Page 6 of 8 First ... 2345678 Last
  1. #56
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Liberals now want to CONTROL what you READ and WATCH.
    Progressive Democrat Senators Want to Ban Books and Movies


    June 20, 2014 By Matthew Burke


    Sen. Ted Cruz gives Democrat Senators every opportunity to come clean and say that they would not ban books and/or movies in their vile, anti-American attack against the First Amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 19.

    “Under the text of this amendment [Senate Joint Resolution 19], could Congress ban political movies; could Congress ban books, and would it be constitutionally permissible for Congress to prohibit the NAACP from speaking about politics,” Senator Cruz asked Democrat Senators Al Franken and Dick Durbin in Wednesday.

    One would think that if the Democrat senators were truly for free speech and protecting the First Amendment, they’d jump out of their collective seats shouting, “Hell no!” with no ambiguity. But instead, Democrat Dick Durbin, senator from Illinois, who last year attended a rally with communists and defended it http://http//www.breitbart.com/Big-G...and-Anarchists gives this obscure and deflective answer, refusing to say that he would be against government banning books and/or movies:

    “I would say to the senator what I’ve said earlier. What we’re talking about is reasonable content neutral regulation. What the senator has suggested in his parade of horribles, going back to your logic course reduction ad adsurdum, is not going to carry the day in this debate, nor with the American people.”
    Are you willing to answer any of those questions, ‘yes or no?’ Cruz then asked Durbin. “Should we be able ban to movies, yes or no? What’s absurd about asking that question?”

    Cruz stated that if he was asked that clear question, the answer would be a direct “no.”

    “There’s nothing in this amendment about banning movies,” Durbin contended, avoiding Cruz’s simply and direct question. “The subcommittee stands adjourned.”

    In other words, your First Amendment is under attack. Remember when the Left was supposedly against censorship?



    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/20/video...ks-and-movies/

    comments

    “The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

    - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
    I have said over and over again that Obama is doing the exact same thing that Hitler did in Gremany. But no one wants to believe it. Martial Law is comming and it will be used by Obama to stop the next election. He will not leave office peacefully, which is why he has spent the last 6 years weeding out officers in the armed forces that say they would not order troops to open fire on American citizens.

    Hail Obama....get used to saying it.



    41 Democrat Senators Want to ‘Repeal the First Amendment!’

    May 24, 2014 By Matthew Burke

    Senator Ted Cruz stung Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), and 40 other Democrats, saying that the Democrat-controlled legislative body wants to “repeal the First Amendment.”

    “I’m not making this up,” said Cruz, speaking at the Family Research Council event on Thursday. “Senator Chuck Schumer has announced the Senate Democrats are scheduling a vote on a constitutional amendment to give Congress the plenary power, the unlimited authority, to regulate political speech,” Cruz told the audience, who sounded quite disgruntled to hear the news (Watch Video Below).

    Cruz then explained why Democrats are pushing for the anti-free speech measure: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.J.RES.19:

    “Because elected officials have decided they don’t like it when the citizenry has the temerity to criticize what they’ve done. They don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth. And it makes their lives inconvenient when they’re not standing for principle and actually that’s pointed out back home.”
    Cruz went on to explain that the amendment, which has 41 co-sponsors (all Democrats) would specifically protect organizations like the New York Times, but would be an attack on religious liberty and would “muzzle” citizens from “saying things that government finds inconvenient.”

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/sen-cruz...irst-amendment

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/24/sen-t...rst-amendment/
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 06-30-2014 at 10:47 AM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Free Speech - unless we don't agree with you ...
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #57
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    BOOM! In Two Minutes, This Admiral Destroys Barack Obama’s Bible Control Plan



    As there are increased reports of a policy for courts martial over so-called proselytizing in the military, Coast Guard Rear Admiral William D. Lee spoke out against President Barack Obama and his anti-Christian administration. If you want to see one speech which exposes that shameful policy, this is it!

    Watch (above) as Lee recalled giving a Bible to a distressed serviceman who had previously tried to kill himself.

