What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal

[Mark]

Yeah, I wonder why they're targeting Indiana...

SWING STATE

[Psalm 51:17]

SWING STATE

True, but it's not like they have alot of electoral votes. I believe Romney "won" that state in 2012.

[Mark]

Thousands protest 'religious freedom' law in Indiana

Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Jhn 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Thousands of people gathered in downtown Indianapolis on Saturday to protest the passage this week of a controversial "religious freedom" law that critics say could allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The protesters chanted and held signs as they marched from Monument Circle to the Indiana Statehouse to express their displeasure with Republican Gov. Mike Pence, who signed the legislation Thursday.

"No hate in our state," "Whose State? Our State!" and "Fix the bill" were some of the chants heard in the background at the rally.

An unidentified State Police trooper estimated that as many as 3,000 were in attendance at the height of the rally,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/28/thousands-protest-religious-freedom-law-indy/70596032/

[Mark]

Angie's List freezes Ind. expansion in wake of anti-gay law

When did this become an anti-gay law? Seems to be an anti Jesus movement. Also angies list is a shakedown is a shakedown job.



Angie’s List is the latest amongst a slew of companies taking a stand following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a new Indiana law which allows business owners to deny service to gay customers for religious reasons.
“Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement, according to Mashable.
 
A $40 million expansion project of the company – which is headquartered in Indianapolis and reports over 3 million paid subscribers -- was scheduled to begin within days of the company’s announcement that it had suspended its plans.
 
The plans “would have included the purchase of a former Ford assembly plant and potentially added 1,000 jobs over the next five years,” details Mashable. Angie’s List, however, said it won’t proceed until it can "fully understand" how the law might affect its employees.
 
As previously reported, the measure – which passed Thursday -- prompted negative reactions nationwide from LGBT advocates, lawmakers, civil liberties groups and numerous businesses.
 
“Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was ‘deeply disappointed’ with the new law; Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the week when he canceled all programs that require customers and employees to travel to Indiana. And Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman penned an open letter on the topic,” Mashable reports.
 
On Saturday, nearly 3,000 protesters gathered at Indianapolis' Monument Circle to march in protest of the RFRA.


http://www.jrn.com/now-trending/Angies-List-freezes-Ind-expansion-in-wake-of-anti-gay-law-297904261.html

[Psalm 51:17]

Look out for any sodomite rallies like this in your area - pt being that this would be THE perfect time to preach the gospel and hand out tracts. Jason Cooley and his ministry have done the same at sodomite rallies in his area.

[Psalm 51:17]

And don't forget the Jesuits are behind these "rallies" as well - another thing, it seems like alot of people marching in these "rallies" are NON-sodomites.

Angie's List freezes Ind. expansion in wake of anti-gay law

When did this become an anti-gay law? Seems to be an anti Jesus movement. Also angies list is a shakedown is a shakedown job.



Angie’s List is the latest amongst a slew of companies taking a stand following passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a new Indiana law which allows business owners to deny service to gay customers for religious reasons.
“Angie’s List is open to all and discriminates against none and we are hugely disappointed in what this bill represents,” Angie's List CEO Bill Oesterle said in a statement, according to Mashable.
 
A $40 million expansion project of the company – which is headquartered in Indianapolis and reports over 3 million paid subscribers -- was scheduled to begin within days of the company’s announcement that it had suspended its plans.
 
The plans “would have included the purchase of a former Ford assembly plant and potentially added 1,000 jobs over the next five years,” details Mashable. Angie’s List, however, said it won’t proceed until it can "fully understand" how the law might affect its employees.
 
As previously reported, the measure – which passed Thursday -- prompted negative reactions nationwide from LGBT advocates, lawmakers, civil liberties groups and numerous businesses.
 
“Apple CEO Tim Cook said he was ‘deeply disappointed’ with the new law; Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff expressed a similar sentiment earlier in the week when he canceled all programs that require customers and employees to travel to Indiana. And Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman penned an open letter on the topic,” Mashable reports.
 
On Saturday, nearly 3,000 protesters gathered at Indianapolis' Monument Circle to march in protest of the RFRA.


http://www.jrn.com/now-trending/Angies-List-freezes-Ind-expansion-in-wake-of-anti-gay-law-297904261.html

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/tim-swarens/2015/03/28/swarens-gov-mike-pence-push-clarification-religious-freedom-law/70611906/
Swarens: Gov. Mike Pence to push for clarification of ‘religious freedom’ law
3/28/15

Gov. Mike Pence, scorched by a fast-spreading political firestorm, told The Star on Saturday that he will support the introduction of legislation to “clarify” that Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not promote discrimination against gays and lesbians.

“I support religious liberty, and I support this law,” Pence said in an exclusive interview. “But we are in discussions with legislative leaders this weekend to see if there’s a way to clarify the intent of the law.”

The governor, although not ready to provide details on what the new bill will say, said he expects the legislation to be introduced into the General Assembly this coming week.

Asked if that legislation might include making gay and lesbian Hoosiers a protected legal class, Pence said, “That’s not on my agenda.”

Amid the deepest crisis of his political career, Pence said repeatedly that the intense blowback against the new law is the result of a “misunderstanding driven by misinformation.”

He adamantly insisted that RFRA will not open the door to state-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians. But he did acknowledge that Indiana’s image — and potentially its economic health — has been hurt badly by the controversy.

I spoke with Pence on the same day that thousands of people rallied at the Statehouse in opposition to the law. And the same day that Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle announced that his company will abandon a deal with the state and city to expand the company’s headquarters in Indianapolis because of RFRA’s passage.

Oesterle’s statement is a telling sign that the outrage over RFRA isn’t limited only to the political left. Oesterle directed Republican Mitch Daniels’ 2004 campaign for governor. And it’s a signal that the damage from the RFRA debacle could be extensive.

Behind the scenes, Pence and his team have been scrambling to mitigate that damage — both to the state and to the governor’s political career.

Pence said, for example, that he had a “cordial and productive” conversation with Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff, who announced shortly after Pence signed the RFRA legislation on Thursday that the company will cancel all corporate-related travel to Indiana. That conversation, however, has not led to a reversal of the Salesforce decision.

I asked the governor if he had anticipated the strongly negative reaction set off by the bill’s passage. His response made it clear that he and his team didn’t see it coming.

“I just can’t account for the hostility that’s been directed at our state,” he said. “I’ve been taken aback by the mischaracterizations from outside the state of Indiana about what is in this bill.”

In defense of the legislation, he noted that 19 other states and the federal government have adopted RFRA laws similar to Indiana’s. And he pointed out that President Barack Obama voted for Illinois’ version of RFRA as a state senator.

The governor also criticized the news media’s coverage of the legislation. “Despite the irresponsible headlines that have appeared in the national media, this law is not about discrimination,” he said. “If it was, I would have vetoed it.”

Yet, those justifications, cited repeatedly by the governor’s supporters in recent days, have done little to quell the controversy.

Which is why the proposal to clarify the law’s intent with a new bill has gained traction among Pence’s advisers in the past couple of days.

Pence also plans to fight back in the state and national media. He’s scheduled, for instance, to defend the law Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos. “I’m not going to take it (the criticism) lying down,” he said.

As we wrapped up the conversation, I asked Pence: What answer do you have for the many gays and lesbians — and their friends and families — who’ve asked this past week if they are still welcome in Indiana?

“First, this law is not about discrimination. It’s about protecting religious liberty and giving people full access to the judicial system,” he said. “But, yes, Hoosier hospitality is about making all people feel welcome in our state. We did that with the Super Bowl and with many other events, and with bringing businesses here. We will continue to do that.”

Whether Pence can get that message across — whether he still has the credibility to get people to believe it — will help determine the extent of RFRA’s damage. First, and most important, for the state. But also for Mike Pence’s political future and legacy.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/indiana-didnt-actually-pass-an-anti-gay-bill-2015-03-30?siteid=yhoof2
3/30/15
Indiana didn’t actually pass an anti-gay bill

If you want to know why the so-called wisdom of crowds is a load of B.S., just take a look at the widespread reaction last week to Indiana’s new religious-freedom law.

