Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘same sex marriage’

Supreme Court to Review Case of a Baker Told He Must Bake Gay Wedding Cake


Reported by  Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2017 /

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-review-case-baker-fined-not-baking-gay-wedding-cake/

A lower court ruling had forced Jack Phillips to choose between obeying the government and following his religious beliefs. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Today was a good day for religious freedom at the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court upheld religious liberty by saying that a state cannot exclude a church from a public program just because it’s a church. That was the big case at the court.

In a less-noted move, the court also agreed to review (“granted cert” in the legal jargon) a case about religious liberty, free speech, and government coercion to support gay marriage. The case involves Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and whether he must create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, even if doing so violates his beliefs. 

The case goes back to 2012, when a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado, a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” he said.

The couple later obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on Dec. 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but creating a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.

Phillips is right. As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book from Oxford University Press, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” acting on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife does not in itself entail “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, part of the problem is that liberals are simply calling anything they disagree with “discrimination.”

This overbroad definition of “discrimination” is part of what creates the problems for the free exercise of religion and free speech. And here a pattern holds: Legally coercing professionals serves no serious need, but works serious harms.

Conservative wedding providers are few and dwindling due to market pressures—and most important, they don’t refuse to serve LGBT patrons. In case after case, bakers have had no problem designing cakes for gay customers for every other occasion. It’s just that an exceedingly small number can’t in good conscience use their talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings by baking a cake topped with two grooms or two brides—or, as in this case, with rainbow filling.

Coercing these cultural dissidents has vanishingly small effects on the supply of products for any given couple, but it impinges seriously on particular vendors’ freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion. If any harm remains in leaving these wedding professionals free, it is only the tension we all face in living with people who disagree with us on the most personal matters.

As Girgis and I explain in our new book, America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Now, the Supreme Court has the chance to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Such a ruling would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement. It would protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ryan T. Anderson/

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide


Authored by Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger | Tuesday, May 2, 2017 @ 11:50 AM

Humanist to Church: Drop Bible as Moral Guide / Humanist stumbles in his defense of openly gay United Methodist bishop Karen Oliveto.

What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.- Dr. Michael Brown

A Huffington Post Humanist Urges the Church to Stop Using the Bible as a Moral Guide. It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did on the Huffington Post on April 29th.

Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto, since her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?

He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”

The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”

A father may love his adult daughter in a romantic way, but that doesn’t make the relationship right. Twin brothers in their 30s may love each other in a sexual way, but that doesn’t make their sexual activity right. A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.

It’s possible, of course, that Naff has no problem with consensual adult incest or with adultery. And maybe he has no issue with polygamy or polyamory. But as a thinking man (which he clearly is), he should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality, yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.

That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia, and it’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?

Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”

Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?

Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.

Naff then focuses on the Bible itself, using the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against male and female homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).

Not only so, but he seems oblivious to the idea that, when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they do not refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.

But this is not important for Naff, since he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce the way it bans homosexual practice?

The answer is that, according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce, and these are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is the question of remarriage that is in question, but that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)

Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains, “I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.”

So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture,” as long as we realize that it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions,” not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”

Thanks but no thanks.

That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if, in fact, the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?

After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes, “Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 – 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.”

Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God.

Instead, Naff states, “I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient ‘laws’ in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.”

In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel. But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well, since, if he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.

In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.

Not only so, but if the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.

I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that:

1) the Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth;

2) scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more; and

3) there are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”

What is lacking, then, is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.

Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail. 

Dr. Michael Brown Guest Blogger, Distinguished Author, Speaker and Christian Apologist More Articles

The United States of…Not America


waving flagAuthored By: David Barton | Posted: Monday, February 20, 2017 1:40 PM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.afa.net/the-stand/government/2017/02/the-united-states-ofnot-america/

Here’s a simple question: “What is America’s first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?” The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of, or don’t care about this inalienable right.

The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.

The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, “The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience.”

In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:

“No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience.” “[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted.” “It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences.” Thomas Jefferson

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” James Madison, Signer of the Constitution

“The rights of conscience and private judgment…are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left.” John Jay, an Author of the Federalist Papers and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court

“Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.” “The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society . . . in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?” William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution

Based on this long tradition, today . . .

Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars;

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools;

The Amish are not required to complete the standard twelve years of education;

Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws;

Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday;

And there are many additional examples.

It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states—such as that of Washington, which declares:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion . . .

But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Baronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist… was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist’s rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington’s so-called “public accommodations law,” which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers “regardless” of their sexual orientation.Big Gay Hate Machine

Several things are wrong with this decision.

