“In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their world view on others.”–David Burdett, UK

Dear AFTAH supporters,

David Burdett’s excellent letter responding to a fellow Brit, Peter Bradley, who says Americans For Truth would be “imprisoned” in the UK, reminds us that the battle for Truth on this issue is worldwide in its scope. We who reject the immoral, anti-Christian homosexualist agenda and the homo-fascism that it naturally spawns must work together to preserve freedom and the time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. — Peter LaBarbera

Read Bradley’s censorious message HERE, and write us with your response defending American freedom and Judeo-Christian norms at americansfortruth@comcast.net. Mr. Burdett writes June 25 through AFTAH’s website:

Dear Mr. Bradley,

My wife and I are Christians and from England, we believe that the homosexual lifestyle in sinful and we have should have the right to be able to express our religious beliefs without fear of being branded as hate-inciting criminals. In fact, the most hate-filled people we have ever met are the homosexual activists who are forcing their worldview on others. We all have free will to live as we choose and I accept that. However, we object in the strongest possible terms to the ‘gay’ agenda being forced onto us via the schools (teaching four-year-olds about same sex relationships); via the TV (the Heinz advert [in the UK showing a homosexual male couple kissing; Heinz pulled the ad after British protests]; two priests getting “married” in a church last week; and the pro-gay government and their biased laws.

You seem to think the UK is some kind of great place to live. I guess you haven’t seen the statistics about England’s huge drug problem amongst the young, the rise in teenage pregnancy and spread of sexually transmitted diseases. All of this is due to being a Godless society — thank God we have people like Peter LaBarbera who are not afraid to speak the truth!

Thanks,

David Burdett
London, England

Heinz Unit in the UK Withdraws TV Commercial for Deli Mayonnaise

LONDON, England–June 23–BUSINESS WIRE–Heinz UK today confirmed that it withdrew a UK TV commercial for Deli Mayo last week following consumer feedback. The advertisement was no longer on air in the UK as of Friday, June 20.

“It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognize that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it,” said Nigel Dickie, Director of Corporate Affairs for Heinz UK.

“The advertisement, part of a short-run campaign, was intended to be humorous and we apologize to anyone who felt offended,” said Dickie.

The Deli Mayo TV advertisement in the UK was created as a humorous take on a slice of life and featured a genuine New York deli chef taking the place of a mum preparing great tasting sandwiches in the kitchen using UK Deli Mayo.

The Heinz British ad featured a domesticated male homosexual couple with kids, who call the one man (making their sandwiches) “mum” as they run off to school. The ad ends with the man kissing his homosexual partner, who is also rushing off, to work. You can play the video commercial at the British newspaper The Guardian’s story on it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/16/advertising3

That the ad ran at all says as much about the new, evolving, anti-Christian Britain and its plummeting morality as it does about Heinz. The ketchup corporation would never run this ad in the USA, although surely we’re not far behind the Brits given current trends.– Peter LaBarbera

You can contact Heinz HERE. Below is Heinz’s online description of itself:

H. J. Heinz Company, offering “Good Food Every Day”TM is one of the world’s leading marketers and producers of healthy and convenient foods specializing in ketchup, sauces, meals, soups, snacks and infant/nutrition. Heinz provides superior quality, taste and nutrition for all eating occasions whether in the home, restaurants, the office or “on-the-go.” Heinz is a global family of leading branded products, including Heinz® Ketchup, sauces, soups, beans, pasta and infant foods (representing over one third of Heinz’s total sales), Ore-Ida® potato products, Weight Watchers® Smart Ones® entrees, Boston Market® meals, T.G.I. Friday’s® frozen snacks, and Plasmon® infant nutrition. Heinz is famous for its iconic brands on five continents, showcased by Heinz® Ketchup, The World’s Favorite Ketchup®. Information on Heinz is available at www.heinz.com.

Stephen Green, national director of [British group] Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.” 

 British couple Owen and Eunice Johns are being denied as foster parents because they agree with their Creator about homosexuality.

By Peter LaBarbera

Commenting on LifesiteNews story by Hillary White:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022705.html

For more information, see the British Christian Legal Centre’s site at: http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=253

The once-great nation of Britain is being reduced to a bastion of politically correct silliness. Is America next? So now British couples aren’t qualified to raise children unless they can recite pro-”gay” shibboleths?

Why no, Johnny, you don’t have to have a man and a woman to get married — in fact, two daddies are often better at raising children than a mommy and a daddy. When you are old enough, we will tell you all you need to know so we can support you if you have a gay or transgender orientation. Did you know that being gay is a one of God’s gifts for special people?”

