If homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in Western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The rights to free speech and to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.
In 2000 Evelyn Bodett was fired by CoxCom Cable for expressing her biblical views against homosexuality to a lesbian subordinate. They claimed that she was thereby “coercing and harassing” the lesbian contrary to company policy. The lesbian, Kelley Carson, had sought Bodett’s advice in regard to a recent breakup with her homosexual partner, and Bodett gave her biblical counsel that homosexuality is a sin. Carson complained about the matter to a supervisor. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bodett’s religious discrimination suit.
In 2001 Richard Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after he posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality. Peterson, who had worked for HP for nearly 21 years, posted the verses in response to the company’s diversity policy that requires acceptance of homosexuality. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2004 that Peterson was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. Commenting on the case, Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association’s Center for Law & Policy, said: “The new rule in the workplace seems to be: The Bible is out; diversity is in” (“Using Caesar’s Sword,” AgapePress, March 19, 2004).
In 2002 homosexual activists tried to get the Ferndale City Council in Michigan to fire volunteer police chaplain Tom Hansen for stating his biblical views against homosexuality. The organization Soulforce claimed that Hansen, the pastor of a Baptist church, was committing “spiritual violence” against homosexuals by saying that it is sinful. The divided city council opted not to dismiss the pastor, but it did issue a resolution condemning him for his “anti-gay” views.
In 2002 Rolf Szabo was fired by Eastman Kodak for objecting to the company’s diversity policy. The program, which is called “Winning & Inclusive Culture,” allows no “negative comments” toward “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered” employees. After the company sent out an email memo in October 2002 announcing “coming out” day for homosexual employees and demanding that they be given full acceptance and encouragement, Rolf replied to the same mailing list (1,000 employees), “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you.” For refusing to apologize and submit to diversity sensitivity training, Rolf was fired. He had worked for Kodak for 23 years.
In 2002 in Saskatchewan, Canada, the StarPhoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and Hugh Owens were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top. Owens bought the ad and the StarPhoenixmerely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals (“Court Reverses Ruling,” WorldNetDaily, April 14, 2006).
In 2003 the city of Oakland, California, labeled a flier posted on a workplace bulletin board as “homophobic” because it used the terms “the natural family and marriage” (“Suit to Decide Workplace ‘Hate Speech,’” The Washington Times, June 11, 2007). The flier, which was posted by Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, was removed after a lesbian complained to the city attorney’s office that it made her feel “excluded.” When Rederford and Christy sued the city, claiming their First Amendment rights had been violated, they lost at the local, state, and federal level, with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against them. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
In June 2004 Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green in Sweden became the first pastor in the European Union to be charged under hate crimes. He was convicted for denouncing homosexuality as “abnormal,” “something sick,” and “a deep cancerous tumor in the body of society” and sentenced to one month in jail. The conviction was overturned by an appeals court.
In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.)
In 2005 in Alberta Fred Henry, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”
In January 2006, Catholic city councilman John Decicco of Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”
After he preached against homosexuality at a fellow officer’s funeral in September 2006, Sgt. Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department was removed from his position in community relations, moved back to patrol duty, and passed over for promotions and pay raises (“Police Office Sues LAPD and Los Angeles, Alleging Religious Discrimination,” Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008). In his eulogy, Holyfield, who is also a pastor, quoted Bible verses proving that homosexuality is an abomination before God and said that one must repent or be condemned to hell. Holyfield’s commanding officer, Charlie Beck, who was present at the funeral, filed a formal complaint against him.
In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission in Canada targeting Catholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).
In 2007 the Christian Heritage Party of Canada and its leader Ron Gray were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. The activist, Rob Wells, has also launched complaints against Craig Chandler in Alberta and Alphonse de Valk and Catholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDailyin America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431). Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues. It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road. The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” (“Christian Political Party before Human Rights Commission,” LifeSiteNews, Nov. 27, 2007). He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.” In June 2007 a coalition of protestant churches in Brazil was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family” and to remove billboards that said, “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!” “A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by the coalition to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was ‘homophobic’” (“Brazil Attacks against Family Defenders,”LifeSiteNews, July 30, 2007).
In June 2008 Stephen Boisson, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who brought the complaint. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.
In May 2008, Crystal Dixon was fired as associate vice president of human resources at the University of Toledo after she wrote an editorial to the Toledo Free Press expressing her views on homosexuality. She disagreed that “gay rights” can be compared to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. She wrote: “As a Black woman, I take great I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended” (“Homosexuality Editorial Puts 1st Amendment on Trial,” WorldNetDaily, Dec. 2, 2008). Dixon was fired by the university president, Lloyd Jacobs, who condemned her statements. Robert Gagnon, author of “Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views,” condemned the university, saying that such actions “come out of the Stalinistic, Soviet state. This is the kind of elimination of any expression of differences of opinion.”
In December 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland banned a newspaper ad by a Belfast church, claiming that it was offensive and indecent. The ad, entitled “The Word of God against Sodomy,” was run by the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church to coincide with Belfast’s Gay Pride parade. “The Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints from seven members of the public who felt the ad was homophobic, ruling that it had ‘caused serious offense to some readers’” (“Church Ad Banned,” Christian Post, Dec. 3, 2008). This government agency has therefore ruled that the Bible is offensive and indecent and that its statements can be banned if they cause “offense” to some.
