Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘LGBT’

2 Million Sign Petition Protesting Netflix’s ‘Gay Jesus’ Christmas Special


Reported by David Ng | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/12/17/2-million-sign-petition-protesting-netflix-gay-jesus-christmas-special/

gay jesus / Netflix via IMDB

An online petition protesting a Netflix Christmas special that portrays Jesus Christ as a gay man has reached two million signatures, putting pressure on the streamer to pull the show.

The First Temptation of Christ depicts a thirty-ish Jesus bringing his boyfriend home to meet Mary and Joseph. The Portuguese-language special, which debuted worldwide on Netflix earlier this month, comes from the Brazilian comedy group Porta dos Fundos (literally, “Back Door”).

The petition is demanding that Netflix retract the 46-minute show and that its makers be held responsible for committing a “crime” against the faith.

Netflix is facing mounting criticism over the show. The Catholic bishop of Tyler, Texas, has called the streamer blasphemous over its release of the Christmas special.

“Respect is the last thing they are thinking about, every Christian should denounce this film, it is blasphemy against the Son of God who suffered & died even for all who deny that He is Lord of the Universe,” said Bishop Joseph Strickland in a tweet Sunday.

Strickland later said that he had cancelled his Netflix subscription.

“Dear America Podcast” host Graham Allen also condemned the show, saying: “Jesus isn’t some ‘woke’ culture experiment for you to convince young people that biblical teachings are ‘debatable’?!”

Netflix offers a wide array of progressive and left-leaning content, including shows from its high-profile production deal with former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama.

Former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice currently sits on Netflix’s board of directors.

Netflix’s chief content officer Ted Sarandos is a close friend of the Obamas’ and was an active fundraiser for the former president’s campaign.

The First Temptation of Christ also portrays the Virgin Mary as a marijuana smoker. Netflix backed the comedy group’s last religious send up, The Last Hangover, which satirized the last supper. Fábio Porchat, the star of the Netflix Christmas comedy special told Variety that the backlash to the film is “homophobic.”

The online petition is seeking a total of 3 million signatures.

Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at dng@breitbart.com

Chick-fil-A Will Stop Donating to Salvation Army, Christian Athletes Following LGBT Pressure


Written by David Ng | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/18/chick-fil-a-will-stop-donating-to-salvation-army-christian-athletes-following-lgbt-pressure/

Chick-fil-A protest / Robyn Beck/Getty

Chick-fil-A will reportedly stop donating money to charities including the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes following pressure from LGBT groups.

The company announced Monday that it is refocusing its charitable foundation to a smaller number of charities, focusing exclusively on education, homelessness, and hunger.

“Our goal is to donate to the most effective organizations in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger. No organization will be excluded from future consideration – faith based or non-faith based,” Tim Tassopoulos, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A’s tax records shows that it gave to several Christian schools and charitable groups in 2018. None of those groups appears in a list of Chick-fil-A’s 2019 charitable giving that the company made available for preview.

Tassopoulos told the news site Bisnews on Monday that Chick-fil-A wants to be “clear about who we are” as it enters new markets.

“There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” he told the site. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

As a result, the company will no longer give money to organizations including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

Those charities have caused LGBT activists to target Chick-fil-A due to those organizations’ stances on homosexuality.

In 2018, Chick-fil-A gave $115,000 to the Salvation Army for the Angel Tree program, which provided gifts for 11,000 children during the holiday season. The fast-food chain also gave $1.65 million to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to provide underserved youth with week-long summer sports camps at historically black colleges and universities (HCBU).

In August, progressive Silicon Valley giant followed Chick-fil-A’s lead, giving $1.5 million to the Salvation Army to fight homelessness.

Chick-fil-A has faced mounting criticism from LGBT groups as it seeks to expand its corporate footprint. The Atlanta-based company recently announced the closure of its first restaurant in Great Britain just a week after it opened due to protests from LGBT activists. Airports in Buffalo, New York, and San Antonio, Texas, have banned Chick-fil-A restaurants in the face of similar pressure.

Follow David Ng on Twitter @HeyItsDavidNg. Have a tip? Contact me at dng@breitbart.com

Gay Mayor Who Heavily Attacked Kavanaugh Now Desperate for Due Process


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published February 18, 2019 at 7:09pm

During the contentious confirmation hearings of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in October 2018, countless officials and pundits on the left played the role of judge, jury and executioner in regard to vague and uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault lodged against the nominee.