    Yet, if I do something, such as I did several weeks ago when I was looking into the face of a young man, 20-something years old, who had 18 months before put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger and survived, when I looked at that young man and I heard his story, the rules say send him to the chaplain. My heart said, give this man a Bible.
    And,


    “The higher you are, the more vulnerable you are to being taken down. You get in the cross hairs of those people who lay and wait outside the gate, waiting to take us to task for expressing our faith for so much as whispering to a young man who is on his last hope that ‘there is hope. Take it home. We can talk about it if you want.’ The lawyers tell me that if I do that, I’m crossing the line. I’m so glad I have crossed that line so many times.”
    This religiously faithful Rear Admiral says that – no matter what Obama and his Administration says – he will read and share the Bible during his service. Clearly, he would never back down from a fight.


    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...#ixzz3DFdA8Txv
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #58
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Christian Bakers Who Refused to Bake Cake for Lesbian Couple Writes Viral Facebook Response
    Klein's situation inspired reactions ranging from sympathy to schadenfreude.



    After being met with protests and losing her bakery over her refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, Melissa Klein took to social media to vent her frustrations:




    In a clip that inspired both sympathy and schadenfreude, this video shows Klein being overcome with emotion when discussing her business at the Values Voter Summit last week.




    The Blaze has the background on the story: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-has-embraced/

    Klein and her husband, Aaron, have been at the forefront of the debate surrounding whether Christian business owners who provide wedding services should be forced to serve gay and lesbian clients.

    Problems for the Klein family began in January 2013 when they declined to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, a lesbian couple who promptly responded by filing a civil rights complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

    Officials in Oregon subsequently ruled that the bakery violated Cryer’s and Bowman’s civil rights.
    The article points out the relevant law on the matter:

    “Under Oregon law, Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity,”… “The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion.”
    It’s interesting to consider this case from the point-of-view of a gay couple who refused to bake a cake bashing gays for a few bigots; or an African-American couple who refused to bake a burning cross cake for a Klan member; or a Muslim being forced to bake a bacon cake for some non-Muslims; or any number of people who believe differently than some other Americans.

    If people disagree with private business owners, they can choose not to go there, or can complain about them in the media, or can protest their policies. That’s their right. But no one has the right to force others to serve them based on their own terms, unless those people are legally bound by contract.

    If a corporation doesn’t own the consequences for its operations, then it has a social obligation to respect all its customers equally. It doesn’t have the right to discriminate. Legally, that is what is at stake here in terms of “Sweet Cakes by Melissa”: It is characterized as a “public business” and is allowed to run by the State of Oregon due to a business permit.

    Whether or not the state should be able to impose terms on business owners that violate freedom of conscience due to the mere issuance of a permit is a legal matter that needs to be addressed. Because if that is the case, the state can impose arbitrary obligations and terms on any business via licensing.

    People need to practice a little more tolerance towards those who disagree with them, and that includes everyone across the political and ideological spectrum.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/1831...ke-goes-viral/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #59
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    GAY JUDGE REFUSES TO CONDUCT HETEROSEXUAL WEDDINGS...
    But It's Against Law For Bakers To Refuse To Make Cakes For Gays Because Of Religious Beliefs?


    Published: 03 October 2014


    It's nice to know that judges are able to openly flaunt their ability to discriminate from the bench...

    Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker touted her refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies in her courtroom on Tuesday night. “I have the power, of course, to perform marriage ceremonies,” Parker said. “I don’t.”

    The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member. While Parker highlighted her progress in her first year as judge in what had been “the worst district court at the courthouse” with more old pending cases than the other 12 district courts, she also spoke about the importance of having an LGBT person on the bench.

    Parker is the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history. As such, Parker said she takes into account the importance of her position to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable and equal in her courtroom by “going out of my way to do things that other people might not do because they are not who I am.”

    Using the example of turning young couples away who want the court to marry them quickly because they are often pregnant and desperate, Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them. “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”

    Parker also said she refused to allow a prosecutor to use the terms “child molester” and “homosexual” interchangeably in her courtroom, saying that just because the man on trial was accused of assaulting boys, the term “heterosexual” wouldn’t be used in place of “child molester” in cases where a man is accused of assaulting a girl.

    And Parker said she includes the term partner when jurors are informed of the Texas Supreme Court directions that instruct jurors not to discuss cases with their husband or wife. “What I want to do is help those folks to have dignity in that moment that they are with me to know that I see you,” she said. “I see you and in that I have reflected to them that I have respect for them.”

