Matt Barber lost his job at Allstate due to pro-homosexual activism. He says it’s a canard that Christians are “focusing too much” on this issue. Why do some Christians feel guilty about opposing a homosexual lobby that is so brazen it now openly promotes homosexual activity as normal to innocent, young children? (See page from “King and King” children’s book below.)

Folks, my good friend Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America and Americans For Truth Board Member, is right on in this excellent essay rebutting the increasingly common complaint that Christians are focusing too much on homosexuality. 

I find it curious at this juncture in American history when the homosexual lobby is at the zenith of its power — and on the verge of passing an oppressive, sweeping federal bill creating special workplace privileges based on people’s inclination toward aberrant sex — that Christians of all people would urge a de facto public policy and cultural retreat in opposing that movement.

Why are so many people of faith riddled with guilt in opposing a sin-based movement that threatens everybody’s religious and First Amendment freedoms? Perhaps it’s because many Christians, far from “hating gays,” as the trendy accusation goes, are intimidated by the liberal media and no longer agree with their Creator  that homosexual acts are an egregiously sexual sin.

 Eastman Kodak Company now gives preferential treatment to homosexual-owned “minority” subcontractors, and proudly gives funds to the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. (GLSEN sponsored the notorious “Fistgate” workshop in 2000 and promotes homosexuality- and transsexuality-affirming lessons for grade schoolers.) Would Kodak be emboldened under an ENDA law to restrict “anti-gay” discussions or speech among its employees?

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Professor Rob Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, examines the potential assaults on liberty if the ENDA bill (Employment Nondiscrimination Act, H.R. 3685) becomes law. Gagnon’s paper, “Don’t ENDAnger Your Liberties in the Workplace,” is a must read, as it delves into the potential reactions (and over-reactions) of corporation managers to a federal law that bans “discrimination” based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”). Check out these scenarios offered by Gagnon:

• Suppose in the lunchroom or at the water cooler you engage in a conversation about sexual ethics. If a fellow employee extols homosexual bonds and you express your moral reservations about such bonds, you or the company could be liable for an anti-discrimination lawsuit for creating an intimidating atmosphere in the workplace that adversely affects the standing of a person who is vocal about his or her homosexual activity.
• Let’s say that, in response to “diversity” posters, you post on your cubicle the text of Rom 1:24-27. Or in response to a corporate directive that you participate supportively in a “Coming Out Day” you respectfully decline because you find homosexual practice to be morally offensive. Or in an attempt to get exempted from the email list of the company’s “GLBT” organization (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender) you send an email requesting to be removed from the list because you think homosexual practice is immoral. In all these circumstances, you are far more likely to be disciplined or fired, and to have no legal redress, with an “ENDA” in place than without it.
• As a means of protecting the company against “discrimination” lawsuits, your employer may require you to attend indoctrination seminars that stress that homosexuality is as morally neutral as race or sex; and, moreover, to participate in “coming out” celebrations in the workplace that affirm “sexual diversity.” Your employer may further prohibit, under penalty of termination, any conversation, written communication, or act that calls homosexual practice into question.
• While homosexual and bisexual persons will have their jobs protected under this act, your job status and advancement will have no such protections if you manifest “discriminatory” words against homosexual behavior. Indeed, not only will your religious convictions not be protected in a secular workplace, but also they will be treated as “bigotry” akin to racism and sexism. Corporations don’t generally hire or promote bigots. It is not good for business.
• Monitoring of “discriminatory” beliefs toward homosexual and bisexual persons could even extend, at least in the case of white collar employees, outside the workplace. For example, if a school teacher has published in a newspaper a letter that advocates that society not provide legal incentives for homosexual practice, or offers counseling for those seeking to come out of the homosexual life, the courts could rule (as the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago) that the employer is entitled to take such discriminatory views into consideration in suspending or firing the employee.