One of Kavanaugh’s many outspoken critics was the Democratic mayor/city council member of West Hollywood, John Duran, who was sharply critical of the judge’s behavior during the confirmation hearings and seemed to have uncritically accepted at face value the unconfirmed allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made public.

West Hollywood media outlet WEHOville reported in Oct. 2018 that Duran had joined with the rest of the city council to officially condemn Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high court. Duran said, “Brett Kavanaugh’s display of rage and belligerence at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings proves that he does not have the temperament to be a judge — much less on the Supreme Court.”

“It is abhorrent to think we are placing our future, our equality, and our liberty in the hands of a drunken frat boy who sexually assaulted a teenage girl while his friend Mark Judge stood by and laughed. This is a sad moment in the history of our nation,” Mayor Duran added.

Fast-forward just four months and now the openly gay mayor of West Hollywood is singing an entirely different tune when it comes to the credibility of sexual misconduct allegations against individuals in positions of power, as he has come under fire in his own “#MeToo” scandal.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Duran stands accused of having sexually harassed at least three current or former members of the Gay Men’s Chorus in L.A. — of which Duran serves as chairman of the board — which consisted of his sticking his hand down their pants or making sexually suggestive comments.

The mayor also stands accused of using the gay dating app Grindr during public meetings, including in at least one instance of using the app’s messaging service to repeatedly make unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances toward an aide for a fellow council member.

On top of that, Duran has also been linked to the scandalous deaths of two gay black men at the home of prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck. Duran, who is also an attorney, used to represent Buck.

Despite calls for him to resign from several of his fellow council members, the unashamedly homosexual mayor stands defiant, and told the Times that it was all just a “culture clash,” and that, “If somebody expresses himself or herself sexually, that doesn’t make it harassment, per se.”

As to the use of Grindr to pursue sexual acts with the council member’s aide, that aide’s boyfriend — city events service coordinator Mike Gerle — filed a formal complaint against the mayor. Gerle said, “It’s about consent. … He has this sense of entitlement that because we’re gay, ‘I can do whatever I want with you because that’s our culture.’ He’s decided that’s our culture. He doesn’t understand that every gay man gets to decide what interactions he has. You don’t get a pass.”

For his part, Duran hypocritically sought to demand the due process he had denied Kavanaugh and defend himself from the accusations lodged against him in a lengthy statement posted to Facebook, a post that concluded with a vehement “HELL NO” in response to the demands that he resign.

Duran wrote, “SEXUAL HARASSMENT is a serious issue. Accusations must be taken seriously and addressed. This has been extremely painful for women for decades and decades. But once the allegations are made and received, there MUST be an investigation before conclusions are reached.”

“This is DUE PROCESS of law in the courts. And I know those rules do not apply in the court of public opinion,” he continued. “It’s much easier in this social media world for people to read something, ‘like’ it, retweet it and then move on.”

“But none of us (including me) wants to ever be accused falsely and have people jump to opinion and conclusion without any process in between. That is contempt prior to investigation,” he added, apparently oblivious to how differently he treated Kavanaugh versus how he demands to be treated.

After playing up all of the work he had done over the years on behalf of the gay community, Duran noted, “Now, I understand that the ground has shifted in a tectonic way with the ‘Me Too’ movement. I get that. But the pendulum swings too far when accusation is treated as truth, and mobs swirl around rumor and conclusions are drawn based on someone’s race, gender or sexual orientation and accusation alone. That leads to injustice.”

Too bad Duran didn’t apply that same standard to Kavanaugh just four months ago, while he hypocritically now demands it be applied to himself.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Lesbians Protest Trans Activists – Grab Some Popcorn!


Written by Wes Walker on January 29, 2019

The Left’s intersectional coalition is imploding… exactly as predicted. What do you EXPECT will happen among groups ‘united’ by their grievances?

There’s a really good reason the Left has to push their bogus ‘sexist, racist, homophobe’ line so hard that it’s beyond parody. If they ever stop hating ‘the evil Republicans’ long enough to take a good look at whose on ‘their’ team, they will realize they aren’t really fighting for the same things.

We saw cracks in their base between the Islam/Feminism factions where one started curb-stomping the other here:
Watch: Topless Feminist Agitators Disrupt Muslim Speaking Engagement … All Hell Breaks Loose!