    When asked about declining to perform marriage ceremonies in a follow-up phone interview on Wednesday, Parker said the decision was simply about equality and having to turn certain people away. “I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said.



    http://www.100percentfedup.com/news/...igious-beliefs
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #60
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Muslims Demand That Obama DOJ Investigate Woman Who Declared Her Business A ‘Muslim Free Zone’
    By Jason DeWitt on October 12, 2014



    Jan Morgan, owner of Gun Cave Indoor Fire Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas has declared her business a “Muslim Free Zone.” http://youngcons.com/this-woman-decl...r-reasons-why/

    But Morgan says it wasn’t because she is“Islamophobic” as the left is now accusing her. She’s said she has experience to back that ban up.

    Morgan has spoken out for years on her well-read blog out about the Koran’s verses of violence — and has received numerous death threats from Muslims for it. She cited an incident where “two Muslim men came into her store with an allah akbar ringtone”. They could barely speak English and were trying to “rent and shoot guns”, even though they had no proof of U.S. citizenship, according to blogger Hannah Bleau. http://youngcons.com/muslims-demandi...igated-by-doj/ It greatly disturbed many patrons, as you might imagine. (Morgan lays out a detailed rationale for the ban here http://youngcons.com/this-woman-decl...IoJh1lEXoSf.99 ).

    Morgan is a certified firearms instructor, and says the ATF tells them to use their discretion when allowing people to purchase and use weapons.

    I have a federal firearms licence… The ATF informed us when we received the license that if we feel any reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or if we are concerned about that persons mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun. In other words, a federal agency has given us this kind of discretion for service based on the nature of the business. I can and have turned people away if I sense an issue with their mental state.

    I understand that not all Muslims are terrorists. I also believe there are as many Muslims who do not know what is in their Koran as there are Christians who do not know what is in their Bible. Since I have no way of discerning which Muslims will or will not kill in the name of their religion and the commands in their koran…I choose to err on the side of caution for the safety of my patrons.
    Morgan knew she was taking a big risk with such a ban. It didn’t take long for the blowback to come.

    Jenifer Wicks, Litigation Director for the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) — a radical group that was once named an “un-indicted co-conspirator” in the Holy Land Foundation trial http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/14/ho...ies-with-cair/ — wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, urging the Justice Department to get involved. http://www.cair.com/images/letters/C...-Gun-Range.pdf

    Wicks wrote:

    Ms. Morgan appears to be misinterpreting the advice given to her and refusing service to all Muslims, which cannot be a correct interpretation of compliance with federal gun laws and the U.S. Constitution.

    Given the recent spike in anti-Muslim rhetoric, including Islamophobic statements by government officials, I urge you to investigate this matter soon. CAIR believes that systematically banning Muslims from a place of business is a violation of federal laws prohibiting racial and religious discrimination and will inevitably result in a hostile environment for ordinary Muslims in Arkansas.
    Morgan is in for a tough fight. as Obama has repeatedly defended Muslims on everything from the “right” to wear burkas in drivers license photos in Florida, to trying to compel a county in Tennessee to permit a mega-mosque to be built using foreign funds, despite public opposition.

    As Bleau points out:

    Liberals act like pointing out the atrocious acts committed by people in the name of Islam is Islamophobic. Sorry, but with the incredible influx of violence from Muslims and the unsurprising silence from the “moderate” Muslim community, what do you expect? How do you trust people who follow a book that encourages mass slaughter? How can you trust people whose religion gives them permission to lie to infidels?
    You can’t. As an American and small business owner, Morgan is making the right move, as politically incorrect as it may seem.

    A major battle surely lies ahead. What do you think? Is Morgan out of line? Or is this the first step in Americans finally standing up to an ideology posing as religion, as critics suggest?


    http://toprightnews.com/?p=6598
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #61
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    GAY JUDGE REFUSES TO CONDUCT HETEROSEXUAL WEDDINGS...
    But It's Against Law For Bakers To Refuse To Make Cakes For Gays Because Of Religious Beliefs?
    Christian Farmers Forced to Conduct Homosexual Weddings on Property Won’t Violate Their Faith

    August 29, 2014 By Matthew Burke

    A Christian couple, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who own an upstate New York farm, the Liberty Ridge Farm holds events like weddings, receptions, birthday parties and company events on their property as a way to supplement their income and provide a venue for their community to enjoy the beautifully serene landscape and nature. http://libertyridgefarmny.com/

    When a homosexual couple, Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin from Newark, NJ, requested the facility for their wedding, the Giffords offered to allow the lesbian couple to hold their wedding reception on the farm, but not the wedding, as it violates their religious views that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, a belief that has been the social standard since the beginning of mankind and has been the belief of every major religion for thousands of years.