Also in December 2008, Graham Cogman was fired from the police force in Norfolk, England, for sending e-mails to colleagues quoting Bible verses and “suggesting that homosexual sex was sinful” (“Office Force to Quit after 15 Years,” Daily Mail, Dec. 6, 2008). Cogman, 50, had been on the force for fifteen years and had three commendations. He told the Daily Mail: “In the service in general there is a feeling of fear. There is a definite bias against faith–any faith–if it takes a critical view of homosexual sex. The easy option for me would have been to keep quiet but when there is such prejudice towards one point of view, how can that be right? That doesn’t sound like equality and diversity to me. I don’t have any worries with what people do in their private lives–if they are gay, that’s fine. I haven’t gone after anyone maliciously.” He is appealing the verdict.
In August 2009, Peter Vadala was fired by the Brookstone Corporation for telling a lesbian co-worker that his Christian faith did not accept same-sex marriage. Two days after she contacted the Human Resources department, his job was terminated (“Massachusetts man Fired from Corporation over Christian Belief in Traditional Marriage,” MassResistance.org, Oct. 30, 2009). The company told Peter that “in the State of Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is legal” and his actions were deemed to be “inappropriate” and “harassment.” He was accused of “imposing his beliefs upon others.”
In April 2010 Ken Howell was fired as adjunct professor by the University of Illinois for telling his Catholicism class that he agrees with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Firing Follows Anonymous ‘Hate Speech’ Complaint,” OneNewsNow.com, July 14, 2010). Howell had taught at the university for nine years, and the complaint was made anonymously by a friend of a student who attended the class.
********
That homosexual activists are trying to silence all Bible believers in the public arena with shrill brow-beating was evident in the March 2012 brouhaha following Christian actor Kirk Cameron’s bold defense of biblical marriage in his appearance on “Piers Morgan Tonight.” Asked for his views on homosexual marriage, Cameron showed more spiritual conviction and courage than the average preacher today by stating in a public forum: “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago. Marriage is almost as old as dirt. And it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve–one man, one woman for life, till death do you part. So I would never attempt to redefine marriage and I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of ‘gay’ marriage, no I don’t.” Mr. Cameron also said that homosexuality is “unnatural, detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” The response by homosexual activists and entertainment figures was hysterical. Some were nearly in a state of apoplexy. GLADD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) claimed that such comments “contribute to a climate of hostility” and “have no place in modern America.” Roseanne Barr said Cameron is “an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” Many have told Cameron to “shut up” in no uncertain terms and to keep his views to himself. In spite of the deluge of shrill criticism, Cameron hasn’t backed down. He said: “I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years–without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.” Indeed.
After the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out in July 2012 for traditional marriage and against homosexual “marriage,” government leaders in four cities said the fast-food restaurants are not welcome in their territory. Asked about Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family, Dan Cathy said, ‘Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family–the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that” (“Chick-Fil-A Interview Triggers Media Storm,” Biblical Recorder, July 19, 2012). Speaking on the Ken Coleman radio program on June 16, Cathy said, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, We know better than You as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.” The response was loud and outrageous. The Human Rights Campaign–the nation’s largest gay activist group–posted a Chick-fil-A logo on its website with a fake tagline, “We Didn’t Invent Discrimination. We Just Support It.” Boston Mayor Tom Menino said, “You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.” Chicago Mayor said, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” This ridiculous statement ignores the fact that larger numbers of Chicago citizens hold the same belief about marriage that Dan Cathy holds. Mountain View, California, is trying to block a new Chick-fil-A from opening. Homosexual activists announced that they would conduct “kiss ins” at Chick-fil-A stores.
John Hayward correctly said that homosexual activists are trying to silence any dissent:
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game. Cathy isn’t allowed to encourage reverence and support for the traditional family, or even worse, put his money where his mouth is. He’s not allowed to say that he finds moral or practical value in the time-honored definition of marriage, without feeling animosity towards gay people. His ideas and principles are automatic thought crimes, no matter how gently and constructively they might be presented” (“The Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Controversy,” Human Events, July 24, 2012).
After massive numbers of people visited Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country on August 1 to show their support for the company, homosexual activists continued to spew their vile thoughts and express their hated of Bible-believing Christians. Many sent Twitter messages that wished for the death of Chick-fil-A supporters. The following were typical of those that were reproduced in a report entitled “Choke to Death on That LGBT Hating Chicken,” TheBlaze, Aug. 1, 2012. “Lets all go to Chick fil a today, lynch a fag or two, then hopefully all suffer major heart attacks and die.” “Oh please please let there be a news story about some bible thumper having a heart attack and dying in a chick-fil-a today fingers crossed.” “If you go eat at a Chick fil A today I hope you choke to death on that LGBT hating chicken.” “Buy ten bigot sammiches, eat em all, and die of a heart attack. Its all in the bible.” “At least we can take comfort in the fact that all the homophobes stuffing their face with Chick fil a will be dead sooner than later.” Many of the Tweets were too vile to reprint.
In July 2012, Jane Pitt, mother of Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt, received a deluge of vicious responses, including death threats and an outpouring of filthy vulgarities, for simply expressing her opinion against abortion and homosexual “marriage.” In a letter to the editor of the Springfield News-Leader in Missouri, Mrs. Pitt stated that Barack Obama is “a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage,” which is the undeniable truth. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama even OPPOSED a bill that would have required that infants who survived abortion be given medical attention. With the liberal media as their gleeful helpers, homosexual activists have the objective of quieting every voice that is opposed to their lifestyle, and any time a prominent person utters so much as a peep against them, the response is immediate, outrageous, and vicious. In this case, it worked, as Mrs. Pitt has reportedly refused to make any further comment. There should be voices sounding everywhere in the “land of the free and home of the brave” in defense of Mrs. Pitt’s constitutional right of freedom of speech and religion, but even her famous son hasn’t said a word to rebuke his mother’s vile attackers. Her other son, Doug, though, spoke out in support, as did actor Jon Voight, the father of Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie. Voight said, “Good for her” and expressed agreement with her point of view.
