pm »

Texas Bakers Receive Death Threats for Offering Referral Rather Than Making Cake for ‘Gay Wedding’

A Christian-identifying couple in Texas is receiving death threats after offering a referral to two homosexual men rather than being involved with their same-sex ceremony by making the cake for the reception.

According to reports, Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo went to Kern’s Bakery in Longview earlier this month with a photograph of what they wanted their wedding cake to look like.

“We just went in there to get a quote,” Valencia told the Longview News Journal, explaining that he and Marmolejo talked with co-owner Edie Delorme for some time without issue. “Then she says, ‘Who’s this for?’ We looked at each other.”

That’s when Delorme, who attends a Baptist church, explained that because of her faith, the bakery could not be involved with the event.

“It’s not against people or what they choose to be part of,” she told the men.

Delorme says that she offered to provide recommendations for other bakeries, but Valencia and Marmolejo just walked out.

The men then took to the media several days later, which in turn contacted the bakery about the alleged discrimination. Delorme said that she would understand if a business didn’t want association with a particular event, and noted that Kern’s Bakery has turned down cakes for other reasons.

    Connect with Christian News

“We don’t do alcohol-related cakes or risque [cakes],” she told reporters. “We’ve turned down cake for, ‘Can you make a giant Skoal can?’ … It’s not that we single out one [reason].”

Delorme said that she and her husband David have also discussed their apprehension about association with events that involve remarriage after divorce.

“We feel like if we are going to be putting our name on something, we want it to encourage godly values,” she stated.

After the matter went public, many lashed out at the Delormes, posting negative, vulgar and angry reviews on Yelp, such as “See you in Hell,” “Their cakes taste like [expletive]” and “They farted in my cupcakes.” But some posted positive reviews to show support.

“These bakers did NOT deny gays business because they were gay. They chose not to make a gay wedding cake. If a … homosexual came in and asked for a normal old birthday cake, they wouldn’t kick him out or deny him service,” one reviewer named John wrote. “So, sorry to deny your self-victimization pity party, but there is no discrimination happening here. None. At all.”

“Sorry for the vile response. The hate is thick with this crowd,” another named Mark wrote. “Keep the faith and keep making all the yummy baked goods! See you next time I come through town!”

Yelp says that it will be taking down some of the comments because they are not bona fide reviews of personal customer service.

Michael Berry, an attorney with First Liberty in Plano, told the Houston Chronicle that the Delormes have been receiving death threats as a result of the matter gong public.

“It’s a mom-and-pop shop, and when they start getting death threats there is something seriously wrong,” he stated. “It gets really ugly and unfortunate but that has a very real effect on the Delormes and their employees.”

“When they start to receive threats towards their family and their business simply because of their religious convictions, there’s something wrong with that picture,” Berry repeated to Fox’s Todd Starnes.

http://christiannews.net/2016/02/29/texas-bakers-receive-death-threats-for-offering-referral-rather-than-making-cake-for-gay-wedding/
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: 21593



View Profile
« Reply #328 on: March 02, 2016, 04:43:07 am »

Anti-Gay Stickers At High School In Indio Touch Off Debate: Hate Speech Or Free Speech?

Students displaying anti-LGBT stickers at a high school in Indio have touched off a debate: is that free speech or hate speech?

The stickers show a rainbow — the symbol of the gay community — with a line crossing through it. Officials said the stickers have increasingly shown up over the past two weeks on some students’ school ID badges at Shadow Hills High School, as well as on social media websites.

The increasing number of the stickers caused an outcry at the school among students and faculty. Many called it hate speech. Shadow Hills senior and vice president of the Gay Straight Alliance Michelle Bachman said on Twitter that the stickers were “definitely hate speech, but legally, we can’t do anything until these students start to physically harass us, which I believe is an injustice.”

School district administrators said the students have the right to display the stickers, just as pro-LGBT students would.

In an email sent to staff Wednesday, Desert Sands Unified School District administrators wrote, “After consulting with district level personnel and our legal counsel, it was determined that these students do have the protected right to freedom of speech, just as students portraying rainbows in support of the LGBT would.”

The school district said that is the stickers led to actual verbal or physical harassment, that would be going too far.

“Every person can have an opinion, but if there’s harassment or bullying then it does cross the line,” DSUSD Assistant Superintendent Laura Fisher told KESQ.

“If at any point students are interrupting class time to express their beliefs, they are to be sent to the discipline office with a referral for disruption,” the school district’s Wednesday email said. “We all have a right to freedom of speech, but students also have a right to be educated without fear. This has always been our policy, and we will continue to enforce it.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/02/28/anti-gay-stickers-at-indio-high-school-touch-off-debate-hate-speech-or-free-speech/

Well, that was fast. The sodomites move quickly...Who cares about that pesky ole First Amendment.

California School Asks Students to Remove Anti-Gay Symbols

A California school district has reversed course and will now ask students wearing anti-gay stickers on their identification badges to remove them pending further investigation.

The Desert Sun newspaper reports ( http://desert.sn/1Qqi6WV ) that the Desert Sands Unified School District sent a letter Monday to staff saying it will ask a dozen students wearing the symbols to remove them while at school.

Administrators had previously said they couldn't ask students at Shadow Hills High School to stop donning the image of a small rainbow inside a circle with a line through it, citing free speech rights.

It was not immediately clear what prompted the change at the school near Palm Springs, California.

The students began using the stickers last month and classmates and teachers complained, saying gay and lesbian students felt targeted.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-school-asks-students-remove-anti-gay-symbols-37316436
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 #329 on: March 08, 2016, 05:04:24 pm »

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/companies-like-jp-morgan-wants-to-know-which-employees-are-gay-straight/

Fortune 500 Companies Like JP Morgan Now Want To Know Which Employees Are Gay Or Straight

“It totally amazes me that the mindset has started to shift,” says Michael Elliott, an executive director in Dallas. “As little as 10 years ago, at smaller companies, you could either be easily fired or they were following the military idea of don’t ask, don’t tell.”

3/8/16

JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s human resources department is asking employees for the first time this year if they’d like to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“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:” Romans 1:26 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: One of the biggest accomplishments of the Obama administration that will have the most far-reaching impact after he slithers out of office will be the complete and total transformation of America into Sodom and Gomorrah. Even though LGBT identifying people are less than 5% of this country’s population, the balance of power has shifted so dramatically and so quickly that it is difficult to grasp. The LGBT Mafia has the full and official funding and backing from Wall Street and Washington, and are calling the shots in nearly every aspect of our culture.

Companies including Facebook Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, IBM Corp. and AT&T Inc. also collect the data. By one measure, nearly half of the largest U.S. businesses — under pressure to be inclusive as they compete for talent — seek to gather information on who on the payroll is homosexual, bisexual or transgender so better benefit plans can be designed and managers can consider diversity enhancing promotions.

“Collecting the data is not weird now,” says Gary Gates, a retired demographer from UCLA Law School’s Charles R. Williams Institute. With the U.S. Supreme Court having legalized same-sex marriage and the military abandoning its don’t ask, don’t tell policy, “there’s much less fear and stigma.”

That may be true, but there’s enough peril that Chevron Corp. decided not to pose the question after a review identified data-security risks. Many that have studied the issue opted not to proceed, says Michelle Phillips, a lawyer with Jackson Lewis in White Plains, New York, who advises companies on employment law. Phillips says one worry is that a rogue employee might leak the information about a colleague to do him or her harm.

“It totally amazes me that the mindset has started to shift,” says Michael Elliott, an executive director in Dallas. “As little as 10 years ago, at smaller companies, you could either be easily fired or they were following the military idea of don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 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