Gagnon’s entire paper can be viewed in HTML format HERE or as a PDF document HERE. Also see Americans For Truth’s special report on ENDA, “14 Good Reasons to Oppose H.R. 3685, the ‘ENDA Our Freedom” Bill.”

Janice Shaw Crouse (JCrouse@cwfa.org) of CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute deals with the elephant in the room in this excellent article, reprinted from Concerned Women for America’s website (emphasis added). Crouse is one of the few public policy experts to puncture the latest propaganda theme pushed by ‘AIDS activists’ — i.e., “heterosexual women” as the leading growth group for contracting the disease. As she states, “The fine print reveals that the heterosexual category includes persons who have had sex with bisexual men and drug users.” In other words, reckless behaviors including anal sex — not heterosexuality — are the problem. Please help us give this article the widest circulation possible. –Peter LaBarbera 

Anybody Can Get It?    

Published by Concerned Women for America, Oct. 17, 2007

By Janice Shaw Crouse, Beverly LaHaye Institute

The politically correct mantra about HIV/AIDS is that “anybody can get it

The politically correct mantra about HIV/AIDS is that “anybody can get it.” This half-truth is as bizarre as pointing to the tragic death of professional naturalist Steve Irwin, best known as “The Crocodile Hunter,” and saying “anyone can die from the barb of a stingray.” There is an obvious missing piece in both instances. You’re not going to die from a stingray’s barb unless you dive in waters that are home to stingrays. Likewise, unless you (1) Have intimate sexual contact with someone who is infected with the HIV/AIDS virus, (2) Share contaminated needles to do drugs, or (3) Are a healthcare worker who comes in direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person (or as in the heartrending case of Kimberly Bergalis, who contracted AIDS from her infected dentist), you will not, I repeat, you will NOT contract HIV/AIDS.

Another phony slogan foisted off on the public is that women are the “new face of HIV/AIDS.” These myths are among the pernicious efforts to disperse the stigma associated with a disease that is almost exclusively a homosexual male and drug addict epidemic. Insidious myths like these leave today’s young people misinformed, misled and, thus, unprotected.

In fact, Unprotected is the title of an important book that every parent of teenage children needs to read. It exposes the political correctness that leaves college students especially vulnerable to a whole range of health and emotional problems. The author, Miriam Grossman, M.D., is a psychiatrist who has worked for two decades with college students and served during the past decade at the student health center at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Others have commented on various aspects of Dr. Grossman’s exposé of the biases that harm students at university student health centers. I was especially appalled that basic medical knowledge about the transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus is kept from students. In spite of the fact that we are now well past the quarter century mark in the AIDS epidemic, and in spite of the fact that 1 in every 500 college students may be HIV positive, basic HIV/AIDS information is not known by the general public; our students in particular, the very ones most in need of truth to reinforce self-discipline, are not fully informed about the facts.

We treat HIV/AIDS differently from any other public health threat. While doctors are required by law to report nearly 50 communicable diseases (including tuberculosis, measles, syphilis, meningitis), and people with those communicable diseases are ordered by law to get treatment or go to jail, United States laws prohibit disclosure of anyone’s HIV status. Even the HIV tests use a code name to avoid identifying any infected persons. Thus, the only way anyone knows that a person has the virus is if that information is voluntarily given.

 This photo of ACLU activist (or should we say actress?) Sarah Loy crying at the rally where she falsely accused pro-family advocate Larry Cirignano of violently assaulting her, appeared in the December 17, 2007, Worcester Telegram and Gazette’s initial report of the incident. Telegram Reporter Richard Nangle (rnangle@telegram.com) wrote that Cirignano “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.” But a jury rejected this story, which echoed Loy’s account. (The jury found that Loy tripped rather than being pushed.) Nangle, testifying in court, could not find himself among enlarged photos of people at the center of the rally crowd — casting into doubt whether he could have seen what actually transpired.  Nevertheless, a defiant Nangle says he “stands by everything” that he originally reported. Telegram photo is by Paul Kapteyn. 