In January 2013 Pastor Louie Giglio was forced to withdraw from delivering the benediction at President Obama’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony because of his opposition to homosexuality. In a sermon preached in the 1990s entitled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality,” Giglio said: “Homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle. Homosexuality is not just a sexual preference. Homosexuality is not gay. Homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God and it is sin according to the word of God.” Giglio also said that same-sex “marriage” would “run the risk of undermining the whole order of society.” Because of these true words, Bible-hating homosexual activists demanded that he not deliver the address at the presidential inauguration, and the presidential inaugural committee withdraw its invitation. The growing power of the homosexual movement is evident in that four years ago it was not able to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s first inauguration, though they tried for the same reason that they opposed Giglio. Neither Giglio nor Warren is a staunch Bible believer or he would not have received such an invitation in the first place, but the vicious opposition even to milk-toast, rock & roll, ecumenical preachers such as these reveals the irrationality and intolerance of the homosexual agenda. And why are the enemies of truth so empowered today? Because of the milk-toast preachers in the pulpits who do not preach the fear of God in a scriptural fashion and therefore have filled the land with a nominal Christianity that has placed the nation under God’s curse. The solution is for God’s believing people to pay undivided attention to their individual lives, families, and churches so that for our sake God will bless instead of curse. We need to forget the politicking and get serious about obeying God’s Word. “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chron. 7:14).
In August 2013, a court in Scotland charged a man the equivalent of over $60,000 for criticizing a homosexual woman on Twitter. The following is excerpted from “Scottish Court,” ChristianNewsNet, Aug. 17, 2013: “The Court of Session in Edinburgh–known as the supreme civil court of Scotland–ruled that 54-year-old David Shuttleton should give Jaye Richards-Hill $62,000 as restitution for Tweets he posted last year. Richards-Hill is an open homosexual, described by some as one of Scotland’s ‘leading gay rights campaigners.’ Last summer, Shuttleton–an antiques-dealer–and Richards-Hill–an education technologist–exchanged heated messages on Twitter, with Shuttleton labeling Richards-Hill a ‘fraud’ whose homosexuality is ‘a danger to children.’ Eventually, Richards-Hill filed a lawsuit against Shuttleton, citing defamation of character charges. According to reports, the $62,000 fine was actually not decided by judges, but was instead a default punishment, since Shuttleton failed to file proper defense paperwork. He is vowing to appeal the decision, however. … Shuttleton defended himself in a Daily Recordinterview, declaring that he was simply ‘an innocent Scotsman’ who is being attacked by ‘the homosexual machine.’ ‘It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community,’ he continued. ‘It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws. … We are talking about one of the most notorious and infamous extremist homosexual activist fanatics in the whole of Scotland here. She is an infamous, notorious Internet troll.’”
On August 16, 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against an evangelist for allegedly stirring up hatred against homosexuals in another country can go to trial. SMUG (Sexual Minorites Uganda) filed suit against Scott Lively (Abiding Truth Ministries) for allegedly stirring up hatred toward homosexuals by teaching that homosexuality “is more destructive to society than abortion.” He taught this on trips to Uganda as well as on his web site. Last year SMUG accused Lively of “crimes against humanity of persecution,” using the Alien Tort Statute that allows foreigners to bring cases in U.S. courts when alleging violations of international law. “The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organization in its lawsuit alleges that Lively organized and carried out ‘strategies to dehumanize, demonize, silence, and further criminalize the LGBTI community’ in Uganda” (“Christian Evangelist’s Lawsuit Goes Forward,” The Christian Post, Aug. 16, 2013). “SMUG is seeking ‘compensatory, punitive, and exemplary damages,’ a declaration that Lively’s conduct ‘has been in violation of the law of nations,’ and a court order prohibiting Lively from ‘undertaking further actions, and from plotting and conspiring with others, to persecute’ the LGBTI organization and those whose interests it represents in Uganda” (Ibid.). A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that Lively’s attorneys have not proven that he was not partly responsible for inciting persecution and that the case can go to trial. The Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lively, says, “The suit is a direct attempt to silence Rev. Lively and intimidate other pastors against teaching the Biblical position on homosexuality.”
In April 2014, Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla (maker of the popular web browser Firefox) because of his support for traditional marriage. In 2008, he contributed $1,000 to back California’s Proposition 8 referendum which sought to define marriage as between a man and a woman. A firestorm of criticism by intolerant homosexual activists and supporters, like a bunch of howler monkeys, forced Eich’s resignation within two weeks of his election to head Mozilla. Newt Gingrich called the pressure against Eich as a “blatant example of the new fascism.” Pat Buchanan labeled it “the new blacklist.” RedState called it “a fascist purge.” Leftist comedian Bill Maher called the perpetrators the “gay mafia.” Even homosexual media personalities condemned the action. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce called it the “gay gestapo.” Andrew Sullivan condemned the “intimidating of free speech” and likened it to the inquisition of heretics.
In May 2014, a Miami Dolphins player was fined and sent to “educational training” after he tweeted a negative comment about the drafting of the first homosexual professional football player. When Michael Sams was drafted by the St. Louis Rams in the seventh round, Don Jones tweeted, “OMG” and “Horrible” (“NFL Player Fined,” The Blaze, May 11, 2014). The speech Nazis didn’t waste a minute in condemning this “homophobic” behavior, and Jones quickly apologized, saying that his comments were “inappropriate.”
