A hundred major corporations, ranging from Target to American Airlines to Best Buy, have signed on to an LGBTQ activist coalition supporting the “Equality Act,” which would federalize homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights” categories in the law.

The homosexual-bisexual-transgender lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) says the bill, HR 2282, is about “letting Americans live their lives without fear of discrimination,” but pro-family organizations counter that the “Inequality Act” (as Family Research Council calls it) would expressly undermine people’s religious freedom to act against homosexuality and extreme gender confusion (transgenderism), e.g., by declining to participate in same-sex “marriages.”

The sweeping legislation, introduced by openly homosexual U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, has 194 Democratic co-sponsors and two Republican co-sponsors. With little action on the bill likely in a GOP-dominated Congress, HRC is taking its campaign for HR 2282 to the corporate world, where its institutional influence and power greatly exceeds that of social conservatives.

HR 2282, as described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation.”

The bill prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from “discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity, subject to the same exceptions and conditions that currently apply to unlawful employment practices based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to CRS.

The bill’s far-reaching impact would greatly expand the potential for lawsuits against private individuals who choose not to affirm behaviors they regard as immoral before God. Already, using state and local “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws, LGBTQ activists and their allies have made life difficult for people opposing “gay marriage” and “proud” homosexuality and transsexualism — from wedding cake makers and wedding photographers to t-shirt makers and even bar owners.

The CRS summary of HR 2282 states:

“The bill expands the categories of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide:

— exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays;

— goods, services, or programs, including a store, a shopping center, an online retailer or service provider, a salon, a bank, a gas station, a food bank, a service or care center, a shelter, a travel agency, a funeral parlor, or a health care, accounting, or legal service; or

— transportation services.”

Noting the expanded definition of “public accommodation” under the proposed legislation, FRC states: “Thus, if the Inequality Act passes, attorneys will likely be required to represent homosexuals in dissolving their same-sex ‘marriages,’ Christian schools will likely be required to offer transgendered students the bathroom of their choice, and Christian homeless shelters will likely be required to accommodate same-sex couples.”

According to the CRS, HR 2282 defines “gender identity” as “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.” The bill states that the Department of Justice (DOJ) “may bring a civil action if it receives a complaint from an individual” who claims to be “denied equal utilization of a public facility … (other than public schools or colleges) on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Thus, under HR 2282, a “male-to-female” “transgender” activist could sue an amusement park if it refused to let him, as a biological male, enter the public women’s restrooms (since amusement parks would be covered under the Act as “public accommodations”).

HRC quotes Dow Chemical employee Cory Valente in defense of the “Equality Act”: “No one should be fired, evicted from their home, or denied services because of who they are. Supporting inclusion and equality is the right thing to do – for business and for society.”

But FRC states that by expressly stripping away the protections of federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act”–designed to protect citizens’ conscience rights–the pro-LGBTQ “Inequality Act” “would force people to affirm homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and transgenderism, despite their religious objections in various situations, including the provision of public accommodations.”

“This is the antithesis of religious freedom,” the pro-family group asserts.

HRC’s rigged rating system pressures corporations

HRC has employed to great effect its skewed “Corporate Equality Index” “scorecard” system to pressure corporations to ratchet up their pro-homosexual and pro-“transgender” policies. Under the ratings system, companies get points for giving money to pro-LGBTQ activities but they potentially lose 25 points if they do anything that HRC considers to be a “large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish” (see page 8 here).

Thus, even neutral corporate giving policies — say, if a company’s executives wanted to avoid taking sides by financially supporting both pro-LGBT groups and organizations like the American Family Association — would be boxed out for any corporation seeking a perfect HRC “Equality Index” score.

And under the HRC’s self-serving “Index,” companies must comply with an ever-expanding list of pro-LGBTQ demands to continue receiving a “100 percent” ranking.

The strategy has been immensely successful for HRC, with even once-conservative corporations like Walmart joining its “100 percent” club — which includes paying for “transgender” employees “sex-reassignment surgeries” through company health insurance plans. Walmart now finances “gay pride” events like the annual New York City “pride parade.”

