Court’s defense of religious liberty for profit-making companies could help Christian small businessmen oppressed by “gay rights” laws
Current U.S. Supreme Court: left to right in back: Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan. Front, left to right: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito wrote the Hobby Lobby decision, and Kennedy is lionized by “gay” activists for writing last year’s decision striking down DOMA. Click to enlarge.
By Peter LaBarbera
It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?
The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.
Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobbyisn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.
Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.
Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government
Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.
On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:
“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”
On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”
As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.
The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.
Will ‘Intolerance’ Prevail in Canada? Chris Brookes of “Intolerance Free Weyburn” and his wife led a campaign to lobby Canadian government officials to block AFTAH president Peter LaBarbera’s entry into Canada. On Thursday evening, Canadian customs officials issued a preliminary denial of entry to LaBarbera, who is scheduled to give a speech at a pro-life conference in Weyburn, Saskatchewan Saturday. LaBarbera is appealing the decision today. Photo: Chris Brookes’ Twitter account.
[UPDATE FROM PETER LaBARBERA: Yesterday I wrote the reply below to Regina, Saskatchewan Archbishop Daniel Bohan's statement about my scheduled presentation at a pro-life conference in Canada. That evening, I flew from Chicago to Regina. Upon deplaning, as I passed through Customs, I was delayed for further questioning by an official with the Canada Border Services Agency. Obviously, I had been flagged as a result of a campaign by the leftist group "Intolerance Free Weyburn," which is specifically lobbying the Canadian government to deny my entry into Canada as the alleged purveyor of "hate'" [See this AFTAH report on their lobby effort to deny me entry into Canada, and this previous report on the group's attempt to have me removed as a speaker at the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association (SPLA) conference April 11-12.]
After questioning me about the purpose of my scheduled presentation at the SPLA event; rifling through my luggage, which contained numerous books and literature related to homosexuality (pro and con); examining the contents of my laptop and my cell phone; playing a DVD of my speech Wednesday at Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio; and critically viewing AFTAH’s website–a preliminary decision was made to deny my entrance into Canada on the basis that my speech at the SPLA would violate Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” law (essentially the potential for “public incitement of hatred” against a group of people based on their “sexual orientation”). The Orwellian experience at Customs dragged on for more than three hours as a formal document was issued outlining my denial of entry under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (citing the Hate Propaganda code). Finally, after 1:00 A.M., I was released pending my appeal of the decision today (Friday). My passport was seized until I arrive back at Customs today at noon for my appeal before a “Minister’s Delegate Review.”– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH]
NOTE: We have posted letters supportive of LaBarbera speaking at the pro-life conference in Saskatchewan by American pro-life/pro-family advocates Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League [click HERE] and Mary Anne Hackett of Catholic Citizens of Illinois [click HERE]. We will try to post some of the other letters of support–including one from a homosexual man in the U.K.–as soon as possible.]
The following is the April 10 reply by Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), to a letter to Catholics by Archbishop Daniel Bohan, Archdiocese of Regina:
I believe that Archbishop Bohan felt the need to issue a letter that specifically mentions me due to the local controversy that has been instigated by a liberal group that, ironically, has spread much false and derogatory information about me. Many Catholic leaders in the United States, including pro-life hero Joe Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League, have come to my defense–and are deeply opposed to Intolerance Free Weyburn’s (intolerant) efforts to “ban” me from speaking in Canada. I have great respect for the full array of Catholic instuction on the issue of homosexuality, and quote from Catholic teachings all the time. I wish more Catholics knew and honored these teachings–including that no faithful Catholic can support same-sex “marriage” or laws and policies putting adoption by homosexual-led households on a par with adoption by mother-father households.
As an evangelical Christian, I believe that all people, including homosexuals, must be treated with respect and the grace of Christ. As a sinner myself, I am no “better” than the man or woman engaged in homosexual sin. We all need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ. I adhere to the universal philosophy shared by so many who follow Christ: “Love the sinner. Hate the sin,” In fact, if I truly lacked compassion and hated homosexuals as my detractors falsely and maliciously claim, I would not have been invited to speak by the leaders of the Saskatchewan Pro-Life Association. Lastly, it has become clear in recent years that OPPONENTS of the homosexual activist agenda have become frequent victims of “unjust discrimination.” In fact, in the lead up to the SPLA convention, one of Archbishop Bohan’s own parishioners, Bill Whatcott, was turned away from service by the owner of Southeastern Computer Solutions in Weyburn–because Whatcott adheres to the historic Judeo-Christian moral understanding of homosexual acts as sinful. Such anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination will be one of the topics of my talk Saturday.