In May 2014, AIDS expert Brendan Bain was fired for saying that homosexual sex acts are dangerous to those who practice them and to public health in general (“AIDS Expert Fired,” CharismaNews, May 21, 2014). In 2012, Professor Bain testified on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place, showing from his own research that the risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. Because of this testimony, he was fired this month from his position as director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. The homosexuals who are served by CHART believe that criminalizing homosexual acts forces the HIV epidemic underground and increases the HIV risk. The reality is that they don’t want to face the truth about their actions, so they seek to quiet every voice of opposition.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, A BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WON’T BE ABLE TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF COUNSELING
In July 2008 Marcia Walden was fired from her counseling job with Computer Sciences Corporation after she referred a homosexual patient to another counselor for same-sex relationship advice (“Counselor Fired over Christian Beliefs,”OneNewsNow, July 18, 2008).
In 2010, Jennifer Keeton was told by Augusta State University in Georgia that she would have to change her Christian beliefs or be expelled from the school’s graduate counseling program (The Christian Post, July 22, 2010). She was enrolled in the School Counselor masters degree program since 2009. “She expressed her Christian beliefs in class discussions and written assignments, but it was her views regarding gender and sexuality that particularly irked the faculty. According to the filed complaint, ‘She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a state of being.’ A Remediation Plan required that Keeton attend workshops on diversity sensitivity training toward working with GLBTQ [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Queer] populations, work to increase exposure and interaction with gay populations by attending such events as the Gay Pride Parade in Augusta, and read more on the topic to improve counseling effectiveness with GLBTQ populations. When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Mary Anderson-Wiley [an associate professor who oversees student education and discipline] at one point responded, ‘Christians see this population as sinners.’” The Alliance Defense Fund filed suit against the school on July 21, 2010, but in June 2012 a judge of the Southern District of Georgia ruled against her.
On July 26, 2010, a federal judge ruled that Eastern Michigan University was within its rights to dismiss a graduate student, Julea Ward, from its counseling program “because she chose not to counsel a homosexual patient” (“Christianity, ‘Gay Rights’ Clash,” Baptist Press, July 30, 2010). “Ward wanted to refer him to another counselor, but the school found her action insufficient. She was given three options: 1) going through a ‘remediation program,’ 2) voluntarily withdrawing, or, 3) going before a university panel. She chose to appear before the panel, which found she had violated the ACA’s code of ethics. The panel, made up of three faculty members and a student representative, even asked Ward if she viewed her ‘brand of Christianity as superior to that of other Christians who may not agree with her.’”
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE
The following is excerpted from “Now It’s EX-‘gays’ getting pummeled,”WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:
“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the 2007 incident at the Arlington County Fair. …
“Griggs said at the time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality. … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.’
“The fair was one of the events to which PFOX was admitted. Several other major influences in America today, including the National Education Association, and the Parent-Teachers Association, simply refuse to allow PFOX to appear at their events.
“Those who condemn homosexuality also face electronic badgering. When Sally Kern, an Oklahoma lawmaker, vocally rejected the homosexual lifestyle choice as a threat, she was inundated with tens of thousands of e-mails in a coordinated attack on her beliefs. Some of the e-mails threatened her. …
“Griggs told WND the movement is becoming more aggressive in teaching that homosexuality is something people are born with, not something they choose for whatever reasons.
“‘We have a school board teaching homosexuality is innate. We have judges ruling schools are not required to teach fact-based [sex education] information. Basically they are silencing anyone who holds a different opinion. Their sole concern is about advancing that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy and should have all the equal benefits of marriage. If you come at it from a Christian perspective, that makes you a homophobe,’ she said, citing the case of a University of Toledo administrator who was fired for expressing her personal Christian testimony regarding homosexuality. ‘They’re not seeking equality; they’re seeking total control,’ she said. …
“‘Each year thousands of men and women with same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave homosexuality by means of reparative therapy, ex-gay ministry or group counseling. Their choice is one only they can make. However, there are others who refuse to respect that choice, and endeavor to attack the ex-gay community. Consequently, ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment where they are reviled or attacked as perpetrators of hate and discrimination simply because they dare to exist,’ Griggs said.”
In Brazil, where the homosexual rights movement is very advanced, the Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a suit against Rozangela Alves Justino, a psychologist who offers therapy to homosexuals who want to change their orientation (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 29, 2007).
In August 2012 the California Assembly voted 51-22 to approve a bill that would forbid those under 18 to undergo sexual orientation change efforts “regardless of the willingness of a patient” or a “patient’s parent” (“Calif. Lawmakers Approve Ban,”Christian Post, Aug. 29, 2012). The bill must be voted on by the California Senate and signed by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.
In 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of California’s ban against “religious-viewpoint therapy for people who seek to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.” And in January 2014 the federal court refused to review the case (“Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Religious Liberty on Same-Sex Attraction,” Breitbart, Feb. 5, 2014). The court rejected the Liberty Counsel’s argument that the statue violates First Amendment rights of both counselors and patients. The case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE
[As we speak, as of July 10, 2015, US Congress Democrats have introduced a bill that would essentially criminalize the use of the terms, “husband” and “wife”]
The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.
The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B.”
In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Day cards this year so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interests of sensitivity’ over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households” (“Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008).
Last year Scotland’s National Health Service approved a policy for hospital workers mis-titled “Fair For All.” In fact, the policy is “fair” for no one, because it destroys the right of free speech and forbids the use of historic and biblical terms such as “mother” and “father” (since some patients might have two mothers or two fathers) and “husband” and “wife,” labeling this “homophobic language.” Such terms must be replaced with “partner” or “they/them” (Ed Vitagliano, “There is only one acceptable way to talk about homosexuality — SILENCE!” OneNewsNow.com, May 31, 2007). The policy is to be strictly enforced.