If you listened to all the voices who have weighed in on this subject, from TV to radio to the Internet, you’d think Indiana just passed a law giving a green light to anti-gay bigotry.

But after talking to some legal experts who had actually read the law in question, I found out Indiana had done no such thing.

The outcry is so violent that one law professor declined to talk on the record. He had already offered a legal opinion about the law in public — and he, and his family, had been swamped by hate mail and personal abuse a result. (So I’m glad we’re all fighting hate speech.)

Another legal professor initially took the view that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, was anti-gay, but added that his knowledge of it so far was based on media coverage. While we were speaking, I found the text of the law online and emailed it to him. Then I called him back a few minutes later, when he had had a chance to read it.

His opening words when he got back on the phone? “Forget everything I just said.”

The law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so.
The law, he said, was actually no different from the federal religious-freedom law that has been on the statute books since 1993. All the reports and commentary he’d heard had been wrong.

Another law professor, Daniel Conkle at Indiana University, said the new law is also the same as those currently in place in 30 other states. Nineteen state legislatures have passed such laws, and in another 11 states the courts have made rulings in a similar vein, he said.

What the legal experts told me: In a nutshell, the new law does not give anyone carte blanche to refuse to serve homosexuals, or any other group, based on religion (or any other grounds).

Instead, the law simply says the state can’t force you to do something that’s against your religion unless it has a very good reason to do so — the “compelling interest” rule. If it tries to do so, you can go to court and plead legal objection under the religious-freedom law. The court will have to decide if there is a compelling reason to override your religious freedom, or not. Combating discrimination, incidentally, might well be such a reason.

Legal professors gave me examples where these laws had already been used elsewhere in America.

In Texas, for example, a school required all boys to cut their hair short. A Native American boy claimed that violated a religious requirement to let his hair grow. He took the school to court under the religious-freedom law and won.

In Philadelphia, the city tried to stop people handing out food in public parks. A church group that had been giving food to the homeless as part of its mission claimed an objection to the law on religious grounds and won.

A prison in Arkansas demanded prisoners be clean-shaven. A Muslim prisoner claimed the right to grow a short beard on religious grounds. He also won under the freedom of religion statute.

A small religious sect from Brazil uses a hallucinogenic tea in its services, and pleaded for an exemption from anti-drug laws on the grounds of religion. The courts upheld that too.

None of this, I should add, means that the new Indiana law will not be used to justify discrimination against gays in some contexts. No one can prove a negative, and we will have to wait for it to be tried in court.

Mark Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the law might be used to justify discrimination against gays — if the courts agree that that was the intent of the legislators who passed it, and if the courts cannot find a compelling public interest against such discrimination.

In other states, professors said, the laws had not so far been used to justify such discrimination, although that doesn’t mean the same will be true in Indiana. A florist in Washington state tried to plead religious objection against providing flowers at a gay wedding, but the courts ruled against the business owner.

Professor Conkle at Indiana University notes that, ironically, the law won’t change much in many parts of Indiana anyway. Indiana has no statewide laws banning discrimination against gays in the first place (although some counties have local ordinances). In many parts of the state, a business owner who didn’t want to serve gays wouldn’t have to plead exemption from the law on the grounds of religion. There’s no law to be exempt from. Conkle, who adds that he is a supporter of marriage equality, is a professor of law and of comparative religion.

Feelings run high on these topics, and no wonder. (For what it’s worth, I’ve been a supporter of marriage equality since long before the 2003 Massachusetts ruling in the Goodridge case, when everyone else started to get on board.) But I can’t really imagine wanting to make someone do something that went against his deeply held religious beliefs except in a case of necessity. I also do not find it particularly “liberal” to want to stamp out personal religious freedom — any more than it is to want to stamp out personal sexual freedom.

But what really interests me here is, once again, how the alleged “wisdom of crowds” is completely bogus. From the stock market to opinion polls to television ratings to Twitter to the Internet quest for “eyeballs,” we are all becoming slaves to the “crowd.” Some people will tell you that’s OK because the crowd is “wise,” and when lots of people get together and jabber, the result is usually sweet reason, wisdom and truth. Hooey.

[Psalm 51:17]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/30/indiana-anti-gay-law_n_6969286.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
3/30/15
Indiana GOP Leaders Say They're Totally Shocked 'Religious Freedom' Law Is Seen As Anti-Gay

WASHINGTON -- Indiana's Republican leaders said they were shocked, confused and completely caught off-guard by the backlash to their new "religious freedom" law, telling reporters Monday that they had not expected criticism calling the measure anti-gay.

"I don't think anyone anticipated that the characterization of the bill would be, this denies to services to a specific class to Hoosiers. It does just the opposite. It includes all Hoosiers in the religious freedom standard. And it's a misperception that it denies services," said Indiana state House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) during a Monday morning press conference with Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R).

Long acknowledged that the GOP-controlled legislature did not work with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights groups on crafting the language of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the lawmakers didn't think the bill would affect that community.

"The reason we didn't is because this law doesn't discriminate against anyone," he said. "If we thought it did, we would have dealt with that. We don't believe it does."

That denial is hard to believe. Last year, Arizona's legislature passed a similar piece of legislation. But after national backlash, particularly from businesses concerned about how the law would affect LGBT individuals, then-Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed it. LGBT groups have consistently been sounding the alarm on these so-called "religious freedom" bills as well, warning that they open the door to widespread discrimination where businesses could deny service to same-sex couples.

There were also people in Indiana warning of the consequences before the legislation became law. Even Indianapolis' Republican mayor said it would send the "wrong signal" for the state. Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country, also threatened to stop holding its event in Indiana if RFRA became law.

And many of the proponents of the law specifically cited discrimination against same-sex couples as the reason the legislation was so important.

Bosma and Long said those proponents were mistaken in what they believed RFRA would do.

The GOP leaders also confirmed Monday that they plan to introduce clarification to the law underscoring that it does not allow discrimination, although they haven't yet worked out what that language will look like. But they made clear they have no plans to explicitly add protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

"That's a big policy step," Bosma said. "There's only -- of the 30 states that have a RFRA standard, 10 of those have done that. Big policy discussion here to toss in the middle of four weeks before the end of the session."

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) has also said he would support clarification in RFRA but does not want specific LGBT protections.

"I will not push for that," Pence said during an interview with ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "That's not on my agenda and that's not been the -- that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana. And it doesn't have anything to do with this law."

But without such a move, RFRA critics argue LGBT discrimination will still be legal. Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, tweeted the need for such protections last week.

Pro-LGBT rights group Lambda Legal is advocating for the legislature add this language to the law: "This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination."

“If Governor Pence meant it when he said that SB101 isn't intended to allow discrimination against LGBT people, then why were amendments designed to make that explicit repeatedly rejected during the legislative process?" said Jennifer Pizer, national director of Lambda Legal’s Law and Policy Project, in a statement Sunday.

Freedom Indiana, a pro-LGBT rights organization, is pushing the "Fairness For All Hoosiers Act," which would prohibit discrimination against LGBT individuals in employment, housing and public accommodations and also would clarify that RFRA cannot be used to undermine local or statewide civil rights protections.

Indiana's Democratic leaders, state Sen. Tim Lanane and Rep. Scott Pelath, also held a press conference on Monday, where they said they want to see full repeal of RFRA.

"People are angry, they're upset and they're insulted," Pelath said. "Some sort of patchwork solution isn't going to get it done."

"When you have a bill which is this tainted, this corrupted, there's no fix to it," Lanane added. "You just get rid of it. My mother used to tell me, if you bring home a bag of potatoes and you've got a rotten potato in there, you throw it out. You don't let it contaminate the rest of the. And I think that's what we have here."

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/31/mike-pence-just-handed-gay-hoosiers-and-liberals-a-significant-victory/
3/31/15
Mike Pence just handed gay Hoosiers and liberals a significant victory

Despite the backup he was getting from every Republican presidential candidate who has discussed the issue and pretty much every conservative commentator who has mentioned it, Indiana governor Mike Pence gave gay people and liberals a victory today when he announced that he’s expecting his legislature to send him a bill “clarifying” the legislation he recently signed on religious freedom.