Sincerely in Christ
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org)
The following is the letter sent out by Archbishop Daniel Bohan, Archdiocese of Regina:
On May 11, 2013, I spoke at a pro-family rally and posed the question, “Do you fear God or man?” on the issue of homosexual “marriage–which, of course, is not truly marriage in the eyes of our Creator. The rally was sponsored by Illinois Family Institute and was held outside of (Republican) State Rep. Jim Durkin’s district office in Western Springs, Illinois. At the time, Rep. Durkin was undecided on a pending homosexual “marriage” bill but he ended up voting “No.” The bill ultimately passed the Democrat-dominated Illinois General Assembly and was signed into law by Gov. Pat Quinn (D). It goes into effect June 1, although unnatural “gay marriages” are already allowed in Chicago and surrounding Cook County due to legal action. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH [Watch this on YouTube here: http://youtu.be/Y4t3bzYkc0c]
The list of “Victims of Homosexualism” continues to grow; little media sympathy for lives damaged by politically incorrect (pro-gay) “discrimination”
Crystal Dixon was fired by University of Toledo in 2008 after writing a column critical of comparing “homosexual rights” to the noble Black civil rights movement.
Folks, conservative and Christian pro-family advocates should avoid the pitfall of viewing the “gay rights” cultural battle narrowly, as merely between those whose work relates to the wedding business (bakers, photographers, etc.)–and homosexual militants trying to force them to participate in their same-sex “marriages.” That’s part of it, of course, but as you can see from this in-depth report I wrote for WND’s October 2013 Whistleblower magazine, the crisis goes far deeper than that, and it predates cultural fights over homosexual “marriage.” Below I have added photos and a few updates to the original article, which itself was republished by WND.com in November.
Since this report came out, other Christians like Coach Dave Daubenmire have become victims and targets of pro-homosexual bigotry and discrimination. Like those below, Coach Dave was smeared as a “hater,” “homophobe” and “bigot.” (We’re all painfully familiar with such vicious name-calling by “gay” activists–which is tolerated and often echoed by the compliant media.) Shame on us if we allow special “rights” based on a changeable, destructive sexual sin to displace our inalienable rights and liberties as Americans. God bless you. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; e-mail: email@example.com.
Please help circulate this report, and write Brad Wallace at AFTAH (firstname.lastname@example.org) if you would like a hard copy of it.
First appeared in Whistleblower Magazine, Oct. 2013:
‘GAY’ POWER VS. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Exclusive: Peter LaBarbera on how homosexual ‘rights’ is destroying freedom of conscience
“The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.”– Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folger (Porter), The Criminalization of Christianity
There is a war between homosexual “rights” and Americans’ religious and First Amendment freedoms – and the “gay” activists are winning.
The “zero-sum game” is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern “rights” based on homosexual “orientation” (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.
“Gays win, Christians lose,” Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests. She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas.
Following is a summary of cases involving battles between religious and moral freedom and homosexual activism. Some involve legal cases, others involve people who suffered privately for speaking out against the “gay” agenda. Others involve children whose rights (such as girls’ right to privacy) are violated in the name of “LGBT equality.”
In a sense, this could be called a list of the “Victims of Homosexualism”–that is, organized homosexuality. Though not comprehensive, its sheer scope illustrates what pro-family veterans have long known – but which the “gay”-cheerleading media fail to report as a major story: that “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion (“transgenderism”) cannot coexist with religious liberty.
First, a few observations:
These victims of escalating “Gay Tyranny” in America are not all tied to the question of homosexual “marriage.” Indeed, well before “gay marriage” came on the scene as a “mainstream” issue, pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws and corporate pro-LGBT policies were victimizing and punishing Christians and other moral opponents of homosexuality. And those laws are invariably used to argue for homosexuality-based “marriage.” The homosexualist agenda moves ahead incrementally, but “sexual orientation” laws and policies – and their philosophical presupposition that homosexuality is about innate “identity” (“who you are”) rather than changeable, wrong and aberrant behaviors (“what you do”) – is the foundation for the entire far-reaching LGBT agenda.