HRC reports the following 100 major corporations as members of its “Coalition for the Equality Act”:

Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Accenture

Adobe Systems Inc.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

Airbnb Inc.

Alcoa Inc.

Amazon.com Inc.

American Airlines

American Eagle Outfitters

American Express Global Business Travel

Apple Inc.

Arconic

Ascena Retail Group Inc.

Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Bain & Co. Inc.

Bank of America

Best Buy Co. Inc.

Biogen

Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Broadridge Financial Solutions Inc.

Brown-Forman Corp.

CA Technologies Inc.

Caesars Entertainment Corp.

Capital One Financial Corp.

Cardinal Health Inc.

Cargill Inc.

Chevron Corp.

Choice Hotels International Inc.

Cisco Systems Inc.;

The Coca-Cola Co.

Corning Inc.

Cox Enterprises Inc.

CVS Health Corp.

Darden Restaurants Inc.

Delhaize America Inc.

Diageo North America

The Dow Chemical Co.

Dropbox Inc.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont)

eBay Inc.

EMC Corp.

Facebook Inc.

Gap Inc.

General Electric Co.

General Mills Inc.

Google Inc.

HERE North America LLC

The Hershey Company

Hewlett Packard Enterprises

Hilton Inc.

HP Inc.; HSN Inc.

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hyatt Hotels Corp.

IBM Corp.

Intel Corp.

InterContinental Hotels Group Americas

Johnson & Johnson

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Kaiser Permanente; Kellogg Co.

Kenneth Cole Productions

Levi Strauss & Co.; Macy’s Inc.

Marriott International Inc.

MasterCard Inc.; Microsoft Corp.

Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams

Monsanto Co.

Moody’s Corp.

Nationwide

Navigant Consulting Inc.

Nike Inc.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Office Depot Inc.

Oracle Corp.

Orbitz Worldwide Inc.

Paul Hastings LLP

PepsiCo Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

Pure Storage Inc.

Qualcomm Inc.

Replacements Ltd.

S&P Global Inc.

Salesforce

SAP America Inc.

Sodexo Inc.

Symantec Corp.

Synchrony Financial

T-Mobile USA Inc.

Target Corp.

Tech Data Corp.

TIAA

Twitter Inc.

Uber Technologies Inc

Under Armour Inc

Unilever

Warby Parker

WeddingWire Inc.

Whirlpool Corporation

Williams-Sonoma Inc.

Xerox Corp.

This article was originally published at LifeSiteNews.com

Finally, medical and mental health professionals are bringing a gun to the gunfight.

The National Task Force for Therapy Equality (NTFTE), “a coalition of psychotherapists, psychiatrists, physicians, public policy organizations, and clients who experience unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity conflicts,” has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking the FTC “to investigate and stop the libelous, slanderous, deceptive, and misleading actions of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR).

The NTFTE alleges that the aforementioned sexuality anarchists have done the following:

• “actively and knowingly engaged in deceptive and fraudulent marketing practices of the kind the FTC considers malicious….”

• “supported witnesses on the state, federal, and international level that have delivered unverifiable and fraudulent testimony in front of law-making bodies in the effort to persuade legislative action to ban psychotherapy….”

• “are actively raising large sums of money in the effort to ban psychotherapy by using deceptive and fraudulent practices….”

• “actively and knowingly distorted the research to promote efforts to ban psychotherapy for clients with sexual and gender identity conflicts….”

• “actively distorted the scientific research in promoting the “Born Gay” hoax, a notion that has been disproved and refuted by organizations such as the American Psychological Association….”

• “engaged in smear and defamatory attacks on licensed psychotherapists and faith-based ministries providing help and assistance to those who experience sexual and gender identity conflicts.”

The NTFTE is asking the FTC that the “FTC take enforcement action to end the actions of the SPLC, HRC, and NCLR, which seek to defame change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, or to render a judgment against the three organizations for their actions, which are deceptive and misleading to consumers and the general public.” In addition, the NTFTE is asking that the “FTC require these organizations to cease publishing slanderous remarks about change therapies, change therapists, and their clients, and require them to cease and desist publishing all deceptive statements including those within their public speeches, social media, online videos, and on their websites.”