Pence wouldn’t characterize it that way, of course. He’d say (and did say, about a hundred times) that nothing in the law gave anyone a license to discriminate, and the new legislation would merely make that explicit. But no matter how many times he said it, that was indeed what the law would likely have done. That issue is somewhat complicated and has to do with the conflict between this law and local ordinances in some places in Indiana (I discussed that at some length yesterday). But certain aspects of the law, including the fact that it specifically applies to for-profit businesses and disputes between individuals (unlike the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act) made it all but certain that eventually we’d get cases in Indiana in which people were claiming to discriminate against gays. And if the law stood as it was, they probably would have prevailed.

But the pressure Pence got from people both within Indiana and around the country has essentially forced him to be true to his word. Up until now, Pence has been saying that the law was not intended to give businesses in Indiana the right to discriminate against gay people. Now he’s saying that he wants to put that explicitly within the law itself. That’s a huge win for gay people who don’t want to be discriminated against, and makes it more likely that the next state that passes a law like this one — and there are similar bills pending in multiple states — will include a similar clarification.

Not only that, Pence went so far as to say, “No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe. I believe it with all my heart.” The “who they love” part is not the kind of language one usually hears about LGBT people from Republicans, particularly those as conservative as Pence.

Nevertheless, what’s important isn’t what Mike Pence believes in his heart. He wrote in an op-ed this morning in the Wall Street Journal: “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore.” But he isn’t a restaurant critic, he’s a governor, and the real question is what kind of laws he’ll advocate and sign. Now he seems to have answered that question, at least in part: he says he’s going to sign a law that won’t legalize just that kind of discrimination.

What he won’t do, however, is sign a law outlawing that kind of discrimination. So if this “clarification” is what he says it will be, the state will revert to the status quo: where there are local ordinances in Indiana forbidding discrimination against gay people, as there are in Indianapolis and other places, that kind of discrimination will continue to be illegal. Every place else, it will still be legal.

Now let’s be honest: there’s a very particular context in which the Indiana law was passed. It’s part of a movement among conservatives to expand the notion of “religious freedom” beyond how you worship and your own conduct to the interactions religious people have with other people, particularly in the realm of commerce. Many conservatives want religious people to have a set of special rights that allows them to claim an exemption to certain laws because of their religious beliefs. Those exemptions would not be available to people who wanted to do the same thing but justified it on the basis of a non-religious philosophy, or just their opinions.

What we all need to acknowledge is that the place where these laws really get tested involves zero-sum conflicts where there is going to be a winner and a loser: the florist doesn’t want to make flowers for the same-sex wedding, and the couple wants to be treated equally. One side is going to prevail (I discussed this in greater detail here). Liberals know exactly where they stand on those cases, but some conservatives want to pretend they’re irrelevant. The Indiana controversy may show that when even a staunch conservative is forced to confront the implications of the laws Republicans would pass, he feels like he has no choice but to shuffle a few steps to the left.

[Psalm 51:17]

Yes, Indiana was just the testing ground...

http://news.yahoo.com/arkansas-governor-urges-changes-religious-objection-bill-154925529.html
4/1/15
Arkansas governor urges changes to religious objection bill

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Wednesday called for changes to a religious objection measure facing a backlash from businesses and gay rights groups, saying it wasn't intended to sanction discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Republican governor said he wants changes to the bill lawmakers sent him prohibiting state and local government from infringing upon someone's religious beliefs without a compelling interest. Hutchinson said he wants the Legislature to either recall the bill or pass a follow-up measure to make the proposal more closely mirror a 1993 federal religious freedom law.

Hutchinson had initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.

The move comes after Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a similar measure into law last week. Pence this week said he wants follow-up legislation to address concerns that the law allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Similar proposals have been introduced in more than a dozen states, patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Nineteen other states have similar laws on the books.

Echoing the reaction to Indiana's law, Hutchinson has faced pressure from the state's top employers, including retail giant Wal-Mart, which complained that the measure was discriminatory and would stifle economic development. Little Rock's mayor, the city's Chamber of Commerce and Arkansas-based data services company Acxiom all urged the governor to reject the measure in recent days.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group, has run ads in Silicon Valley targeting technology firms Hutchinson hopes to attract to the state.

[Mark]

Hmmm, seems its ok to discriminate when its Christians....

Big Ruling in Case of Bakery That Refused to Decorate Bible-Shaped Cakes With Anti-Gay Messages

A Colorado bakery didn’t discriminate against a Christian who wanted two cakes decorated with anti-gay messages, the state’s civil rights division has ruled.

Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver’s Azucar Bakery, told the division that she told the customer that her bakery “does not discriminate” and “accept[s ] all humans,” KMGH-TV reported.

Silva reportedly said the words “God hates gays” were part of Bill Jack’s request, but the founder of Worldview Academy, a Christian organization, said that wasn’t true.

Rather he asked for two Bible-shaped cakes that included references to Psalm 45:7 and Leviticus 18:22, among other Bible verses.

“I requested two cakes each in the shape of an open Bible. On the first cake I requested on one page, ‘God hates sin – Psalm 45:7,’ and on the facing page, ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22′,” Jack told the Christian Post. “On the second cake I requested on one page, ‘God loves sinners,’ and on the facing page, ‘While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8.’” Jack also wanted an image of two men holding hands with something like an “X” through it.

The bakery told Jack they’d make the Bible-shaped cakes without the requested words and images, but Jack said that amounted to unequal treatment and the denial of goods and services based on his religion.

“If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery,” Silva told KMGH in January.

More from KMGH:

    The agency’s decision found that the baker did not discriminate against Jack based on his creed. Instead, officials state the evidence shows Silva refused to make the cakes because the customer’s requests included “derogatory language and imagery.”

    The baker said “in the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” according to the decision.

    “The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed,” the civil rights agency’s decision stated.

Jack also told the Post that he had requested the cake and filed the subsequent complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Division in an effort to expose how anti-discrimination laws — which typically place Christian bakers and business providers in the crosshairs for refusing to provide services to same-sex couples — are not equally applied across the board.

VIDEO: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/04/big-ruling-in-case-of-bakery-that-refused-to-decorate-bible-shaped-cakes-with-anti-gay-messages/

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-lawmakers-oppose-changing-religious-objection-law-160906158.html
4/7/15
Some Texas lawmakers oppose changing religious objection law

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas lawmakers and top business leaders vowed Tuesday to kill two proposed constitutional amendments they say will promote anti-gay discrimination and could lead to backlash similar to recent reactions in Indiana and Arkansas.

Opponents say the proposals, sponsored by Republicans Rep. Matt Krause and Sen. Donna Campbell, would morph the business-friendly Lone Star State into a costly state for corporations and negatively affect tourism.

Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1999 allows a Texas resident to sue state and local governments if he or she feels that a government entity is burdening their religious beliefs or practices. Lauded as "carefully crafted" by gay rights advocates, the act explicitly states it cannot be used to undermine federal or state civil rights or take precedence over local ordinances.

The proposed amendments do not explicitly say the law can't be used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation, mirroring the original language of the laws passed recently in Indiana and Arkansas that sparked boycotts and strong opposition. Those states' Republican-controlled legislatures both revised their laws last week.

Krause said his proposed amendment would give constitutional strength to Texas' law. It would also trump local laws, including cities' nondiscrimination ordinances already in place, such as Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.

Dozens of states have similar religious freedom laws, largely modeled after a federal law enacted in 1993 with broad bipartisan support. Texas is one of 29 states that have no protections for gays and lesbians in nondiscrimination laws. Similar debates are going on in other statehouses, as Republican governors in Michigan and North Dakota are urging lawmakers to extend anti-discrimination protections for gays.

Flanked by Democratic lawmakers at a news conference, Texas Association of Business' Chief Executive Officer Bill Hammond called the GOP-backed measures "misguided legislation."

