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]
President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by Obama who is charged with promoting the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy.
The reinstatement of Randy Berryas Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons is another defeat for pro-family advocates who were counting on Trump to remove homosexual activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy.
Berry is a career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic. He was given the “LGBT Envoy” position of in 2015, to the applause of LGBT activists. Berry is also a homosexual and “gay” activist himself dedicated to seeing other nations adopt an immoral, modern Western legal system that grants “rights,” including marriage, based homosexuality and gender deviance.
Strike Three
This is Strike Three for Trump in terms of major pro-homosexual actions after his election:
He said in an interview as President-elect that SCOTUS’ homosexual “marriage” ruling, Obergefell, is “settled” law (it’s not, any more than Roe v. Wade is, or the pro-sodomy-law Bowers v. Hardwick decision was);
He now continues Obama’s pro-LGBTQ foreign policy promoting unnatural behaviors and sexual sin as “human rights.”
On the plus side, Trump has discontinued Obama’s policy of pushing transgender bathroom and locker room “rights” in public schools (allowing gender-confused boys in girls’ private spaces). And he nominated a conservative judge, Neil Gorsuch, to the U.S. Supreme Court, although we have no idea how Gorsuch would rule on LGBTQ issues, assuming he gets in.
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.
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]
Not “Equal,” Not Even Close: LGBTQ activists are loathe to discuss and debate the manifold disproportionate health risks associated with their unnatural lifestyles. Order this new book by our friends at MassResistance through Amazon HERE.
Special Book Offer: Despite the ubiquitous media and LGBTQ propaganda, homosexuality is NOT a normal variant of human sexual behavior. To help you prove that obvious point to others, we are offering the thoroughly-documented, 600-page Mass Resistance book, “Health Hazards of Homosexuality,” which we are making available through AFTAH for $20 postpaid. Order it online here with your gift of at least $20 [note book order in the Comments box], or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, noting the book order. “Progressives” despise this book, and you’ll know why when you get a copy!
________________________
Folks, homosexual health risks are the elephant in the “gay” living room that is often denied by anti-science “gay” activists, and rarely gets the attention it deserves from squeamish conservatives and Christians. I know and trust the author of this MassResistance book, and that person has excellent research skills. The book has 1,800 endnotes–including some citing articles by AFTAH and this writer–so it is loaded with “inconvenient truths” and uncomfortable realities about LGBTQ behaviors and lifestyles that Big Gay Inc and their media lackeys do not want you to know.
I just bought my copy of “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality“ off Amazon (available only in Kindle e-book format). Go HERE to buy yours today. Stay tuned for much more on this terrific resource. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
________________________
Below is the author’s description of the book on Amazon:
“Health Hazards of Homosexuality” brings together in one resource up-to-date information on the serious physical and mental health issues experienced by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. This e-book includes 1,800 endnotes with live links to sources including the CDC, medical and mental health professional associations, medical research, GLB advocacy groups and websites, and the mainstream media. Numerous documentary color photos enliven the text.
The book looks at reasons for the higher levels of pathology (in both physical and mental health) experienced by these sexual minority groups, including life experiences, lifestyle choices, and risky sexual practices.
The book begins with discussion of the social and institutional context, summarizes estimates of the GLB population, and dismantles the “born that way” myth. Several chapters look at the higher incidence of mental health disorders exhibited by many in the GLB community, including depression, anxiety, suicidality, substance use, partner abuse, and BDSM practices. [BDSM is a sadomasochism acronym that stands for–according to its aficionados–“Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism.” No wonder they’re now calling it “Kink” for media and cultural mainstreaming purposes.–AFTAH]
The general public has not been told the whole truth about sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS) and other illness following from the behaviors associated with GLB sexual orientations. Gays and bisexual men, in particular, are most vulnerable and are driving recent increases in STD incidence. Our nation’s youth, male and female, are suffering from the fallout and are experiencing startling increases in STDs.
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.