It’s about time someone challenged the lying liars and reprobates at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Human Rights Campaign, and National Center for Lesbian Rights.

We urge you to pray for our state and nation, for our elected officials in Springfield and Washington D.C.  

PLEASE also consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work. We have stood firm for 25 years, working to boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy.

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
~2 Corinthians 11:14~

The United States was founded by people of faith, people who espoused a biblical worldview. That worldview, bolstered by a conscience that yearns for justice, compelled the writing of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration defined the nature and source of human rights; the United States Constitution detailed those rights, protecting them from government transgress.

The Founders secured the very impetus for the colonies in America with the First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice no reference to a wall of “separation of church and state?” Early settlers desired to live out their faith, to worship according to personal understanding of the scriptures, not by compulsion of a state run and controlled church akin to the Church of England. Government was seen as a necessary evil to provide for national defense and some infrastructure; the U.S. Constitution was clearly written to free the citizen and robustly constrain government.

Our history as an independent people, individually responsible for our own actions and consequences, but keenly aware of rights and justice infuses our national DNA. Rights and justice are not, in and of themselves, evil.

The key is WHO is the author of the rights?

The Founders believed the Bible and that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel created men (ie. all men and all women) in His image. Life was precious, sacred, because the Lord God was its author.

But not all rights are true rights or even good. The idea of “human rights” sounds aspirational, lofty.

The Apostle Paul warned early followers of Jesus and the church at Corinth:

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Masquerading as an angel of light, gay rights activist Stephen Robert “Steve” Endean founded the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in 1980. The mission of the organization:

The Human Rights Campaign and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation together serve as America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve LGBTQ equality. By inspiring and engaging individuals and communities, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBTQ people and realize a world that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

The Human Rights Campaign envisions a world where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people are ensured equality and embraced as full members of society at home, at work and in every community.

Ah ha! The crux of the matter is not “human rights” but rather “LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning) rights.” Why the disguise (aka masquerade)?

Steve Endean knew full well that the average American in 1980 would not wholly endorse “alternative lifestyles.” Had he named the organization “Queer Rights Campaign” or “Lesbian Rights Campaign” Endean would have offended millions of families. But “Human Rights Campaign” sounded righteous and compassionate.

That is until we compare the mission statement with the foundation of America, a biblical worldview which undergirds our founding documents. What does the Bible have to say about those lifestyles?

Earlier in 1 Corinthians:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

And in Romans 1:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

. . .

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Now, having unmasked the true intent and nature of the “Human Rights Campaign,” it should come as no surprise that Endean’s unholy organization seeks to vilify those proclaiming truth and businesses not cowering to the HRC mandates. Since 2002, “HRC’s Corporate Equality Index report, released each fall, provides an in-depth analysis and rating of large U.S. employers and their policies and practices pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. Businesses rated 100 percent are recognized in their ‘Best Places to Work’ list. All consumer-oriented businesses are included in their ‘Buying for Equality‘ guide.” [see below]

Businesses in America are rated according to their accommodation and celebration of “alternative lifestyles,” also known as sinful lifestyles. HRC President Chad Griffin writes:

In this 15th edition of the Corporate Equality Index we have seen the largest increase in top-rated businesses in the history of our survey with 517 employers earning perfect 100 percent scores. In addition, this year saw the CEI’s largest jump ever in businesses offering transgender-inclusive healthcare coverage — from 511 last year to 647 this year.

While there is much to do and many key civil rights fights ahead, thanks to these private sector leaders, the march towards greater equality is not slowing down. The LGBTQ community and the 887 businesses in the CEI will keep moving forward every day.

The HRC employs a carrot and stick tactic: CEI as carrot praises those businesses which affirm the LGBTQ agenda; HRC’s “The Export of Hate” as stick castigates any individuals or organizations who decry the same perverse agenda. Written at “The Export of Hate” site:

These individuals are spreading venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories and discredited science.

