Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexual War on Christianity Continues to Rage
scottfactor.com ^ | 01/17/2012 | Gina Miller

Posted on 01/17/2012 3:23:31 AM PST by scottfactor

There are many people, including some supposed “conservatives,” who scoff at those of us who warn of the dangers of the radical homosexual agenda. “What homosexual agenda? There is no such thing,” they say. “Giving homosexuals the equal right to marry will in no way hurt traditional marriage,” they say.

Despite these false assertions, we still keep sounding the alarm, and each week brings new evidence that what is at stake is nothing short of the loss of our constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion. I have warned that these freedoms cannot coexist with a successful implementation of the radical homosexual agenda’s platform, and the proof of this truth keeps rolling in.

You may have read or heard about the judge in New Jersey who, last week, stole the First Amendment rights of members of a ministry who refused the request of two homosexual women who wanted to make a mockery of the marriage ceremony on the ministry’s property.

WND’s Bob Unruh reported last Thursday,

"A ministry that follows the dictates of its faith is engaging in wrongdoing, according to a New Jersey judge who recommended today that the state Division on Civil Rights find the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state’s nondiscrimination law.

'The respondent violated the [Law Against Discrimination] when it refused to conduct a civil-union ceremony for Ms. Bernstein and Ms. Paster,' wrote Solomon Metzger, an administrative law judge whose determination will become final if not overturned by the Division of Civil Rights.

'Respondent opposes same-sex unions as a matter of religious belief, and in 2007 found itself on the wrong side of recent changes in the law.'

The seaside location has been popular for years for weddings, but the association, which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church, determined it could not biblically allow same-sex ceremonies to take place on its property.

So when Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster signed up for such a ceremony, they were turned down. They filed the discrimination complaint, and the state’s Division on Civil Rights joined their cause."

Here is yet another example of activist homosexuals pushing their cause by attempting to force those who hold to Christian knowledge to bend to the will of members of the radical homosexual movement. This is happening regularly all across our nation, and leftist judges are fully on board with this program of Hell. This judge’s ruling is clearly an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment rights of the members of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

This kind of faulty ruling is one result of tacking on the designation of “sexual orientation” to the list of non-discrimination laws for specially protected groups. Non-discrimination laws, with the added dimension of specially protected, unnatural sexual behaviors, are detrimental to the First Amendment freedoms of American citizens in general, and therefore could be argued to be unconstitutional.

After this New Jersey judge’s ruling, the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the ministry, is considering its options, but, as Bob Unruh reported, it appears options are limited, because the judge’s ruling will stand unless it is overturned by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights—the bureaucracy that the two homosexuals already have on their side.

It is these kinds of rulings that are steadily eroding our God-given rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech and expression—rights that are supposed to be protected by the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who argue that the homosexual agenda poses no threat to American society are either ignorant, deceived or lying. The goal of radical homosexual activists is the total silencing of any opposition to their unhealthy, immoral behavior, and they have been waging a militaristic campaign for several decades now, a campaign that includes heavy pro-homosexual indoctrination of public school children and college kids, as the next story clearly illustrates.

Have you heard about the brave, Christian Girl Scout who called for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies and why she did it? A 14-year-old Girl Scout from California named Taylor, with no last name released, posted a You Tube video calling for the boycott in response to Girl Scouts USA admitting that they now allow boys who think they are girls to be members of the Girl Scouts. We are talking about boys as old as high school age being allowed to be “Girl Scouts.”

WND’s Drew Zahn reported that Taylor had to set her You Tube page to “private” after the vicious backlash she received from pro-homosexual You Tube members. Her video can still be viewed, having been posted by at least one other person who only posted it in order to berate the girl.

What is most sickening in this story, besides the obvious point of the Girl Scouts USA allowing boys to be members, is the flood of ignorant and deceived reactions to her video. I watched several responses, and it is plain to see the depth of pro-homosexual indoctrination that has occurred in the minds of our young people.

Far too many kids nowadays are deceived about the truth of homosexuality and related mental and spiritual disorders, including so-called “transgender” people—people who imagine they are members of the opposite sex. Our kids—at least those who do not have a proper foundation of truth knowledge—have been brainwashed into believing such nonsense is reality and acceptable, and it is quite disturbing to see this deception on parade in those You Tube responses.