And now the LGBT ‘alliance’ is starting to crumble. How ‘bisexual’ will maintain its place in the acronym in our Brave New Gender-Fluid World is ‘problematic’ enough, but now Lesbians are taking issue with the transgender crowd.

Just like we predicted.

Although, I have to admit, we were expecting the Feminists would split off first — see our piece picking up on the parody t-ball story: 36yr. Old Man Identifies As 6yr. Old – Wins T-Ball Game With EPIC Home Run!

What got the lesbians upset with the trans activists? Here’s a headlne from last summer:

London Pride: Anti-trans activists disrupt parade by lying down in the street to protest ‘lesbian erasure’ LGBT groups condemn protesters who describe trans movement as ‘anti-lesbianism’

You see more of that sentiment here:

Kara Dansky, a feminist lawyer and spokeswoman for Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), spoke against the so-called “Equality Act” at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, denouncing the transgender and gender identity movement as anti-women and anti-lesbian in particular. Her remarks echoed the London Pride March sign declaring that “Transactivism Erases Lesbians.”

“This is a men’s Rights movement — this is really a men’s rights movement,” Dansky declared, calling for men to stand up for women and denounce the transgender movement.

“Overwhelmingly women have been resisting this,” Hacsi Horvath, a man who once identified as a woman and underwent surgery, said a few seconds before Dansky’s remark. “And it’s really shocking how many men on the internet are defending the whole trans thing. Straight men are all about the trans, and you have to wonder what the heck is going on.”

Horvath agreed with Dansky in condemning transgender activism as a “Men’s Rights movement,” and Julia Beck — a lesbian and former member of the Baltimore mayor’s LGBTQ Commission — nodded in agreement. Beck had been kicked off of the commission for opposing transgender identity.

“I got kicked off of the Baltimore mayor’s LGBTQ commission — as the only lesbian — simply for stating biological facts,” Beck said. “I was found guilty of ‘violence.’ My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns.”
Read More: PJMedia

Lesbian thrown under the bus for using the wrong pronoun. And she’s wondering why straight men aren’t standing up for men’s rights. Where does it all end?

It ends when everyone realizes that the Conservative approach of general rights for all and special rights for none — with the government getting the hell out of our way for most aspects of our lives — is the best path to genuine personal freedom of every kind.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Wes Walker is the author of “Blueprint For a Government that Doesn’t Suck”. He has been lighting up Clashdaily.com since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Canada’s Supreme Court Relegates Religious Beliefs to Second-Tier Status. America, Be Warned


Reported By Emilie Kao and Spencer McCloy | July 3,

2018 at 2:57pm

Canada’s Supreme Court recently ruled 7-2 against Trinity Western University, prioritizing sexual orientation over the free exercise of religion. This ruling should serve as a warning flag to U.S. citizens. Canada was only nine years ahead of the United States in redefining marriage. If the U.S. does not change direction, we could follow in Canada’s footsteps, sacrificing religious liberty for faux-equality and faux-diversity.

Trinity Western University, in Langley, British Columbia, is a Christian university that hoped to establish a Christian law program. The Law Society of British Columbia refused to grant Trinity Western accreditation, claiming that the university’s community covenant agreement discriminates against LGBT students.

The covenant establishes a Christian community that abstains from violence, acknowledges the inherent worth of every person, prohibits cheating, and bans alcohol. The offending clause in this case is Section 4, titled “Healthy Sexuality.” It states: “Further, according to the Bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond, it is God’s intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation.”

The dispute over the marriage clause resulted in split rulings in Ontario and British Columbia, forcing the case to the Supreme Court, which decided that the law society possesses “an overarching interest in protecting the values of equality and human rights.”

Although the seven judges in the majority admitted that denying Trinity Western an accredited law school because of its covenant violated its religious freedom, the judges reasoned that the school’s religious belief was of “minor significance” and that the covenant “optional” to the school’s ability to fulfill its purpose. The court decided that any student who attended Trinity Western’s proposed law school would be so influenced by the covenant that they would be rendered unfit for legal practice.

The two dissenting judges argued that preventing Trinity Western from forming an accredited law school would undermine true diversity in the public square, contrary to the Law Society of British Columbia’s stated mission. They rightly stated, “The purpose of TWU’s admissions policy is not to exclude LGBTQ persons, or anybody else, but to establish a code of conduct which ensures the vitality of its religious community.”

Instead of recognizing that religious liberty should protect Trinity Western’s right to build a community that reflects its religious beliefs, the Supreme Court relegated religious freedom and religious students to second-tier status.