    Rather than seek out a different venue, the homosexual couple took the two Christian farmers to court, an effort to force the Christian farmers to violate their First Amendment rights.

    The administrative law judge, Migdalia Pares of the Bronx, sided with the homosexual couple, putting their imagined right to a homosexual marriage above the First Amendment rights of the Giffords, claiming that the Christian farmers, “unlawfully discriminated against complainants solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

    Additionally, Pares fined the farmers $13,000.

    In an update to the original story, as reported by Religion News Service (RNS), the Christian farmers have decided, rather than being forced to violate their freedom of religion rights, to perform no further weddings other than the ones already under contract. http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/...sbian-wedding/

    Even though the events would be conducted on private property (the farm), the ruling said that, “The fact that the Giffords also reside at the Gifford Barn, does not render it private.”

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/29/chris...e-their-faith/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #62
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    City of Houston Demands Pastors Turn Over Sermons
    October 14, 2014 By Todd Starnes

    The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

    “The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.” http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9349#

    ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.” http://www.adfmedia.org/files/WoodfillQuashMotion.pdf

    “Political and social commentary is not a crime,” Holcomb said. “It is protected by the First Amendment.”

    The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.

    The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

    However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities. http://www.chron.com/news/politics/h...ls-5667654.php

    After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

    The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

    “City council members are supposed to be public servants, not ‘Big Brother’ overlords who will tolerate no dissent or challenge,” said ADF attorney Erik Stanley. “This is designed to intimidate pastors.”

    Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications. “We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.

    However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.

    Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

    The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law. “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”

    David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor. “We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

    He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith. “We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”

    Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers. “The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

    Perkins called the actions by Houston’s mayor “obscene” and said they “should not be tolerated.”

    “This is a shot across the bow of the church,” he said.

    This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.

    Sadly, that day arrived sooner than even I expected.
    Tony Perkins is absolutely right. Now is the time for pastors and people of faith to take a stand. We must rise up and reject this despicable strong-arm attack on religious liberty. We cannot allow ministers to be intimidated by government thugs.

    The pastors I spoke to tell me they will not comply with the subpoena – putting them at risk for a “fine or confinement, or both.”

    Heaven forbid that should happen. But if it does, Christians across America should be willing to descend en masse upon Houston and join these brave men of God behind bars.

    Pastor Welch compared the culture war skirmish to the 1836 Battle of San Jacinto, fought in present-day Harris County, Texas. It was a decisive battle of the Texas Revolution. “This is the San Jacinto moment for traditional family,” Welch told me. “This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”

    We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together – because one day – the government might come for your pastor.

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/14/city-...-over-sermons/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #63
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge View Post
    GAY JUDGE REFUSES TO CONDUCT HETEROSEXUAL WEDDINGS...
    But It's Against Law For Bakers To Refuse To Make Cakes For Gays Because Of Religious Beliefs?

    Published: 03 October 2014


    It's nice to know that judges are able to openly flaunt their ability to discriminate from the bench... Dallas County Judge Tonya Parker touted her refusal to conduct marriage ceremonies in her courtroom on Tuesday night. “I have the power, of course, to perform marriage ceremonies,” Parker said. “I don’t.”

    The mention of her decision to not perform marriage ceremonies came while the 116th Civil District Court judge addressed the audience at the monthly meeting of Stonewall Democrats of Dallas, of which Parker is a member. While Parker highlighted her progress in her first year as judge in what had been “the worst district court at the courthouse” with more old pending cases than the other 12 district courts, she also spoke about the importance of having an LGBT person on the bench.

    Parker is the first LGBT person elected judge in Dallas County and is believed to be the first openly LGBT African-American elected official in the state’s history. As such, Parker said she takes into account the importance of her position to make members of the LGBT community feel comfortable and equal in her courtroom by “going out of my way to do things that other people might not do because they are not who I am.”

    Using the example of turning young couples away who want the court to marry them quickly because they are often pregnant and desperate, Parker said she refers them to other judges because of the state’s marriage inequality, informing them that that is why she will not marry them. “I use it as my opportunity to give them a lesson about marriage inequality in this state because I feel like I have to tell them why I’m turning them away,” Parker said. “So I usually will offer them something along the lines of ‘I’m sorry. I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’ And it’s kind of oxymoronic for me to perform ceremonies that can’t be performed for me, so I’m not going to do it.”