One You Tube poster, a girl who appears to be in her early-20s, had this to say,

“Taylor, your main argument appears to be that Girl Scouts is a place for only girls, where girls can have a female-only environment, where they can be themselves as girls. The fault in your logic occurs when you use the definition of ‘girl’ to mean ‘has a vagina.’ Biological sex, having a penis or a vagina, is different than gender, which is your innate female or maleness. There’s also a huge range of other gender and sexual identities, but I’ll focus on the binary for now.

For me personally, as a longtime Girl Scout myself, I take the word ‘girl’ to mean ‘identifies as female.’ Because of this, I think the Girl Scouts is the place for any child who feels they are a girl, regardless of what parts they were born with.”

A boy who appears to be in his mid-twenties said this,

“If there were a Trangendered Scouts of America, that would be an interesting half-step in-between, but again, that would be missing the point that transgendered girls are girls—not anatomically, but still in their minds, in their actions, and in how they perceive themselves and they perceive the world.”

Another young lady spouted the false comparison talking point of the radical homosexual movement which attempts to compare the immutable characteristic of race to the behavior of homosexuality when she said,

“What you need to understand, however, is that the world is changing. The world will always change. Years ago, there would’ve been videos like this—if we had the technology available, of course—of someone saying that troops allowed little black girls into the Girl Scouts and how atrocious that was and how they weren’t being honest or faithful or whatever.

I just can’t wait till ten, even five years from now when you look back on that video and you think, ‘Wow. That’s embarrassing,’ because there will be people who identify as girls in the Girl Scouts, regardless of whether or not they have an ‘inney’ or and ‘outey,’ and I’m not talking about their belly button.”

And, in another video, a 20-something girl made this statement that apparently makes perfect sense to her scrambled mind,

“Now, first of all I want to point out that transgendered girls are girls. Just because they were born into boys’ bodies does not mean that they are not female.

… These are not transgender boys. They are transgender girls. They are born in the body of a boy. They are identifying as a girl.”

There is your 20-something-year-old mindset. There is the result of successful homosexual indoctrination of kids by the government-run public schools and colleges, the media and entertainment industries. There is the death of common sense. There is the result of decades of parental abandonment of learning and teaching the truth of God’s Word, the truth of the ages and the truth of human sexuality, which belongs to a married man and woman, but which has instead been woefully perverted and abused by a lost and dying world.

When you watch these kids’ videos, when you look into their eyes, it’s enough to break your heart. These kids are speaking their deeply-held convictions, not realizing how dead-wrong they are. We have lost the war for the soul of our society. We lost it years ago, and now that many of us are awake to that fact, we are in damage control mode, but it may not be enough to push back the forces of darkness and perversion that seek to defeat the forces of Christian morality.

Girl Scouts USA is a radical leftist organization. That may go without saying to those of us who pay attention to such things, but if you have not been watching and are not aware, Girl Scouts is aligned with a number of leftwing causes and organizations. The Girl Scouts website list of those groups and causes that Girl Scouts has embraced, includes environmental wackoism with “Earth Hour,” the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the “US Green Building Council,” which teaches little girls about the communistic “sustainable development” agenda. Speaking of sustainable development, Girl Scouts is also partnered with the United Nations—ain’t that swell? Girl Scouts is also wedded to the deceptive “diversity” movement, as is stated elsewhere on the website. When you closely examine its agenda, you can easily see that Girl Scouts is no place for girls.

The radical homosexual war on Christianity and common sense continues to rage in America, from the Christian ministry losing its First Amendment rights, to the Christian Girl Scout being viciously attacked for standing for her knowledge of the truth. Although it seems an uphill battle, we will continue to fight in the court of public opinion, in the courts of law and in the spirit realm, where the true battle is taking place. Those of us who know the truth and know the Lord should pray for the young people of America, like those deceived kids in the You Tube videos, and for all those people who are trapped in the various manifestations of homosexuality. We should pray for the healing of their minds and hearts and pray that one day, before it is too late, they will accept the freedom from the slavery to sin which can only be found in salvation through Jesus Christ.


TOPICS: Politics; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: homosexual; scouts; sodomites

1 posted on 01/17/2012 3:23:37 AM PST by scottfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Boarding a plane this morning. Walking past was a guy openly carrying a book entitled Gay mans kama sutra. How the world has changed.


2 posted on 01/17/2012 3:28:06 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: scottfactor

Yes, it is the end of Freedom of Religion and Free Speech.