First, Baronelle has been economically-fined and governmentally-coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don’t want to uphold its provisions.

Third, the court elevated a state law (their “public accommodations law”) above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws—always.

Fourth, John Adams described us as “a government of laws and not of men,” but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.

Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that “the comparison of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell,” but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.amen

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

David Barton Author of numerous best selling books and Founder and President of WallBuilders More Articles
 

This Filmmaking Couple Doesn’t Want to Be Punished for Not Promoting Same-Sex Marriage


waving flagAuthored by Leah Jessen / / December 06, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/06/this-filmmaking-couple-doesnt-want-to-be-punished-for-not-promoting-same-sex-marriage-2/

Filmmakers Carl and Angel Larsen say they wish to tell stories about God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, without fear the government will punish them for not promoting same-sex marriage. (Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom)

A Minnesota couple is suing state officials to allow their film production company to celebrate marriage as a man-woman union without being forced, against their biblical beliefs, to promote same-sex marriage.

Carl and Angel Larsen, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, say they run Telescope Media Group as a way to deploy their storytelling ability and production services to glorify God.

“The Larsens desire to counteract the current cultural narrative undermining the historic, biblically orthodox definition of marriage by using their media production and filmmaking talents to tell stories of marriages between one man and one woman that magnify and honor God’s design and purpose for marriage,” the lawsuit filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota says.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Larsens and Telescope Media Group, which they own.

“Because of their religious beliefs, and their belief in the power of film and media production to change hearts and minds, the Larsens want to use their talents and the expressive platform of [Telescope Media Group] to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman,” the suit says.

Minnesota government officials argue that private businesses face criminal penalties if they promote a marriage between a man and woman but refuse to promote a same-sex marriage, the Larsens’ lawyers at the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom say.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a formal statement.

“Filmmakers shouldn’t be threatened with fines and jail simply for disagreeing with the government,”

If convicted after criminal prosecution under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the Larsens face a fine of $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail, according to the lawsuit. They also could be ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages up to $25,000.

The Larsens, who are in their mid-30s and have been married for 14 years, are challenging the law before Minnesota officials take any action against them and their company. The law in question is the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

“The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from nondiscrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage,” the Minnesota Department of Human Rights website says.More forced

The Larsens’ lawyers filed a pre-enforcement challenge against Kevin Lindsey in his official capacity as commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and against Lori Swanson in her official capacity as attorney general of Minnesota. According to the suit:

The Larsens simply desire to use their unique storytelling and promotional talents to convey messages that promote aspects of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or that at least are not inconsistent with them. It is standard practice for the owners of video and film production companies to decline to produce videos that contain or promote messages that the owners do not want to support or that violate or compromise their beliefs in some way.

The Daily Signal sought comment from both the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Human Rights, but neither had responded by publication.

Telescope Media Group’s services include web-streaming and video recording of live events as well as producing short films.

“Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production,” the company’s website says.

The company has created content for clients such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and LifeLight, an annual Christian music festival held near Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

“Every American—including creative professionals—should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of punishment,” Tedesco said in a release from Alliance Defending Freedom. He added:

For example, a fashion designer recently cited her ‘artistic freedom’ as a ‘family-owned company’ to announce that she won’t design clothes for Melania Trump because she doesn’t want to use her company and creative talents to promote political views she disagrees with. Even though the law in D.C. prohibits ‘political affiliation’ discrimination, do any of us really think the designer should be threatened with fines and jail time?

French fashion designer Sophie Theallet published an open letter  Nov. 17 saying she would not dress President-elect Donald Trump’s wife, the future first lady, because of disagreements with him and urged other fashion designers to do the same. Last week, American fashion designer Tom Ford said on TV’s “The View” that he would not dress Melania Trump, in part because “she’s not necessarily my image.”

“The Larsens simply seek to exercise these same freedoms, and that’s why they filed this lawsuit to challenge Minnesota’s law,” Tedesco said.

Big Gay Hate Machine

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Leah Jessen

Leah Jessen is a news reporter for The Daily Signal and graduate of The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Leah.

 

Alabama Suspends Chief Justice Roy Moore for Defending the Law against Sodomites


waving flagReported by Tim Brown

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/alabama-suspends-chief-justice-roy-moore-for-defending-the-law-against-sodomites

Big Gay Hate Machine

A formal complaint was filed on Friday against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore by an Alabama judicial oversight body claiming that he “flagrantly disregarded and abused his authority” in ordering the state’s probate judges to refuse applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples.