In May 2007 the California state senate passed bill SB 777. If approved by the state assembly and signed by the governor, it will ban any speech in the public school system that “reflects or promotes bias against” homosexuality, transgenders, bisexuals, or those who “perceived” gender issues. The ban would apply even to discussions. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families warns that references to “mother” and “father” would probably be banned if this idiotic policy becomes law (“Lawmakers Pass Redefinition of ‘Sex,” The Berean Call, June 8, 2007).
The following is excerpted from “‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ to Be Scrapped,” christian.org.uk, Feb. 11, 2013: “The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be dropped from Scottish matrimonial law under First Minister Alex Salmond’s plans to redefine marriage. Official consultation documents which accompany the Scottish Government’s draft Bill spell out the changes to terminology. Where current matrimonial law refers to ‘mother’ and ‘father,’ the Scottish Government plans for legislation to use the gender-neutral term ‘parent.’ The proposals have been described as “politically stupid” by Gordon Wilson, the former leader of the Scottish National Party. Mr Wilson said: ‘The politically correct elite are going mad. They are going far beyond what people envisage.’ Norman Wells of the Family Education Trust said: ‘The Scottish Government’s plan to introduce a new lexicon for family relationships shows just how far its proposals to redefine marriage extend. It is engaging in a linguistic revolution to accommodate the wishes of a tiny minority of same-sex couples who want their relationships to be recognised as a marriage. Under these proposals, marriage is not so much being extended to same-sex couples as being taken over by them.’”
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education announced that its students loan applications have been redesigned to accommodate children brought up by homosexual parents. Beginning with the 2014-15 student aid form, the terms “mother” and “father” will be replaced with “parent 1” and “parent 2.”
The British government is changing the meaning of the words “husband” and “wife” so they can be used interchangeably for “people of either gender.” “Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses. The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated. It comes as part of a Government initiative to ‘clarify’ what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law. … Previous legislation is to be amended sweep away the traditional understanding of ‘gender specific’ terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements. … ‘The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),’ it adds, confusingly. ‘And “wife” will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.’ A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: ‘We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created. This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage. They’re in cloud cuckoo land’” (“Men can be ‘wives’ and women ‘husbands as government overrules the dictionary,”The Telegraph, June 27, 2013).
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO SERVE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR BUSINESS.
In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.
In 2001 a Christian gynecologist at the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group in Vista, California, was sued by a lesbian for refusing to provide in vitro fertilization treatment due to her religious convictions. Dr. Christine Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside of marriage, but a fellow physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist and the clinic agreed to pay any cost involved in the fact that the specialist was not covered by the lesbian’s health insurance (“Another Type of Conscientious Objector,” American Civil Rights Union Blog, April 30, 2007). In spite of that and in spite of the fact that she became pregnant and bore a healthy son, Guadalupe Benitez sued. In May 2008 the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case. “Legal experts believe that the woman’s right to medical treatment will trump the doctor’s religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).
In 2005 a British Columbia Knights of Columbus council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.
In 2006, Elane Photography was fined nearly $7000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph the private “commitment ceremony” for two lesbians. Owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin are Christians who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The Huguenins took the matter to court, but they have lost at every level. They lost in the original trial and in the court of appeals. And in August 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court “ruled that Christian photographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies” (“New Mexico Court,” Breitbart.com, Aug, 22, 2013). The judges went so far as to say that forcing Christians to act contrary to their religious faith is the price of citizenship. Justice Richard Bosson said, “The Huguenins are free to … pray to the God of their choice … But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in December 2013 eight state attorneys general and 18 wedding photographers filed briefs in support of the Huguenins. The states represented are Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia. But in April 2014, in an ominous ruling against first amendment rights, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, thus letting the lower court’s decision stand against Elene Photography.
Legal pundits say that it is probable that the Supreme Court will wait until a federal appeals court rules on this issue before taking it into consideration, but it is ominous that the judges had no interest in giving immediate relief to Christians who are being oppressed by homosexual activists and by a government bent on advancing a “new morality.” This will create a climate in which it will be nearly impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to own a business or hold a job, particularly in government and education, if he or she is not willing to accept the government’s view of morality.
In 2007, after a Methodist organization in New Jersey refused to rent its facility to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony, a complaint was filed with the state Division of Civil Rights. It ruled against the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, saying that since the property was open for public use, it could not discriminate against homosexuals. The state revoked their tax exemption for the property. Pastor Scott Hoffman, administrator for the Association, says they refused to rent the facility because of the theological principle that marriage is between a man and a woman. They are appealing to the state court system. The complaint came soon after New Jersey legalized same sex civil unions.
In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman. This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,”OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs. In June 2012 the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Elane Photography, rejecting their appeal. The judge plainly stated that the state could discriminate against religious belief, writing, “The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests.”
Because of refusing service to a homosexual couple in 2008, the Christian owners of the Chymorvah Hotel in Marazion, Cornwall, England, were forced to hire legal representation and compensate the homosexuals, and in 2013 they had to sell the hotel because of loss of business and ongoing harassment and threats (including death threats) by homosexual activists. The owners, Hazelmary and Peter Bull, appealed the lower court decision against them to the U.K. Supreme Court, which ruled against them on November 27. The course said the court case was “a measure of how far we have come in the recognition of same=sex relationships” (“Christians who denied gay couple hotel room lose UK court case,” Reuters, Nov. 27, 2013). The court concluded, “Now that, at long last, same-sex couples can enter into a mutual commitment which is the equivalent of marriage, the suppliers of goods, facilities and services should treat them in the same way.”
Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a same-sex service and pay heavy financial penalties. A settlement with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights requires the company to establish a matching service for homosexuals, give the first 10,000 registrants a free six-month subscription, advertise the new service, and pay $5,000 to the homosexual who brought the complaint and $50,000 to the state for legal expenses (Christian News, Nov. 19, 2008). This does not include the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the company spent to defend itself against the unjust charges over a three-year period. You would think that the homosexuals would be satisfied, but that is far from the case. They want to bleed the company even more, and the confused judges in the state of California are their abettors. The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled on November 20 that a class action lawsuit against eHarmony can go forward. Thus, every “gay, lesbian, and bisexual individual” that has attempted to use eHarmony since May 2004 can seek damages, and Judge Victoria Chaney said they do not need to demonstrate actual injury. They only have to assert that they visited the company’s web site to see a same-sex match and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).
When the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, refused to host a wedding reception for a lesbian couple in 2011 because of religious convictions against homosexual “marriage,” it was sued by the couple. The ACLU and the Vermont Human Rights Commission joined the suit. In August 2012, the resort agreed to pay $10,000 to the Human Rights Commission and to create a $20,000 charitable trust to be disbursed by Kate and Ming Linsley, the lesbian couple (“Lesbian Brides Win Settlement from Vermont Inn,” Reuters, Aug. 23, 2012). The resort also agreed not to host wedding receptions. Vermont legalized civil unions between same-sex couples in 2000 and legalized homosexual “marriage” in 2009, and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act “prohibits public accommodations from denying goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.”
The following is excerpted from “Christian Florist Slammed with Second Lawsuit for Declining to Decorate Homosexual ‘Wedding,’” Christian News, Apr. 22, 2013: “A Christian florist in Washington has been slammed with a second lawsuit for declining to decorate the homosexual wedding of a longtime client. Baronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland was leveled with a lawsuit last month by State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who claims that she violated the law by not fulfilling the order. Stutzman had been approached in March by one of her faithful customers, Robert Ingersoll, a homosexual, as he wanted her to supply the flowers for his upcoming ceremony with his partner, Curt. She states that she politely explained that she would not be able to help in regard to the event. … After Ingersoll decided to post on Facebook about the matter, controversy arose on both sides of the issue–both for and against Stutzman. The florist said that she received a number of threatening and angry comments. ‘It blew way out of proportion,’ Stutzman explained. ‘I’ve had hate mail. I’ve had people that want to burn my building. I’ve had people that will never shop here again and [vow to] tell all their friends.’ … Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington has also filed against the florist, this time on behalf of Robert Ingersoll and his partner Curt Freed.”
The following is from “Court Orders Christian Bed and Breakfast to Accommodate Homosexuals after Denying Bed to Lesbians,” Christian News, Apr. 19, 2013: “A Christian-owned bed and breakfast establishment in Hawaii has been ordered to accommodate homosexuals who seek lodging for the night following a ruling by the First Circuit Court. Phyllis Young of Aloha Bed and Breakfast in Honolulu was sued in 2011 by two lesbian women from California, who claimed that Young violated Hawaii’s discrimination law by denying them a bed. Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford patronized the bed and breakfast in 2007 while visiting a friend in the area, and requested a room. According to reports, when Cervelli noted that the two only needed one bed, Young asked if the women were lesbians. When Cervelli admitted that it was indeed the case, Young explained that she did not feel comfortable with the arrangement because of her Christian beliefs. The women then reported the matter to the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, who then came knocking at Young’s residence. According to the Commission’s report, Young told investigators that her convictions did not permit her to accommodate the women, and that homosexual behavior is a ‘detestable’ practice that ‘defiles our land.’ The Commission later joined the lawsuit, which was filed by LAMBDA, a homosexual legal organization, on behalf of Cervelli and Bufford. ‘We just want to be treated like everyone else,’ Bufford told reporters following the filing of the suit. ‘It’s not about changing her beliefs or changing her religion, it’s about accepting us like you’re accepting any other client that comes in [the door].’ Now, a judge in the First Circuit of Hawaii has ruled that Young violated Hawaii’s public accommodations law, which states that businesses may not ‘deny, or attempt to deny, a person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, including gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, color, religion, ancestry, or disability.’ … attorney Stephen Crampton with Liberty Counsel told Christian News Network that if the Supreme Court endorses homosexual ‘marriage’ in June, cases such as these will become more commonplace. ‘Not only will they not tolerate religious folks saying no to homosexuals, not only will they find or run out of business or force the little businesses to bow the knee, they will seek them out and target them,’ he said.”
The following is from “Gresham bakery that denied same-sex wedding cake closes,” KGW.com, Sept. 1, 2013: “A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read ‘Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.’ As first reported in Willamette Week, Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on its Facebook page, ‘This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery. I will post our new number soon.’ In January, Laurel Bowman said Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to sell her a cake after learning it would be for a same-sex wedding. In August, the Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was conducting an investigation to determine if the bakery violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of LGBT Oregonians. Aaron Klein, one of the owners of the ‘Sweet Cakes by Melissa,’ refused to sell the cake to one of the brides-to-be because he said marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Bowman later filed a complaint with the justice department, which Klein’s attorney Herbert Grey responded to. In his letter, Grey says the couple ‘elected not to participate in an event that is not even officially recognized under Oregon law when doing so would violate their constitutionally-protected conscience and religious beliefs.’” In January 2014, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries determined that the bakery “violated the civil rights of a same-sex couple” (“Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Couple’s Civil Rights,” CBS Seattle, Jan. 21, 2014). Under Oregon law, citizens may not be denied service “based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” The state is overseeing a conciliation process to see if the parties can reach a settlement. Owners Aaron and Melissa Klein told KATU-TV, “We still stand by what we believe from the beginning.” On their Facebook page they thanked people for praying for them and said, “It is the Lord’s fight and our situation is in His hands”
In December 2013 civil court judge Robert Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, is guilty of unlawful discrimination for refusing to serve a homosexual couple who approached the bakery in July 2012 and ordered a cake for their “wedding.” Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity (“Court finds against baker,” Fox31, Denver, Dec. 6, 2013).