4 posted on 01/17/2012 3:55:36 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Same sex practices and marriages are so henious it not only destroys individuals, but even whole nations.

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” (Psalm 9:7)

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD....” (Psalm 33:12a)

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men[and women], who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” (Romans 1:18)


5 posted on 01/17/2012 4:05:42 AM PST by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Friends of mine who own a Christian coffeehouse were recently attacked on their facebook site for being “antigay”.

They are in no way “antigay” - they sell coffee and play Christian music. “Gayness” has never even come up in the running of the business. They are not even fundamentalists; they identify more with a church that tries not to be divisive about such things. The owner is one of the religious types that doesn't like political talk at all.

The attacks have all the signs of several people utilizing multiple identities, that just absolutely HATE Christians.

My guess is a few bitter haters are searching out Christian businesses and viciously attacking them simply because they hate Christians so much they can't leave them in peace. It truly is a demonic conspiracy.

6 posted on 01/17/2012 4:14:23 AM PST by I still care (I miss my friends, bagels, and the NYC skyline - but not the taxes. I love the South.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

The first incident cited is invalid as the property in question was “public” - meaning the church had agreed to that definition as a stipulation.

The Law is the Law, whether we like it or not.

Solution? Get the law changed!


7 posted on 01/17/2012 4:43:38 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

The Second incident is just plain sick.

She was brave to post it.


8 posted on 01/17/2012 4:45:08 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Yes we are at war with many evil things (in this case homosexuality). However,I’ve read the Book! We win in the end.


9 posted on 01/17/2012 5:14:49 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the New American Revolution and the Crusades 2012?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

Apparently, Western gsy activists haven’t noticed that Islam wants to kill them.


10 posted on 01/17/2012 5:31:10 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

It is all part of a suicidal Cultural Marxist Agenda.

Marxists intellectuals were shocked when the working class rallied to support their different countries in WW I instead of splitting along class lines as Marx predicted, so they started an agenda to destroy the morality and fundamental social values in the working class that supported this patriotism.

Ergo all the “liberal” support for the destructive social trends that have resulted in our 21st Century garbage culture.


11 posted on 01/17/2012 5:55:25 AM PST by Uncle Lonny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
My biggest problem with the Gay Agenda is that they insist that everyone ELSE change their thoughts, beliefs and actions. It's one thing to ask not to arrest them (or worse) for their behavior. It is completely different to demand that everyone else bend over backward to accommodate their behavior.
12 posted on 01/17/2012 6:07:07 AM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
The first incident cited is invalid as the property in question was “public” - meaning the church had agreed to that definition as a stipulation. The Law is the Law, whether we like it or not. Solution? Get the law changed!

I agree the law should be changed, but that property is not "public" property, it's private property owned by the ministry and rented out for certain occassions, but it is still part of a church. They have their Christian standards, and that includes not doing business in a way that contradicts their Christian knowledge. This is a trampling of the members of the ministry's First Amendment rights, period. No state law can take away your constitutional rights--well, that used to be the case, anyway.

13 posted on 01/17/2012 6:18:35 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

It is interesting and shameful that two to three percent of the population have such a loud voice over the majority.


14 posted on 01/17/2012 6:28:50 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is a religious organization, and it does own the pavilion in question. But at the core of Judge Solomon Metzer’s decision is the fact that the pavilion’s tax-exempt status was not protected under a religious provision. In 1989, Ocean Grove applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption, a New Jersey property subsidy for conservation or recreational purposes. One of the requirements to qualify for the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.” Thus, when Ocean Grove refused to allow a same-sex couple to utilize its pavilion, it was violating its agreement with the state of New Jersey:

As to “free exercise,” the LAD is a neutral law of general application designed to uncover and eradicate discrimination; it is not focused on or hostile to religion. To the contrary, it carves away exceptions on behalf of religious organizations… Respondent can rearrange Pavilion operations, as it has done, to avoid this clash with the LAD. It was not, however, free to promise equal access, to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition, and then except these petitioners.

IOW - the church agreed to the conditions in order to obtain a tax exemption, then violated that agreement.

After the incident, they restructed and, as the judge conceeds, they CAN now prohibit such ceremonies on thier property.