You chuckle, but it is surreal to behold the deterioration of Western civilization before our very eyes – one sad story like this at a time. Meanwhile, smug, agnostic pundits and religious leftists like Jim Wallis castigate the “Religious Right,” which is made up of people who are merely trying their best to hold back the march of evil (masquerading as progress). Which reminds me: when is the last time you heard the media use the phrase “Religious Left,” anyway?

Destructive and radical ideologies (e.g., Marxism) often are imposed from above by force, relying on disinformation – or stealth strategies — because an informed, moral (and generally conservative-leaning) citizenry would never approve such nonsense on their own. Hence the homosexual activists’ drive for power culminates in state punishment and repression of their opponents — mainly Christians and other religious adherents. Invariably, as we are seeing abroad and now here in the USA, “gay rights” comes at the expense of religious freedom.

Liberals and “gay” activists alike ask: “But how does granting equal rights for gays and lesbians affect you?” It’s the wrong question (it’s not all about ME), and one that radically redefines civil and human rights, but here’s part of the answer: state-enforced, pro-homosexuality ideology ultimately criminalizes Judeo-Christian ethics, ideas and even compassion (per the U.K.) – and that destroys societies and hurts children. “Gay” ideology is at war with common sense and “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” – as our Declaration of Independence from Britain states — giving rise to misguided social policies like that below. 

It is no overreach to assert that the pro-homosexuality, pro-bisexuality, pro-transsexuality agenda helps destroy ideas of right and wrong that have served mankind well for centuries. If two men having “sex” (committing heinous sodomies together), getting “married,” and then acquiring and raising kids isn’t wrong, then nothing is wrong.

If a gender-confused man having his penis surgically turned into a makeshift “vagina” — or a young woman having her healthy breasts removed (I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand at a “transgender” conference) as the last, desperate act in some futile quest to “become” the opposite sex — is not wrong, then what is?

Shoplifters, take note.

And if “consensuality” is their main criterion for right and wrong, well, the poor kids adopted into such disordered households did not “consent” to it, so what about their rights? (As we’ve said many times, it’s all about the ‘GLBT’ adults.)  

Thanks to social liberals who promote this agenda — which would be better described as a sexual revolution – our children are being raised in a culture in which moral truths are ridiculed and “gay” myths and lies are celebrated. We in America must fight on and dispense with any misplaced guilt if we are to avoid the tragic fate of our mother country.

Welcome to Britain’s Brave Gay World, where the committed Christians are the criminals (emphasis added):

Another UK Couple Rejected for Fostering Children over Religious Beliefs on Homosexuality

By Hilary White, Lifesite News

OAKWOOD, Derby, UK, February 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In November 2007, LifeSiteNews.com reported that a Christian couple in Somerset, UK, was being forced to retire from fostering needy children on conscientious grounds after the local council imposed rules requiring them to discuss homosexuality with the children. Now a similar case is reported in Derby, in which the local council is being sued after rejecting an application from a Christian couple to assist foster children under ten years old. The Telegraph reports that Eunice and Owen Johns refused to talk to children about homosexuality as though it were an acceptable “lifestyle”.

The Labour-controlled council adoption panel was also reportedly “upset” that the couple insisted that children in their care would be required to accompany the family to church on Sundays. The Johns have been married for 39 years and have four adult children of their own. Mrs. Johns is a retired nurse and Sunday school teacher.

The adoption panel admitted in internal documents that Mr and Mrs Johns of Oakwood, in Derby, might have grounds to feel that they had been “discriminated against on religious grounds.”

In the Somerset case last year, Vincent and Pauline Matherick were able, after their case caught national media attention, to reach an agreement with their local council authorities and keep their current child, a ten year-old boy, in their home. They had made almost identical complaints and told media that they intended to retire from fostering children after the council insisted that they participate in discussions about homosexuality.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns’ lawyer said the couple were not ‘homophobic,’ but believed that sex outside of marriage was wrong and that marriage cannot include same-sex partners. The couple are being represented by the Christian Legal Centre, which is asking for a judicial review of the council’s decision.

Evangelical Alliance General Director, the Reverend Joel Edwards, said, “We are worried about this issue because it appears someone can be disqualified from giving care to vulnerable children because of a local council’s attitude to their conscience – which we believe violates their rights as citizens.”

Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, said, “It seems that Christians are gradually being squeezed out of the adoption process. It’s exactly what we said would happen. In the name of equality, it’s discriminating against Christians.”

“I would like to see the council back down and adopt a more realistic approach. Either that or tell Christians that they are not welcome to foster in the future. At least that would be more honest.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

UK Christian Couple who Refuse to Promote Homosexuality Forced out of Child Foster Care
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07102502.html

Christian Couple no Longer Required to Promote Homosexuality in Fostering Children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07110205.html ;

Dear Readers,

The preposterous and astonishingly bigoted rant above by Matt Foreman, head of the second largest homosexual organization in America, illustrates the dangerous potential of pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual “hate crimes” legislation, S. 1105, which reportedly could come up for a vote before the U.S. Senate TODAY.

