San Antonio Threatens to Punish Christians who oppose Homosexual Marriage, allows men in Women Bathrooms

Is this Texas?

The San Antonio City Council proposed an ordinance to punish and ban from employment any Christian who does not believe in homosexual marriage. They even want men to be able to use a woman's bathroom.

they had so much backlash that they changed the proposed ordinance a little bit but it still punishes Christians

from TexasValues.org:

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.

The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.

Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors

PDF of latest version of ordinance

PDF of earlier version of ordinance

- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

 

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

The San Antonio City Council, Mayor Castro, and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender) activists are now getting desperate in their effort to pass their so called “non-discrimination” ordinance – an ordinance that is better described as a direct attack on Christians and people of faith in San Antonio. With over 20,000 messages to the San Antonio City Council being sent by concerned Texans and local opposition in San Antonio among Churches and local citizens continuing to build, the more the ordinance and its true intentions are exposed, the more citizens are willing to stand up for their rights.
The San Antonio City Council has already been forced to recognize the blatant religious discrimination of this proposed ordinance and has attempted to change the ordinance and introduce new drafts to push back and mislead the growing opposition to the ordinance. But simply removing one discriminatory and unconstitutional section (Section 2-552(b) from previous draft) does not change the fact that there are still serious religious freedom, constitutional, and practical problems with the ordinance. In fact, the new draft still includes a section (2-252(b) in new draft) that attacks board members, appointed officials, and others that oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual conduct by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.”

Here are 5 major problems that still remain in the ordinance:

1. Ban on speech supporting traditional marriage and sexuality by board members and other appointed officials. (Sec. 2-252(b))

As mentioned above, the ordinance still includes a section that tramples on the religious freedom and free speech rights of city government officials that publicly oppose (“demonstrated bias, by word or deed…”) homosexual, bisexual, or transgender behavior by requiring that action be taken to “remove the offending person from office.” This provision could prevent any government appointee from saying such things as he/she believes homosexual behavior is immoral, quote Scripture and point out that the Bible calls those who engage in homosexual behavior to repent, in the same manner as it calls those who engage in any kind of sexual immorality to repent, or share the biblical view of marriage and sexuality.

2. Men in the women’s restrooms and changing facilities. (Sec. 2-592)

As we highlighted in an earlier post, the proposed ordinance essentially contains protection for transgender bathrooms. The ordinance makes it illegal to deny “facilities” because of a person’s “gender identity.” No exemption is given for places in which people are customarily in various states of undress, such as a locker rooms or bathroom. In essence, the ordinance would make it a crime for a business to protect their women and children from a man desiring to use the womens’ bathrooms and locker rooms because he believes he is a woman. The dangers of this policy for women and children are clear and, as expressed by local residents in recent testimony, include increased opportunities for sexual predators to gain easier access to their targets. The City Council should be focused on protecting women and children, not placing them at risk.

3. Does not provide a free-exercise of religion exemption for places of public accommodation and will discriminate against (Christian) businesses that want to operate according to their religious faith. (Sec. 2-592)

The ordinance would require every place of public accommodation to provide all of the “advantages, facilities or services offered to the general public.” The ordinance expressly “shall include every business within the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for compensation, any product, service or facility” – a very broad definition that will likely include a large amount of San Antonio businesses.
Just a few recent documented examples of this type of language being used to target people of faith include: a photographer refusing to provide services at a same-sex commitment ceremony who is being sued for discrimination pursuant to a public accommodations law (New Mexico), a Christian baker refusing to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex “wedding” who is being sued for discrimination (Colorado), a Christian florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex “wedding” for religious reasons who is being prosecuted by the state and sued by the same-sex couple (Washington), a printing company owned by Christians who declined to print t-shirts for a “gay-pride” festival which is being sued for discrimination (Kentucky). Clearly, this will have a tremendous negative impact on the ability of San Antonio’s business to operate according to their beliefs.