While this vicious brand of bigotry is currently finding little traction in the United States, public opinion in many other nations makes their words and work much more dangerous. In fact, their actions pose a fundamental threat to the safety of LGBT people around the world, and that threat is growing.

“The Export of Hate” lists familiar names of godly people and God-honoring organizations: attorney and pastor Scott Lively, ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull, ACLJ Director of International Operations Jordan Sekulow, and even our good friend Peter LaBarbera. [See below]

The Bible instructs us to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. Comparing the Bible and its principles and commands to the Human Rights Campaign mission, Corporate Equality Index, and HRC’s Export of Hate report reveals an unavoidable conclusion. The HRC is an unbiblical and evil entity.

The prophet Isaiah wrote:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

There could not be a more stark picture of that verse than the Human Rights Campaign, and believers in America must hold fast to biblical truth and wisdom and unmask ungodly evildoers “masquerading as angels of light.”

Download the IFI App!

We now have IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the the “Tracks” you choose, including timely alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

I’ve read umpteen times that the 66,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports the use of opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms in schools by gender-dysphoric students. Wowzer! 66,000? That’s a lot of pediatricians.

A few weeks ago I got to ruminating on that mind-boggling claim. It seemed implausible that all 66,000 pediatricians could believe something so radical. So, I set off on a quest to dig into this claim, and what I learned is surprising.

Fortunately for me and my quest, there’s another medical organization that has sprung up precisely because of the radical positions taken by the AAP: the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds). You may have heard of ACPeds because the very name sends shivers of revulsion (or is it fear) up the spines of liberals everywhere. Why? Is it because ACPeds is composed of charlatans and snake oil salespersons who received their medical degrees from Rufus T. Firefly’s University of Freedonia?

Nope.

ACPeds is ridiculed because it holds different positions on the treatment of gender-dysphoria in minors. Leftists are reluctant to discredit ACPeds based solely on disagreement about treatment protocols because that argument becomes circular: “You can’t trust ACPeds because it doesn’t support ‘gender affirmative’ protocols, and we all know ‘gender affirmative’ protocols are right.”

So, how do liberals attempt to discredit ACPeds which was founded just fifteen years ago? They do so by citing the fact that the membership numbers are lower than are the membership numbers in the AAP which was founded 87 years ago. Still a fallacious argument (i.e., appeal to popularity), but it works as a soundbite and it works for ignorant school board members.

In addition to being a fallacious appeal to popularity, it also implies a factual error—or is it an alternative fact? It implies without stating that 66,000 pediatricians support co-ed locker rooms.

How many AAP members support the AAP’s policy on co-ed restrooms/locker rooms?

The truth is we have no idea how many AAP members support co-ed restroom and locker room policies (or puberty blockers, cross-sex hormone-doping, or double mastectomies for minors) because they’ve never been polled. All we do know is the approximate number of members who created and voted on the AAP’s policy on gender-dysphoric students.

Well, more accurately some people know the approximate number of AAP members who imposed this policy on the AAP. I hope to change that.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, a board-certified pediatrician who serves as the president of ACPeds shared this illuminating information about the AAP policy:

AAP Policy is created by fewer than 30 pediatricians without general member input.

Dr. Joseph Zanga, who serves “as Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the Medical College of Georgia” and Emeritus  Professor of Pediatrics at Mercer University School of Medicine,  and is a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics further clarified the policy-making process that liberals would likely prefer concealed:

• Policy Statements are produced by 10-12 member Committees or Councils, or Section (e.g., School Health, Adolescence, or Bioethics) or more commonly by Section Executive Committees, whose members are nominated by their AAP State Chapter Committees (or members of the Section) and selected by Committees of the AAP Board. Confirmation is by the Board of Directors. Section Executive Committees are elected by the Section members.

• The 10 members of the AAP Board of Directors are elected by the AAP members of their district (elections never garner votes from even 40% of members) and the Executive Committee consisting of the president, president-elect, immediate past-president (elected by the AAP members nationally with equally small numbers voting), and the paid executive director (hired by the Board)

• Statements are sent to the board for review and vote. Often there is discussion at a board meeting. Rarely is there outside opinion sought, and there is never a minority report. 