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TURN DOWN A HOMOSEXUAL FOR A JOB.
In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the Vancouver Rape Relief Society for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counsellor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.
In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO ENFORCE PUBLIC NUDITY LAWS.
In June 2008 transgender activists removed their clothing in a public rally in Northampton, Massachusetts. The chose Northampton, because it is one of three cities in Massachusetts that have ordinances forbidding discrimination against transsexuals. Amy Contrada, a leader in the pro-family movement MassResistance, explained:
“With anti-discrimination ordinances in place, there’s no way a policeman would arrest a woman for being shirtless, because she could say she’s not a woman, and under the ordinance, she gets to determine whether she’s female or not” (“Transgender Activists Remove Clothing in Public,” WorldNetDaily, June 17, 2008).
Already in some American cities the public nudity laws are overlooked during homosexual fests. This is happening in San Francisco, for example. There are acts not only of public nudity but also of public sex during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” festivals, and the police simply stand by and observe.
“Nude men engaged in multiple instances of public sex on a municipal street while police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregated nearby making no attempt to enforce public indecency regulations, according to a report on the latest homosexual-fest in San Francisco.
“The behavior was documented in photographs of an event called ‘Up Your Alley,’ which is sponsored by the same group that organizes the city’s fall ‘gay’-fest, the Folsom Street Fair, on which WND has reported.
“‘Consider how liberal government authorities like Mayor [Gavin] Newsom have corrupted the men in blue by stipulating that police not prosecute public nudity and indecency at homosexual festivals,’ said a report from Americans for Truth on the graphic activities documented at the event.
“‘What honor can there be in protecting the public practice of heinous perversions and nudity in the city’s streets? The shame of pandering politicians is transferred to the cops who were intended to be guardians of the law and public order,” said the organizer’s chief, Peter LaBarbera” (“San Francisco Fest Features Public Sex with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF HOMOSEXUALS
The Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed a flurry of lawsuits against websites that exposed the fact that the leader of Brazil’s homosexual movement, Luiz Mott, is a promoter of pedophilia and pederasty (“Flurry of Lawsuits,” LifeSiteNews, Aug. 30, 2007). “The sites, Media Without a Mask, the Christian Apologetics Research Center, and Jesussite, are accused of ‘charlatanism, infamy, defamation, and calumny,’ for having quoted Mott’s numerous statements endorsing sex with children and adolescents. The Association is asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE WOMEN-ONLY PUBLIC RESTROOMS.
In June 2008 Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado signed a law making it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on gender identity or even the “PERCEPTION” of gender identity (“Biblical Message Now Criminalized,” WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2008). James Dobson said: “Who would have believed that the Colorado state legislature and its governor would have made it fully legal for men to enter and use women’s restrooms and locker-room facilities without notice or explanation? Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence.”
This type of thing is already happening in Massachusetts. Consider the public hearing at the State House on March 4, 2008. The hearing was of the Joint Committee of the Judiciary on the “transgender rights and hate crimes bill” and it was dominated by homosexual activists. MassResistance reported: “We watched as a parade of men dressed as women going into the State House ladies’ restroom, and women into the men’s room–while inside the hearing the activists were unusually honest about their belief that transgender ‘rights’ will trump the public’s comfort with their behavior” (“When the Wicked Seize a State,” http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com).
In 2013 the Massachusetts Department of Education issued a directive stating that public schools must allow boys and girls who identify as the opposite sex to utilize whichever restroom and/or locker room they feel most comfortable using (“Boys Allowed in Girls’ Restrooms,” Baptist Press, March 1, 2013).
On February 26, 2013, the Phoenix City Council passed the so-called “Bathroom Bill,” which will allow not only “transgendered” men, but also any man who thinks he is a women to use many of the same public restrooms that women and young girls use (“Phoenix Mayor, Council Open the Women’s Bathroom Door for Men,”American Thinker, March 9, 2013).
In April 2013 the California Assembly Education Committee approved a bill that would mandate schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identified with the opposite gender (“California ‘Bathroom Bill’ Mandating Schools to Allow Boys in Girls’ Restrooms,” Christian News, Apr. 18, 2013). “AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ would serve as an amendment to the Education Code and would require all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. It was approved to move forward in the legislature by a vote of 5-2 on Wednesday. It will likely now advance to the full Assembly, House and Senate for consideration. ‘We were heavily outnumbered by transgender folk, transgender activists, the ACLU and teacher’s unions,’ Matthew McReynolds, staff attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), told Christian News Network of the hearing that took place prior to the vote.”
The following is excerpted from “California Lawmakers,” Christian News, July 5, 2013: “California lawmakers have passed a bill mandating schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and vice versa if they identify with the opposite gender. As previously reported, AB 1266, also known as the ‘Bathroom Bill,’ serves as an amendment to the Education Code and requires all schools in the state to comply with its mandates. ‘A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs, activities, and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records,’ the legislation reads. … Similar legislation recently passed in Delaware despite outcry from Christians, and in Colorado, the state Civil Rights Division ruled that a school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy when it stopped him from using the girls’ restroom after he began to dress as–and identify as–a girl.”