    Parker also said she refused to allow a prosecutor to use the terms “child molester” and “homosexual” interchangeably in her courtroom, saying that just because the man on trial was accused of assaulting boys, the term “heterosexual” wouldn’t be used in place of “child molester” in cases where a man is accused of assaulting a girl.

    And Parker said she includes the term partner when jurors are informed of the Texas Supreme Court directions that instruct jurors not to discuss cases with their husband or wife. “What I want to do is help those folks to have dignity in that moment that they are with me to know that I see you,” she said. “I see you and in that I have reflected to them that I have respect for them.”

    When asked about declining to perform marriage ceremonies in a follow-up phone interview on Wednesday, Parker said the decision was simply about equality and having to turn certain people away. “I do not perform them because it is not an equal application of the law. Period,” she said.



    http://www.100percentfedup.com/news/...igious-beliefs


    Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail
    Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

    Ryan T_Anderson / October 18, 2014


    For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

    Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time. The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

    The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

    On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

    A week of honoring their faith and declining to perform the ceremony could cost the couple three and a half years in jail and $7,000 in fines.

    Government Coercion

    The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”

    But as a result of the courts redefining marriage and a city ordinance that creates special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Knapps are facing government coercion. Governmental recognition of same-sex relationships as marriages need not and should not require any third party to recognize a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Government should respect the rights of all citizens. Indeed, a form of government respectful of free association, free contracts, free speech and free exercise of religion should protect citizens’ rights to live according to their beliefs about marriage.

    The Knapps have been celebrating weddings in their chapel since 1989. Government should not now force them to shut down or violate their beliefs. After all, protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has a right to have the government force a particular minister to marry them. Some citizens may conclude that they cannot in good conscience participate in same-sex ceremonies, from priests and pastors to bakers and florists. They should not be forced to choose between strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.

    What Can Be Done

    At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to protect religious liberty and the rights of conscience. Government should not now force ordained ministers to shut down or violate their beliefs. Policy should prohibit the government from discriminating against any individual or group, whether nonprofit or for-profit, based on their beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and woman or that sexual relations are reserved for marriage. The government should be prohibited from discriminating against such groups or individuals in tax policy, employment, licensing, accreditation or contracting.

    The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act—sponsored by Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, in the House (H.R. 3133) with more than 100 co-sponsors of both parties, and sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate (S. 1808) with 17 co-sponsors—would prevent the federal government from taking such adverse actions.

    States need similar policy protections, including broad protections provided by state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) and specific protections for beliefs and actions about marriage. Indeed, Idaho has a RFRA, called the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA). State RFRAs prevent the imposition of substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs unless the government proves that such a burden advances a compelling government interest that has been pursued through the least restrictive means possible.

    Protecting Religious Liberty

    It is unclear how the city could claim that forcing the Knapps to perform a same-sex wedding is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way. There are numerous other venues where a same-sex couple could get married. Indeed, there is a county clerks office directly across the street from the chapel.

    States must protect the rights of Americans and the associations they form—both nonprofit and for-profit—to speak and act in the public square in accordance with their beliefs. It is particularly egregious that the city would coerce ordained ministers to celebrate a religious ceremony in their chapel. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion arguing that this action “violates [the Knapps’s] First and 14th Amendment rights to freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, substantive due process, and equal protection.”

    Citizens must work to prevent or repeal laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity. We must also insist on laws that protect religious freedom and the rights of conscience.

    Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience is the embodiment of a principled pluralism that fosters a more diverse civil sphere. Indeed, tolerance is essential to promoting peaceful coexistence even amid disagreement.

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/go...dding-go-jail/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #64
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    2 things I don't get: Living LGBT in a culture like that but not staying in the closet... you know it means death.
    Living LGBT in THIS culture and not marching against THEIR culture. If we lose America to Sharia and the Muslim culture, you'll wish "getting married" and making Christians bake yer cakes were your biggest problems.




    Where are the left-wing, the gay and LGBT organizations denouncing the Islamic texts that inspire Islamic hatred of gays? Where is that fierce gay leadership condemning Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia? The silence is deafening.

    They were loud and proud against our ads. They were holding press conferences condemning me. Gay organizations in America say nothing, but loudly condemned my ad campaign highlighting Muslim oppression of gays under the sharia. Why haven’t we heard from this City Council, or this Human Rights Commission, SFHRC head Theresa Sparks, but most especially the enemedia that scrubs their coverage of motive? They called our ads hate and issued a resolution condemning our AFDI ad campaign (the first of its kind) against our organization for merely quoting Muslim political leaders, spiritual leaders and cultural voices in the Muslim community who call for the torture and death of gay people.