TAKE ACTION : Call your U.S. Senators today at 202-224-3121, or write then via www.congress.org. Urge them to oppose the Kennedy-Smith-Reid Hate Crimes Bill, S. 1105. Pass this message on to your friends and contact list.

A strengthened federal “Hate crimes” law — which would include transsexuals (perceived “gender identity”) for the first time in federal law – would provide a powerful foundation for politically-motivated, pro-homosexual prosecutors to go after people of faith, based on their alleged ”anti-gay” speech.

Foreman is lying about the link between Christians and violent, despicable crimes, just as the homosexual lobby is lying about the supposedly pressing need for this legislation (see below). The last thing America needs is to put the power of the federal government behind a system of law that creates a politically correct hierarchy of victims — in a country where homosexual victims already receive far more media attention than religious victims like Mary Stachowicz.

S 1105 would also spend YOUR tax dollars on biased “anti-hate” programs that invariably discriminate against faith-based opposition to homosexuality.

No need for this bill

A thorough report on S 1105 by the Traditional Values Coalition states that S. 1105 “makes the following fraudulent and ridiculous claims in [its] Findings:

• Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
• Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
   
• Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. [now that's a whopper--Editor]
   
• These false claims about homosexuals fleeing across state lines are being used as a hook to justify federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
   
• No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists! S. 1105 falsely claims in The Findings, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”
   
• FBI statistics from 2005 (the latest available) reveal that there is no national epidemic of hate against minority groups or against homosexuals:
   
• According to the FBI, in 2005 there were only 5,190 hate crimes directed against all persons. Of this figure, only 1,171 were sexual orientation bias crimes. Out of this 1,171:
   
• 301 were listed as “intimidation.”
   
• 333 were listed as “simple assault.”
   
• 177 were listed as aggravated assault! There was one forcible rape and no murders based on sexual orientation in 2005.
   
• 1 forcible rape; 30 robberies; 10 burglaries; 27 larceny-theft; 2 motor vehicle theft; 1 arson; 275 damage/vandalism; 3 other; 5 crimes against society.
   
• Nationwide there were 862,947 aggravated assaults against all persons. (Source: FBI Crime in the United States 2005, Aggravated Assault)
• Out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, only 177 were motivated by sexual orientation bias. This is 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005.
   
• In a nation of 300 million, this is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement. (Source: Tables 2 and 4, FBI Hate Crime Stats, 2005)

My good friend Bob Knight lays out the basic problems with expanded, pro-homosexual federal “hate crimes”, arguing that legislation like S. 1105:

• violates the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
• politicizes criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
• vastly expands the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.”
• has a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
• confuses law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
• is not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The last thing America needs is to expand federal power unnecessarily while creating the foundation for dubious federal ”rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. Read the full TVC report on S. 1105 HERE. And call your Senators today at 202-224-3121, or e-mail them at http://www.congress.org/.

This “hate crimes” bill has already passed the House, so if it passes the Senate, we will be urging President Bush to wield his presidential veto: call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or use the Contact Page on the presidential website.

Thank you for standing up for truth and freedom.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth

The following article is reprinted with permission from Lifesitenews (http://www.lifesite.net/), which has become one of the world’s leading pro-family sources for news. (To sign up for Lifesite e-updates, click HERE.)

Call it homo-fascism, homo-totalitarianism, homo-supremacy or whatever you will, but the “gay” activist movement’s drive to silence opponents is intensifying worldwide. Yet American liberals and homosexual activists alike –with rare exceptions such as lesbian Georgetown University professor Chai Feldblum – play dumb, as if they cannot comprehend how homosexuality-based “rights” (in the guise of sexual orientation “equality”) will erode the freedoms of those who regard homosexual behavior as wrong.

We welcome homosexual (and liberal) activists who are not afraid of freedom and the battle of ideas to denounce the growing pro-”gay” trend of silencing opposing speech — whether it’s GLAAD threatening to sue a news producer to squelch a report on lesbian bullying; Britain trotting out the “anti-homophobia” police to crush that grave threat to democracy of a Christian passing out tracts at a “gay” event; or pro-homosexual militants claiming that decent religious people who agree with God about sexual sin are causing the murders of homosexuals like Matthew Shepard.

Where else but in the Orwellian world of pro-GLBT “multiculturalism” would you see politically correct bureaucrats squelching faith-based dissent in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance”? The time to speak out against the coming tyranny is now. We would do well to read Feldblum’s paper (delivered last year at a Becket Fund for Religious Liberty symposium): at least she acknowledges that the struggle between “gay rights” and religious freedom of conscience is a “zero-sum game.”

