If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
America Corrupts the World: Even under Trump, the American Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica flies the LGBTQ-activist “rainbow flag” under Old Glory. But Jamaicans know that immoral “gay-” and “transgender” “rights” inherently destroy real freedoms. Photo: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, June 2017.
Folks, the following column was published Sunday in the Jamaica Gleaner. It is written by Shirley Richards, a wise Christian advocate for genuine rights and moral truth whom I had the privilege of meeting in Jamaica when I spoke there in 2013. Below Richards ably explains the difference between genuine rights based on a moral philosophy, rooted in timeless Judeo-Christian truth–and counterfeit “gay/transgender rights,” which “compete with, and undermine, fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
Smart Jamaicans–and peoples all over the world–are trying to learn from the USA’s and the West’s failed experiment of creating sodomy-based “rights,” which became the foundation for the modern Western abomination of “same-sex marriage.” Meanwhile, the United States and other decadent Western nations–and leftist organizations like the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch–are pressuring Jamaica and many other nations to join our illicit “rights” revolution.
At right is a current photo of the American Embassy in Kingston, flying the LGBT “rainbow flag” (as it did under Obama)–thereby telegraphing to this small nation that, even under Trump, we will use our immense political and economic power to “persuade” them to embrace a system of newfangled legal “rights” that inherently destroys liberty. Let’s hope we don’t prevail, and that Donald Trump gets America out of the business of exporting the immoral, anti-Christian LGBT “rights” revolution. — @Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; see my LifeSiteNews articles here.
___________________
Majority view on gay rights must have sway
By Shirley Richards
Published in Jamaica Gleaner, June 11, 2017
In an article written by Dr. Carolyn Gomes published [in the Jamaica Gleaner] on Sunday, May 28, 2017, she stated, in relation to the development of the [Jamaican] Charter of Rights: “The Parliament, however, appears to be timid. It has not acted on the recommendation to ensure that all citizens are protected from discrimination on the basis of disability, health status, if they speak Patois, have a mental illness, or are different in sexual orientation and gender identity.”
These were recommendations made by various interest groups. They were debated by the joint select committee of Parliament on the Charter of Rights (Constitutional Amendment) Bill and decisions were made to accept or reject accordingly.
The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.
In determining what is in the “best interests” of the country, they cannot afford to disregard the voice of the people. Specifically, the members of the House of Representatives are there to represent the people, not to foist their own viewpoints on the people, a point Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, as a member of said House, may do well to remember. As the late [First Premier of Jamaica] Norman Manley, QC, said on the occasion of the passage of the 1962 [Jamaican] Constitution:
“As a politician, sir, I would be the first person to acclaim every instance in which the public succeeds in having their way … for we, sir, are their servants and are here to execute their will.”
Non-discrimination
As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) released the following statement Thursday, attributed to Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor, regarding a summary the White House released late Wednesday about an executive order on religious liberty issued by President Trump on the National Day of Prayer, May 4:
“During his campaign, President Trump stated that the first priority of his administration would be to preserve and protect religious liberty. In speeches, he said the Little Sisters of the Poor and other people of faith will always have their religious liberty protected on his watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs. Religious voters took him at his word, giving the president a mandate to affirm and protect Americans’ first freedom.
“The current outline of the Religious Liberty Executive Order released by White House officials recalls those campaign promises but leaves them unfulfilled.
“First, no specific relief is offered to families like the Vander Boons in Michigan, who were threatened with the effective closure of their family-run business for simply expressing a religious point of view on marriage that differed from that of the federal government.
Folks, it looks like the case of Barronelle Stutzman–the Christian florist who was sued by two “marrying” homosexual men and the Washington State Attorney General because she would not create a floral arrangement for their “wedding”–is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Feb. 16, the Washington State Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Stutzman of a lower court decision and ruled that “the government can force her—and, by extension, other Washingtonians—to create artistic expression and participate in events with which they disagree,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, which is handling Stutzman’s defense (see more info below video). [Read the court’s decision HERE.]