Dallas Democratic Rep. Rafael Anchia said that, like in Indiana and Arkansas, people in Texas are concerned about the economy. He added a bipartisan group of legislators "will stop this thing in the House."

Krause said he's still confident in his proposal. He said the amendments wouldn't change the protections already in the act. "Our system's worked well for 16 years," he said Tuesday.

But others fear that's not the case.

Under current law, a governmental entity facing a civil rights lawsuit cannot use religious liberty as a defense, according to Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

"The constitutional amendments would sweep away that language," Robertson said.

If the amendments clear committees — neither proposal is set for a hearing yet — they would require approval by two-thirds of the Legislature and the governor. Finally, they would face approval from Texas voters.

Kathy Miller, president of the advocacy group Texas Freedom Network, said the amendments are dangerous, but 18 other bills would open the door for even more discrimination. Some proposals target local nondiscrimination ordinances, while others would prohibit ax dollars from being used to license, register or recognize same-sex marriage licenses.

"They go further than the irresponsible bills that sparked the backlash in Indiana and Arkansas," she said. "These bills are bad for Texas."

[Mark]

Evangelist May Face Hate Crime Charges for Requesting Anti-Gay Marriage Cake

An evangelist who requested an anti-gay marriage cake could see his day in court.

Sharon Haller, of Cut the Cake Bakery in Florida, has reportedly sought the FBI in a hate crime investigation against Josh Feuerstein, Breitbart News reports.

Feuerstein called Cut the Cake on April 1, asking for a sheet cake saying, "We do not support gay marriage."

Haller told him she couldn't accommodate his request and hung up.

Feuerstein recorded the video, saying: "Have we gotten to the point in America where the left is so 'open minded' that they're close minded to anybody that doesn't agree with them, or is America big enough for different points of view? Christian bakeries should never be forced to do something that violates their Christian principles. That's not American."

 The video went viral, resulting in threats to the bakery.

Feuerstein removed the video after the threats, saying it was never his intention for the Haller to be attacked. Rather, he wanted to point out the hypocrisy of religious freedom in the country.

"You have one side who demands that Christians' first amendment rights be violated by being forced to bake a cake that violates their religious principles and yet they refuse to do the same," Feuerstein wrote in an email to the Orlando Sentinel.

So where is the standard? Sound off!

http://www.charismanews.com/us/49229-evangelist-may-face-hate-crime-charges-for-requesting-anti-gay-marriage-cake

[Mark]

GoFundMe Shuts Down Fundraising Page for Oregon Bakery Owners

 The fundraising website GoFundMe has shut down a donation page for Aaron and Melissa Klein, the former owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore.
 
“The GoFundMe account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of GoFundMe because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose,” the Kleins said Saturday morning in a post on the Sweet Cakes by Melissa Facebook page. “We are working to get the account reinstated.”
 
A supporter of the Kleins had set up the fundraising page after an Oregon judge on Friday set a fine of $135,000 for the couple as punishment for declining to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians. The page had raised more than $66,000 before GoFundMe shuttered it. GoFundMe said the Kleins would be able to access the money raised so far.
 
“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions and have removed this campaign,” the company told The Oregonian.
 
In the meantime, the Kleins said supporters could donate to their cause through Samaritan’s Purse.
 
The fine comes almost three months after Administrative Judge Alan McCullough ruled the couple violated an Oregon statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The funds will go to the lesbian couple for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering.”
 
The ruling is more consistent with the actions of a fascist state than of a democracy, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
 
“An Oregon judge made clear in no uncertain terms to the Kleins and all Oregonians that the state has the right to demand that citizens engage in activities that violate their beliefs and if they refuse, they will lose their ability to make a living,” he said in a prepared statement. “In a free country, this is a ruling that cannot and must not stand. … A government able to bankrupt people for standing by their deepest beliefs is a government of unbridled power and a threat to everyone’s freedom.”
 
The Kleins shuttered their storefront in Gresham, a suburb of Portland, Ore., in 2013 shortly after Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman filed a civil rights complaint against them. At that time, same-sex marriage still wasn’t legal in Oregon.
 
Perkins said he hoped the ruling would be overturned, implying the Kleins plan to appeal. But based on previous cases in which wedding vendors have been accused of discrimination, they might not have much luck. The U.S. Supreme Court declined last year to hear the case of Elaine Huguenot, a New Mexico photographer fined $6,637.94 for declining to photograph a same-sex wedding.
 
The New Mexico case was among the first of a host of discrimination claims filed against Christian wedding business vendors. So far, none have prevailed in their appeals.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraising-page-for-oregon-bakery-owners.html

[Mark]

The Johns Hopkins Chick-fil-A Ban and the Coming Gay-Marriage Witch Hunt

A new spirit of intolerance has arisen on the Johns Hopkins University campus, and conservative Christians are the targets. The JHU student government’s vote this week to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from campus because of the company owner’s support for traditional marriage, coming on the heels of the JHU Spring Fair’s censorship of a pro-life fetal-model display as “disturbing” and “triggering,” sends a clear message that students who disagree with liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on the Hopkins campus.

The student government’s vote went beyond merely expressing support for same-sex marriage. The Chick-fil-A ban seeks to introduce unprecedented discrimination against companies owned by religious conservatives into the university’s contracting policies, even though only a few years ago, prominent liberals like Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama had held the same views on marriage. In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for “homophobia,” the JHU student government is only a short step from similarly giving the boot to socially conservative Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, and Jewish student groups from campus, as we have seen happen at Vanderbilt University, the 23 campuses of California State University, and others throughout the country.

Whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage, the JHU student government’s idea that the mere presence of Chick-fil-A on campus would promote “homophobia” and amount to discrimination against the LGBT community is absurd. This view is premised, first of all, on the assumption that advocates of traditional marriage are devoid of rational argument and inspired only by hatred, and second, on the notion that allowing a company owned by someone who supports traditional marriage to operate on campus is equivalent to endorsing that support.

Such a narrow-minded view is possible only because JHU, like so many other colleges, has become dominated by an intolerant strain of liberalism that is intent on silencing dissent. One need only think back to JHU medical students’ successful 2013 campaign to remove the neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a member of the JHU faculty, as their commencement speaker for his comments against same-sex marriage, or the student government’s fierce though unsuccessful crusade to keep a pro-life student group from forming on campus.

In a free-market economy, the company that makes the best food at the lowest price usually wins more business. At a university, the robust free market of thought similarly should allow the best ideas to win out in an unfettered debate. The Chick-fil-A ban hurts both types of free market on campus. If the argument for redefining marriage into a genderless contract for any two consenting adults is so strong, then advocates for it should not need the student government’s version of the thought police to silence dissenting voices.

JHU’s ban on Chick-fil-A, like its censorship of pro-life fetal models on campus, amounts to a moralistic paternalism that has no place on a tolerant and pluralistic university of intelligent students and our nation’s future leaders. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine JHU ever accommodating conservative students who are offended daily by advocates of abortion and same-sex marriage, or “triggered” by their peers’ hateful bigotry toward their beliefs.

 The entire notion of keeping the University a “safe space,” free from scary or offensive viewpoints, especially on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, is absolutely antithetical to Johns Hopkins’ stated commitment to the free and robust exchange of ideas. The JHU Task Force on Academic Freedom had barely released its recommendations this month before the university twice violated its own commitments to intellectual tolerance and diversity:

Speech on academic, political or cultural matters . . . even when deemed offensive to some, is not alone grounds for sanctions. . . . The more appropriate response to such statements . . . is objection, persuasion and debate.

If the Hopkins student government wants to begin a witch hunt against social and religious conservatives on campus, or at the very least bully them into silence, then Johns Hopkins University is fulfilling its own version of the aphorism apocryphally attributed to George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth — or, in this case, eating a chicken sandwich
 — becomes a revolutionary act.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417305/johns-hopkins-chick-fil-ban-and-coming-gay-marriage-witch-hunt-andrew-guernsey

[Mark]

Will Christians be Fitted with Yellow Crosses?