P.S. Take a guess which side Feldblum says deserves to win.– Peter LaBarbera 

___________________________ 

Here is the LifeSiteNews report on Brazil; for Part One, “Brazilian Homosexual Activist Luiz Mott Confesses to Pederastic Love for Boys,” click HERE:

Brazil Attacks Against Family Defenders Backed by Pro-Homosexual Regime of Nation’s President
Part 2 of Lifesite’s report on Brazil’s aggressive homosexual movement

See Part 1 – Leader of Brazil Homosexual Movement Under Investigation for Pedophilia
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073011.html

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRAZIL, July 30, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In recent months other Brazilians have been subject to the wrath of Brazil’s pro-homosexual regime. 

In June of this year a coalition of protestant church groups, the National Vision for a Christian Conscience (VINACC), was ordered to halt their campaign “In Defense of the Family”, which displayed billboards that said “Homosexuality: God made them man and woman, and saw that it was good!”  A court order decreed the removal of the billboards and the cancellation of a public event scheduled by VINACC to further the defense of family values, claiming that it was “homophobic”.

On May 29th of this year, a Lutheran pastor in the Brazilian town of Rancho Queimado; the Rev. Ademir Kreutzfeld, was subject to a criminal investigation when he was accused of calling local businesses in an effort to inform them that a newspaper they were sponsoring was promoting the homosexual agenda. The homosexual activist who owns the paper filed charges against the pastor for “defamation.” 

Although no further steps have been taken against the minister as yet, homosexuals are agitating for his prosecution. “What have I done?” asks Kreutzfeld. “I just made some phone calls to shops, alerting that they were, without perceiving, sponsoring a newspaper of homosexual ideology. As a Christian committed to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, I could not fail to inform them. Of course, I am not ‘homophobic.’ As a Christian, I love sinners. I am also one of them. But I cannot remain silent before sinful practices”.

Julio Severo (see his English-language blog HERE), who is seen as the principal opponent of Brazil’s militant homosexuals, and who has written a book called “The Homosexual Movement” warning against the political goals of the movement in Brazil and worldwide, states that, since he began his efforts against the homosexual movement in Brazil, he has suffered persecution and has been forced to flee his hometown.  According to Severo, a homosexual government official used his refusal to involve his children with vaccines against him and had a court order to remove his children from their home (Severo and his family believe that vaccines are dangerous and often ineffective). 

Severo states that others in the town also do not vaccinate their children, but he believes they were ignored in favor of him because of his stance against homosexual behavior. He now lives in hiding in another part of Brazil.

The attacks on Julio Severo, Jael Savelli, and others by the homosexual movement in Brazil are taking place within the political context of the strongly pro-homosexual regime of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has led Brazil’s executive branch since 2003.

During its second year in office, the Lula regime initiated a program, “Brazil Without Homophobia” which teaches that homosexual orientation is unchangeable, and seeks to construct “a culture of peace and values for promoting human diversity.” According to the program’s charter document, this would include “the production of cultural goods and support for events with massive visibility for affirming sexual orientation and the culture of peace”, “artistic productions that promote a culture of non-discrimination for sexual orientation”, and preserving “the cultural, social, and economic values congruent with the participation of the Brazilian homosexual population in the process of development, based on its history and culture”. 

Since the initiation of Brazil Without Homophobia, the government has spent millions of dollars funding “Gay Pride” parades and TV programming, and is promoting pro-homosexual “education” programs in the public schools. Homosexual leader Luiz Mott is one of those who participated in the creation of the document, according to the credits listed at the beginning. 

In addition, the Lula administration is promoting a new “anti-homophobia” law that would prohibit any expression contrary to the homosexual agenda, forbidding Brazilians “To practice, induce or incite discrimination or prejudice of race, skin color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity…What is determined in this article involves the practice of any kind of violent, constraining, threatening or humiliating action, of moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological order.” 

Although the legislation has stalled in the Brazilian Senate, the issue will be taken up again this fall. The Brazilian legal system has also begun to allow homosexual adoptions (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071202.html).

“Brazil Without Homophobia” also promises to promote the homosexual agenda at the international level, a commitment that the Lula regime has fulfilled with a rare enthusiasm.  In 2003, 2004, and 2005 it introduced resolutions in the United Nations to declare homosexual orientation as a protected “right,” but failed in every case.  In 2006, the Lula administration began pushing the resolution within the Organization of American States (OAS), although to date it has not passed in that venue either.

Those who wish to contact Julio Severo may do so through his email address which is found at http://www.blogger.com/profile/03079977728841299575. He speaks English. His English blog can be found at http://lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com/, and his Portuguese blog’s address is http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/.