15 posted on 01/17/2012 6:30:58 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

So, the end result is still the same: we are losing our First Amendment rights by “legal” hook and crook, and your point about changing the law, while right, does us no good when the powers that be will twist the law to fit their dark worldview, anyway. This remains a First Amendment case, because the church is prohibited from running its business in the manner it sees fit.

The whole tax exempt status is another ballgame in which churches have allowed the state/feds to rob First Amendment rights, as well.


16 posted on 01/17/2012 6:40:18 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

This is actually quite clear and is being misrepresented by both the rigth and the left as to what it means.

The left claims a victory where there isn’t one - the judge specifically said that the property in question, after it had been removed from the tax exemption (which had NOTHING to do with the church itself!), is exempt from the ruling!

The right claims a defeat because a church can’t use “it’s” property as it sees fit. The judgement ONLY effects property which the church agreed to allow free and equal access. The judge ruled that, once the church asked for and received a tax exemption that specified that the property must be open to all - the church can not then decide no to abide by that agremment.

This has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.


17 posted on 01/17/2012 6:49:31 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

How far we have fallen.


18 posted on 01/17/2012 7:27:59 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
How far we have fallen.

So, in your opinion, the church is not bound by contracts it freely enters into?

19 posted on 01/17/2012 7:34:44 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The church did not enter into a “contract” to perform bogus “marriage” ceremonies that contradict biblical teachings.

This is yet another example of homosexual activists bringing Christians to court to force mainstream acceptance of their degenerate behavior. Regardless of how you want to “legally” parse it, we are losing our God-given rights in America.


20 posted on 01/17/2012 7:44:08 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
Please remain calm for just a moment and review what the case was really about. If, after that, you still think I am wrong, I will not belabor the point any further.

Here is a link to the Ruling

1. Two people wanted to rent a Beach Front Pavilion for a "wedding". The property was owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.

2. The association is very closely related to the Methodist church.

3. The church was not asked to perform a ceremony.

4. The people were homosexuals.

5. The church denied the lease based on the couples homosexuality.

Up to here, nothing real "controversial" as far as the law is concerned.

6. "In July 1989 respondent applied for a Green Acres real-estate tax exemption for Lot 1, Block 1.01, which includes the Pavilion and the adjacent boardwalk and beach area. The application describes the area as public in nature. The Green Acres program is designed to preserve open space and the statutory scheme authorizes a tax exemption for non-profit corporations utilizing property for conservation or recreational purposes. One condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis,” N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.66; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4(a)(2).

IOW, the church requested and received a tax exemption, for a boardwalk property and agreed to the conditions imposed by the agreement. They enjoyed this tax advantage for close to 20 years.

Respondent argues that it didn’t need a Green Acres tax exemption for the Pavilion; it could at any time have obtained the same benefit by applying for a tax exemption as a religious organization. Indeed, after these events that is exactly what it did. We are, however, bound by the facts that were, not those that might have been, or that came to pass in the aftermath of petitioners’ application. Respondent accepted a particular form of tax exemption that required it to keep the Pavilion open to the public on an equal basis, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.64; N.J.A.C. 7:35-1.4. Neptune Township was skeptical that this could be achieved, but respondent persuaded the DEP and renewed that promise every three years. Thus, it not only interacted with government, it acknowledged the very thing that the interaction test seeks to assess.

IOW, the church knew what the conditions were and repeatedly had to convince the state that they could and would provide equal access to the property. The judge even concedes that had they used the religious organization exemption, the facts in dispute change!

IOW, the only real issue is the determination as to whether the property was "public". There were other reasons the judge cited for reaching this conclusion - but it is mainly based on the contract between the church and the state.

I humbly offer that, by accepting the hysteria generated over this ruling, we are allowing the other side to dictate what will be the generally accepted meaning of the ruling. If this had been any other nonreligious organization (say, the American Legion), the ruling would be nothing more than a footnote as it is plain on it's surface that a contract with the state had been broken.

Please don't allow the other side to misrepresent what this ruling really means!

I appreciate your patience and wish you a pleasant day, whether we agree or not.

21 posted on 01/17/2012 8:31:52 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

IOW this is part of the homosexual agenda to remove the tax exempt status of organizations that object to homosexual behavior as “normal.”

When the application was done the law was different. This is akin to taking via regulation.


22 posted on 01/17/2012 8:40:42 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The law was changed after the approval to force homosexuals on the church. the law has to be changed back to the time of approval.


23 posted on 01/17/2012 8:42:27 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Did you even bother to read what I posted?