The New York Times reports:

As a result of the charges, Chief Justice Moore, 69, has been immediately suspended from the bench and is facing a potential hearing before the state’s Court of the Judiciary, a panel of judges, lawyers and other appointees. Among possible outcomes at such a hearing would be his removal from office.

“We intend to fight this agenda vigorously and expect to prevail,” Chief Justice Moore said in a statement, saying that the Judicial Inquiry Commission, which filed the complaint, had no authority over the charges at issue.a

Referring to a transgender activist in Alabama, Chief Justice Moore said the commission had “chosen to listen to people like Ambrosia Starling, a professed transvestite, and other gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, as well as organizations which support their agenda.”Leftist Giant called Tyranny

These sodomite and communist supporters don’t know what they are getting themselves into. Justice Moore is not one to be bullied into submission, especially by the sodomites and their supporters. The court Moore presides over rendered a 170-page ruling in favor of a Petition for Mandamus by Liberty Counsel rejecting the US Supreme Court’s marriage opinion. SCOTUS GIANT

Moore is merely upholding the Alabama State Constitution. Which was amended in 2006 to read:

(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.

(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Clearly, the federal courts and this lawless judicial body are attempting to overthrow the law and establish a dictatorship through the DC government.

If only we would deal with sodomites in the same manner our founding fathers did, we wouldn’t be allowing the lawless to dictate what should be law and redefine marriage.

Chief Justice Roy Moore has told state judges not to disregard the ruling of a federal court on Alabama’s constitution and marriage. He has made the case for what marriage is and where the right to marriage comes from, God. Moore encouraged Governor Robert Bentley to resist federal tyranny in the matter, but Bentley seems to be more geared towards political correctness than he does the truth about rights, marriage and his duty to the people of Alabama.burke

Led by Justice Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court also put a halt to illegal same-sex “marriages” across the state back in March 2015.

Moore is the same judge who stood against the DC government’s infringement upon the Tenth Amendment and stepping out of their jurisdiction to try and remove the Ten Commandments from the wall of his courtroom.

God bless Judge Roy Moore and may He see fit to bring us many more like him!

 

Tim BrownAbout the Author, Tim Brown

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He co-hosts NorthWest Liberty News radio each week day from 4-5pm EST with Jim White and occasionally hosts Bradlee Dean’s Sons of Liberty Radio show from 2-3CST. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

You Won’t Believe Why This Conservative University Professor Was Suspended INDEFINITELY


waving flagBy Philip Hodges April 1, 2016

John McAdams – a conservative university professor in Wisconsin – has been suspended indefinitely for criticizing a fellow professor for not allowing debate about same-sex marriage in her classroom. McAdams may return to Marquette University as professor in January of 2017, only if he admits that he was “guilty.”

It all started at the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Catholic university in 2014 when a student recorded his encounter with his philosophy professor Cheryl Abbate regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. Abbate had told her class that the issue of “gay rights” was not up for debate, that “everybody agrees on this, and there is no need to discuss it.”

After class, the student discussed the issue with Abbate, but the professor eventually suggested to the student that he drop the course, adding that “some opinions are not appropriate, such as racist opinions, sexist opinions…You don’t have a right in this class to make homophobic comments.” She stated, “In this class, homophobic comments, racist comments, will not be tolerated.”Militent Radical liberalism socialism

The conservative university professor John McAdams wrote a post on his blog Marquette Warrior in 2014 exposing the student-professor encounter and criticizing Abbate for her intolerance. He concluded, “Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university. And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

When university administrators found out about McAdams’s critical blog post, it was recommended that he be fired. But their policy required that he given due process and a hearing before a committee. Breitbart reported:

It was announced this week that a “diverse” faculty committee recommended to the university president that McAdams be suspended without pay from April 1 through the fall of 2016 and that he lose his job unless he admits “guilt” and apologized “within the next two weeks.” Specifically, the demand is “Your acknowledgement that your November 9, 2014, blog post was reckless and incompatible with the mission and values of Marquette University and you express deep regret for the harm suffered by our former graduate student and instructor, Ms. Abbate.”Big Gay Hate Machine

The conservative university professor said their demands are similar to the “Inquisition, in which victims who ‘confessed’ they had been consorting with Satan and spreading heresy would be spared execution.”Picture1

Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Deal: reject ‘religious liberty’ bills that allow discrimination


waving flagBy Greg Bluestein and Aaron Gould Sheinin – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Updated: 8:26 a.m. Friday, March 4, 2016  |  Posted: 2:53 p.m. Thursday, March 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/deal-reject-religious-liberty-bills-that-allow-dis/nqcrL

no more rinos

Gov. Nathan Deal on Thursday issued a powerful biblical appeal against “religious liberty” legislation in the General Assembly and said he would reject any bill that legalizes discrimination.