Amid the cross-country race to election 2016, the secular left’s utter disdain for both our Creator Christ and His faithful followers is fast approaching critical mass. Self-styled “progressives” – that is, America’s cultural Marxist agents of ruin – typically disguise their designs on despotism in the flowery and euphemistic language of “reproductive health,” “anti-discrimination” and “multiculturalism.”

We see this Orwellian newspeak at play right now in Washington, D.C., where congressional Republicans endeavor to prevent, if only timorously, two unconstitutional pieces of legislation from taking effect. The first, the District of Columbia’s so-called “Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act,” would force pro-life groups, including churches and para-church organizations, to hire pro-abortion zealots and other godless rabble-rousers with worldviews and socio-political agendas overtly hostile to the express mission of those churches and organizations.

The second, the farcically mislabeled “Human Rights Amendment Act,” would jettison the longstanding “Armstrong Amendment,” which, as notes the Daily Signal, “was enacted by Congress in 1989 to exempt religious schools in D.C. from being forced into violating their beliefs about human sexuality by ‘promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.’”

In other words, under this new legislation churches and religious schools will be forced, under penalty of law, to deny the Christian sexual ethic and, instead, promote, encourage and condone homosexual behavior and other pagan sexual immorality.

So much for “human rights.”

Still, while most on the left are careful to mask their totalitarian goals and anti-Christian animus by coating these poison pills in sugar sweet jargon, on occasion one of these God-denying goose-steppers will let down his guard, drop the euphemistic BS, and vomit forth that acidic bile, unfiltered “progressivism.”

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Tayler is one such goose-stepper. In an April 19 Salon.com screed headlined, “Marco Rubio’s deranged religion, Ted Cruz’s bizarre faith: Our would-be presidents are God-fearing clowns,” “freethinking” Jeffrey, a paragon of paganism, ably puts the “bigot” in anti-Christian bigotry.

In reference to the 2016 presidential candidates who call themselves Christian, Tayler bemoans that these “God-fearing clowns and faith-mongering nitwits [are] groveling before Evangelicals.” He further protests Christians’ “nattering on about their belief in the Almighty and their certainty that if we just looked, we could find answers to many of our ills in the Good Book.”

Right, it’s called the Gospel, Jeffrey. It’s the only hope that either you or any of us has.

“There will almost certainly be no (declared) atheist or even agnostic among the candidates,” he laments. “This is scandalous, given the electorate’s gradual, relentless ditching of religion.”

Gradual? That’s a gaping understatement when one considers that even today over 80 percent of Americans identify as Christian with the vast majority of those who don’t nevertheless acknowledging the transcendent reality of a Creator God. Every man, woman and child understands through both general revelation and human reason that this unfathomably intricate, staggeringly fine-tuned universe didn’t create and fine-tune itself. It’s a tiny minority of angry, self-deluded materialists like Jeffrey Tayler who deny this self-evident truth. Scandalous? Hardly.

Continues Tayler: “With the dapper Florida Sen. Marco Rubio we move into the more disturbing category of Republicans we might charitably diagnose as ‘faith-deranged’ – in other words, as likely to do fine among the unwashed ‘crazies’ in the red-state primaries, but whose religious beliefs would (or should) render them unfit for civilized company anywhere else.”

Sound familiar? Such hubristic elitism is so 1939. It was similarly “faith-deranged,” “unwashed crazies” in Germany who, at that time, were numerically branded “unfit for civilized company.” Shall we Christians be fitted with yellow crosses, Herr Tayler?

Our Darwinian disbeliever then distills the timeless Christian faith to “far-fetched fiction and foolish figments” before launching into a tirade against the left’s favorite candidate to hate, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, while, likewise, knifing twixt the shoulder blades, the richly diverse, 100 thousand-plus student body at Liberty University.

“Cruz pandered fulsomely to the faith-deranged by choosing to announce at Liberty University, that bastion of darkness located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Once administered by the late Jerry Falwell, Liberty promises a ‘World Class Christian education’ and boasts that it has been ‘training champions for Christ since 1971' – grounds enough, in my view, to revoke the institution’s charter and subject it to immediate quarantine until sanity breaks out.”

Are you getting this? Tayler’s not joking about revoking Liberty’s accreditation and otherwise consigning all faithful Christians to a constructive encampment beyond the margins of functional society. That’s their end-game. That’s the way their boxcars roll.

Neither do our papist friends escape unscathed. Tayler smears the Catholic Church as a “fanatical homophobic cult,” while blaspheming his own Creator. He inquires in litmus of some obscure atheist candidate, “f you are indeed an atheist, will you come out of the closet about it? Will you utter that vilest of stock phrases ‘God bless America!’ to close speeches, thereby lending undue credence to the nonsense notion that an invisible tyrant rules us from on high?”

“Atheists can dream,” he pines. “They can dream of a candidate (and future president) who will, one day, say ‘I do not believe in God. I do not believe in a hereafter.’”

And why not? Russia had its Stalin and China its Mao. Who needs an “invisible tyrant” when we can elect one at the ballot box?

Or didn’t we already do that.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2015/04/26/will-christians-be-fitted-with-yellow-crosses-n1990467/page/full

[Mark]

What were the early steps that Germany took when persecuting the Jewish people?

1933 – Nazi brown shirts start to boycott of Jewish shops

1934 – Jews were banned from public places such as public parks and swimming pools. At the same time teachers, lawyers and servants were fired from their jobs if they were Jewish.

nazi-a-jew-with-star-of-david

1935 – The Nuremberg laws are enacted. Jews are no longer allowed to be German citizens. Jews cannot marry non-Jews and Jews cannot have sexual relations with non-Jews.

1936 – Jews are banned from working, owning and running a business. They are also banned from having any German property.

1938 – Kristallnacht took place the nights of November 9th & 10th. It is known as “the night of broken glass”. What took place were a series of attacks from Nazi brown shirts, SA Stormtroopers and Nazi sympathizing civilians against Jews throughout Nazi Germany. This also bled over into parts of Austria and other German controlled lands. German authorities looked on without lifting a finger to stop it. The attacks left streets covered with broken glass from the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings and synagogues. At least 91 Jews were killed in the attacks and 30,000 Jews were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps. Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were ransacked as the attackers demolished the buildings with sledgehammers. Over 1,000 synagogues were burned and over 7000 Jewish businesses destroyed or damaged.

1939 – Warsaw Ghettos were opened and Jews living under the Nazi regime were forced to wear a white / yellow start of David armband or actually have one sewn onto the outside jacket. It was aganst the law to not identify ones Jewishness.

The Five Steps Leading To Persecution

History shows that there are five general steps that are followed by a government or ruling power when they start harassing a group like Christians. These steps then lead to outright persecution which then leads to imprisonment, torture and eventually martyrdom - death.

The steps are as follows…

1. Identifying: This involves finger-pointing by the ruling authority for the purpose of placing the blame for the nation’s troubles on one particular group. In 1 Kings 18:17, King Ahab identifies the prophet Elijah as being the one responsible for the drought that took place in the land of Israel. He accused Elijah by asking the question, "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" The true body of Christ and Biblical Christianity in America today are blamed for being the greatest obstacles to the liberal establishment’s plans for a totally humanistic "utopian" society.

2. Marginalizing: By this means, the "politically incorrect" portion of the Church is looked upon as not being part of the mainstream of society. This is done by an organized smear campaign conducted by the ruling authorities through the national news media. They do this by the use of such trigger words as radical, extremists, separatists, and fringe.

3. Vilifying: By this means, the persecutors employ such methods as uttering slanderous and abusive statements against targeted groups as to cheapen and debase their worth and significance in society. The accusers need no factual evidence for their accusations, but innuendoes, insinuations, hints and making associations with other previously known undesirables of society.

4. Criminalizing: In implementing this step of persecution, it gives the state "legal" justification for arresting and incarcerating the accused. Here the state charges the persecuted with accusations of alleged criminal wrong-doing. The state naturally picks on the most vulnerable segment of the Church in order to send their threatening message to all the rest who adhere to similar views and practices. Incarceration of a few means intimidation of the many. Victimization of a government- protected group is a direct result of the incrimination of the accused. This gives the state "legal" authority to take a heavy-handed control in "protecting" its citizens. Presently, our federal government has several groups which they deem as "victims" for whom they feel responsibility to protect.