4. Bans (Christian) businesses that refuse to add “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” to their companies’ nondiscrimination protections from working with the city. (Section 7)

Everyone that contracts with the city must comply with this new “non-discrimination” policy. So any person who operates their business pursuant to their conscience or religious beliefs, if in conflict with this ordinance, will be barred from doing business with the city. This means that Christian-run businesses that comply with their religious beliefs will be barred from entering into any contracts with the city. Effectively, the ordinance will use government power to force private businesses to share the same beliefs as the city.

5. Does not give Churches and other religious organizations clear protection in their hiring practices. (Sec. 2-550(b))

While the ordinance does include a weak exemption for churches and other religious organizations related to hiring, it is only limited for employment “to members of the same religion.” This does not address the situation, for example, faced by a Baptist or Catholic school that receives an application from a gender-confused man who says he is Baptist or Catholic. The question then becomes – who gets to say what religion the applicant is? The ordinance does not say. There are some denominations that self-identify as Christian and say that those engaging in homosexual behavior can be a member in good standing. This ordinance sets the stage for government being empowered to define and dictate to religious organizations what does and does not quality as their “religion.” This is extremely dangerous. Further, this section does not give any assurances of protection to any other part of religious organization’s operations outside of hiring.

More resources on San Antonio’s Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:

Recent posts and media interviews on the ordinance from Texas Values
Alliance Defending Freedom’s Open Letter to San Antonio Pastors
PDF of latest version of ordinance
PDF of earlier version of ordinance
- See more at: http://txvalues.org/2013/08/21/san-antonio-ordinance-still-a-major-threat-to-christians/#sthash.038k5QXt.dpuf

Gay Rights Activists Bully Tebow, Christian University

from Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio:

Gay rights activists are demanding Tim Tebow back out of a speaking engagement at Liberty University just two weeks after pressuring the New York Jets quarterback to cancel a speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church of Dallas.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!
Tebow is expected to speak this weekend at Wildfire – a men’s conference hosted by the conservative Christian university. His remarks will be closed to the general public.
The professional football player is well-known for sharing his faith in Christ – but in recent weeks he’s come under fire from the national media and gay rights activists for speaking in churches that follow biblical teaching.
Huffington Post called Liberty a “notoriously conservative private college with an anti-gay reputation.” And more than 10,000 people have signed a petition launched by Faithful America calling on the quarterback to cancel his speech.
“Liberty University isn’t just another conservative Christian college,” the group stated. “It’s ground-zero for a global assault on the legal rights of gays and lesbians – and a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the religious right.
A Liberty University spokesman refused to comment.
Faithful America said Tebow would give his “Christian faith a bad name” by speaking at the university founded by the late Jerry Falwell.
Several weeks ago Tebow canceled a speaking engagement at the First Baptist Church of Dallas – citing “new information” he had received.
He never elaborated on his comment – but sources close to the church told Fox News he backed out in part over the uproar surrounding the church’s position on traditional marriage – and salvation.
Pastor Robert Jeffress has been an outspoken leader in the nation’s culture wars – affirming from the pulpit traditional marriage and salvation through Jesus Christ.
The national media labeled the pastor as anti-gay and anti-Semitic – charges that were vehemently denied by the church and the many national religious leaders.
“To me, the real issue here is the controversy this has generated,” Jeffress said at the time. “It’s amazing that a church that believes faith alone in Christ is what saves a person and that sex should be between a man and a woman in a marriage relationship – that somehow those beliefs are considered hate speech? That is historic Christian doctrine for the past 2,000 years.”
Right Wing Watch, a publication of People for the American Way, suggested Liberty University was actually more extreme than FBC Dallas and listed a litany of alleged offenses.
They claimed Liberty University bans gay students and shut down its College Democrats chapter over the party’s views on gay rights. They also alleged the university hosted anti-gay conferences and that professors have made anti-gay comments.
Again, the university declined to address the controversy.
“If Jeffress’ anti-gay remarks were too extreme for Tebow, they pale in comparison to the things regularly said by representatives of Liberty University,” Right Wing Watch stated. “Perhaps it is time for Tebow to take another look at some of this ‘new information’ about Liberty.”
Huffington Post wondered if Tebow was giving hints about his position on homosexuality by making an appearance at Liberty.
“Due to Liberty University’s reputation for intolerance toward the LGBT community, some might interpret the athlete’s appearance as a tacit acknowledgement of similar values,” they opined.
Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth About Homsexuality, is urging Liberty University and Tebow to stand firm – and warned that homosexual activists cannot be appeased.
“Their goal is to marginalize and to discredit Christians,” he told American Family News. “If he cancels this appearance at Liberty University under pressure from the gay lobby, I think his credibility is going to suffer a ton.”
Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America – endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity. Click here to get your copy!