His statement and those of other legislative leaders, businesses and religious groups have given gay rights supporters confidence that they may soon be able to move from defense to offense in pursuit of expanded legal protections for gays and lesbians in Georgia. Big Gay Hate Machine

The governor said he is not interested in any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith,” and he urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the legalization of gay marriage. Asked whether that meant he would reject such legislation, and aide to the Republican governor said he would.Leftist Propagandist

Deal also called on his fellow Republicans pushing for the measure to take a deep breath and “recognize that the world is changing around us.”

Deal has already called on lawmakers to make changes to House Bill 757, which originally said no pastor would be forced to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. It was amended in the Senate to include provisions that would allow individuals and organizations to deny service to same-sex couples or gays and lesbians if it violates their religious beliefs.

Mar. 2, 2016 – Atlanta – Representatives from Georgia Equality, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign delivered copies of 75,000 emails to lawmakers and Gov. Nathan Deal to the governor’s office on Wednesday. The messages not only urge state leaders to defeat so-called religious liberty legislation they believe would legalize discrimination, but also for the state to adopt civil rights protections for all, including the LGBT community. BOB ANDRES / BANDRES@AJC.COM

House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, said Thursday that he agrees with the governor.

“Speaker Ralston appreciates and shares Governor Deal’s sincere commitment to protecting religious liberties while ensuring that Georgia continues to welcome everyone with genuine Southern hospitality,” Ralston spokesman Kaleb McMichen said.More Liberal Gibberish

Supporters of the bill, however, say it is not intended to legalize discrimination but to prevent government from forcing religious believers to act in a way that violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Mike Griffin, the head of public affairs for the Georgia Baptist Mission Board, said the times are changing, but not everything is. “God’s word is not changing,” Griffin said. “When it comes to the issue of marriage, while that’s changed, God’s definition has not.”

HB 757, Griffin said, “does not seek to disenfranchise anyone, it doesn’t seek to discriminate against anyone.” “It protects people of faith from discrimination by the government coercing them into actions that violate their religious beliefs,” Griffin said.

But Deal said his religious faith tells him there are other ways.

“What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies’ view of the world. … We do not have a belief, in my way of looking at religion, that says we have to discriminate against anybody,” he said. “If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit.”Picture2

Deal quoted the Gospel of John that showed Jesus reaching out to an outcast.

“What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs,” Deal said. “We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route.”Picture3

Griffin, however, turned to a different verse from the Bible: Matthew 19: 4-6. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The bill, Griffin said, “just narrowly defines this one area of marriage.”

But, as Deal and Ralston, along with powerful businesses such as Delta Air Lines, Home Depot and tech-giant Twitter, have called on Georgia’s leaders to embrace diversity, gay rights activists see an opportunity.

“Governor Deal has powerfully articulated a message of unity for Georgia,” Jenner Wood, chair of the Metro Atlanta Chamber, said. “His words will spread far and wide to affirm our reputation as a welcoming state that celebrates both our faith traditions and our diversity.”More Liberal Gibberish

Wednesday, after he delivered 75,000 emails calling on the governor to veto HB 757 should it reach his desk, Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham said he is increasingly optimistic.

“Over the last week we’ve seen an outpouring of concern,” he said. “The eyes of the nation are on Georgia. It’s really a pivotal time. (Lawmakers) need to decide if they’re going to cling to the bias and discrimination of the past or keep Georgia an open, fair, hospitable place to live and do business.”

After Deal’s latest comments on Thursday, Graham agreed there are ways to protect those on all sides of the issue.

“A comprehensive civil rights law in Georgia can protect all communities and groups from discrimination and can reinforce our state motto of wisdom, justice and moderation,” Graham said.

Chad Griffin, president of the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign and no relation to Mike Griffin, said it’s time for Georgia to move forward.

“We want to not just kill the bad legislation that hurts Georgians but now move forward with legislation that protects LGBT Georgians,” he said.More Liberal Gibberish

A House panel earlier this year rejected a plan to do just that. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers has filed a resolution that would create a House study committee that could spend the months between legislative sessions examining the conundrum from all sides and propose a solution before lawmakers return in January.

“I’m hopeful,” said state Rep. Stacey Evans, D-Atlanta, the primary sponsor of House Resolution 1513. “I have formally requested a hearing this morning.”

Death of a nation Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: