🏳️‍🌈 More immoral LGBTQ+ lunacy

[DLine06]

Joking aside...can you imagine "these kinds of folk" having a rally or a march?

 

Are we allowed to fire bullets...

[Doomer]

Joking aside...can you imagine "these kinds of folk" having a rally or a march?

 

I hope they march right past the Dallas book depository. True story.

[RETIREDFAN1]

THIS is exactly what most of us predicted would occur......

[TheShadowKnows]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

 

Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

Posted in Top Stories | 110 comments

 

Apr 23, 2012

 

By Todd Starnes

 

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

 

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS

 

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

 

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

 

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

 

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

 

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

 

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

 

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

 

“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

 

Robert Noland, of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the law would extend well beyond allowing access for gay weddings.

 

“They (churches) could not deny renting space to a gay couple if they want to have a party,” he told Fox News. “This is just another example of government creating a law imposing upon the freedom of religion and basically telling churches what they can and can’t do.”

 

So what could happen to churches in Hutchinson that refuse to accommodate gay parties or weddings?

 

“Unless the city council includes an exemption for churches, it would generate a discrimination complaint for the gay couple and it would be investigated,” Dye told Fox News. She said any churches found guilty of violating the law could be subjected to fines or other penalties.

 

Gary Ridge, an associate pastor of Westside Baptist Church, told Fox News their congregation would not comply with the proposed law should it pass. He said their church would refuse to host either gay weddings or parties – even if it meant a possible investigation or fines.

 

“We apply the Bible to our lives,” he said. “When there is a contradiction between what the city council asks and what the Bible says, we are going to follow the Bible.”

 

“This is an opportunity for the LGBT community to cram their belief system down on our community,” Ridge said. “It may look like a small step, but it’s not the end. Before you know it they will be able to shut down churches for preaching Romans 1:26-27. We’ll be sued for refusing to have homosexual weddings.”

 

Ridge said Hutchinson is a conservative city, a part of the Bible Belt – and he blamed the controversy on outsiders.

 

“This is part of a bigger desire to have their lifestyle condoned and accepted,” he said. “We don’t condone their activity.”

 

The Hutchinson measure would also have a major impact on private businesses and landlords. Restaurants, bars and retail shops would be required to provide special bathrooms for individuals who may have male body parts but identify as a female.

 

According to a FAQ sheet provided by the city, employers would also be forced to allow workers to dress based on their gender identity. Read the entire FAQ sheet by clicking here.

 

“Dress codes would not be precluded as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity and gender expression,” the FAQ stated.

 

As far as bathrooms, the city FAQ stated, “A transgender person must be allowed to use restrooms appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth without being harassed or questioned.”

 

The city’s revised ordinance would also require transgender individuals to use the locker room and shower facilities of their choosing.

 

Another issue for Hutchinson’s Christian community involves workplace discrimination. The policy dictates that business owners or landlords are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

That’s a problem for Michael Brockman, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church.

 

“I know a couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Kansas City,” he said. “They decided to shut down because they could see that they were going to be forced to make decisions that might have legal effects upon them. They might be sued if they didn’t rent their facility out to a gay couple who might want to use it.”

 

Staver said it’s unfair that Christian business owners might have to make decisions about their future.

 

“You shouldn’t have to choose between participating in the marketplace, running a business or operating a church on the one hand and accepting the LGBT agenda on the other,” Staver said. “This is a battle that is coming. This is a culture divide I think we will see play out across the country.”

 

 

 

[DLine06]

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/proposed-law-would-force-churches-to-host-gay-weddings.html

 

Proposed Law Would Force Churches to Host Gay Weddings

Posted in Top Stories | 110 comments

 

Apr 23, 2012

 

By Todd Starnes

 

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS

 

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

 

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

 

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

 

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

 

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

 

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

 

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

 

“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

 

Robert Noland, of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the law would extend well beyond allowing access for gay weddings.

 

“They (churches) could not deny renting space to a gay couple if they want to have a party,” he told Fox News. “This is just another example of government creating a law imposing upon the freedom of religion and basically telling churches what they can and can’t do.”

 

So what could happen to churches in Hutchinson that refuse to accommodate gay parties or weddings?

 

“Unless the city council includes an exemption for churches, it would generate a discrimination complaint for the gay couple and it would be investigated,” Dye told Fox News. She said any churches found guilty of violating the law could be subjected to fines or other penalties.

 

Gary Ridge, an associate pastor of Westside Baptist Church, told Fox News their congregation would not comply with the proposed law should it pass. He said their church would refuse to host either gay weddings or parties – even if it meant a possible investigation or fines.

 

“We apply the Bible to our lives,” he said. “When there is a contradiction between what the city council asks and what the Bible says, we are going to follow the Bible.”

 

“This is an opportunity for the LGBT community to cram their belief system down on our community,” Ridge said. “It may look like a small step, but it’s not the end. Before you know it they will be able to shut down churches for preaching Romans 1:26-27. We’ll be sued for refusing to have homosexual weddings.”

