A press release dated Jan 22, 2007, from Repent America:

On Friday, January 19, 2007, United States District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted summary judgment to both the City of Philadelphia and Philly Pride Presents, Inc. in the federal lawsuit brought by the Philadelphia Eleven.

PHILADELPHIA ELEVEN AFTER THEIR VINDICATION BY A PHILADELPHIA CRIMINAL COURT

On October 10, 2004, six men and five women with Repent America (RA), who became known as the Philadelphia Eleven, were arrested while ministering the Gospel on the public streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia at a $10,000 tax-payer funded celebration of homosexuality called “OutFest,” which was organized by Philly Pride Presents, Inc.

Prior to their arrest, the Christians were confronted by a militant mob of homosexuals known as the “Pink Angels” who blew loud whistles and carried large pink signs in front of them to block their message and access to the event, while others screamed obscenities. The Philadelphia police, under the direction of Chief Inspector James Tiano, the City’s “police liaison to the gay and lesbian community,” refused to take any action as the Christians were continuously followed, obstructed, and harassed, even though they respectfully cooperated with police, obeying orders to move, short of being directed out of the event.

After spending 21 hours in jail, Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s office charged them under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law called “Ethnic Intimidation,” along with a host of other felony and misdemeanor charges. If convicted, the Philadelphia Eleven could have faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines each. These charges were later dismissed by Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Pamela Dembe as being without merit. Subsequently, on October 21, 2005, the Philadelphia Eleven filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia and Philly Pride Presents, Inc. for violations of their civil rights.

In his decision, Judge Stengel sided with the defendants, explaining that police were permitted to discriminate against the plaintiffs because of safety concerns coupled by Philly Pride Presents’ securement of a permit from the City to hold the $10,000 tax-payer funded celebration of homosexuality on the public streets, covering fifteen city blocks. Although Stengel conceded “the activity in question took place in a public forum,” and that “there is no doubt that the venue for Outfest, a designated section of streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia, was a public place,” he concluded that “once the City issued a permit to Philly Pride for OutFest, it was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages.”

“Obviously, we are very disappointed. We believe that the law clearly supports the rights of the plaintiffs in this case, as well as all individuals, to be able to engage in free speech activities on the public streets and sidewalks,” stated Ted Hoppe, attorney for the Philadelphia Eleven. “We do not believe that the fact that there was an event also taking place, even with a permit, diminishes that right,” Hoppe concluded.

“I cannot even begin to comprehend what Judge Stengel’s thought process was in making this decision,” stated RA director Michael Marcavage upon hearing the decision. “This ruling was entirely unexpected considering that all the evidence has been overwhelmingly in our favor, complete with video documentation, not to mention the fact that all eleven of us were vindicated of any wrongdoing in criminal court,” he continued.

“It is without question that Judge Stengel’s decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a ‘permitting scheme’ can be used by police and event organizers to ‘exclude persons expressing contrary messages’ in public areas and at public events. It is for this reason that his ruling is especially troubling and must be overturned,” Marcavage stated. “Christians must be free to speak the truths of God’s Word, warn the wicked, and to preach the Gospel in the public square without interference from government, and therefore, we will continue to battle for these God-given liberties by appealing this decision,” Marcavage concluded.

“When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” — Ezekiel 33:8-9

Note: You may read the version on Philly Pride’s website to decide which you believe to be true. Remember to pray for our enemies and for those caught up in sin.

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email — Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

As the new Congress convenes in January, hate crimes legislation and ENDA (employment non-discrimination) are high on the priority list. Read on to see where similar legislation has taken our British friends…

Excerpted from Homophobia Spies in the Classroom, published Dec 28, 2006, by Evening Standard:

Schools that fail to show enthusiasm in rooting out prejudice against homosexuals should be reported to the police by pupils and parents, a Home Office report recommended yesterday.

It called for parents and children to identify schools that ignore “homophobic” language in the playground and teachers who produce “homophobic” lessons.

And it called for head teachers to bring lessons about “homophobia” on to school timetables and to involve their pupils in gay “awareness weeks”.