    But about this, they will say nothing. ???

    “23 cross-dressers, homosexuals held in Kuwait,”
    by Habib Toumi, Gulf News, October 20, 2014
    (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

    Police in Kuwait have arrested 23 cross-dressers and homosexuals after they busted a “wild party” held at a chalet in the south of the country. “The vice police received a tip about the party and a warrant was issued by the public prosecution to take action against the cross dressers and homosexuals,” a security source told local daily Al Rai.

    “The police encircled the chalet to make sure no one escaped and proceeded to arresting the people participating in the party. Some of them tried to escape by using the backdoor of the chalet and heading to the sea, but they were caught,” the source added.

    Investigations revealed that the party was exclusively for cross-dressers and homosexuals who would face the charges of engaging in immoral activities, the daily said on Sunday. Homosexuality is a social and legal offence in Kuwait and the other Gulf countries. Lawmakers, wary of the growing number of gays in the country, have been pushing for a crackdown, including the adoption of tougher immigration measures against expatriate homosexuals and their prompt deportation

    http://pamelageller.com/2014/10/23-c....4RYm0Pj9.dpuf
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #65
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The Six Words Liberals Say are the New ‘N-Words’
    November 14, 2014

    Race hustling has simply gotten out of control in America. While it’s undeniable that our nation has a complicated past with race, the issue of race has divided us politically and has become a cudgel by which the left attempts to beat-down the right and end legitimate political discussions.

    With the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons travelling the country and escalating countless political discussions into arguments about race, it’s easy to see that playing the race-card over and over again has been effective.

    However, liberals have overplayed this card and have sought to paint nearly every discussion as an expression of rightwing racism and the race-card has become less and less effective with each passing day.

    Now, the leftist lunatics at the Atlanta Black Star have released a list of 6 words that should now be off-limits to white people as they coded words that serve as the new “N-words.” (H/T: Conservative Tribune http://conservativetribune.com/6-words-new-n-word/ ) http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/11/...he-same-thing/

    So what are these horribly racist terms?

    1) Thug - I’m pretty sure any person who acts like a classless bully can be called a thug, regardless of race.

    2) Urban/Inner city - Yeah, that’s a geographical location that highlights the differences between the rurals, the suburbs and inside the city. Try again…

    3) State’s Rights - You mean that pesky principle that is laid-out in our founding document?

    4) Welfare and Food Stamps - Because it’s racist to want people to be responsible for themselves?

    5) Law and Order - Aside from being an awesome TV show, society has strived for law and order since the days of the Hammurabi Code. Hardly a racist sentiment.

    6) Cut Taxes - Sure, we’re $18 trillion in the hole and government continually goes to the American taxpayer as their own personal piggybanks but, hey, let’s pretend that a call for fiscal sanity is, somehow, racist.
    As one can plainly see, the left is not interested in a political discussion, but only interested in achieving their ends through any despicable means- even if that means stretching to laughable lengths to deem any word or idea of which they disapprove as being “racist” and thus, unutterable.


    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/14/the-s...e-new-n-words/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #66
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Teacher to Student: If You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, Drop My Class
    November 22, 2014 By Todd Starnes


    Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

    I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

    The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professorand was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.

    The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

    “We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

    Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

    So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation — without her permission. “Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

    “I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

    “Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.

    Abbate disagreed. “There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

    The student said he did not know the answer to her question.

    “Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.

    At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

    “Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class] to make homophobic comments.”

    The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic. “This is about restricting rights and liberties of individuals,” he said. “Because they’re homosexual, I can’t have my opinions?”

    And that’s when the teacher dropped the bombshell. “You can have whatever opinions you want but I will tell you right now – in this class homophobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments will not be tolerated,” she said. ‘If you don’t like it, you are more than free to drop this class.”

    So the student dropped the class.

    “I understand that other people have very different views than I do and that’s understandable,” the student told me. “But when a student is not allowed to have an open discussion in a discussion-type class on a specific issue because it’s regarded as homophobic – that really irks me.”

    Marquette Professor John McAdams, who runs the Marquette Warrior blog, accused Abbate of using a tactic “typical among liberals now.”

    “Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up,” he wrote.