Obama: Bigot in Chief - Wants Tolerance and Acceptance, Unless you are Christian

Article below from TheBlaze.com

Evangelicals Fume Over Pastor’s Withdrawal From Obama Inauguration

Pastor Louie Giglio’s withdrawal from President Barack Obama’s inauguration has spawned harsh reaction from Christian leaders who are subsequently accusing the White House of bigotry. As reported on Thursday, a controversial sermon about homosexuality that Giglio delivered nearly two decades ago led to intense furor among liberal groups. In the end, the pastor removed himself from

Obama’s inaugural festivities. Now, the question remains: Who should replace the embattled faith leader in delivering the official benediction?

But before we open the forum for you to select your own choices for potential replacements, let’s look a bit deeper at the reaction we’re seeing. Yesterday, a press release seemed to indicate that Giglio, a preacher at Atlanta’s Passion City Church, made the decision to remove himself, however some are now charging that he was pressured to step down by the Obama camp. Based on reports of the latter scenario, evangelical leaders are speaking out en force.

The fierce reaction is predicated upon a number of factors. Following the emergence of the controversial sermon in which Giglio called homosexuality sinful, the White House moved to separate itself from the controversy — leading some to question the real motivation behind the withdrawal.

Pastor Louie Giglio (Photo Credit: 268Generation.com)

“We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural,” said Addie Whisenant, the spokesperson for the Presidential Inaugural Committee. “As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

Fox News’ Todd Starnes shared some of the reaction coming from prominent evangelical leaders who are outraged in the wake of the dilemma:

The controversy has outraged Christian conservatives like Robert Jeffress, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Tex.

“It is the ultimate hypocrisy for the Obama administration to pretend it supports diversity and yet denounces anyone who dares to disagree with its radical homosexual agenda,” Jeffress told Fox News.  “Rev Giglio’s comments about homosexuality from more than a decade ago were not hateful but represent the historical teachings of the world’s three major religions. Apparently the Obama administration’s definition of tolerance is only broad enough to include its own views.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he was shocked at the attacks from homosexual activists.

“What’s becoming ever so clear to those who thought homosexual activists could be appeased is that their ultimate goal is to sanitize the public space of anyone who holds to a biblical view of morality,” Perkins said. “It pulls back the curtain and shows us the true agenda here. It’s not about tolerance. It’s about forced acceptance.”

Others, too, expressed similar emotions and sentiments. On his own blog, in the midst of controversy on Thursday, Giglio addressed the free-speech issue, writing that it’s essential that freedom be preserved in this arena.

“The issue of homosexuality (which a particular message of mine some 20 years ago addressed) is one of the most difficult our nation will navigate,” he wrote. “However, individuals’ rights of freedom, and the collective right to hold differing views on any subject is a critical balance we, as a people, must recover and preserve.”

read the rest of the article here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/who-should-deliver-obamas-inaugural-benediction-plus-evangelicals-voice-outrage-over-giglios-withdrawal/

Justice Scalia: If you Make Laws Against Murder, You Can Make Laws Against Homosexuality

the following article is from The Hill:

Justice Scalia defends comparing laws against homosexuality, murder

By Justin Sink - 12/11/12 09:47 AM ET

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared homosexuality and murder on Monday as he argued at a Princeton seminar that elected bodies should be allowed to regulate actions they see as immoral.

"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" Scalia said, according to The Associated Press.