The pro-homosexual (and pro-atheist) legal war against the Boy Scouts of America was made possible by a “sexual orientation” law in New Jersey.
The most prominent example of the inherently discriminatory nature of pro-”gay” nondiscrimination laws (predating the entire homosexual “marriage” debate) is the Boy Scouts of America, who were initially challenged in 1990 by homosexual James Dale under a then-new “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law in New Jersey. Ultimately, in 2000, the Dale case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Scouts narrowly won their right not to have homosexual scoutmasters and members – only to toss away the fruits of their victory 13 years later by changing their rules under corporate pressure to allow openly homosexual Boy Scouts. (The Scouts still ban adult, openly homosexual scoutmasters, but pro-family experts predict that this prohibition will crumble – under continued “gay” activist pressure – now that the Scouts have sacrificed the moral principle that they had fought years to defend.)
It should also be recognized that oppression comes in many forms and from many quarters. Once professional institutions like the American Bar Association, American Association of Pediatrics and American Counseling Association adopt pro-LGBT “sexual orientation” codes, these policies become the basis for discriminating against people of faith.
These cases involve mostly higher-profile “victims.” What does not make the following list are everyday small businesspeople who, under an array of pro-homosexual laws and policies, are forced to effectively subsidize sexual behavior they regard as immoral. Thus, in a “gay marriage” state or in a big city with “sexual orientation” laws, business owners – much like the wedding cake makers below – are forced by the heavy hand of government to treat homosexually “married” or partnered employees as they would their normally married workers.
Also, countless employees and students have been forced to endure “gay tolerance” and pro-LGBT “diversity” programs that promote ideas with which they strongly disagree – a form of “soft tyranny” that most moral-minded employees have come to accept as the price of working in a big corporation. As is shown below, those who rock the politically correct boat invite persecution.
Lastly, note the irony that several of the victims below are black. [The late] Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Wash., (a former NFL player who appears occasionally on the “Rush Limbaugh Show”) says, “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.” (Hutcherson is black.) Yet that is precisely what the expanding web of “sexual orientation” laws, executive orders and rulings from liberal judges is doing. By mandating “gay” (and transgender) tolerance as a basic, modern American value, the law and politically-correct U.S. corporations are rapidly making opposition to homosexuality and gender confusion anathema – even banning it – thus relegating Christians and defenders of historic Judeo-Christian moral truths to second-class, pariah status.
An America in which faith-motivated citizens can believe (privately) that homosexuality and faux homosexual “marriage” are wrong but cannot act on their beliefs is no longer truly free.
UPDATE: Gov. Jan Brewer caved in to political correctness and the intense LGBT misinformation campaign against SB 1062 by vetoing the bill Wednesday. See this Arizona TV report to get a feel for what she was up against, and see this excellent RedState piece to understand the Left’s dishonest “Ends justifies the means” tactics. Lastly, here is an NRO article on Cathi Herrod of the pro-family Center for Arizona Policy, who describes how the media’s “ridiculous portrayals of the proposed law” became reality to many in the public. –PL
By Peter LaBarbera
New Mexican Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin and her husband were fined $6,000 for politely declining to shoot photos at a lesbian “commitment ceremony.” Arizona Senate Bill 1062 seeks to prevent such lawsuits against people of faith in that state–but media report that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is leaning toward vetoing the bill. The Huguenins lost their case in the New Mexico Supreme Court and are appealing it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[TAKE ACTION: Contact Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer at 602-542-1318 or go HERE to reach her online.]
The powerful, media-fed “Gay Hysteria” machine is exploding over Arizona Senate Bill 1062, which seeks to protect citizens’ First Amendment liberty NOT to violate their conscience with regard to homosexual “marriages.” But few Americans realize how decades of court-imposed favored legal status for homosexuality have already stolen away our “freedom to be moral.”