5. Terrorizing. This is the blatant and outright acts of terrorism carried out by the police powers of the state against the persecuted. These are acts of coercion by threat or by violence and are intended to create anxiety and fear in the hearts of its victims, with the purpose of silencing and neutralizing the opponents of the tyrannical government in power. (1)

Like it or not, believe it or not, our nation has now reached stage 5. The state has begun to “Terrorize” Christian beliefs and as the case in Coeur d‘Alene Idaho, pastors are now being threatened with jail time and fines.

Persecution is not starting, persecution is here. Stages one through five are now in place. That means that Stage 5 will continue to progress and things will get worse.

http://www.prophezine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1108:stand-strong-in-perilous-times-&catid=41:top-headlines

[Mark]

GoFundMe Shuts Down Fundraising Page for Oregon Bakery Owners
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-shuts-down-fundraising-page-for-oregon-bakery-owners.html

Florist’s Funding ‘Not Found': GoFundMe Shuts Down Second Fundraiser for Christian Businesses

After recently shutting down the fundraising page for persecuted Christian bakers in Oregon, the popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe has now removed a page for a Christian florist who is at risk of losing her business, home and/or life savings for declining to use her services for a same-sex “wedding.”

The removal of the fundraising effort for Arlene’s Flowers came just 48 hours after the site had taken down the page for Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which had been ordered to pay $135,000 in “emotional damages” to two lesbian women that filed a complaint after the owners stated that they could not assist with their ceremony.

As previously reported, Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit in March 2012 by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claimed that she had violated the law by offering a referral rather than servicing the event herself.

Stutzman had been approached by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event, but referred him to three other florists that may help.

“I just took his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry. I cannot do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told reporters.

Weeks later, Ferguson issued Stutzman a letter advising that she must accommodate homosexual ceremonies or be subject to a lawsuit and heavy fines. He included with his letter a form that offered Stutzman the opportunity to recant and agree to comply with the law. She refused, and was subsequently met with a discrimination suit.

In January, Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Eckstrom—while throwing out a charge that accused Stutzman of directing her business to violate the state’s anti-discrimination laws—ruled that the florist may be held personally responsible for the incident. The ruling drew concerns that fines could consequently place Stutzman at risk of losing her business, home and/or bank accounts.

In February, Eckstrom granted summary judgment to Stutzman’s opponents, agreeing that she had committed an act of discrimination. Last month, he ordered her to pay $1,000 to Ferguson as a civil penalty, a punishment that is stated to be “only the first punch” financially against the business owner since Eckstrom found that Stutzman may be required to pay damages and attorney’s fees to Ingersoll and his partner, which will be far more costly.

A GoFundMe page was then created for Stutzman, which before it was taken down, had raised over $174,000. But by Monday, supporters noticed that the page no longer existed.

Just two days before, the popular crowdfunding site had removed the fundraiser for Sweet Cakes by Melissa due to the urging of same-sex advocates. It released an explanation for pulling the page, stating that the fundraising site doesn’t allow crowdfunding campaigns for those who have been found guilty of violating laws.

“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our terms and conditions,” it wrote. “[T]he subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

“The GoFundMe account that was set up to help our family was shut down by the administrators of GoFundMe because they claimed it was raising money for an illegal purpose,” Melissa Klein said that she had been told by the outlet. “We have told GoFundMe that the money is simply going to be used to help our family, and there is no legitimate breach of their terms and conditions.”

Not FoundA spokesperson for GoFundMe told the DailySignal that its decision “to remove the ‘Arlene’s Flowers’ campaign was [likewise] based on a violation of GoFundMe’s terms.”

“The same conclusion was recently reached in regards to the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa’ campaign based on a similar violation of terms,” the spokesperson added.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) told the outlet that she believes homosexual activists are seeking to bully and shut down Christians by any means possible.

“It’s not enough to have the government redefine marriage or to punish those who disagree. The opponents of freedom have to ruin every aspect of the lives of those who disagree—denying them a living, the ability to feed their families, and the opportunity to raise money to pay the so-called ‘victims,’” she said. “This type of vindictive, hateful behavior is terrifying.”

“Corporations like Apple, Salesforce, and GoFundMe want to make sure they can live and work consistent with their beliefs about marriage, but then deny that same right to people like Barronelle Stutzman who lovingly served her customer for nearly a decade but simply couldn’t participate in the celebration of his same-sex wedding,” Waggoner stated.

Some Christians are now calling for the creation of a Christian crowdfunding site where believers can support each other in their time of need.

http://christiannews.net/2015/04/29/florists-funding-not-found-gofundme-shuts-down-second-fundraiser-for-christian-businesses/

[Mark]

GoFundMe Changes Policy to Ban 'Discriminatory Acts'

Unless your a Christian, than they will just discriminate against you

 GoFundMe, the crowdfunding site that pulled two Christian businesses from its site, has expanded its policy.
 
The site recently took down the pages of Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Arlene’s Flowers after the two businesses refused to service same-sex weddings.
 
The old policy said the site could not support: “Campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”
 
According to the Washington Times, the site’s new policy includes a ban on campaigns that attempt to defend “claims of discriminatory acts.”
 
“Who will determine what a ‘discriminatory act’ is? Will the term be decided according to legal standards? If so, which standards?” said Travis Weber, a lawyer and director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. “Or will it be subject to the same arbitrary decision-making we’ve seen from GoFundMe so far?”
 
The old policy was in place when the website pulled the bakery and florist crowdfunding campaigns. Lawyers interviewed earlier by The Washington Times said the policy wasn’t enough cause to kill the campaigns.
 
“GoFundMe may want to appear as if it has a neutral policy prohibiting funds from being raised for certain activities,” Weber said. “But it is apparent that GoFundMe is seeking to slap several words onto their ‘policy’ merely to cover up the reality that they actually dropped the Kleins’ page because they were scared of cranky LGBT activists.”
 
The Klein campaign for the bakery raised $109,000. The florist business campaign raised more than $174,000.
 
GoFundMe has said in statements that the Kleins and Ms. Stutzman will be able to keep the fundraising dollars.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/gofundme-changes-policy-to-ban-discriminatory-acts.html

[Psalm 51:17]

[Mark]

Students Wearing Chick-fil-A Shirts at LGBT Event Leads to Suspensions
But not for who you would expect

Two students at a Pennsylvania high school wore Chick-fil-A T-shirts as protest to a LGBT event held at the school, causing offended classmates to chastise them on Twitter. Subsequently, the school issued suspensions, not for the wearers of the shirts surprisingly, but to the fifteen students who used social media, complete with vulgarities, during school hours.

The week-long event was organized with the help of senior Erin Snyder, 18, member of the school's Gay-Straight Alliance group. According to The Morning Call, students were asked to wear different color shirts each day of the week for the various causes they were supporting, including suicide and disabilities. For the last day of the week, students were encouraged to wear rainbow colored T-shirts in support of LGBT issues.

It was during that morning's televised announcements that the two boys donning Chick-fil-A attire were spotted. Snyder told The Morning Call that though they said nothing against the club or the LGBT community, she "knew what they were doing."

One of the girls who was among the students suspended, indicated that at least 15 students were given the same punishment, while others received detention.

TMC published Snyder's tweets, which was a response to someone who expressed support of one of the students who wore a Chick-fil-A shirt which read, "You're expressing your feelings … Why can't he?" Snyder replied, "Being an offensive [expletive] is not expressing your feelings."

Another student suspended for violating school policy and for using speech the school deemed "threatening" tweeted, "Shout-out to the [expletive] in the Chik-fil-A shirts."

His mother spoke out against the school, telling TMC, "You want to encourage everyone to be their own person, and for someone to decide it's OK for those two students to go on a morning show and wear a shirt like that with no repercussions, what is the school saying? That it's OK?"

Now, the incident has been taken up for investigation by the state's American Civil Liberties Union, which calls the punishments "pretty harsh." They will look into whether or not the free speech of the suspended students' was violated.