For more information about what is being referred to as the rise of homosexual “fascism” in Brazil, readers may contact the Brazilian philosopher Dr. Olavo de Carvahlo at olavo@olavodecarvalho.com.

Source: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07073108.html

TAKE ACTION:  Read the C-FAM alert below and contact the White House using their comment page or call the White House comment line today (202-456-1111).  (You also can e-mail a comment to the U.S. State Department HERE or call their comment line at: 202-647-6575.) Respectfully urge the President to stop using the authority and goodwill of the United States of America to promote the normalization of homosexuality abroad. Tell the Administration that you oppose the USA voting to approve coveted United Nations consulting status for organizations whose mission is to push a pro-homosexuality agenda — including radically redefining marriage and promoting dangerous GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) “identities” to vulnerable youth — on unsuspecting nations.

 

HATE CRIMES/ENDA ALERT:  While you’re at it, e-mail or call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill and the pro-homosexual/transsexual employment ENDA bill — which we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Businesses Bill” – which threaten to federalize “sexual orientation” law, thus curtailing your “freedom to be moral.”  Call 202-224-3121 or visit http://www.congress.org/.

Certainly, we as a nation can and should support true human rights without crusading for the acceptance of immoral lifestyles. Genuine human rights — and civil rights — are not based on sex, especially deviant sex. Countries should have the right to regulate homosexual sodomy — as we did in America from our inception until 2003, when the Supreme Court reversed a 17-year-old precedent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy law case. We should be careful as the world’s most powerful nation not to push the American Secular Left’s decadent values — abortion, homosexuality, condom “sex ed” – on poor countries. Radicals used to call that cultural “imperialism.”

Having America become a leading promoter of immoral-sex-based rights masquerading as “human rights” is a far cry from President Reagan’s vision for this nation being a “shining city on a hill.” Write or call President Bush today: 202-456-1111.– Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Friday Fax, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)

July 26, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 32
Dear Colleague,

Radical homosexual groups are flooding the UN accreditation process for non-governmental organizations and they seem poised to cause serious problems for traditionally minded countries.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
 
Controversial UN Procedures Lead to UN Status for Homosexual Groups

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Overturning a prior decision by the NGO accrediting committee, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) voted to grant official consultative status to the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) in Geneva last week.

The voting process was mired in confusion over unclear language. Several delegate requests for clarification interrupted the roll-call vote and led Pakistan to call for a point of order and ask for a re-vote. No re-vote was taken. The motion to grant ECOSOC status passed with 22 countries voting in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and 6 absent.

An attorney for one NGO at the Geneva meeting told the Friday Fax, “Increasingly in the past several months, at meetings such as the CSW [Commission on the Status of Women], the Human Rights Council and now the ECOSOC council, there have been serious issues regarding transparency in the voting process.  After witnessing several of these types of incidents, one has to wonder whether voting at the UN really matters or if the result is preordained.”

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International launched intense lobbying campaigns preceding the ECOSOC vote to ensure that both groups’ applications would be approved. 

In January, the 19-member NGO accrediting committee, a subcommittee of the ECOSOC, rejected CGLQ’s application and deferred RFSL’s request. Despite the fact that there had been a thorough examination of the evidence, the representative of the United Kingdom charged that the rejection of the homosexual rights groups was “straightforward discrimination.”

Debates within the NGO accrediting committee meetings over applications from homosexual rights groups have become increasingly heated in the last few years. While the ECOSOC council almost always accepts subcommittee recommendations, it has made exceptions twice in the last year in order to accredit radical homosexual groups.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), an NGO that was stripped of its ECOSOC status because of ties to pedophilia and whose repeated attempts to regain ECOSOC status have been denied, launched an international campaign in 2006 to encourage all of its 550 affiliate organizations to submit NGO applications for UN consultative status. Many have applied and been accepted.

ECOSOC members voting in favor of granting status to CGQL and RFSL included  the United States, the United Kingdom, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Romania.

Voting against were Algeria, Belarus, Benin, China, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan.

Speaking to the press after the ECOSOC vote, CGLQ’s executive director and ILGA North America representative, Yvan Lapointe, said that his group now plans to use the UN as a platform for spreading “homosexual rights” to many of the same countries that voted against it.

For more news visit us at http://www.c-fam.org/; copyright 2007 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

We’ll have much more on this case and other cases evincing the growing threat of homosexual legal activism to basic religious freedoms:

Bishop Loses Gay Employment Case

BBC, July 18, 2007 

A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford diocesan board of finance.

Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was “delighted” at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006

It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard.

Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting and said he felt like “a total waste of space”.

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing.

“The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation,” said the judgement.

To read the full BBC story and watch related BBC videos on the case, click HERE

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

GLASGOW, Scotland, April 30 /Christian Newswire/ — With the Sexual Orientation Regulations becoming law at midnight last night the Scottish Christian Party has mailed 2 million anti- Sexual Orientation Regulation leaflets to voters in Scotland.