By Peter LaBarbera

This is a fascinating case involving media bias: a reporter whose story was proven false — or at least not credible — in a court of law is “stand[ing] by everything ” he originally wrote.

On December 16, 2006, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette published a story under reporter Richard Nangle’s byline, regarding a pro-marriage rally in Worcester protested by Sarah Loy and the local ACLU. Nangle, an ACLU Board Member, reported that Catholic family advocate Larry Cirignano had “pushed [Loy] to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.”

Nangle’s vivid depiction of the alleged attack echoed Loy’s own charges of assault and battery against Cirignano, and helped created an impression in the public’s mind that she was a victim of violence (and that he was violent man who attacks women). A photo accompanying Nangle’s story (see above) showed Loy in tears at the rally scene. However, on October 22, a jury found Larry Cirignano innocent of assault and battery against Loy, a week after presiding Judge David Despotopulos had thrown out Loy’s “civil rights” complaint against him. See our story relaying MassRessistance’s account of the case and trial.

Here are the first three paragraphs in Nangle’s story, under the headline (which he did not necessarily write), “Worcester Rally Takes Ugly Turn; Gay Marriage Backer Pushed,” with emphasis added:

WORCESTER- Tempers boiled over at an anti-gay marriage rally yesterday when the executive director of the Boston-based Catholic Citizenship emerged from behind a lectern outside City Hall, rushed toward a female counter-demonstrator, and pushed her to the ground.

 

Sarah Loy, 27, of Worcester was holding a sign in defense of same-sex marriage amid a sea of green “Let the People Vote” signs when Larry Cirignano of Canton, who heads the Catholic Citizenship group, ran into the crowd, grabbed her by both shoulders and told her, “You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now.” Mr. Cirignano then pushed her to the ground, her head slamming against the concrete sidewalk.

 

“It was definitely assault and battery,” said Ronal C. Madnick, director of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Police interviewed Mr. Madnick and several others moments after the incident.

This is a wonderful piece by Scott Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Defend the Family International, and one of the early pro-family leaders opposing the homosexual activist agenda. — Peter LaBarbera

By Scott Lively

Hate has a pretty bad name in the world today. No one wants to be called a hater, especially Christians, which is probably why we get accused of it all the time by our opponents. Homosexuals are especially fond of calling people haters. They even invented the word homophobia, which means hate and fear of homosexuals, envisaged as a mental illness (a phobia is an anxiety disorder).

I hate being called a homophobe. It has such an ugly connotation. Its especially unpleasant because, as a Christian, I’m supposed to have a reputation for loving people, not hating them. So I’ve worked really hard over the years to try to get the homosexuals to stop calling me a homophobe.

I’ve pointed out the difference between hating people and hating their behavior (loving the sinner but hating the sin). They hated that. Then I tried “walking my talk” by taking an ex-“gay” man who was dying of AIDS into my family. My wife and I and our children loved and cared for him during the last year of his life. They hated that even more.

Then I began asking for guidance from homosexuals themselves: “Tell me, where is the line between homophobia and acceptable opposition to homosexuality?” I asked. “What if I just agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin no worse than any other sex outside of marriage?”

“No, that’s homophobic,” they replied. “Suppose I talk only about the proven medical hazards of gay sex and try to discourage people from hurting themselves?” “No, you can’t do that,” they said. “How about if I say that homosexuals have the option to change if they choose?” “Ridiculous” they answered. “Maybe I could just be completely positive, say nothing about homosexuality, and focus only on promoting the natural family and traditional marriage?” “That’s really hateful,” they replied.