Though Snyder used Twitter to shame her peers, she maintained that the event was all about "support and anti-bullying."

"I think our school is very open for the most part, which is why it's so upsetting to see something like this happen," she said. "It's really disappointing [those two students] felt the need to protest against a day that was supposed to be about support and anti-bullying."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/students-wearing-chick-fil-shirts-lgbt-event-leads-suspensions

[Mark]

Louisiana Religious Liberty Bill Goes Down in Defeat

Louisiana Republican lawmakers sided with Democrats, big business and LGBT activists to kill a bill that would have protected individuals and religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage. In doing so, lawmakers defied the objections of an overwhelmingly majority of voters and handed Gov. Bobby Jindal a significant defeat for his legislative agenda.

https://stream.org/louisiana-religious-liberty-bill-goes-defeat/

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33175
JOE BIDEN SAYS BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS VIOLATE LGBT RIGHTS BY SIMPLY EXISTING
Geoffrey Grider | May 19, 2015 | 145 Comments

STATEMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT ON THE INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA

“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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Vice President Joe Biden say today that the rights of the LGBT people are violated by “religious condemnation”. He is directly referring to Bible verses like the one posted at the top of this article. The Progressive Liberals are well aware that it is God, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, that condemns homosexuality in all it’s many forms. According to Joe Biden, the American Bible believing Christian who takes the Bible literally, is violating the “rights” of the LGBT by trusting in God’s word. And this is why old-fashioned preaching will soon be classified as a “hate crime”. Because Liberals can’t stand it. Biden is also saying that the rights of the Christian are inferior to the rights of the LGBT individual.

Here is the full transcript of his remarks:

My father taught me the simple notion that everyone, everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the right direction.

Progress has also been made in many places around the world. But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.

The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve. source

Instead of “respecting universal human rights”, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination that needs to be repented of. Jesus Christ went to the cross to redeem the homosexual, that’s true. But He did not go to the cross to preserve homosexuality. He came to abolish that, and all sin.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, anymore than say a man marrying his dog would constitute a wedding. Sleeping in your garage does not make you a car. There is not one example in the Bible of God supporting, at any time, anything having to do with homosexuality. Churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies do it completely outside the blessing of God, and indeed bring down the wrath of God. The mark of Ichabod gets carved into the doorposts of every church that supports the LGBT movement.

Obama’s America, with it’s sky-high abortion rates, free-flowing 24 x 7 gambling, legalized pot, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and now as the champion of the LGBT Movement, is rapidly becoming everything that the Bible says God hates.

Just the other day I was verbally assaulted and attacked by a vicious lesbian who said that “had no right” to my beliefs, and that this website was “hate speech”. Kinda funny, though, that she said this while all the while demanding that I respect her “right” to be gay. What about my right to believe and follow the Bible? Apparently, I am not entitled to my rights. And this is exactly why Biden’s remarks today should be taken very seriously. As we have always told you and will continue to tell you, the LGBT is not interested in “tolerance”. They don’t want “acceptance”. What they want is complete and total domination, which is exactly what Obama and his minions are giving them.

“Woe unto them that call evil good…”

[Mark]

Joe Biden Says Bible Believing Christians Violate LGBT Rights By Simply Existing

Statement by the Vice President on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

“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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)

Vice President Joe Biden say today that the rights of the LGBT people are violated by “religious condemnation”. He is directly referring to Bible verses like the one posted at the top of this article. The Progressive Liberals are well aware that it is God, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, that condemns homosexuality in all it’s many forms. According to Joe Biden, the American Bible believing Christian who takes the Bible literally, is violating the “rights” of the LGBT by trusting in God’s word. And this is why old-fashioned preaching will soon be classified as a “hate crime”. Because Liberals can’t stand it. Biden is also saying that the rights of the Christian are inferior to the rights of the LGBT individual.

Here is the full transcript of his remarks:

    My father taught me the simple notion that everyone, everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the right direction.

    Progress has also been made in many places around the world. But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.

    The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve. source

Instead of “respecting universal human rights”, the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination that needs to be repented of. Jesus Christ went to the cross to redeem the homosexual, that’s true. But He did not go to the cross to preserve homosexuality. He came to abolish that, and all sin.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage, anymore than say a man marrying his dog would constitute a wedding. Sleeping in your garage does not make you a car. There is not one example in the Bible of God supporting, at any time, anything having to do with homosexuality. Churches that perform gay marriage ceremonies do it completely outside the blessing of God, and indeed bring down the wrath of God. The mark of Ichabod gets carved into the doorposts of every church that supports the LGBT movement.

Obama’s America, with it’s sky-high abortion rates, free-flowing 24 x 7 gambling, legalized pot, rampant drug and alcohol abuse, and now as the champion of the LGBT Movement, is rapidly becoming everything that the Bible says God hates.

Just the other day I was verbally assaulted and attacked by a vicious lesbian who said that “had no right” to my beliefs, and that this website was “hate speech”. Kinda funny, though, that she said this while all the while demanding that I respect her “right” to be gay. What about my right to believe and follow the Bible? Apparently, I am not entitled to my rights. And this is exactly why Biden’s remarks today should be taken very seriously. As we have always told you and will continue to tell you, the LGBT is not interested in “tolerance”. They don’t want “acceptance”. What they want is complete and total domination, which is exactly what Obama and his minions are giving them.

“Woe unto them that call evil good…”

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33175

[Mark]

NY Times: Importance of Mothers and Fathers an ‘Absurdity’

In its euphoria over the victory of gay marriage in Ireland, the New York Times editers abandoned all pretenses of objectivity and, in an apparently unguarded moment, declared biological motherhood and fatherhood to be absurd.

This opinion wasn’t voiced by some crank writing a letter to the editor, but rather by the official editorial board itself.

The Iona Institute, a conservative Irish think tank that led the campaign to defend traditional marriage, put out a magnanimous statement after the referendum, congratulating the opposing side for “winning such a handsome victory” and for fighting “a very professional campaign.”

David Quinn, the director of the Institute, said that he knew it was going to be an uphill battle, but wanted to “provide a voice to the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who did vote no.”

The statement proceeds, however, with a simple declaration that the Institute will continue to uphold the fundamental principles that make man-woman marriage so vital, especially for children.

“Going forward, we will continue to affirm the importance of the biological ties and of motherhood and fatherhood,” it said.

In its editorial, the New York Times cited these words, and then asserted: “The absurdity of that statement speaks for itself.”

One cannot help but wonder in which parallel universe the Times editors live where motherhood and fatherhood are self-evidently an “absurdity.” It also bodes poorly for the future of reasoned moral discourse, when professional journalists simply write off the deepest convictions of their adversaries as unworthy of serious consideration.

It is also curious that the conviction that the Times find so “absurd” is not some freakish tenet of the lunatic fringe, but was the common consensus of the American people less than a generation ago. After all, we are not talking about stories of alien abductions here, but simply the importance of mothers and fathers, something even the Times editors probably experienced firsthand as children.

But perhaps the most troubling line in the editorial was not the one declaring the absurdity of motherhood and fatherhood, but rather the thinly veiled threat to those who still consider homosexual relations to be immoral.

“The outcome in Ireland sends an unmistakable signal to politicians and religious leaders around the world who continue to harbor intolerant views against gays and lesbians,” the editors warned.

It was the same newspaper, after all, that not long ago also proposed coercing religious leaders into changing doctrine to affirm the morality of sodomy.

Op-ed writer Frank Bruni, a gay activist, wrote that Christians who hold on to “ossified,” biblically-based beliefs regarding sexual morality have no place at America’s table and must be obliged to rewrite their moral code.

Bruni trashed all believing Christians as “bigots,” saying that Christians’ negative moral assessment of homosexual relations is “a choice” that “prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”

“Religion,” he wrote, “is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination.” Therefore, religions should be made to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”

In its statement following the Irish marriage referendum, the Iona Institute ended with an appeal that the New York Times chose not to quote: “We hope the Government will address the concerns voters on the No side have about the implications for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.”