The advice from Home Secretary John Reid‘s officials comes at a time of deep concern among churches that new gay rights laws due next spring will bar traditional teaching on sexual morality in schools and force them instead to include gay rights dogma in lessons.

The paper on “homophobic hate crime” is aimed at guiding police forces, local authorities, social services and schools among other public bodies.

…Urging that school incidents be reported to a “hate crime co-ordinator”…It called for reporting systems to “allow pupils and parents to make referrals direct if they feel the school is not taking the issue seriously.”

The report added: “The seriousness of using homophobic language is not fully appreciated in schools…”

Home Office minister Tony McNulty [Minister for Police & Security, pictured right] said: “…People who commit homophobic crime need to know their prejudices and actions will be tackled…”

…Colin Hart (pictured left) of the Christian Institute think tank that backed the Roberts said yesterday: “There is an element of desperation about this advice. No-one wants to see any kind of bullying in schools. But this is not about bullying of pupils who others think are homosexual. It is about punishing schools unless they try to stop pupils using “gay” as a perjorative word.”

…The Home Office guidance also said that gay lobby groups could set up “third party reporting centres” to pass to police details of “homophobic” incidents which gay individuals themselves have been too scared to report to police.

Police should then record the names and details of individuals passed on by gay lobby groups, it said.

Continue reading in Evening Standard…

“We curse the spirit that would come
to bring about same-sex marriage …

We ask you to just look over this place today,
cause them to be shaken in their very heart
in uprightness, Lord, to do [what] is right before you.”

–– Rev. Vincent Fields’ prayer in the New Jersey senate chamber

By Peter LaBarbera

In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a war between good and evil going on in this country, between those who agree with God and those who fight for worldly and immoral agendas — homosexuality, abortion, pornography — that He opposes.

On Monday, the Rev. Vincent Fields (pictured above), having been invited to give the honorary invocation for the New Jersey State Senate, acted on a prompting from the God he serves. For that reason, this preacher will not be invited back to pray in an official capacity for New Jersey lawmakers.

Rev. Fields, (pictured above), pastor of Greater Works Ministries in Pleasantville, N.J., said that when he arrived Monday, he didn’t plan on praying against “gay marriage,” but “the Holy Spirit took over, and I had to pray what He said.”

Here is Rev. Fields’ prayer: “We curse the spirit that would come to bring about same-sex marriage … We ask you to just look over this place today, cause them to be shaken in their very heart in uprightness, Lord, to do [what] is right before you.”

After offense was taken at Rev. Fields’ too-truthful prayer, New Jersey’s Senate President Richard Codey (D) told the Newark Star-Ledger that Rev. Fields will “not be back” to pray in the Senate. The reverend needn’t fret; he is in good company: I doubt that the real, holy God of the Bible has been welcome in that chamber for quite some time. Yesterday was a case in point, as the New Jersey legislature passed a bill legalizing “civil unions” — counterfeit “same-sex marriage” in everything but the name — with an ease that makes one wonder if the Church in the Garden State is in hibernation.

Blue state New Jersey has become a bastion of officially-sanctioned secular immorality: you may recall that the state’s highest court voted 4-3 to mandate that the legislature pass either “gay marriage” or “gay marriage lite” (civil unions) — and the three dissenters were upset only that the court didn’t go all the way and require FULL “gay marriage.” In other words, not a single justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court — including several appointed by Republican governor Christine Todd Whitman — had a problem with giving marital-type rights and privileges to homosexuals.

Getting back our passion

Too often in the cultural debate over homosexuality, the debate is reduced to secular studies and research (e.g., how studies show that it’s better for children to have a mom and a dad). These are worthy pursuits because secular research validates divine truth, and many Americans have closed their minds to the Bible.

That said, appeals to God, the Bible and morality are the most powerful motivators in this struggle because they cut to the heart — at least for Christians. The less often Scripture is spoken in public debates, the less relevant it becomes to society. Surely the vast majority of serious Christians and religious people in the United States would agree with Rev. Fields’ prayer: there IS an ungodly spirit that surrounds the promotion of homosexuality. It is manifested in all aspects of the movement — from the hyper-promiscuity in the “gay” male world to the latest in “queer” theology, which twists the holy Scriptures to claim that homosexuality is a “gift from God.”