    The student told me he filed a complaint – but he said university officials dismissed his concerns.

    McAdams wrote that he was not surprised because the university officials held the same intolerant views as the instructor.

    “Like the rest of academia, Marquette is less and less a real university,” he wrote. “And when gay marriage cannot be discussed, certainly not a Catholic university.”

    A university spokesman told me they were viewing “both a concern raised by a student and a concern raised by a faculty member.”

    “We are taking appropriate steps to make sure that everyone involved is heard and treated fairly,” the spokesman told me. “In compliance with state and federal privacy laws, we will not publicly share the results of the reviews.”
    Abbate told the website Inside Higher Ed that the “class discussion was not meant to be an opportunity for students to express their personal beliefs about political issues.”

    She said she hoped Marquette would “use this event as an opportunity to create and actively enforce a policy on cyberbullying and harassment.”

    “It is astounding to me that the university has not created some sort of policy that would prohibit this behavior which undoubtedly leads to a toxic environment for both students and faculty,” she told Inside Higher Ed.

    The only thing toxic at Marquette are teachers who oppose Catholic doctrine and try to silence dissenting opinions.

    I would be remiss if I did not address the student’s behavior. A full review of the audio tape reveals the student was in fact disrespectful to the instructor. And when the instructor asked if she was being recorded, the student did not tell the truth.

    I asked the young man about his behavior and he admitted to me that it was wrong. He told me that he “regretted” his actions.

    Nevertheless, the student’s behavior does not excuse Marquette University’s successful attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas.

    So let’s review — an instructor at a Catholic university taught material that is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and when a Catholic student brought this information to the attention of Catholic administrators – the student was the one who got rebuked.

    I’m not a Catholic – but it seems to me Marquette University is one of those CINO schools – Catholic in Name Only.

    http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/22/teach...drop-my-class/


    Support for Cheryl Abbate
    (updated w/ statement from Marquette Pres.)

    By Justin Pierce . Published on Nov 22, 2014 • 2:30 pm


    As reported a few days ago, Marquette University philosophy graduate student and instructor Cheryl Abbate has been the subject of defamatory and hostile politically-motivated blog posts by Marquette associate professor John McAdams. The story has predictably spread across the internet, and has now appeared on the Fox News website with a lying headline, typical slant, and a slew of comments you should not read if you ever again want to have the will to get out of bed in the morning (references to the “girl professor’s thought control agenda,” “militant gays,” “Stalin,” and, of course, “Obama” are just the tip of the iceberg). As a result, she has been receiving quite a bit of hate email.

    Here is one representative piece:
    http://dailynous.com/wp-content/uplo...te-email-1.png

    Fortunately, support for Ms. Abbate is coming from several quarters. People have been writing administrators at Marquette, including the president, Michael Lovell (email him at michael.lovell@marquette.edu or tweet to him at @PresLovell @MarquetteU). I sent in a letter. David Boonin wrote an excellent letter to the dean. John Protevi posted his great letter here. If you wish to, you are welcome to post your letter, in whole or part, in the comments below (though don’t feel any pressure to do so).

    Local support is growing, too. The chairs of several departments met about the issue and sent a letter to the Marquette University administration, which is posted here.

    I hope that others at Marquette and elsewhere voice their support and that the university, at the very least, takes a public and official stand on the matter.

    UPDATE: Marquette President Michael Lovell has issued a “Letter to the Campus Community.” It does not identify the controversy or any of the parties involved, but it does say that the university will not tolerate harassment or personal attacks and that the university will “take action.” An excerpt:

    I want to reiterate those points to the entire Marquette community. We are dedicated to uphold academic freedom and to maintain an environment in which the dignity and worth of each member of our community is respected, especially students. We deplore hatred and abuse directed at a member of our community in any format. Please know that we listen to any member of the campus community who expresses concerns alleging inappropriate behavior. As stated in our harassment policy, the university will not tolerate personal attacks or harassment of or by students, faculty and staff. To be clear, we will take action to address those concerns. ​I understand that emotions may run high during discussions and debate, inside and outside of the classroom. But let’s not lose sight of the need to maintain respect for each other.

    http://dailynous.com/2014/11/22/supp...cheryl-abbate/

    I find it interesting that the single piece "representing" the opposition to ms Abbate is so very extreme ... I am sure that there were many responses most not nearly as "offensive". Their choice is telling ... more about the supports, then the opposition.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in