These are freedoms that the New York Times and its followers seem prepared to bulldoze in order to pave the way for a new world order where religions either comply or face the consequences.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/25/ny-times-importance-of-mothers-and-fathers-an-absurdity/

[Mark]

‘Gay’ Activist’s Call for Churches to Be Forced to Take Homosexuality Off ‘Sin List’ Draws Concerns

Concerns are arising among Christians and online commentators after a homosexual activist recently told a national publication that churches “must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”

Mitchell Gold is the founder of Faith in America, an organization that aims to “end the harm to LGBT youth and families from misguided religious teaching.” He served on the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign for seven years, and was named on of the “Top 50 Most Powerful Gay People in America” in 2007 by Out Magazine.

In an article written by Frank Buni of the New York Times, Gold is quoted as stating that he believes churches ought to be forced to stop considering homosexual behavior as being sinful.

“Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’ he wrote.

“His command is worthy—and warranted,” Buni commented. “All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense.”

The Times article centered on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Act and Buni’s assertion that Christian Americans should “jettison” their mindsets about homosexual behavior. He contended that the interpretation of biblical text about homosexuality is “subjective” and “debatable” and said that Christians disregard the “biases and blind spots of [the Bible’s] authors, cultures and eras.”

“So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity,” Buni wrote. “Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia.”

But some have expressed dismay at Buni’s writing, as well as Gold’s suggestion that churches should be forced to “take homosexuality off the sin list.”

“Not ‘must be persuaded,’ but ‘must be made.’ Compelled. Forced. And not forced to change our behavior, but forced to change what we believe. Because you must approve,” wrote Rod Dreher of the American Conservative. “Can you imagine the outcry if the Times published a column saying that Jews or Muslims must be ‘made’ to quit believing a tenet of their religion? If socialists must be ‘made’ to disavow any of their political convictions? But not when the target is conservative Christians…”

“So now government should be dictating belief to churches and enforcing theological orthodoxy?” asked Thomas Williams PH.D. “Now politicians and courts will be telling Christians what they are allowed to consider as sinful? Isn’t this what America was founded to escape from?”

“People are already talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex weddings, whether they like it or not, or get out of the marriage business,” he continued. “[A]ttempts to force [Christians] to abandon their ethical standards and their principles reveal not open-mindedness or fairness, but intolerance, chauvinism and hate. These are the attitudes that have no place in America.”

Kevin Leininger of the News Sentinel made similar comments, stating that forcing Christians to change their beliefs runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“Just as with debate over man-made global warming, the theology of homosexuality is no longer open for discussion, and anyone who suggests otherwise must be forcibly silenced, presumably by the government. How that could be consistent with the First Amendment, Bruni did not say,” he wrote.

“[Gold’s] call for censorship of the church—of God himself—is noteworthy not only for its brazenness but because it was so predictable,” Leininger continued. “As I have mentioned before, it can be considered a hate crime to accurately quote Scripture in some countries, and that free speech-chilling sentiment, clearly, exists here as well and will only grow bolder if it is not resisted.”

But he noted that Scripture puts all men on an equal playing field—and that all are under sin without the transforming power of Jesus Christ.

“When [Gold] talks about taking homosexuality off the sin list, he fails to understand (or at least acknowledge) that the Bible puts everybody on the sin list,” he said. “That’s why we need a Savior in the first place.”

http://christiannews.net/2015/05/27/gay-activists-call-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-take-homosexuality-off-sin-list-draws-concerns/

[Mark]

Religious Charities Must Accept LGBT Employees or Lose Grants

White House behind push who didnt see that coming?



Religious-based charities that accept federal dollars to carry out their work may soon be forced to hire LGBT employees or lose their grant money, according to the Center for Family and Human Rights. Citing a government source, the lobby group and watchdog says the White House is extending an executive order that President Obama signed last July requiring the same of federal contractors:

    However, the White House has recently directed federal agencies to include the “sexual orientation and gender identity” clause in all grant agreements. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has agreed to make this change and is said to be weeks away from implementation.

    The source added that federal agencies are being pressured to make this change without a subsequent executive order and that the State Department legal office has advised the White House that this is not a legal matter but a matter of policy.

The changes would apply to religious groups that cited faith reasons as an objection. Much of the charity work carried on around the world is done by religious groups, often with the aid of tax dollars provided to those groups. Some may now face the choice of staying true to religious convictions or ceasing their assistance to some of the poorest people on the planet.


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/religious-charities-must-accept-lgbt-employees-or-lose-grants

[Psalm 51:17]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/sodomite-calls-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-stop-calling-sodomy-sin/
5/29/15
Sodomite Calls for Churches to Be Forced to Stop Calling Sodomy Sin

I have said for months that this is where we would end up.  That the ultimate goal of the sodomite movement is the silence and destruction of the Church.  It began as a subtle movement for acceptance by the culture and grown into a political battering ram for control.  The left and their socialist allies cannot have an America and a strong Church.

Christian News reports:
Concerns are arising among Christians and online commentators after a homosexual activist recently told a national publication that churches "must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list.'"

Mitchell Gold is the founder of Faith in America, an organization that aims to "end the harm to LGBT youth and families from misguided religious teaching." He served on the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign for seven years, and was listed on of the "Top 50 Most Powerful Gay People in America" in 2007 by Out Magazine.

Gold wants to force the Church to remove sin as a sin.  This means that they could not preach against sodomy, and they could not council against sodomy.  The Church would then be taken out of the discussion entirely.  This would remove any moral ground for opposing sodomy publicly.
In an article written by Frank Buni of the New York Times, Gold is quoted as stating that he believes churches ought to be forced to stop considering homosexual behavior to be sinful.

"Gold told me that church leaders must be made 'to take homosexuality off the sin list,' he wrote.

"His command is worthy—and warranted," Buni commented. "All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they're an offense."

This call for censoring the Church should not be a surprise.  This has been coming for some time now.  There is no doubt that this has been the end game all along.  What is so surprising is the fact that the church has been so silent and even open to this kind of thinking.  Many have allowed the enemy to creep in and take over.  As the watchman slept, the city fell.

The reason that this is so important is not that these deviants want to be accepted.  It is not even that they wish to make you agree with them, but they want power.  They can only come to power through force, and they know the people have no hope without the Church.  When the Church is destroyed, the people will kowtow to the tyrants' demands.  With the Church out of the way, the State becomes the center of the citizens' universe.
The sodomite seems to be using reason to get this done for now.

He contended that the interpretation of biblical text about homosexuality is "subjective" and "debatable" and said that Christians disregard the "biases and blind spots of [the Bible's] authors, cultures, and eras."

But just wait until your pastor or youth leader is reported for continuing to teach that sodomy is a sin.  Wait until they begin to drag church leaders to jail.  How do you boil a frog alive?

If is getting warm yet Christian?

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/sodomite-calls-for-churches-to-be-forced-to-stop-calling-sodomy-sin/#we2c62pAmPlgwBtT.99

[Mark]

Fake Homophobia Complaint Lands Street Preacher in Jail

 A British street preacher was put in jail for 11 hours after a woman accused him of homophobia.
 
The Daily Mail reports Pastor Rob Hughes had been preaching in Basildon for 20 minutes when a woman approached him, saying that she was “gay and proud.” She accused him of homophobic speech and reported him to authorities.
 
Hughes, who had been recording his speech, had not mentioned homosexuality.
 
The pastor was ordered to go to the police station where he was questioned, fingerprinted and his mugshot was taken.
 
The incident occurred in September 2013, but Hughes has now told the story in a video.
 
Hughes said, “The whole experience left me feeling that street preachers - it's now a case of being presumed guilty until found innocent, which is really the wrong way round.”
 
The preacher filed a lawsuit for the wrongful arrest and imprisonment supported by the Christian Legal Center. Hughes was awarded $3,800 in an out-of-court settlement.
 
He said, “Christians should be gracious in the midst of persecution, but at the same time we have a right to submit a legal defence.”

http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/fake-homophobia-complaint-lands-street-preacher-in-jail.html