In August 2013, California’s “Bathroom Bill” was made law. The following is from “Stage Set for Molestations,” OneNewsNow, Aug. 13, 2013: “With the stroke of a pen on Monday, California became the first state to enshrine rights for transgender students in state law–setting the stage, say pro-family leaders, for young girls to be molested in school locker rooms by boys who believe they are girls. Without comment, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday signed into law a bill (AB 1266) strengthening the rights of transgender students (K-12) in the state’s public schools. It makes the Golden State the first state in the nation to allow participation in ‘sex-segregated programs, activities, and facilities’ in public schools based on a student’s gender identity Under the new law, public schools will be required to allow the students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want–and it would allow boys to take showers with girls just because they say they feel they are female. … Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute is among those reacting strongly to Brown’s signing of the measure. ‘It’s an outrageous and egregious violation of the privacy and decency for young women and young girls all throughout the state of California,’ the attorney tells OneNewsNow. … All under the guise of providing special rights and protections for children with a gender-identity disorder, and, if a boy wants to molest a girl, he can follow her into a restroom and violate her. Dacus vows that his legal group intends to defend individuals–particularly young girls and young women–who now face the real possibility of having their privacy rights trampled. ‘No young person should be expected to have to shower with the opposite sex, much less change in front of the opposite sex,’ he exclaims. ‘This is an outrageous piece of legislation and an outrageous violation of the right to privacy.’ But Dacus will have to wait until someone is harmed to file suit because a person must prove that they have been damaged.”
In February 2014, Maine’s supreme court ruled that a local school district discriminated against a fifth grade male student that “identifies as a female” when it refused to let him use the girls’ restroom (“Main Supreme Court Rules School Discriminated Against Boy,” Christian News, Feb. 4, 2014). The school offered to let the student use the staff bathroom, but on a 5-1 decision the court deemed that unacceptable. Lower courts had sided with the school district, but the state supreme court has overturned this ruling. Justice Warren Silver wrote on behalf of the majority. “Where, as here, it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination.”
Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute observed, “It is imperative that parents in every state contact their elected officials to demand increased protections for student privacy. It is alarming that the Maine decision and similar pushes by transgender activists are blatantly ignoring the constitutional rights of the more than 99% of students who do not identify as transgender.”
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES.
“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle–during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill ‘condoning discrimination.’ Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006” (“When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash,” National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).
“A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple’s application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California” (National Public Radio, June 13, 2008).
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP HOMOSEXUALS FROM HAVING PUBLIC SEX.
When the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, proposed in July 2007 that the city spend $250,000 on robotic toilets for the beach to curb homosexual sex in public restrooms and parks, homosexual activists were up in arms. (The doors of the toilets automatically open after a certain period.) The homosexuals accused Mayor Jim Naugle of “hatred” and demanded an apology.
In response he did apologize, but not to the homosexuals. He said: “I was not aware of how serious the problem was of the sexual activity that’s taking place in bathrooms and public places and parks in Broward County and particularly the city of Fort Lauderdale. I’ve been educated on that, and I want to apologize to the parents and the children of our community for not being aware of the problem. This to me is totally unacceptable. I don’t think that in the name of being inclusive or tolerant any of us in the community should tolerate this” (“Fort Lauderdale Mayor Criticized,”Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 2, 2007).
This further enraged the homosexuals, and they held a rally at city hall. Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force called the mayor a “bigot” and said he should be “shunned everywhere he goes and not allowed at any gathering where decent people are.” City Commissioner Carlton Moore shouted, “We as a community must unite against hatred.”
Some public parks are listed on homosexual websites as recommended locations for immoral liaisons. In June 2008 Pennsylvania state park rangers arrested three men at such a park and accused them of lewd acts (“PA Park Rangers Crack Down,” OneNewsNow.com, June 18, 2008).
If homosexual activists get their way, and homosexuals are given license to act out their “lifestyle” as they please, the response given by the Fort Lauderdale mayor and the actions of the park rangers will be illegal.
WHEN HOMOSEXUALS GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND BOOKS THAT CRITICIZE HOMOSEXUALS.
In 2006 a librarian at Ohio State University’s Mansfield campus was condemned by the faculty for simply recommending that the book The Marketing of Evil be placed on the required reading list for incoming freshmen. The librarian, Scott Savage, made the recommendation while holding serving on the First Year Reading Experience Committee. After a homosexual professor, J.F. Buckley, reacted to Savage’s recommendation by sending out “an obscenity-filled diatribe” in which he claimed that he felt threatened and intimidated, the faculty voted 21-0 to open a formal investigation of “sexual harassment” against the librarian (“Judge Rebuffs Christian,” WorldNetDaily, June 8, 2010). Though the university backed down and informed Savage that he was not guilty, the climate of intimidation continued and Savage felt it was necessary to resign.
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, the thing that will be illegal when homosexuality is fully legal is Bible-believing Christianity, but none of this is surprising to the Bible believer. The Lord Jesus Christ likened the last days to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Luke 17:28-30). And the apostle Paul prophesied:
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
We are not surprised at the wickedness that is sweeping across the world, but it is our responsibility to take a stand for God’s Word until Jesus comes.
If we take freedom of speech and religion for granted and do not use it to proclaim God’s Word, we don’t deserve it.
And no matter how evil the hour is, we must not despair. We have all of the glorious promises of a God that cannot lie. Any trouble we face in this life is very brief and fleeting. Eternity is what matters.
“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4).
“But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:29-30).
“Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil. For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken. A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked” (Psalms 37:1-16).
Karen Swallow Prior
Rory Tyer 
Do Right Christians 