After I while, I realized that the only way I could get them to stop calling me a homophobe was to start agreeing with them about everything. But here’s my dilemma: I honestly believe the Bible which says that homosexuality is wrong and harmful and that all sex belongs within marriage. I’ve also read the professional studies and know that “gay” sex hurts people because it goes against the design of their bodies. And I’m friends with a number of former homosexuals who are now married and living heterosexual lives. Do I have to give up my religion? Ignore scientific facts? Betray my friends? Is that the only way to avoid being called a hater and a homophobe?

There’s no escape. A homophobe is anyone who, for any reason, disapproves of homosexuality in any way, shape, manner, form or degree. This leaves me with just two choices: agree that everything about homosexuality is natural, normal, healthy, moral and worthy to be celebrated OR be labeled as a mentally ill, hate-filled bigot.

Am I wrong? Is there any way to openly disapprove of homosexuality without being a homophobe? “Gay” leaders, please set me straight on this.

Because if I’m right, that means the “gay agenda” is to stop everyone from following the Bible regarding sexual matters. It is, after all, their stated goal to “stamp out homophobia.” No more religious freedom. It’s also to suppress scientific research that has reached conclusions they don’t like, especially if it helps people to change their homosexual orientation back to a heterosexual one (ask the doctors and scientists at narth.com what they’ve had to endure). If it discourages homosexuality, even by implication, it’s homophobic and can’t be used.

There’s a queer reasoning behind all of this. Homosexuals call me names like bigot and homophobe, condemn my religion, mock my rational conclusions about social issues, impugn my motives, display intense hostility toward my actions, and curse my very existence, all under the justification that I’m a “hater.” But if I’m a “hater” for civilly opposing what they do, why aren’t they haters for uncivilly opposing what I do? Such a double standard, in the context of a public debate on “civil rights,” is not just hypocritical, it is surreal.

I admit I have some hate. I hate watching people kill themselves with preventable diseases like AIDS. I hate seeing children being steered toward unhealthy lifestyles. I hate having my pro-family views distorted by dishonest journalists, politicians and academics. And I hate seeing my God being treated like a homophobe for what He teaches in His Bible.

So if you’re not going to stop calling me a “hater” for wanting homosexuals to be saved and healed, or for opposing their political agenda, let’s at least see a little more of that famous “American sense of fair play” in the public debate on this issue. Hatred of “haters” is hateful too.

Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.
Defend the Family International
PO Box 891023
Temecula, CA 92589
www.defendthefamily.com

Larry Cirignano (with yellow tie in bottom photo) with attorney Mike Gilleran, after their triumph over ACLU activist Sarah Loy’s harassing lawsuit. At top, ACLU Board Member Loy (in middle, holding sign) describes her phony “assault” to police after she disrupted Cirignano’s rally and then lied about him pushing her down. If you look closely, you can see Loy’s nose growing in the photo — not really. You can congratulate Larry for his court victory over the ACLU at larryvote@aol.com.

“That’s what hate does!”
— Massachusetts activist Sarah Loy’s chant after she had fallen to the ground at a pro-family meeting she was disrupting; a judge and jury found no basis for her claim that Larry Cirignano had pushed her in an attack on her “civil rights.”  

By Peter LaBarbera

Every freedom-loving American owes a debt of gratitude to Larry Cirignano and all those like him who refuse to give up or “settle” in the face of the radical Left’s lies, dirty tricks and intimidation tactics. Cirignano is a Catholic family advocate who was “set up” by an ACLU activist at a pro-marriage rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, turning the pro-family event into a 10-month personal nightmare. (See below, or go HERE to Mass Resistance’s excellent background story on the case; their final write-up is HERE.)

You simply won’t believe this case: alleged “victim” and pro-homosexual protester Sarah Loy invaded a pro-marriage rally on December 16, 2006; then, as Cirignano was leading her away from the rally that she was trying to disrupt, she fell to the ground and started screaming about “hate” as if he had attacked her! (You can view a sample of the leftist tripe on this website, which identifies Loy as a Board Member of ACLU.)

Loy claimed that Cirignano shoved her to the ground but the jury found that she tripped and fell. You can watch some amateur video footage of the rally HERE. (The video, which is of low quality, might be called, Anatomy of a Smear; a longer version of it, along with still photographs, was used in court to show that some of the government’s key “witnesses” to the alleged assault — including Richard Nangle of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, who reported it as fact — were not in the crowd but standing dozens of feet away.) 

The whole case is further proof — as if we needed it — that nobody lies like the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Left, whose members are so consumed with hatred for those defending life and the natural family that they will stoop to evil tactics like this in their ends-justify-the-means crusade to destroy them.

Loy’s story was a complete fabrication, but Worcester’s prosecutors — in bed with the ACLU, the liberal media, and the state’s powerful “gay” lobby — took it seriously, wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars and smearing a good man’s reputation in the process. 

Breaking News: White House helped craft religious language for pro-homosexual ENDA bill; AFTAH urges Bush to pledge to veto bill in any form

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in 2007. Four years later, passage of the ENDA bill — now HR 1397 — is a high priority of the Obama administration. Go HERE for a GovTrack report on the 2011 version of this dangerous bill. — Peter LaBarbera, May 16, 2011. 

AFTAH has learned that White House staffers helped negotiate the new religious exemption language for the radical homosexual employment bill ENDA, H.R. 3685. Will that make it harder for President Bush to veto ENDA should it pass Congress? Call or contact the President (202-456-1111; www.whitehouse.gov/contact) and urge him to veto ENDA in any form should it pass Congress.

By Peter LaBarbera 

BREAKING NEWS/URGENT UPDATE: Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private Administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill, H.R. 3685 (discussed below). Call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 (www.whitehouse.gov/contact) to urge him to publicly pledge to veto the dangerous ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bill, H.R. 3685 in ANY form should it pass.

At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the President would veto H.R. 3685, saying that they will wait to see the bill’s final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a “no-brainer” by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it. Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the President (202-456-111) and urge him to “please publicly pledge to veto ENDA, H.R. 3685, in any form if it passes Congress.”

Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA’s exemptions; we do not (see Points 8 and 13 below).  White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill. As you can read below, H.R. 3685’s current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply-held moral beliefs about homosexuality.

Also, CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN and SENATORS today and next week to oppose H.R. 3685, which is a watered-down version of a more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015 (see Point 10 below). Like H.R. 2015 — for which homosexual and transsexual activists are still crusading — H.R. 3685 has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal “rights” based on wrong and destructive lifestyles.
 
Yesterday, H.R. 3685 was voted out of the House Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 27-21 (some Democrats voted “no” because it wasn’t liberal enough; see Point 10 below). It is now headed for a House floor vote, possibly early next week. Call 202-224-3121 or go to http://www.congress.org/ to reach your Representative and U.S. Senators.

Here are 14 good reasons to oppose the revised ENDA, H.R. 3685:

1. ENDA and H.R. 3685 would create federally-protected “rights” based on immoral, unhealthy and changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior — masquerading as “orientation” — setting a dangerous legal, moral and spiritual precedent. Homosexuality is not a “civil right”; it is a human wrong — one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a Biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men’s hearts (including the lust for power, hence our system of checks and balances). The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality-affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic, “constitutional rights.” ENDA represents the complete rejection of the Judeo-Christian Western legal tradition by creating newfangled legal “rights” that actually reward errant lifestyles and sexual misbehavior.
2. ENDA/H.R. 3685  would be used to defend the placement of openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in our nation’s public schools in ALL localities (see # 7). For the more activist-minded homosexual teachers who are already in schools, H.R. 3685 could lead them to more boldly promote and discuss their lifestyle in the classroom, as schools could be sued for discrimination if they dared to discipline activist “gays.”
3. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would punish Christians and religious traditionalists by leading directly to the loss of freedom for tradition-minded business owners with 15 or more employees. Take the example of an Orthodox Jewish owner of a for-profit day-care business who would NEVER hire an avowed homosexual, lesbian or bisexual as a supervising adult care-giver, because he believes Scriptural teachings that homosexual practice is immoral and reflects poorly on one’s character. This religious man would qualify for the exemption to ENDA if he has 14 or less workers. But God forbid that his business grows to 15 or more employees, because then, under ENDA, he could no longer apply his religious and moral beliefs about same-sex sin in his hiring and firing decisions . It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their “moral” claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their “sexual orientation”) trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality.
4. ENDA is unnecessary: there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired; in fact, it is Christians defending their faith in the public square who are getting fired  and mistreated  — like Matt Barber, who was terminated by Allstate Insurance in 2005 after writing an online article on his own time critical of homosexual “marriage.”  Moreover, private companies are racing to create pro-homosexual policies on their own: Kodak now gives special preference to homosexually-owned subcontractors as one of several “minorities” receiving favored consideration. We strongly disagree with these “gay”-affirmative-action-type policies, but corporations have the right to pursue them. However, with the proliferation of such corporate programs, there is no need for the heavy hand of government to act as a corporate Big Brother, forcing all companies to affirm homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions. Let the free market decide this issue.
5. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would dramatically expand the power of the federal government and would put it behind ONE SIDE of the homosexuality debate: the politically correct and unbiblical claim that homosexuality is about “rights” and innocuous “orientations.” Therefore it would override traditional understandings of homosexuality as a changeable sin. Federal authority will be asserted to enforce homosexual “rights” over traditional Americans rights to operate their business according to their moral beliefs. At the very least, with half the nation still believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, the government should be neutral on this issue.
6. ENDA is a “gay” lawyer’s dream: it would be abused by litigious homosexual activists, who seem to have a special gift for lying about conservatives and exaggerating their own victim status. If history is a guide, ENDA will lead to “gay” harassment lawsuits against people like the theoretical day-care entrepreneur above. Homosexual activists have already used dirty tactics to harass and take down pro-family leaders like Larry Cirignano, Scott Lively, and Gary Glenn — all victims of trumped-up “gay” charges. Glenn was falsely accused by a homosexual activist group, the Triangle Foundation, of favoring the murder of homosexuals (this writer has also been falsely accused of this). Cirignano recently had “civil rights” charges against him dropped after a lesbian invaded his Catholic group’s rally and then claimed that he assaulted her. Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, was hit with a highly-publicized lawsuit in 1991 based on similar trumped-up charges. Oregon Republican writer Betty Freauf describes what happened: “At one of the O.C.A. meetings, a photo journalist and homosexual-rights activist by the name of Catherine Stauffer attended the [pro-family] meeting uninvited. When asked to leave, she refused. Scott Lively then O.C.A. [Oregon Citizen’s Alliance] executive director, escorted her out of the meeting. She then had her frivolous assault and battery lawsuit which had been the plan all along. Judgments were granted to the plaintiff Stauffer in the amount of $30,000 each against O.C.A. and Scott Lively.”    Certainly, some homosexual activists will not be able to resist using frivolous, ENDA-inspired lawsuits to intimidate conservative business owners into submission — especially those who speak out publicly against “gay marriage,” or oppose the homosexual lobby. Is it really hard to imagine homosexual activists sending “plants” into conservative-owned companies and then suing when the person is not hired, or is fired? Of course, the same might be attempted by apolitical yet greedy “gay” employees and lawyers seeking to manipulate the system through “discrimination” lawsuits.
7. ENDA would trample on the rights of the 30 states without homosexuality-based “sexual orientation” laws — including conservative “red” states like Oklahoma and Texas where there is little voter interest in passing such laws — by turning the whole nation, including all public schools (see #2), into a “special-protections-for-homosexual-workers” zone.
8. ENDA’s “religious exemption” is extremely limited and narrowly tailored: of course, it does NOTHING to protect the freedom of moral-minded small businessmen to hire and fire based on THEIR values system, not the government’s. But beyond that, ENDA’s “religious exemption” is also carefully circumscribed so as to box in non-church, religious-oriented groups, rather than liberate them (see points 12 and 13). Here is how H.R. 3685 defines “religious organization”:
    
   RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION – The term `religious organization’ means–
   (A) a religious corporation, association, or society; or 
   (B) a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning, if– 
   (i) the institution is in whole or substantial part controlled, managed, owned, or supported by a particular religion, religious corporation, association, or society; or
   (ii) the curriculum of the institution is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion
    
   Now think of all the businesses, associations and schools that would NOT be covered by that definition: private, non-church or non-religious schools, day-care centers not directly tied to a church; small secular businesses (15 or more employees, including part-timers) owned by Christians; etc.               Moreover, Matt Barber (see #4), Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America and AFTAH Board Member, makes this excellent point on the constitutionality of ENDA’s religious exemption: “For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, [it] would have to follow the individual business owner.  The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion which applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation.  It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his private business.”
9. Even though ENDA proscribes quotas, H.R. 3685 would create de facto preferential status for “gay” employees – or those who claim that status (which is another issue: how does a company “prove” that an employee is or is not “gay”?). Especially for corporations and businessmen who fear lawsuits, ENDA would create a new category of “affirmative action” – for a group of people who, far from demonstrating a history of being disadvantaged economically, rank among the more affluent and privileged groups in society (for example, “gays” travel internationally at rates far higher than other groups) . (See #4 on existing private “gay affirmative action.”)
10. H.R. 3685 is merely the camel’s nose under the tent: even though homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) “threw tranny off the train” as it were – by backing a watered-down ENDA that does not explicitly cover transsexuals (“gender identity”) – the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby is united in pushing for the even more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015, which fully covers “transgenders.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has agreed to bring that bill to the House floor for a vote if the bill’s sponsors can show they have enough votes to pass it.  Passage of H.R. 3685 would make passing H.R. 2015 — what we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Business” bill — easier.
11. H.R. 3685 would advance the “same-sex marriage” agenda. It would be cited by activist judges as evidence that America is moving towards pro-homosexual “equality” (read: state-sponsored “inequality” for people of faith). The homosexual agenda always advances incrementally, but federalizing “sexual orientation” law is a long-sought goal of “gay” activists and liberal social engineers seeking to break down our Judeo-Christian traditions by normalizing homosexuality through the law.
12. H.R. 3685’s exemption for “religious organizations” would divide society further by effectively creating a two-tiered system of rights.  Some Christians and religious people operating in exempted religious groups would get the “special right” to factor in their opposition to homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions — but morality-conscious secular groups and business owners would lose their freedom to similarly defend heterosexual norms. This is not fair. Many nonreligious people oppose homosexual behavior and creating “rights” based on immoral, aberrant sex: why should they have any less freedom to act on their beliefs than religious citizens?
13. ENDA/H.R. 3685 will lead to further compromise in the Church: its religious exemption would mollify pastors and make them LESS likely to stand on principle and fight the aggressive homosexual agenda, since they would be “protected” (for now) from ENDA’s oppressive mandates. Of course, homosexual activists would later seek to tighten or eliminate religious- and church-based exemptions (there’s that incrementalism again). If homosexual activists truly respected people’s freedom to oppose homosexual behavior, would they constantly be complaining about “religious-based discrimination”? Would they be relentlessly attacking the Boy Scouts and have tried to make it illegal for the Scouts not to hire homosexual (and atheist) scoutmasters? Many “gay” advocates view Christian opposition to hiring homosexuals as simply another form of invidious discrimination to be overcome through law, academia and cultural mobilization.
14. ENDA confuses the issue of civil rights in America and trivializes African Americans’ struggle against discrimination. H.R. 3685 insults African-Americans and confuses the civil rights equation considerably by taking the 1964 Civil Rights Act — designed with the noble goal of redressing institutional racism in America — and refitting it to put the U.S. Government officially behind the false concept of homosexuality as a “civil right.” Blacks cannot change their skin color. Homosexuals can leave that lifestyle behind, as many have. (Conversely, people can become “gay” by embracing that ideology and lifestyle. Nobody can “become African American”; that’s how you are born.) Being black is not a moral issue. Embracing sinful and destructive homosexual behavior is. It has long been the goal of “gay” activists to exploit the noble Black civil rights movement — even appropriating its language of “equality” and drawing bogus analogies between ending legal bans on interracial marriage (a good and just reform) and the campaign to legalize homosexual “marriage” (a revolutionary attack on a sacred institution). ENDA would put government muscle behind this exploitation, and make it much easier to teach schoolchildren that homosexuality is a civil rights issue, not a moral one.