• AAP members often don’t even see the report until after it appears in the media. They have no direct input.

In contrast, here’s a description of the process by which ACPeds develops policy:

The ACPeds has our entire membership (500 pediatric health professionals) comment and vote upon our statements prior to release. If 25% of our members object to the statement, it will not be released.

In addition, ACPeds partners with other organizations to promote views different from the views for which two dozen AAP members voted:

The 4 physician groups representing over 20K [physicians and other health experts] who affirm that transgender beliefs are a problem of the mind include the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, ACPeds, the Catholic Medical Association, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

Commit this information to memory so that the next time a feckless “progressive” school board member or lawmaker proclaims from on high that the “66,000-member AAP” is in favor of co-ed restrooms and locker rooms, you can clarify that all we know is that fewer than two dozen of the 66,000 members of the AAP created and voted in favor of co-ed restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.

The Executive Committee that wrote the AAP’s “gender affirmative” “trans” policy

According to Dr. Manga, while “there are dozens of AAP Sections” only a “few write policy statements” as the “LGBT Section” did. Below are the names of the seven members of the Executive Committee for the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health and Wellness,” Section, which has only 342 members (who were unlikely to have voted on the policy).

IFI learned that at least two of these seven Executive Committee members are homosexual, so while homosexuals constitute about 3.5% of the population, they constitute almost 30% (perhaps even 40%) of this AAP committee. And another of the members has an adult homosexual child:

Dr. Lynn Hunt (lesbian)

Dr. Ellen C. Perrin

Dr. Chadwick Taylor Rodgers

Dr. Anne Theresa Gearhart

Dr. David M. Jaffe (homosexual)

Dr. Joseph A. Waters

Anne Gramiak (not a medical doctor)

A Tufts University profile of one of the chief architects of the AAP policy, Dr. Ellen Perrin, reports that for Perrin “pediatrics is more than just medicine; it’s a vehicle for social change.” According to the profile, Perrin is a “leading expert on same-sex parenting, with her research showing that there is no relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and any measure of a child’s emotional, social, or behavioral adjustment.” Further Perrin, who was “chair of Pro Family Pediatricians—a group of pediatricians opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment,” shared that “[a]dvocacy is one of the things I do.”

In doing research on the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health and Wellness” Section of the AAP, I was unpleasantly surprised to learn that one of the members of the AAP’s Committee on Adolescence is none other than Chicago’s own Dr. Robert Garofalo about whom I’ve written. He is the openly homosexual, HIV-positive doctor who is the Division Head of Adolescent Medicine at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. In a May 2015 Chicago Magazine profile of him titled “The Change Agent,”  Garofalo admits that he “has had patients as young as 15 undergo top surgery.” You read that right. Some Mengelian doctors are performing double mastectomies on physically healthy 15-year-old girls.

The AAP: a partisan political arm of the Human Rights Campaign

In terms of policy positions regarding sexuality, the AAP is now formally a partisan political organization. Six months ago, the AAP began partnering with the nation’s largest pro-homosexual/pro-“trans” activist organization: the radical Human Rights Campaign (HRC), thus discrediting it as an impartial, unbiased medical organization.

Here are some HRC recommendations  from its guide for schools:

While this guide focuses primarily on transgender youth who are transitioning from male to female or female to male, it is important to note that a growing number of gender-expansive youth are identifying themselves outside the gender binary, and many use gender-neutral pronouns. While it may be more difficult to adapt to gender-neutral pronouns, it is still important to do so in support of the student.

Another crucial element in supporting a transitioning student is giving them access to sex-separated facilities, activities or programs based on the student’s gender identity [including] [r]estrooms, locker rooms, health and physical education classes, competitive athletics, overnight field trips, [and] homecoming court and prom.

Any student who feels uncomfortable sharing facilities with a transgender student should be allowed to use another more private facility like the bathroom in the nurse’s office, but a transgender student should never be forced to use alternative facilities to make other students comfortable.

Leftists assume that hard science provides all the answers to our ethical questions, and, therefore, we need only defer to our objective scientific organizations to point the way to Shangri-La. But science does not provide answers to moral questions, and our scientific organizations are not objective. As ACPeds correctly points out, even the practice of medicine is informed by one’s worldview:

The debate over how to treat children with [gender dysphoria] is primarily an ethical dispute: one that concerns physician worldview as much as science. Medicine does not occur in a moral vacuum; every therapeutic action or inaction is the result of a moral judgment of some kind that arises from the physician’s philosophical worldview. Medicine also does not occur in a political vacuum and being on the wrong side of sexual politics can have severe consequences for individuals who hold the politically incorrect view.

If the AAP ever decides to poll its members to find out exactly how many support or oppose the radical policy concocted by the gang of 7, they best make it anonymous because there’s nothing quite like the fury of  liberals who’ve had their views scorned. Just ask Dr. Kenneth Zucker.

This version has been updated to reflect minor corrections.

Download the IFI App!

We now have IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the the “Tracks” you choose, including timely alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Written by Dustin Siggins

Last week, the Obama administration enacted a rule that prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from contracting with groups that engage in “discrimination” against people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. According to National Security Advisor Susan Rice in a speech on Wednesday:

This rule means that any organization that contracts with USAID must ensure that all people can benefit from its federally-funded programs, regardless of race, religion, disability — or sexual orientation and gender identity.  It’s a major step towards ensuring that American assistance is provided in a fair and equitable manner.

But “fair and equitable” have a specific meaning for the Obama administration. It doesn’t include the unborn. “Discrimination” is still permitted against the unborn — USAID has given tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and engaged in other anti-life policies.

It does include LGBT people. As Rice notes elsewhere in the talk, some countries punish homosexual acts with death, and a death penalty law was narrowly defeated in Uganda a few years ago. Her speech suggested that supporting the LGBT agenda is more important to the Obama administration than stopping the Syrian slaughter, preventing Russia’s advance internationally and protecting Christian refugees.

The Administration’s LBGT Pressure

Rice’s speech reflects how the administration has spent years blackmailing African nations over the LGBT agenda, demanding acquiescence in exchange for basic humanitarian aid. Many Christian leaders have refused to bow to the administration, but the pressure has continued. While some nations certainly have deplorable and inhuman policies, many times the administration has prioritized the LGBT agenda over fighting terrorism and stopping starvation.

She thanked the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and another group “who fight so admirably to promote equal rights and dignity for all.” Co-founded by Terrence Bean — who squirreled out of being found guilty in the alleged sexual abuse of a minor — HRC has targeted pro-marriage advocates to such a degree that a college professor told me he’s never sure if his family is safe.

HRC has also attempted to bully Johns Hopkins University into denouncing a much-cited study that debunks LGBT talking points about sexuality, and has led the dishonest-yet-successful effort to tar North Carolina’s HB2 “bathroom” law as bigoted and hateful. (The Obama administration has also contributed to this misleading state of affairs, with Attorney General Loretta Lynch comparing the very modest bathroom law to racist Jim Crow laws.)

Finally, after referencing the Pulse nightclub shooting this summer, Rice compared HB2 and state-based religious liberty laws to unfair and sometimes inhumane treatment of people who identify as LGBT in other nations. She briefly mentioned the cultural and legal LGBT fight in Indonesia, “governments in Central Asia and Eastern Europe” that are passing anti-homosexual laws and how that “in as many as ten countries, same-sex acts are punishable by death.” She then said:

And, in Syria and Iraq, ISIL has unleashed a unique brutality on LGBT people — dragging gay men behind trucks, stoning them, and burning them alive. ISIL works with chilling efficiency, often going through the cell phones and social media accounts of their victims to identify more LGBT individuals for slaughter. As we speak, the United States is supporting Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they push to liberate Mosul, where ISIL fighters were taped hurling gay men off of buildings.  As one Iraqi man testified before the UN: “In my society, being gay means death.”