In the Glasgow and the Central region of Scotland ¾ million leaflets have been sent in personally addressed envelopes with a covering letter.

Reverend George Hargreaves, leader of the Scottish Christian Party said, “We intend to high-jack the political agenda as far Christians are concerned. The SOR’s are a far more urgent matter to many Scottish Christians than independence or any other current political issue. It is an assault on their faith and conscience.

Thursday is their chance to say ‘No!’ to the SORs.”

In the party’s election broadcast, aired on BBC and STV last Tuesday, the SORs were compared to anti- Semitic laws passed by the Nazis in the early 1930’s. The broadcast featured footage of Hitler addressing a rally in 1933.

Reverend Hargreaves noted, “We are turning the Holyrood elections into a de-facto referendum on the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Note to Editors: In 2000 Brian Souter’s Keep the Clause campaign gained the support of over 1 million Scots. The Scottish Christian Party are fielding 72 candidates across Scotland on the Regional List; more than any other political party.

…The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral…

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way:

“The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

…Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. [TAKE ACTION --] We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

From UK Government Program Teaching Four-Year-Olds about Homosexuality, by Gudrun Schultz, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Primary schools in the United Kingdom have begun teaching children as young as four about homosexuality, in anticipation of new anti-discrimination laws coming into effect next month, the Daily Mail reported earlier today.

Homosexuality-themed story books are being used in fourteen schools to introduce the children to the homosexual lifestyle. Among the texts in use are “King and King,” a fairy-tale about a prince who rejects three princesses before falling in love with another prince, “Spacegirl Pukes,” about a little girl with two mommies, and “And Tango Makes Three,” telling the story of two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

The schools are participating in a new government-funded program that is aimed at studying the best approach to familiarize school children with homosexual relationships — the study results will be made available to all schools to assist them in utilizing the books to normalize homosexuality.

The £600,000 No Outsiders program also includes workshops for local councils to help with the implementation of the Equality Act banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, taking effect April 6.

Christian and pro-family organizations are deeply concerned that the new laws will leave schools vulnerable to lawsuits if they don’t incorporate homosexual material into their curriculums. Simon Calvert, spokesman for the Christian Insitute, told the Daily Mail the equality laws will result in schools being “compelled” to promote homosexuality to their students or face litigation.

“The predictions of those who said the repeal of Section 28 would result in the active promotion of homosexuality in schools are coming true,” Calvert said, referring to the decision to strike down the law banning promotion of homosexuality in the schools.

Although the Government has persisted in claiming that schools will remain at liberty to determine what they teach, a program leader emphasized the legal requirement to avoid any discrimination against homosexuals.

“The purpose of the project is to support schools in meeting their requirements under the Equality Act,” said Dr. Elizabeth Atkinson, lecturer in social and educational inquiry at Sunderland University, “which will require all public institutions to meet the needs of gay and lesbian users.”

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, composed of members of Parliament and the House of Lords, issued a report February 26, recommending that religious schools be forced to modify their religious teaching to comply with the sexual orientation regulations.

The report stated that while the regulations “would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” schools would not be permitted to teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true.”

“We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

The Christian Voice advocacy group is calling for parents to act, pledging to identify the schools where the books are in use so they can be pressured to remove them from the curriculum.

“The arrogance of people like Elizabeth Atkinson, using children as guinea pigs is outrageous and thoroughly wicked,” said director Stephen Green. “I am astonished at this project and we are trying to find out where these schools are to empower parents to put pressure on them to remove the books.”

GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION
SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

After spending 9 months drafting the proposed SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS (SORs), the Government have today published the final version of the new law without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs.

The SORs can be found by clicking HERE.

The Regulations, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful in relation to the provision of goods, services, premises, education and public functions, are due to come into force on the 30th April 2007.

Under the Regulations:

• It will be illegal for a Christian printer to refuse to print material promoting homosexual sex,
  
• It will be illegal for a Muslim website designer to refuse to build a website for homosexual dating, and
  
• It will be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to accept a booking from a Gay and Lesbian society who wish to hold a meeting promoting homosexual practices.

Thomas Cordrey, Barrister and Public Policy Analyst at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, commented:

“This legislation is unprecedented in its complete intolerance of those who have religious beliefs. The Government did not put forward a single piece of evidence to justify the need for the Regulations, they have ignored 72% of the public[1] who opposed their approach to this law, and they have ignored the majority of the 3000 responses to their consultation. Despite this weak basis to the law, the Government is prepared to take the landmark step of making it illegal for Christians to hold to the Bible’s clear teaching that God loves everyone and wants all people to know him, but also, that extra-marital sexual conduct (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is wrong.”

“To think that the Government would prefer to shut down the widespread and compassionate voluntary services provided by Christian adoption agencies, drug rehabilitation centres, homeless shelters and community centres, rather than accept that Christians should not be forced to promote homosexual practices, is astounding.”

Andrea Williams, Public Policy Officer at the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship commented:

“Whilst Christian groups have been clear from the outset that they would not in any way wish to deny the provision of basic goods and services to homosexuals, the Government have refused all calls that the Regulations should contain a simple clause that no-one should be forced by this law to promote or actively condone any sexual practices which are contrary to their deeply held religious belief.

“Rather than balancing rights the Government have chosen to draft these Regulations so that in almost every case the right to live a homosexual lifestyle trumps the right to live a religious lifestyle.

“Every concern held by the Church of England and Catholic Church on the issue of gay adoption is magnified by the publication of these Regulations. The new morality being imposed by the Government on the British people has just taken a giant leap forward.”

[1] See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll See the independent Communicate Research Opinion Poll

…The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow…

Update: Andrew Stuttaford raises an excellent point on the Corner.

The more interesting question however is the extent to which religious belief should be privileged above all others. You can, quite legitimately, question the range and definition of anti-discrimination laws, but once a democracy has put those laws in place, I can think of no particular reason why some people should be exempted from that law, simply on the grounds of religion. To do so is to say that religious belief is somehow more deserving of special protection than other (perhaps no less deeply held) ideologies, an idea that, however well-intentioned, is irrational at best, dangerous at worse.

And of course he is right! When general laws are passed, they must apply to all.

That is precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.

That was (or should have been obvious) from the start.

Continue reading at National Review…

Excerpted from UK: Religious Schools May Not Teach Christian Sexual Morals “As if They Were Objectively True”, by Hilary White, published Mar 5, 2007 by LifeSite News:

…The Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of members from Parliament and the House of Lords, has issued a report on the implementation [in April] of the [Sexual Orientation Regulations] recommending that religious schools be required to modify their religious instruction to comply with the government-approved doctrine of “non-discrimination”.

Although religious schools will be allowed to remain open and may continue to give instruction in various religious beliefs, instruction must be modified “so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.”

The report says the Regulations will not “prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful,” but they may not teach “a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true”.

Published February 26, the report says, “We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the sexual orientation regulations.”

…The homosexual political doctrine, accepted by the British as well as other governments, requires that no distinction be made between the person, the act and the condition or “orientation”, making any criticism of the movement’s political goals an offence against persons.

A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court’s Family Panel, even though he’s been recognized as having “an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates” because he is a Christian.

“This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society,” said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. “It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular ‘new morality’ and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children’s welfare.”

The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England’s Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be “screened” from such cases.

He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.

“Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption,” Williams said. “The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society.”

McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield…

The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.

“If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially,” the Tribunal ordered…

A report in the Telegraph said the decision came as the government in England prepared to introduce a plan to prevent homosexuals from being discriminated against in the “provision of goods and services.” And the report noted the Sexual Orientation Regulations now could require schools to give equal weight in sex education classes to homosexual and heterosexual practices.

Page 2 — Scots’ tax money at work…

Page 7 — “In order to avoid this confusion…”

Partners and “next of kin”
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status. Many people hold a mistaken belief that “next of kin” must be a married partner or blood relation. In order to avoid this confusion it may be advisable to use “partner, close friend or close relative”. This allows the patient to identify and choose who is important to them. For example, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 200310 defines the most important nearest relative (after spouse or civil partner) as a
cohabiting same-sex or opposite-sex partner.

Page 7 — Anthing but mom and dad…

Parenting
LGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. According to a Scottish wide survey (11), one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted into heterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into same-sex relationships or adopted by an LGB individual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using “parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”.

The booklet advocates “a zero-tolerance policy to discriminatory language” for health care workers in Scotland.

——————————-

Excerpted from Adopt? We Were ‘Too Idealistic’, published Jan 25, 2007, by Telegraph (UK):

…My husband and I are a typical, professional couple who left it too late to have children. We married in 1992, when I was in my late thirties. A few years later, I miscarried. In 2000, when we were in our mid-forties, we decided that we wanted to adopt.

We contacted various adoption agencies: all of them had a waiting list of about 18 months…

We were asked a lot of intrusive questions about our family backgrounds. This was understandable and we were happy to comply. James and I are both only children from happy family backgrounds, with parents who stayed together to the end of their lives. Although we first met in our twenties, we had split up. In the time apart, we had both become practising Christians…

We got the distinct impression that they had a real problem with our Christian faith, although our home is not overtly religious and neither are we. Would we want a child placed with us to accompany us to church? Would we put pressure on a child who didn’t want to go? We said that it wouldn’t be a problem because, if a child didn’t want to go to church, one of us would stay at home. We do not believe that you can ram Christianity down anyone’s throat; a child has to make up his or her own mind.