Below is a background video on Barronelle’s case created by ADF. You will note from this 2016 court filing that ADF et al are defending Stutzman on “artistic freedom” grounds. We at AFTAH are not attorneys but we do know this: in a free society, anyone–Christian florist, Muslim cake-maker or atheist wedding chair-supplier–should have the liberty not to use their business to celebrate homosexuality-based “marriage,” which we, as Christians, regard as sin on steroids.
We hope that this kind, brave and faithful woman prevails at the Supreme Court. If she doesn’t, you can stop singing that America is the “land of the free.” — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH [more background after jump and video]
Those Days Are Gone….for LGBTQ activists. Although Trump has already made some key capitulations to the LGBTQueer agenda, he has also disappointed homosexual and gender-confusion activist in major ways. Obama’s immoral LGBTQ legacy is astonishing and much of it will be hard to undo. This Newsweek cover accompanied an adoring 2012 piece on Obama by homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan.
Think of it as payback for Obama refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after “bullsh–ting” the American people on “gay marriage” in his 2008 run for president (to quote his top aide). Remember how Obama conned voters into thinking he was a pious believer in marriage as one man, one woman? (Mr. Rainbow Halo will have to answer to God for that some day, and much more.)
Now a note to AFTAH’s readers and supporters: if you haven’t figured it out yet, here is our approach toward President Trump and the LGBTQueer agenda: “Don’t really trust, and verify.” When he does right, like in NOT pushing gender confusion in schools, we will praise him. When he advances the “gay/trans” agenda, through action or non-action, we will criticize him.
I say this as a Cruz guy in the primaries who voted for Trump Nov. 8, and who would do so again: it is my longstanding conviction that God doesn’t give a pass to “Republican-backed” Sin Movements. Morality and biblical Truth know no party. So all you diehard, Trump-can-do-no-wrong fans: don’t bother urging us to go easy on Trump or look the other way when he enables homo-immorality, because we simply cannot–especially after hammering pro-sin Democrats all these years.
Here’s a “Washington Watch” piece with some good background on the Obama transgender order by Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council. Following that is the reaction to AG Jeff Sessions’ action by the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest and most powerful homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group. God bless. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
If you thought President Trump hit the ground running, you should see Jeff Sessions. The new attorney general was probably still unpacking his office when he got to work turning the page at the Justice Department after eight years of scandal. First up? The Obama bathroom mandate for public schools.
Less than 48 hours after his confirmation, Sessions’s DOJ made it clear the agency was under new management by refusing to defend the controversial order to let students of both sexes use any locker room, shower, or restroom they want. Since last May when President Obama shocked the country with his decree, the issue has been working its way through the courts — thanks to a huge pushback from states like Texas. By summer’s end, a federal judge agreed with parents: the Obama administration had overstepped its boundaries. In a huge win for the Constitution and common sense, Reed O’Connor blocked the rule from taking effect, at least temporarily. Frustrated, the Obama attorneys asked the court to lift its ban in every state except the 13 who sued the government over it. O’Connor refused, insisting:
“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide,” he wrote. “Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”
Queer, indeed: Kendall Oliver identifies as “genderqueer.” She prefers to use the pronoun “they” to describe herself. (AFTAH routinely runs afoul of the Pronoun Police by using pronouns that match a person’s birth sex.) Photo: Christian News Network.
Folks, here is yet another example of what I’m calling #LGBTyranny—ridiculous even by “gay” standards. For goodness’ sake, if you identify yourself as *genderqueer,* you should expect a little pushback, right? Is this an “orientation”?—no, silly me, it’s a “gender identity.” (Because it’s getting harder and harder to keep track of all the permutations, AFTAH has adopted the catch-all designation of “LGBTQueer” for the sex-and-gender-disordered movement.)
Should employers now be forced to hire “genderqueers”? Do we need special “genderqueer” restrooms? “Genderqueer” sensitivity lessons for first-graders? These LGBTQueer lawsuits make a mockery of real civil rights, and America a laughingstock around the world. And who gets to use the word “queer,” anyway? Only self-styled “queers,” or perhaps “queer”-friendly people and the media, too? But not the rest of us, that’s for sure. So much nonsense, so little time.
The poor barbershop in question only served men, dictated by the beliefs of its owner, Richard Hernandez. His freedom got clipped because Ms. Oliver wants to look like a dude, sort of. So she called in the “gay” lawyers. Oh, the humanity of it all! (By the way, look at the photo: there’s a beautiful woman under all that faux masculinity.)
Stay tuned: I hear a new “civil rights” lawsuit is in the offing from the Polyamory Liberation Front. (Actually, no such organization exists…yet.)
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — A men’s barbershop in California has agreed to a settlement with a woman who identifies as “gender neutral” who filed a lawsuit last year after being denied a haircut because she is not a man.
Under the terms of the settlement, signed by both parties, Richard Hernandez, owner of The Barbershop, admits to violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and agrees to serve all who request a haircut.
“Kendall’s sex shouldn’t have mattered. No one should experience the gut-punch of being told they won’t be served by a business open to the public,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said of the men’s barbershop in a statement on Wednesday.
As previously reported, Kendall Oliver, 25, began identifying as “genderqueer” after serving in the Army. The term is defined as “a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.”
Oliver also began preferring the pronoun “they” for herself as opposed to “her” or “him” in order to be gender neutral.
However, Oliver identifies more as male in her appearance, wearing men’s clothing and sporting a short hairstyle.
“You’re a bigot and an [a**hole],” lead protester yells at McCrory; state senator vows to pursues law criminalizing vengeful harassment of public servants
NC St. Sen. Dan Bishop wants to protect former public servants from being bullied and harassed by vengeful protesters.
WARNING: profanity
Folks, all I can say is, thank God the “progressives” lost this election! Because they are out of control (cut to the 2:10 mark in Madonna’s vulgar and extremist women’s march speech HERE). Below is a YouTube video shot by a profane North Carolina revolutionary socialist named Udai Basavaraj.
On a visit to DC for the inauguration (and leftist feminist march) weekend, Basavaraj apparently led a harassing protest against former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory–yelling “Shame on you, shame on you!” etc., at the recently defeated Republican because he signed the HB2 “bathroom” bill into law.
The cowardly ringleader (his face not shown) yells out at McCrory, calling him a “bigot and an [a**hole]!” Then, as reported below, “just after the one minute mark [and with McCrory and two women backed into a locked door], he says, “We’ve got you now.” Watch the creepy three-and-a-half minute video, then pass this story on.
HB2 requires that people use the restroom matching their biological sex. I suppose in the minds of these ideological bullies, supporting such a bill makes one a monster. More news and commentary after the video and jump:
Thankfully, there are still many patriots in this country like North Carolina State Senator Dan Bishop (R), who is as outraged as we at AFTAH are over these hateful fanatics. Sen. Bishop wants to do something to protect people like McCrory, and he is disgusted with the neutral, innocuous way in which the Charlotte Observer newspaper reported this outrageous episode. I will add that homosexual activist publications like LGBTQNation seem to have no problem with it.
Hmmm. Can you imagine the media outrage if a screaming crowd of “conservatives” cornered a few homosexuals into a closed alley?
As Sen. Bishopwrites, “One also wonders if the mob fell upon the former governor by coincidence or if they stalked him.” Note the young woman scurrying uncomfortably (with her face away from the camera) from the approaching gaggle of screaming protesters. She is obviously scared. The lead LGBTQ protester-bully (Basavaraj?) screaming “shame on you!” clearly has no regard for the fear that he and his “mob” of yelling activists are inducing in her–as they pin their targets against a locked door.
After all, in the leftist scheme of things, the end–in this case, humiliating and intimidating Christian “haters” and “transphobes”–justifies the means. And “bigotry” knows no gender, right?