And, yes, this ungodly spirit is also found in the quest for domesticated, monogamous homosexuality that merely “regularizes sin,” to quote Rob Gagnon, while still mocking and radically redefining God’s perfect design for marriage and family.

Many of us are intimidated against speaking out on God’s behalf, but the “gay” lobby is quite willing to fill the void — “preaching” at us with its slick but morally bankrupt message that “being gay” is naturally “who they are,” and demonizing Christians as “haters.” They can redefine words all they want, but homosexual behavior will always be wrong, and “gay pride” is direct rebellion against God.

Truth is, homosexual sin is so egregious that the Bible calls it an “abomination” — crying out for judgment by all those who agree with God. If it is not wrong for men to commit sodomitic perversions with other men, and women with women — what Noah Webster termed a “crime against nature” in a wiser age — then nothing is wrong. Sterile public policy debates often fail to convey the moral outrage of legitimizing this destructive lifestyle, as do religious compromisers like Peggy Campolo who seek to make an accommodation with homosexuality, often out of pity for friends or relatives trapped in this lifestyle.

An America where you can’t judge anything as wrong — except Bible-believing Christians and “intolerant” religious people — is a banal and spiritually lifeless America, its moral energy sapped out of it. This is liberalism today. Behold how quickly social liberals like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) moved from considering homosexual “domestic partnership” (and eschewing “gay marriage”) to now embracing homosexual “marriage” as a civil right. And why not? They have no moral absolutes, or at least they don’t share God’s: if you can rationalize the legalized slaughter of innocent unborn life and call it a “choice,” why not let two guys or two ladies “playing house,” to quote ex-homosexual Stephen Bennett, call their arrangement a “marriage”?

Most Americans still call themselves Christian in this country, but when Christianity tolerates everything, it means nothing. There IS such a thing as “God’s side” of some core issues, and those who embrace homosexuality, abortion and pornography ain’t on it.

This is the season to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ came to save men from their sins. The Bible says that those who reject Christ stand condemned (John 3:16-18), but that He offers forgiveness and spiritual rebirth to all, including repentant homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). (Yes, there were “ex-gays,” so to speak, in Bible times.) If there is no sin, then there is no need for Christ. Pro-family advocates are often accused of arrogance for “judging” homosexuality as wrong, but the real arrogance comes from those who would effectively pronounce God (and His Word) a liar, because they — frail, created humans on this earth but a moment in the vast scope of time — know better than He does about what’s right and wrong.

In New Jersey, it’s easy to despair as homosexual activists claim yet another court-assisted victory, and all we have for inspiration is Rev. Fields’ Holy Spirit-led prayer. But the faithful pastor actually points the way back for our nation. Secular studies and catchy sound-bites will not bring a return of God’s blessing, but spiritual revival and repentance will — by bringing about godly humility and a desire to obey His moral laws, and creating a newfound wonder at His marvelous creation, including marriage and the family.

To bring about that repentance we need many more like Vincent Fields, men and women who are willing to cast off the shackles of Political Correctness and speak God’s truth to a dying culture. Some will say that Rev. Fields is only the latest casualty in America’s Culture Wars. To me, he is a loyal soldier who refused to squelch the voice of God to please men.

Peter LaBarbera is the president of Americans For Truth.

For background on this debate, see PFOX Official: Homosexual Activists Want to Censor Ex-‘Gay’ Message, by Jim Brown, published Nov 16, 2006, by Agape Press.

From MCPS [Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools] Flyer Distribution Policy: Should Organizations Be Allowed to Distribute Material with Report Cards?, Pia Nargundkar vs Iliya Smithka, published Nov 28, 2006, by Silver Chips (student newspaper at Montgomery Blair High School):

Iliya Smithka says YES: Organizations have the right to free speech within schools.

According to the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) website, flyers can be sent home with Blair students when report cards are handed out, on Nov. 10, Feb. 1 and April 11. On Nov. 10, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) distributed an inoffensive and informational flyer about the organization, much to the displeasure of many students and parents. These same students and parents must realize that the flyer policy supports nonprofit organizations’ right to free speech and a free market society.

Excerpted from Clemson Exonerates Student Group, Will Review Policy on ‘Free-Speech Zones’, by Jim Brown and Jody Brown, published Dec 4, 2006, by Agape Press:

There’s been a major First Amendment victory for students at a prestigious university in South Carolina, where a conservative student group has been absolved of charges stemming from its protest of a pro-homosexual event on campus.

Clemson University had a policy that designated only two areas on the campus for students to assemble. Even within those areas, students were required to obtain permission from three different administrative offices 72 hours prior to any planned event. However, after the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent a letter to the school, arguing the policy — in violation of the U.S. Constitution — made spontaneous demonstrations impossible, Clemson set aside the policy for review and is allowing the entire campus to be open to free speech.

Samantha Harris, FIRE’s director of legal and public advocacy, explains that a student group known as the Clemson Conservatives had been charged with a violation of the “free-speech zone” policy for protesting a pro-homosexual “marriage” event staged by the Clemson Gay-Straight Alliance. In late October the conservative group had requested, but was denied, permission to stage their protest at a location outside one of the zones — then proceeded with the protest nonetheless.

According to a FIRE press release, campus police did not interrupt the protest, but deployed police officers to videotape the event. Subsequently the university’s Office of Judicial Conduct found Clemson Conservatives guilty of staging a protest in a “non-designated area” and administered an “admonition” and “censure” sentence, along with a warning to the group that
further transgressions of the policy could result in suspension.

The Clemson Conservatives appealed to FIRE for assistance. Now, since FIRE’s letter to the school in early November, Clemson has expunged the charges from the group’s record.

Harris says “so-called ‘free-speech zones'” are “odd and highly inappropriate” on America’s university campuses these days — but that, unfortunately, such policies are all too common. “I think that in a lot of cases it’s kind of a misguided attempt by universities to make sure that
demonstrations and the like don’t disrupt classes, et cetera,” she says, “but of course, you could accomplish that aim with a much, much narrower policy.”

Excerpted from Christian Magistrate Forced To Resign For Refusing to Place Children In Gay Homes, by Meg Jalsevac, published Nov 28, 2006, by LifeSite News:

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…

By Linda Harvey of Mission America:

These incidents–vandalism, assault, intimidation–are ALREADY crimes under existing law. Adding extra punishment for “sexual orientation” incidents only makes homosexuals receive more protection than others. Is this fair?

“Hate crimes” have DECREASED in recent years, including those for sexual orientation…Check out the FBI’s web site on hate crimes, and read the stats for yourself.

These laws are a back door way to “bless” homosexuality, because they imply that it’s wrong to oppose the behavior.

We have had a law (since 1990) that enables law enforcement to count sexual orientation among hate crimes, but not to give extra punishment. Those extra penalties are what is currently being sought.

But just based on the 1990 federal law, some school districts started “anti-bias” lessons that included sexual orientation along with race and religion. Kids through curricula like the anti-Christian “Healing the Hate” middle school program, are indoctrinated to not only approve homosexuality, but to believe anyone who opposes it is evil and potentially violent. This classic propaganda is sure to escalate if a federal law is passed that gives offenders in incidents involving “sexual orientation” extra punishment.

The laws we have now are fine for protecting all citizens against crime. The new proposal is based on the lie that homosexuals are an unchanging minority who are “born that way,” which is not supportable by research or observed sexual practices of U.S. adults.

It also threatens the religious liberty of those who believe this is a harmful and sinful lifestyle. Hate crimes laws that include sexual orientation are being used in other countries to indict and fine Christians, even pastors, who publicly oppose homosexuality. Given the aggressiveness and ceaseless demands of “gay” activists,do we want to lose that right?

For the protection of our children against indoctrination and for the protection of our freedom to oppose homosexuality and to believe the whole Gospel, we must make Congress understand our opposition to adding “sexual orientation” to hate crimes laws.