As Brett Harvey, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, notes, the U.S. Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are inherently different. Whereas the U.S. Constitution places religious freedom in a pre-eminent position among rights, Canada’s Charter does not secure rights at all. Instead, as Harvey points out, it merely acts as a set of “guidelines” that judges interpret, based on their preferences.

The judges who ruled against Trinity Western did so in the name of “diversity.” In reality, the decision stifles true diversity, creating a counterfeit diversity that attacks differences of thought and religious conviction. In the name of this faux-diversity, Canada has trampled religious freedom and pushed religious believers to the outskirts of the public square unless they conform to the state’s view of sexuality.

All citizens lose when the government restricts the number of choices in the marketplace of ideas. The practical effect of Canada’s so-called “diversity is economic discrimination against those who hold religious convictions that support marriage between one man and one woman.

Students from Christian schools like Trinity Western who are exceptionally qualified for legal practice will be forced to choose between their dreams of practicing law or their religious beliefs. They won’t be allowed to enjoy both.

The Trinity Western case is strikingly similar to recent cases in the U.S. court system. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed Christian baker Jack Phillips to work in his chosen profession without sacrificing his beliefs.  But florists, photographers, videographers, and people who work outside the wedding industry face the same cultural tide that led to the abridgment of Trinity Western’s religious freedom.

Lawyers in the U.S. face a similar threat. Like the Law Society of British Columbia in Canada, the American Bar Association (ABA) is the governing body that accredits law schools and sets ethics standards for practicing lawyers. Like in Canada, the ABA passed Model Rule 8.4(g) in the name of protecting equality and diversity, but it will actually function as a speech code.

As Amy E. Swearer, a legal-policy analyst with the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, warned American law students, the rule could become a tool to discipline lawyers who disagree with the ABA’s views on sexuality and the family.

The U.S. Constitution accords a unique status to religious freedom, but the specter of Trinity Western should give all Americans pause. Voters, legislators, and judges should heed the signal from our neighbor to the north that in the wake of marriage redefinition, religious freedom must be robustly protected to ensure that true diversity of thought flourishes in the public square.

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Spencer McCloy is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed previously appeared on The Daily Signal website under the headline, “Canada’s Supreme Court Relegates Religious Beliefs to Second-Tier Status. America, Be Warned.”

Dem Lawmakers Move To Restrict Christians’ Right To Oppose Homosexuality



disclaimerReported By Cillian Zeal | May 29, 2018 at 11:13am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dem-lawmakers-move-to-restrict-christians-right-to-oppose-homosexuality/

A new bill being proposed by Democrats would amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from “being used to justify discrimination against people, including gay, lesbian and transgender citizens,” The Washington Post reports, leading to fears that religious organizations could be restricted from opposing homosexuality.

Church under attackThe new law would be called the Do No Harm Act, and its purported aim is to amend the 25-year-old RFRA so that religious injunctions on homosexuality could not be considered under it.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly referred to as RFRA, was popular among  lawmakers in both parties when it was enacted in 1993. Initially, it was usually referenced in cases involving practitioners of minority religions, such as Sikhs and Muslims seeking the right to wear their religious headgear in their driver’s license photos,” The Post reported last Tuesday. 

“But in recent years, it has become a favorite law among conservative Christians, who say that it protects their rights to abstain from practices they disavow.”

The RFRA was part of the legal argument used by Christian-based chain Hobby Lobby when it successfully argued before the Supreme Court that it should not be mandated to provide certain types of contraception to their employees in their health care plans under Obamacare.

The same law is being used by a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for their wedding. 

“While our country was founded on the value of religious liberty, that freedom cannot come at the expense of others’ civil rights,” Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said in a statement.

The bill is unlikely to pass, given that the GOP controls the House, Senate and 1600 Pennsylvania, but it gives a disturbing glimpse into how the Democrats plan to attack the First Amendment and religion in the courts.

At least speaking as a Christian, the Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality and transgender issues. Whether or not you yourself as a believer choose to follow those strictures is your own choice, but there’s no denying that they are in there and they’re constitutionally-protected.Yes I am a Christian

The Do No Harm Act has zero chance of passing at the moment, but it would arguably be a key initiative that the Democrats would look to pursue were they to regain power, which should worry constitutionally-minded Americans endlessly.