Tragically, America is far down the road of “Criminalizing Christianity”—or, more accurately, Judeo-Christian morality—thanks to Big Gay Inc. and its powerful allies in the courts, media and academia. But what is most amazing about this Culture War battle is how homosexual activists still manage to play the victim even as more and more Americans become Real Victims of the LGBT agenda—which, at its core, is about enforcing PRO-homosexual discrimination through the State and big corporations.
The Arizona bill is simply an attempt to preempt the sort of pro-homosexual ‘reverse discrimination’ that has spread across the country as (mostly Christian) photographers, wedding-cake makers and bed-and-breakfast owners have been sued by LGBT militants for refusing to allow their services to be used for homosexual “marriage” ceremonies. I have documented many of these cases—and others in which Christians have suffered at the hands of homosexual militants–in my WND article, “’Gay’ Power vs. Religious Liberty.”
Here is National Review’s take on the liberal media distortions surrounding Arizona’s pro-religious-liberty bill:
Defenders of S.B. 1062 reject the claim that the bill effectively legalizes discrimination. Proponents have repeatedly stated — including multiple times on CNN — that the bill does not allow businesses to deny service to someone at an establishment such as a restaurant or coffee shop. The law looks to protect those with religious objections from being compelled to participate in or use their creative expression in circumstances that violate their conscience. Since there is no current law on the issue in the state, lawmakers hope to preempt situations such as bakers and photographers facing legal action for not working a same-sex wedding, as has occurred in neighboring states.
Playing the race card
Julea Ward was drummed out of a graduate counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because as a Christian she could not in good faith affirm homosexual relationships. Ward settled out of court with EMU.
With insultingly inane comparisons to Jim Crow laws, CNN and others on the pro-LGBT Left are “going there” with their spurious racism analogies—conveniently ignoring that skin-color prejudice and biblical morality are completely different things. Do the media know or care that Blacks who believe Scripture that homosexuality is wrong repeatedly have been victimized by “gay” activism—which posits that approval of ‘gayness’ and same-sex relationships trump one’s personal religious and moral beliefs about sexual morality and marriage?
Take the case of Julia Ward, who is Black and was kicked out of Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program as a grad student because as a committed Christian she could not counsel same-sex couples in a manner that affirms homosexuality. Surely Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (who saw homosexuality as a “problem” that could be “solved”) did not wage his nonviolent struggle so that Americans of color would be forced by the State to either deny their faith or be barred from various professions that now worship at the altar of homosexualism. As the late, great pastor and Culture Warrior (and former NFL linebacker) Ken Hutcherson, who was Black, said, “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.”
Treating unequal things as equal
Aristotle wisely observed that it is unjust to treat unequal things equally—yet that is the essence of modern pro-homosexual/pro-transgender ideology, which treats sexual perversion and extreme gender confusion as the basis for civil rights. “Gay marriage” is a lot of things but it is certainly not “equal” to the real deal: two people of the same sex cannot produce a child on their own, and “Daddy No. 2” can never substitute for the love and care of a mother. Nor can two lesbian “moms” replace having a dad in the home. This is radical egalitarian social engineering and, sadly, innocent children are the guinea pigs.
Coach Dave Daubenmire discusses his Christian faith and homosexuality in this interview with the ABC and FOX affiliates in Columbus, Ohio. Coach Dave–who recently was denied a football coaching job at Lakewood High School, his alma mater, after being targeted by a homosexual cyber-smear campaign–ably refutes the Big Lie that opposing same-sex sin constitutes “hate.” Here is the link to the Columbus FOX28 site with the interview; and click HERE to watch this on YouTube.
Click HERE for AFTAH’s background article on the Daubenmire non-hiring story and to get contact information for the Lakewood School Board that voted against him for the coaching job that the school had originally recruited him to fill. The FOX28 write-up on the interview follows after the video (after the jump). To support Coach Dave, visit his Pass the Salt Ministries website.
Columbus, Ohio FOX28 reports [Editor's note: It is interesting that this report fails to mention the outside lobbying campaign against Daubenmire that ignited this controversy]
Controversial Former Football Coach Talks to ABC 6/FOX 28
Updated: Friday, February 14 2014, 08:45 PM EST
HEBRON, Ohio — (Maria Durant/Ken Hines) — A football coach known for his controversial conservative Christian views spoke out Friday about his hometown school board’s decision to deny him a coaching position on their high school football team.