Conservapedia, a new online encyclopedia seeking to become a conservative alternative to the very liberal-biased Wikipedia, takes a politically incorrect look at the medical phenomenon known as ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’ — a term that homosexual activists are trying to purge from scientific and popular usage. Gay Bowel Syndrome describes a “clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients,” according to Conservapedia, which cites mainstream medical sources such as Johns Hopkins’ ‘HIV Guide’ in its article with 93 footnotes. An illness associated with Gay Bowel Syndrome significantly increases the risk of HIV Infection.

Homosexual activists like San Francisco researcher Michael Scarce resent it and cry “homophobia!” when the obvious health risks linked to male homosexual behavior are brought up in debate, much less studied by scientists. After all, that’s “discrimination” since everything is “equal,” right? Tragically, the loud protests of “gay” militants have succeeded in politicizing HIV/AIDS and discouraging objective research on the maladies associated with perversions popular among “gay” men, especially anal sex.

We at Americans For Truth believe that it is long past time for federal and state governments (and academia) to study the serious health risks associated with male homosexual sex and promiscuity, just as federally-sponsored studies helped educate the public on the significant dangers of smoking. Allowing homosexual activists a “protester’s veto” over legitimate medical inquiry and research will only cost more men’s lives, as larger society and especially young men are denied clear information on the special health risks of “gay” sex viz a viz normal, natural straight sex.

And the fact that some straights engage in deviant practices like anal sex is hardly a reason to downplay or cover up the real dangers associated with popular “gay” male sex acts like sodomy and “rimming” (oral-anal “sex”) — which are already being promoted to “gay youth” (read AFTAH’s story, “Graphic Youth Flier Guides ‘Queer’ ‘Boyz’ on How to Engage in Homosexual Sodomies.”) As you can read below, homosexual male promiscuity only exacerbates those dangers.

The politically correct silence keeps potentially life-saving information from children: many schools shy away from teaching students that male homosexual behavior carries a disproportionate risk even for contracting H.I.V. That would undermine the “gay equality” thesis favored by many liberals. (Click HERE to read a about the dramatic rise in HIV cases among young homosexual men in New York City.)

Below is an excerpt from Conservapedia’s article on “Gay Bowel Syndrome.” Note the last section cited below in which a researcher who agrees with Scarce that use of “Gay Bowel Syndrome” is “homophobic” nevertheless feels the need to warn healthcare professionals about Scarce’s “use of vulgar language, ribald poetry, and [his own] personal sexual details” in his book. 

After you read the GBS piece, take a look at Conservapedia’s well-researched article on Homosexuality. — Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Excerpted from “Gay Bowel Syndrome” (emphasis added)

Conservapedia.com

Gay bowel syndrome, which has also been described as gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the journal Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science and in 2004 Medscape stated that gay bowel syndrome is a significant issue in regards HIV infection. (The Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website also features an article which is essentially a duplicate of the aforementioned article at Medscape.) Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients (the diseases are not exclusive to male homosexuals).