The problems with the Do No Harm Act start with the very name: It is meant to do irreparable harm to religious liberty in this country. Only certain types of religious liberty are now allowed — the ones preordained as being OK by the Democrat Party. 

Keep in mind that the RFRA already doesn’t abrogate the civil rights of any individual. In the Hobby Lobby decision, the court specifically noted that there were other alternatives available to the employees wishing to seek contraception under Obamacare. Rather, the point would be to force religious organizations to provide certain services that go against their belief systems even if other alternatives existed for those services to be fulfilled.

This isn’t a blank check against religious liberty, but it certainly comes close. Could church organizations be forced to fund sex changes or the Catholic church to fund abortions? Could congregations be forced to perform gay weddings? Under the right set of state laws, yes, that could be seen as a legal possibility, no matter what the legitimate beliefs of the religious organization may be.

The great irony here is that those who are proposing it decided to name it the Do No Harm Act because apparently, those who are harmed by it are non-entities in their book.

Rainbow jihad

The religious, inasmuch as they actually believe in their religion and practice it, have of late been met with unalloyed enmity by the Democrats. The idea seems to be that your beliefs in God are perfectly fine, just so long as they don’t get in the way of someone getting contraception in the most expedient manner possible, even if that means violating the First Amendment. 

This is a bill that ought to scare every American, no matter what their belief in God may be.

america are you paying attention with flagplease likeand share and leave a comment

Left Cries Foul Over Christian School’s Right To Vouchers


Reported by Joshua Gill | 6:35 PM 06/19/2017

U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos testifies before the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. June 6, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

A Christian school defended its religious admissions policies after Democrats labeled it as a school that discriminates against LGBT students during Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ congressional hearing. The Lighthouse Christian Academy of Bloomington, Ind. has been the center of the debate about school choice ever since Senate Democrats claimed that the school discriminated against LGBT students, according to an AP report. Democrats used the school as an example in their arguments against DeVos over whether or not religious schools like Lighthouse should receive money from government vouchers if they are perceived to have discriminatory policies.

Lighthouse’s admissions brochure lists several lifestyle behaviors they say are prohibited according to the Bible. The school reserves the right to deny admission to any student whose home life includes, among other things:

  • Heterosexual activity outside of one man-one-woman marriage. For example, premarital sex, cohabitation, or adultery (John 8:1-11; I Corinthians 6:9-20; Hebrews 13:4);
  • Homosexual or bisexual activity or any form of sexual immorality (Romans 1:21-27; I Corinthians 6:9-20);
  • Practicing alternate gender identity or any other identity or behavior that violates God’s ordained distinctions between the two sexes, male and female (Genesis 1:26-27; Deuteronomy 22:5);

Lighthouse claims that they have never denied admission to a student based on sexual orientation, although they stand by their right to operate according to their policies.

Thirty states, including Indiana, use some form of tax funds for school choice programs. None of those states that use vouchers prohibit admissions policies that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a study by Suzanne Eckes, a professor at Indiana University.

Legal and policy experts across the country defended Lighthouse’s right to operate according to its stated religious beliefs, including the school’s attorney and spokesman Brian Bailey.

“Parents are free to choose which school best comports with their religious convictions,” Bailey said. “For a real choice and thus real liberty to exist, the government may not impose its own orthodoxy and homogenize all schools to conform to politically correct attitudes and ideologies.”

Eckes argued that schools that receive vouchers should not be allowed to have admissions policies like those of Lighthouse and cited the federal protections afforded to racial minorities, while Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association, said that private schools should not receive government funds at all on the basis that private schools can choose to deny admission to students.

Lindsey Burke, director of the Heritage Foundation’s education policy studies, said that Lighthouse’s policies have no parallel to racial discrimination.

“Racism was based on identity and skin color and had no reasonable basis,” Burke said. “This is about whether a student, a family is going to live out their communal beliefs of the school that they have chosen to attend. These are intentional communities that are built upon a moral code that they have decided on.”

As for the left’s claim that private schools are prohibited from discriminating based on sexual orientation, Dick Komer, senior attorney with Institute for Justice, said that simply isn’t the case.

“If the people who are grilling DeVos believe that sex includes sexual orientation and gender identity, then they should propose amendments to the statues that they have written and given her to enforce,” Komer said. “The Congress is supposed to write the law, the agency is supposed to administer what Congress has given them. And Congress hasn’t given it to them.”

Follow Joshua on Twitter

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: