...YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MIGHT APPEAR BIASED AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITYWhat's next to be banned? And who's next to be fired from his job, arrested and hauled in front of a freedom-snatching committee (or even a criminal court) for merely saying something the homosexual lobby doesn't agree with?
In 1997 Jo Ann Knight was fired by the Connecticut Department of Public Health after she counseled a homosexual couple from the Bible about salvation and about the necessity of repenting of sin. Knight’s job was to supervise the provision of medical services by Medicare agencies to home health care patients, and in that capacity she interviewed patients. The homosexuals filed a complaint with the Commission of Home Health Rights. A district court upheld Knight’s dismissal, claiming that her religious speech caused her clients distress and interfered with the performance of her duties.
...
...YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO CONDUCT MINISTRIES TO HELP HOMOSEXUALS LEAVE THAT LIFESTYLE
The following is excerpted from “Now It’s Ex-’gays’ getting pummeled,” WorldNetDaily, May 28, 2008:
“Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, said her organization and staff members repeatedly have been attacked simply because of their message: that there are such individuals as former homosexuals. Some attacks have been physical, such as the incident at Arlington County Fair…
“Griggs said at that time, ‘The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality … One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.”
...
...YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO USE THE TERMS FATHER/MOTHER, HUSBAND/WIFE
The legalization of homosexuality is already beginning to destroy the concept of father and mother, husband and wife.
The new marriage licenses in California replace “husband and wife” with “Party A and Party B”.
In Scotland, teachers in some major cities have banned Father’s Days cards this years so as not to offend students who live with single mothers and lesbians. The London Telegraph reports, “The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools ‘in the interest of sensitivity’ over the growing numbers of lone-parent and same-sex households” (”Father’s Day Cards Banned,” June 20, 2008)
Next month, Ontario Divisional Court is going to hear the appeal, Christian Horizons filed against the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision; a decision, which essentially forbade the social services organization from operating as a Christian ministry. This and Stephen Boissoin’s case in Alberta are the two most prominent cases of Christian persecution in Canada in recent years. But, as you can see, those are certainly not the only two. And even David's list of examples is not exhaustive.
Homosexualist jackboots are quite open about the inherently leftist, socialist, state-ist, anti-family, anti-Christian nature of their agenda and they're not willing to tolerate any opposition.
If homosexuality is fully legalized and homosexual activists are given every right they demand, citizens in western nations will be robbed of many liberties they have heretofore enjoyed. This is not a guess; it is a judgment based on current facts. The right to free speech and the right to the free exercise of religion, in particular, will be effectively destroyed.
2 comments:
I strongly recommend that you read "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality" by Jack Rogers. Furthermore, psychiatrists do not recommend programs that counsel gay change. It is who they are, some of the most oppressed people still remaining in the United States.
Of course psychiatrists won't recommend it because, thanks to the homosexual lobby, same-sex attraction is no longer regarded as a disorder. And yet the facts show that change is possible for homosexuals, so it's not "who they are" but what they chose to be.
As for that guy who believes that if Jesus didn't explicitly state that homosexuality is wrong, then that means it's ok - well, if he believes that he can take what Jesus said (or what he didn't say) out of context - that's his decision. But it doesn't mean we have to reject self-evident truths and accept a perverse behavior (which is also a serious health hazard) as normal just because some moral relativist says so.
Post a Comment