 

The justice's comments are sure to draw attention with the Supreme Court set to enter the debate over gay marriage in its coming term. 
Scalia was asked about controversial comments he had made in the past that argued that the constitutionality of subjects like the death penalty, abortion or sodomy laws were all "easy" to decide by considering the Constitution as understood by its writers.

Scalia said that while he did not believe such hyperbole was "necessary," he did think it was "effective" in forwarding his argument that legislatures should be allowed to ban acts they believe to be immoral.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,' " Scalia said.

Scalia said he did not equate homosexuality morally with murder, but was making a point about the state's ability to regulate them.
"I'm surprised you aren't persuaded," he deadpanned to the audience member who asked him about his views.
The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. The court is expected to rule whether the ban against gay marriage is constitutional, and whether the federal government should recognize gay marriage for purposes including tax filings, Social Security benefits and immigration.

see more here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/272161-scalia-defends-equating-bans-on-gay-marriage-murder

US Senate Legalizes Sex with Animals (Beastiality) in Military - Obama Fights Aids but Ignores Homosexuality Spreads Aids

The National Defense Authorization Act is already coming under fire because the bill will allow the President to use the military in to detain Americans on American soil without a trial. I am completely in support of detaining terrorist that we have caught on the battlefield, but detaining Americans on American soil with no trial is just outrageous! Every US citizen should be given due process and a trial.

That is not the only outrageous part of the NDAA. The NDAA also now legalizes bestiality!

Members of the military are pawns of political experiments. Instead of focusing on being a well oiled fighting machine without political distractions, the military has to wade through political experiments hurled their way. Soldiers are told to be completely uniform with no distractions. When politicians want to push a homosexual agenda they make straight soldiers on the battlefield shower and sleep with gay guys who may be sexually attracted to them. I guess there is no point in having separate men and women showers right? The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was just the beginning. It was commonly understood that the repeal was a way to open the door to pushing other social experiments on soldiers when politicians know they cannot push these things on the general population. You see, soldiers are looked down upon if they complain. Soldiers are taught to follow orders. So where regular Americans would not allow something to happen, soldiers just have to take it.

For instance, the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Well, now that gays are allowed in the Military, the politicians are further experimenting on soldiers by trying to get around the Defense of Marriage Act by allowing gay soldiers to get married. Next thing they will do is force other states into recognizing these gay soldier marriages when the soldier is stationed in that state.

The United States Senate (Including most Republicans) has just passed a bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) which strips away the military ban on Sodomy and Bestiality, according to CNS News.

The National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

It states: "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Wow, sex with animals now in the Military.

I do not hate homosexuals. I believe that God loves everyone and wants us all to come to him and turn away from our sins, including turning from homosexuality. Although I do not hate homosexuals and I want them to turn to God, it is imperative for America to stand up for the Christian, Moral foundation of America. This includes standing up for one of the most sacred institutions of all time, the Institution of Marriage. As we get away from the principles that America was founded on, the foundation of America begins to erode and America will see more problems. I was very happy to see Presidential hopeful Rick Perry attend a prayer rally, the Response, in Houston earlier this year. Historical Documents show that the Founding Fathers of America would have approved and likely attended this Prayer Rally. I sure hope the next President can stop using the military as pawns in their political agenda.

President Obama Promises to Help Stop Spread of Aids but ignores that Homosexuality is Leading cause of New Aids Cases

President Obama has pledged to do more to fight the spread of aids. This is a noble cause.

The problem is that President Obama, and liberal Democrats, are ignoring the leading cause of new aids cases right here in America.

Although Gay Males in America only represent a small percentage of the entire population, the leading cause of new Aids cases in America are a result of gay males having sex.

When will Obama recognize this as a leading cause of Aids in America? Doesn’t he want to help stop aids?

What is even more disturbing is that this information is being purposely hidden from children in school sex ed. How can kids know how to live healthy if the government does not tell them that being in a gay relationship raises their risk of getting aids?

Even President Obama has appointed a Homosexual Activist to a top post in the Department of Education. Kevin Jennings will oversee “safety” in schools. Maybe Jennings should try teaching students that homosexual sex is not safe considering that Homosexuals make up the majority of new Aids/HIV cases in America each year!