We were quite open in our belief that a child needs a male and a female role model. I said that a girl finds it easier to talk to another woman about periods and sex, for example, while a boy finds it easier to talk to his father.

The social workers were keen to know how we would react if a child announced that he or she was gay. We said that we believe that the same ground rules apply whether you are gay or heterosexual: that sex before marriage is wrong. We don’t believe in same-sex marriages but, if a child told us he or she was gay, we would still love that child, even if we didn’t agree with the lifestyle they chose…

At the end of the home assessment, the report concluded that we had too idealistic a view of family life and marriage and that this might prejudice a homosexual child: a gay child would see the way we live and feel that we wouldn’t be able to support him or her in their lifestyle. Why is it there isn’t the same concern about placing a heterosexual child with a homosexual couple who might not be able to support a heterosexual child?

Our home assessment report was put before the adoption panel and we were asked to explain our views. We did so, saying that they were based on our Christian faith. We later received a letter saying that we had been turned down as adoptive parents, that we were not suitable for any of the children they had to place and that we would have to reconsider our views on homosexuality…

If you start compromising your faith, you might as well throw it out. We have written to the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering to ask for it to be included in their guidelines that candidates are not asked questions that compromise their faith.

Continue reading in Telegraph…

Excerpted from Bleating Hearts, by Mark Steyn, by Jan 8, 2007, at Washington Times:

As part of this column’s ongoing commitment to in-depth coverage of the issues that matter, we’re pleased to present the first of a new series: Sheep In The News. Here are two headlines from the last week.

From The Wall Street Journal: “Ritual sacrifice? Not on my street, some Belgians say.” And from The Sunday Times of London: “Science told: Hands off gay sheep.”

The first story is about the 25,000 sheep in Brussels who a few days ago found themselves pointed toward Mecca and then slit through the throat and bled to death.

Muslims do this to celebrate Eid al-Adha, which commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son to God and God’s willingness to settle for a ram in lieu. The Belgian Muslim population has grown so fast that there aren’t enough places in the city to perform the ritual sacrifice, and come Eid it’s like sheep drivetime at every Brussels slaughterhouse, with rams backed up ram-to-ram as far as the eye can see.

As reported by the Journal, Mohamed Mimoun grabbed his sheep, took a number and realized he was in for a two-hour wait. Even worse, en route to the slaughterhouse, he was stopped by a cop and fined for having the sheep in the trunk of his Toyota. By law, the sheep is supposed to ride in the rear passenger seats. Baa, baa, back seat.

On which note, let us turn to the gay sheep. Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they’ve had “considerable success” with injecting hormones into the rams’ brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of “Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe.”

Gay groups (human gay groups, that is: Even America does not yet have a 24/7 gay sheep lobby group with offices on K Street) are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, “the right of sheep to be gay”…

Continue reading at Washington Times…

Andrew McClintock, an 18 year veteran in magistrate court on the South Yorkshire Bench, is suing the British Department for Constitutional Affairs for discrimination against his religious beliefs.  McClintock says that he had no option but to resign when his superiors told him that he would not be permitted to refuse to place children in adoptive homes with homosexual parents.  McClintock says to do so would directly contradict his Christian beliefs that homosexuality is immoral.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, has warned the Government of a serious backlash if it attempts to force through a raft of new homosexual rights laws.

Archbishop Nichols said that the proposed regulations, designed to ensure equal treatment for gays, could mean the end of the Church’s co-operation with the Government in providing a range of welfare services.

Church officials also believe that the its seven adoption agencies could be closed if they were required to place children with gay couples in defiance of Vatican guidelines.

Speaking in St Chad’s cathedral in Birmingham, the Archbishop that the Government “must realise is that it is not possible to seek cooperation with us while at the same time trying to impose upon us conditions which contradict our moral values.”

…The Archbishop, who forced the Government into a humiliating climbdown over faith schools early this month, said the process of secular democracy in Britain was not morally neutral but was “engaged in an intense and at times aggressive reshaping of our moral framework”.

…The proposed regulations could also force Christian marriage preparation and guidance agencies to cater for same sex couples and would not allow parishes, retreat houses, conference centres and hostels to refuse bookings from gay and lesbians.Faith schools could be compelled to teach that homosexuality was the moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

…Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative minister, said that the proposals spelled the “end of freedom of conscience in our country”.

“They create a hierarchy of rights and whenever a homosexual right comes up against any other right the homosexual right prevails,” she said, adding that the Government “seems to have no clue that practising a religion means more than going to church”.

Continue reading in Telegraph…