The ruling does not remove any religious tax exemptions. The church CHOSE a different exception which included the provision to allow access to the property.


24 posted on 01/17/2012 8:46:07 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The law was changed after the approval to force homosexuals on the church.

The law was changed, yes. New Jersey changed the law to allow "civil unions". Whether that was done to force homo's on the church I have no opinion.

Again, please don't let the other side dictate what the meaning of this ruling is! They WANT you to believe the court ruled broadly, when instead the court ruled on a very narrow matter. If the church had used it's relgious exeption for the property, the Homo Lobby would have LOST this case.

25 posted on 01/17/2012 8:52:18 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
It is completely different to demand that everyone else bend over backward to accommodate their behavior.

You may want to rephrase that.

26 posted on 01/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“If there were a Trangendered Scouts of America, that would be an interesting half-step in-between, but again, that would be missing the point that transgendered girls are girls—not anatomically, but still in their minds, in their actions, and in how they perceive themselves and they perceive the world.”

And if I want to believe I’m a refrigerator, then I AM a refrigerator.

What absolute horsepuckey.


27 posted on 01/17/2012 9:27:27 AM PST by jimt (Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

They spin it as goodness and christianity oppressing the gays when it is evil that has an active cap on inherent goodness. The game is to spin a supression of evil by making good a supressor of it when it is evil which supresses good in the first place and there never was a supression of evil or “taboos” in the first place.

Freud messed that one up big time because he was a twisted biggot.


28 posted on 01/17/2012 10:32:49 AM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Who isn’t calm? I am not in the least “hysterical.”

This is one of many, many cases (I have written extensively about a number of them, inluding this very column) of homosexual activists challenging Christian churches, businesses and groups to bend to the will of the homosexual activists, dragging Christians to court. This is happening all across our country. It is not hysteria; it is a fact.

It would appear this Methodist group was targeted for the very reason that the homosexuals and their lawyers knew they could win this case against the Methodists, because of the “details” of that tax-exempt status. This was the first homosexual challenge to that particular location.

These homosexual activists, like the Islamists, seek to use our laws against us. Where there are no laws to support their wrong-headed positions, they get activist judges or politicians to “create” new laws.

The bottom line is still the same: We’re losing our constitutional rights in America. These kinds of attacks on Christians by homosexuals will continue, and they will not be limited to “public” private property.


29 posted on 01/17/2012 11:09:18 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

I appologize. I did not intend to intimate that your were not calm or were hysterical. The first was simply a call to your reason. The second, an observation on what I have seen on the net regarding this (on both sides!).

So, please accept my appology. No offense was intended.

I agree with you last post for the most part. I too am certain that the homo lobby only took on the case because of that loophole - and likely to get exactly the situation we have now! The decision itself is being misrepresented by the media and a lot of people are reacting to it without learning what it REALLY says.

Once we allow the other side to propagandize this decision until everyone THINKS it means something it doesn’t, we loose the battle.

I also agree that we are allowing an erosion of our rights by the government and the courts - just not in this particular case.

For the record. According to it’s moral teachings, the church was right to refuse the two the use of it’s facilities, regardless of the law. Of course, breaking the law has consequences, but the price is small compared to the price of betraying one’s moral convictions.

Again, I am sorry that my words earlier insulted you.


30 posted on 01/17/2012 11:50:13 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: central_va

; ). Glad you caught that! I meant to say exactly what I said


31 posted on 01/17/2012 12:49:55 PM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

No, I wasn’t insulted. I just thought maybe you misunderstood my tone as not being calm. No need to apologize!

You make strong, detailed arguments, and that’s what is important in these “stupid” legal battles. The devil is in the details, and we really need to pay attention to them and not get off track, as you pointed out.


32 posted on 01/17/2012 12:52:29 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]




Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!

All Babies Love Their Bottles

Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up

33 posted on 01/17/2012 2:10:51 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

If the gay agenda in schools is compatible with public harmony, if foul entertainments and public expressions are likewise compatible, then certainly nothing is wrong with visibly identifying as a religious believer. So, let’s raise three cheers for iconic public gestures of faith like crossing yourself or “Tebowing”. We need more of that.


34 posted on 01/17/2012 10:28:03 PM PST by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Or bend over forward...because that is what they do.


35 posted on 01/18/2012 6:02:37 AM PST by scottfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson