If homosexuality is fully legalized and 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 right to free speech and the right
to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively
destroyed.
When homosexuality is fully legal, 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 StarPhoenixnewspaper 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 StarPhoenix merely 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 euology, 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 targetingCatholic Insight magazine and priest Alphonse De Valk,
a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents
to refute “sameSex 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
sameSex 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 andCatholic Insight magazine. One of the articles that
Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in 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 sameSex 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 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 [sexual acts]
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 sexual activity. 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 sameSex 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,
sameSex 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.
When homosexuality is fully legal, you 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 sameSex 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 homosexuality is fully legal, 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
[sexEducation] 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 sameSex
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).
When homosexuality is fully legal you won’t be able to
use the terms father/mother, husband/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 sameSex 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 ofSex_” The
Berean Call, June 8, 2007).
When homosexuality is fully legal, you 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 his 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 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 sameSex 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.”
Due to civil rights complains and lawsuits brought by
homosexuals, the eHarmony online dating service was forced to establish a
sameSex 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 sameSex match
and were turned away (“Class Action Lawsuit,” Online
Dating Magazine, Nov. 20, 2008).
When homosexuality is fully legal, 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 homosexuality is fully legal, 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 sexual
activity 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 [sexual-activity] 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 PublicSex
with No Arrests,” WorldNetDaily, Aug. 7, 2008).
When homosexuality is fully legal, 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 sexual acts with children and adolescents. The Association is
asking for criminal prosecution as well as monetary damages.”
When homosexuality is fully legal, 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).
When homosexuality is fully legal, you won’t be able to
refuse to place children with homosexual couples.
“Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place
children with sameSex 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 sameSex 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 homosexuality is fully legal, you won’t be able
to stop homosexuals from having public sexual activity.
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 sexual acts 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 homosexuality is fully legal, 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).