Think about this: is the modern “LGBTQ” activist phenomenon a “New Civil Rights Movement”–or rather a spoiled Sin Movement so steeped in its own self-rationalizing ideology and warped self-righteousness that it is willing even to scare a young woman if that’s what it takes to achieve its unattainable goal of “equality”?
Of course, many homosexuals would share my outrage at this despicable conduct. This is an extreme case, but all homosexual activists are compelled to sacrifice some social good, or some transcendent truth–e.g., about the essence of marriage itself–to serve their aberrant, self-justifying worldview. The more power they achieve, the more the War on Normal (which is actually a futile fight against our Creator) is ratcheted up. And the more innocent casualties mount.
Although it must not undermine the First Amendment, we hope Sen. Bishop succeeds in his bid to protect public servants from overt harassment. Stay tuned. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
The following is reprinted from Family Research Council’s daily Washington Update newsletter, by president Tony Perkins. Remember when pro-homosexual-“marriage” advocates told us that legalization would have no effect whatsoever on the Church? Regarding Kellogg’s and Breitbart.com, it’s astonishing to me that the cereal company is so tone-deaf that it is disassociating from a website that is hugely popular with the American people and which helped elect our next president. Apparently the Gay Thought Police (GTP) and other liberal scolds are not deterred by a repudiation of leftist Political Correctness at the ballot box. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Take Action: Call Kellogg’s at (800) 962-1413 or contact them online HERE.
________________________
Kellogg’s Signals Bran New Day of Bias
November 30, 2016
By Tony Perkins, with Family Research Council staff
HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines were just on the cover of People magazine — and now, they’re the face of something else: a controversy over the fact that their pastor preaches the Bible. For the last few years, the Texas couple has charmed their way into people’s hearts — not just with their talent for renovation, but with their sweet and genuine relationship. Their show “Fixer Upper” has exploded in popularity, and the parents of four have never shied away from their faith — which they’ve talked about at length in their books and interviews.
Today, that faith is under fire by a handful of far-Left extremists who’ve latched onto a sermon the Gaines’ pastor, Jimmy Seibert, preached about marriage and sexuality. “If someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong,” Seibert said. “God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”
Now, I’m not sure why it’s news that a Christian church believes what the Bible teaches about sexuality, but apparently, this is a shock to the liberal media establishment. When reporters contacted the church, the communications director pointed them to Antioch’s webpage on “beliefs,” where it says: “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.” That was their belief when the church was founded 17 years ago — and it’s their belief today. And, as recent polling points out, Chip and Joanne’s church is hardly in the minority! Fifty-three percent of all Americans (not necessarily Christian) told Wilson Allen Perkins polling this month that despite what the Supreme Court ruled, they still define marriage as the union of a man and woman.
Obviously, the Left is trying to do to Chip and Joanna what they unsuccessfully did to the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty:” take down a hugely successful program in a show of political force. That’s unlikely to happen to a couple like the Gaines, who have no interest in renovating their views to suit a narrow ideology. Hopefully, HGTV has learned since its ousting of the Benham Brothers that religious discrimination doesn’t play well with viewers.
Judge Rules Iowa Churches Are Not Subject to Government Control
By Heather Sells, 10-26-16
A federal judge in Iowa has ruled that churches are not “public accommodations” and therefore not subject to government control.
The ruling could prove pivotal as the country considers whether or not houses of worship are subject to public accommodation anti-discrimination laws.
In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose allowed a lawsuit filed by the Fort Des Moines Church of Christ to continue. The church filed suit in objection to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission applying a state civil rights law to churches.
The act could have forced churches to censor statements on sexuality and adopt state policies that allow any person to enter any bathroom or locker room.
“The court cut off this unconstitutional power grab by clarifying that the law does not apply to churches,” ADF [Alliance Defending Freedom] attorney Steve O’Ban said.
Judge Rose noted in her ruling that “state and federal courts have held that churches and the programs they host are not places of public accommodation.”
However, LGBT activists often claim churches and other houses of worship are places of public accommodation in order to force them to follow government anti-discrimination laws…. [Story continues at CBN News]
The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.
As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.