Civil rights icon saw homosexuality as a ‘culturally acquired’ ‘problem’ with a ‘solution’
By Matt Barber
This past week America honored both the life and noble work of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a Bible-believing Christian minister who did more to advance the cause of race-based civil rights than perhaps any other person in recent history.
Regrettably – and as they do each year – the same flock of opportunist “LGBT”-activist vultures quickly swooped in, picking the live flesh from MLK’s character-based “dream,” to advance their own behavior-based nightmare.
In what amounts to a sort of soft racism, this mostly white left-wing faction has, over the years, disingenuously and ignobly hitched its little pink wagon to a civil rights movement that, by contrast, is built upon the genuine and noble precepts of racial equality and humanitarian justice.
What was MLK’s position on the homosexual lifestyle and so-called “gay rights”? While he said little in public on the issue, what he did say made his viewpoint abundantly clear. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself.
In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here is the exchange in its entirety:
Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?
Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.
No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution” – a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”
Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is radically pro-homosexual in its ideology, but the data it produces on the extraordinary health risks of homosexual sex make a strong case for discouraging immoral “gay, lesbian, and bisexual” behaviors.
By Peter LaBarbera
WARNING: graphic descriptions of homosexual perversions
Here is Part Two of our 2014 Resolutions for Christians Fighting the Homosexual/Transgender Lobby. Part One — link to it HERE — included the following:
Decide Whether You are with God or Against Him
Apply the “Sexual Sin Substitution Test” (S3T) — substitute another sexual sin for “gay” and see if it makes sense. [This was by far the most popular based on the feedback we received! - Editor]
Get Off the Sidelines and Start Speaking Out!
Publicize Ex-”Gays” — the “Greatest Story Never Told” (by the Media)
Reject LGBT Hate-Slurs (“Bigot, Hater and Homophobe”)
6) Jesus Judged Sin, So You Can, Too (and You’re Judging Behavior): Regarding judging, first remember that we judge BAD BEHAVIORS all the time. It’s OK to judge! – as long as you’re not a sanctimonious, hypocritical jerk violating your own judgments and lacking God’s love and grace toward sinners. “But who am I to judge people who happen to be gay”? you ask. Answer: you are a follower of God, who reveals righteousness in His Word, the Bible. Besides, nobody just “happens to be gay” – and nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality recognized as a personal “identity” (see Point 7). The evil genius of the “gay” movement is that it turned a changeable sin into a proud, personal identity – one often embraced due to difficult or dysfunctional environmental circumstances in one’s childhood (including predatory sex abuse). Bottom line: God calls us to make right judgments on sin. The Secular- and Religious Left scream, “Judge Not!” but Jesus preached forgiveness of sin through humble repentance, such as when He told the adulteress, “Go and sin no more.” If Jesus didn’t approve of making righteous judgments, why did He praise John the Baptist as the greatest man every born – the same John the Baptist who publicly preached repentance from sin and even called out King Herod for his sexual sin? [See this interesting essay on King Herod and John the Baptist.] And isn’t it odd that the same pro-LGBT critics who scold us for judging “gays” JUDGE Bible-believing Christians all the time?! Here’s a terrific video by Frank Turek — a Christian who has suffered in the corporate world for opposing homosexual “marriage” — on proper “judging.”
7) Sodomy and Homosexual Behaviors Are Worthy of Judgment: Homosexuality is about “what people do,” not “who they are” (hence the existence of ex-“gays”; see point 4 in Part One). Perhaps you are ignorant of just how high-risk unnatural homosexual behaviors are: did you know that:
Bisexual men (including secretly homosexual men on the “down low”) are the main conduit for HIV to women in America — yet if a bisexual man transmits HIV to his girlfriend or wife, the CDC misleadingly classifies that as a “heterosexual” transmission;
Many lesbians mimic male homosexuals by engaging in anal perversions like “rimming” and “fisting” — and/or inserting “sex toys” like dildos (fake penises) into their partner’s anus (or vagina). Deviance begets deviance, and the godless “invent ways of doing evil” (Romans 1:30). Moreover, many lesbians report having sex with men.