 

Ridge said Hutchinson is a conservative city, a part of the Bible Belt – and he blamed the controversy on outsiders.

 

“This is part of a bigger desire to have their lifestyle condoned and accepted,” he said. “We don’t condone their activity.”

 

The Hutchinson measure would also have a major impact on private businesses and landlords. Restaurants, bars and retail shops would be required to provide special bathrooms for individuals who may have male body parts but identify as a female.

 

According to a FAQ sheet provided by the city, employers would also be forced to allow workers to dress based on their gender identity. Read the entire FAQ sheet by clicking here.

 

“Dress codes would not be precluded as long as an employer allows an employee to appear, groom and dress consistent with the employee’s gender identity and gender expression,” the FAQ stated.

 

As far as bathrooms, the city FAQ stated, “A transgender person must be allowed to use restrooms appropriate to their gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth without being harassed or questioned.”

 

The city’s revised ordinance would also require transgender individuals to use the locker room and shower facilities of their choosing.

 

Another issue for Hutchinson’s Christian community involves workplace discrimination. The policy dictates that business owners or landlords are not allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

That’s a problem for Michael Brockman, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church.

 

“I know a couple who owned a bed and breakfast in Kansas City,” he said. “They decided to shut down because they could see that they were going to be forced to make decisions that might have legal effects upon them. They might be sued if they didn’t rent their facility out to a gay couple who might want to use it.”

 

Staver said it’s unfair that Christian business owners might have to make decisions about their future.

 

“You shouldn’t have to choose between participating in the marketplace, running a business or operating a church on the one hand and accepting the LGBT agenda on the other,” Staver said. “This is a battle that is coming. This is a culture divide I think we will see play out across the country.”

 

We just had this conversation lol. If a church wants to do gay weddings, civil unions and etc fine. To force them to do it by law, is not only wrong but disgusting! Of all the states this popped in, Kansas.... WOW!

[KirtFalcon]

We just had this conversation lol. If a church wants to do gay weddings, civil unions and etc fine. To force them to do it by law, is not only wrong but disgusting! Of all the states this popped in, Kansas.... WOW!

 

 

The reason we have deteriorated to this point in society is the first part of your answer. It's not fine to condone these activities ... period! It's either wrong, or it isn't. Gays need to go back IN the closet!

[parentofredheads]

That outta be an interesting city council meeting. Unbelievable!

[RETIREDFAN1]

If the citizens of that city want it....it's their right...if the citizens of that city DON'T want it, same thing....it's their business....they'll decide...and i bet that city council is looking for a place to hide....

[DaveTV1]

In my opinion Church buildings are private, not public buildings. Churches just like homes should be able to welcome who they want to allow into their sanctuaries. It is not for the Government to decide who churches, clubs, or any organization desires to allow into their congregation. As Groucho Marx once said : ""PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". The same could be said about people that want to use these buildings for their own purposes.

[Wild74]

If my church ever did anything like that I would never attend again. You cannot force a church by law to do homosexual weddings.

[DLine06]

The reason we have deteriorated to this point in society is the first part of your answer. It's not fine to condone these activities ... period! It's either wrong, or it isn't. Gays need to go back IN the closet!

 

Sorry but things were deteriorating WELL before homosexuality such as the disobeying God with the apple, 1st murder, etc etc etc. Sodom and Gomorrah had issues besides rampant homosexuality as well. Sorry but to sit there and condone someone for a sin while ourselves have sinned as well is about as hypocritical as it gets.

 

The issue point blank period is that a group is trying to get legislation that will FORCE something that they (churches) do not want to do. While a person can not control skin color, they can control their sexual choice. There are places where they allow gay marriage, civil unions etc. Why can't they go there? This is a complete infringement of rights.

 

 

If the citizens of that city want it....it's their right...if the citizens of that city DON'T want it, same thing....it's their business....they'll decide...and i bet that city council is looking for a place to hide....

 

Agreed 100%

[RETIREDFAN1]

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/gays-push-a-travesty-of-rights/

[Wild74]

This is what the travisty of rights is intended to get you

 

Brown University to Pay for Students’ Sex Change Surgeries

Universal Judeo-Christian News ^ | 2/23/13 | Heather clark

 

Posted on Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:39:03 PM by OneVike

 

 

 

 

A university located in one of the most historical cities in America and founded as a Baptist institution has announced that it plans to begin covering the costs of the sex change operations of its students.

 

Brown University in Providence, a city founded by Roger Williams as a refuge for those who were persecuted for their faith, states that its student health insurance plan will now cover “sexual reassignment surgeries” and 14 types of treatments for students desiring to switch genders. It notes that procedures normally cost up to $50,000 per person, and therefore, can be out of reach for young adults.

 

“We identified this as an important benefit for students to have access to,” Jeanne Hebert, director of the university’s insurance services, told the student newspaper The Brown Daily Herald.

 

The university is joining approximately 35 other colleges and universities across the country who also provide some form of insurance coverage for sexual treatments, whether hormone therapy or major surgery. Other schools include Harvard, Stanford, Cornell and Yale.

 

Reaction to the announcement has been mixed.

 

Noah Lupica, who underwent a sex change operation as a teenager, told the school newspaper that “the fact that Brown is now offering these surgeries is life-saving.”

 

“Cisgendered people — ordinarily, most people — don’t even think about how limiting it can be to not feel comfortable in their own skin,” he said, referring to those who have not altered their birth gender.

 

“God help us. I guess this is what moral collapse looks like,” commented one concerned reader, who remained anonymous. “Then good riddance to your ‘morality,’” replied another identified as KN.

 

Some students said that their chief concern was that other students would have to pay for the procedures.

 

“I don’t think the issue here is the procedure itself; it’s that other students are paying for this procedure to happen. Even if the APA deems this a medical necessity, what makes it so immediate and pressing that the entire Brown student body has to subside this during the 4 years we have at college?” wrote one student by the screen name of Yolo. “I think this is really just an issue of where our money is going. Also, like a lot of people, I’m worried some people might come to Brown to abuse this privilege — and on my dime.”

[Wild74]

Haha. Gays push

Roosevelt would never get elected in the democratic party today, he would be considered a right wing radical, so your statement doesn't make much sense

[Wild74]

Ok mr historian. Obviously you don't get what I was saying so please don't make statements about what you don't get.

I get you just fine dude

[Wild74]

I know you are a left wing liberal Obama supporter, that is all I need to know, that tells your whole story

[DLine06]

I know you are a left wing liberal Obama supporter, that is all I need to know, that tells your whole story

 

And you supported another moderate half-baked candidate that puts you part of the dupe of the political parties/

[Wild74]

And you supported another moderate half-baked candidate that puts you part of the dupe of the political parties/

I supported the best chance to beat Obama, you helped elect him, so I hope he raises your taxes sky high because you get what you vote for in your case nothing.

[DLine06]

I supported the best chance to beat Obama, you helped elect him, so I hope he raises your taxes sky high because you get what you vote for in your case nothing.

 

I supported NO ONE! Replacing Romney with Obama would of gotten you another worthless candidate who would of still not brought America back on track.

 

The United States has a lot of issues that are wrong with it but until folks like yourself that see the dupe and the uninformed to stop "taking it" and start getting angry to vote out these thieves and robbers and get charismatic, honest leaders in office that will deny the evil running the world, then we are so screwed and will continue down this path to destruction.

[Wild74]

The democrats need the third party dupes who are slaves to their third party masters to continue running the country into the ground.

[Wild74]

Well then tell your whole story, but I bet I am pretty much right on

[Wild74]

Obama admin. to Supremes: Strike anti-gay law

SeattlePI ^ | February 24, 2013 | Joel Connelly

 

Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:09:46 PM by Colonel Kangaroo

 

The Obama administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike part of a controversial 1996 law that bars recognition of same-sex marriage, even in the nine states where it is now legal, for such federal benefits as income and estate taxes and federal employee benefits.

 

“The law denies to tens of thousands of same sex couples who are legally married under state law an array of important benefits that are available to legally married opposite sex couples,” the Justice Department argued in a brief urging the high court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

The justices hear oral arguments next month in two landmark marriage equality cases. One is a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. The other is a challenge to California’s Prop. 8, which rolled back same-sex marriage in America’s largest state. Lower federal courts have ruled against both DOMA and Prop. 8.

 

Washington, Maine and Maryland voted last November to legalize same-sex marriage, and has seen hundreds of marriages beginning in December.

 

“Each time the Obama administration acts to support LGBT (gay and lesbian) Americans, it feels even more significant when considered in the context of Presidential history: It was not all that long ago that President Reagan refused to help when many were dying of AIDS,” said Anne Levinson, a former judge and Seattle deputy mayor, and strategist in the 2012 campaign for marriage equality.

 

“President Bush embraced a platform and led an administration that vilified the LGBT community,” Levinson added.

 

 

In its legal brief, the Obama administration argues:

 

“Gay and lesbian people are a minority group with limited political power. Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform (either temporally or geographically) and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action.”

 

The Defense of Marriage Act “targets the many gay and lesbian people legally married under state law for a harsh form of discrimination that bears no relation to their ability to contribute to society,” the brief adds.

 

The Obama administration announced last year that it would no longer defend DOMA in court. The defense of the 1996 anti-gay law has been taken up, and paid for out of public funds, by the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has also filed briefs in defense of DOMA, arguing that supporters of traditional marriage would be subject to attack if the law is overturned.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[RETIREDFAN1]

I supported the best chance to beat Obama, you helped elect him,

replacing one liberal with another was NOT a choice.....

[Wild74]

 

replacing one liberal with another was NOT a choice.....

He was my only choice:)

[RETIREDFAN1]

He was my only choice:)

Too bad you are stuck in a soviet style republic, then, where you have to vote for who the party commands you to vote for....I chose not to do that, and evidently many Conservatives did, too......