Again, some of these laws are downright horrifying, and ISIS’ actions are the same. The Obama administration is right to condemn them, and put pressure on nations to change those practices and laws. But Rice’s speech shows that the Obama administration’s ideology on LGBT “rights” continues to go above and beyond what is right and just, instead giving state-sanctioned preference to the LGBT agenda over the rights of business owners, women and children.

This article was originally posted at the Stream.org

Written by Richard Ostling

Suddenly transgender rights is the hot “culture wars” topic. Religious folks with traditional convictions about such matters have been largely silent, or else many newswriters haven’t yet figured how to locate them in order to report the other side of this crucial debate.

Thus, there’s useful sourcing in the strongly-worded “Transgender Identification Ethics Statement” issued by the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.

This group is made up of 16,000-plus professionals who affirm “the divine inspiration and final authority of the Bible as the Word of God.” CMDA had Big 10 origins at the University of Illinois and Northwestern and went national in 1941. It’s one of many such U.S. fellowships for vocational and academic specialists. Most of these were launched by Evangelical-type Protestants but have long since welcomed Catholic and Orthodox participants.

The transgender statement, approved at a CMDA conference April 21 but publicized only recently, urges doctors to treat these patients with understanding and grace. On the other hand, CMDA champions professionals’ right to freedom of conscience, asserting that it is not “unjust discrimination” if a physician in conscience declines treatment that is considered “harmful or is not medically indicated.”

On the religious aspect, CMDA contrasts the Old and New Testament belief that “God created humanity as male and female” with current “confusion of gender identity.” “Gender complementarity and fixity are both good and a part of the natural order,” it says. The “objective biological fact” is that sex “is determined genetically at conception” and is “not a social construct arbitrarily assigned at birth or changed at will.”

The statement focuses on transgender persons whose psychological “gender identity” is the opposite of biology and genetic makeup – the current public issue – and distinguishes this syndrome from medical treatment of rare abnormalities in which the sexual phenotype and chromosomes conflict (e.g. ambiguous genitalia, androgen insensitivity syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

That is, “the purpose of medicine is to heal the sick, not to collaborate with psychosocial disorders. Whereas treatment of anatomically anomalous sexual phenotypes is restorative, interventions to alter normal sexual anatomy to conform to transgender desires are disruptive to health.”

CMDA leaders think physicians should be aware of evidence that persons who identify as transgender, use cross-sex hormones, or undergo sex reassignment surgery, generally suffer more depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and risky sexual behaviors. The organization is especially critical of doctors who prescribe hormones for a biologically healthy child in order to block normal growth and fertility. On sex-change surgery, CMDA says the medical evidence on outcomes is incomplete but there are potential dangers there as well. In addition, “transgender designations may conceal biological sex differences relevant to medical risk factors.”

Such professional concerns, which have received little media notice thus far, provide good fodder for interviews with transgender advocates, physicians included.

Meanwhile, CMDA is involved in another developing story, the federal lawsuit filed July 19 by the Alliance Defending Freedom against Vermont’s Board of Medical Practice and its Office of Professional Regulation. The suit charges that these agencies interpret “Act 39,” the state’s 2013 suicide law, to require death-by-doctor counseling, in violation of medical ethics and conscience rights.

Resources:

– CMDA media office in Bristol, Tenn.: 423-844-1000.

– Transgender affirmation from the Human Rights Campaign.

– The former chief of psychiatry (and a Catholic) explains why the Johns Hopkins University hospital halted sex-change surgery.

This article was originally posted at GetReligion.org

For some time now I’ve been saying that gay activists will overplay their hand and that the bullying will backfire. I’ve also said that we can outlast the gay revolution and ultimately, by God’s grace, turn the moral tide in America.

Of course, to speak like that is to invite all kinds of scorn and ridicule, not to mention the ugliest death wishes you could imagine. How dare we not roll over and die!

But events from the last 10 days remind us that, even though the cultural battles promise to be long and difficult, many Americans are ready to push back.

To begin with, the significance of the election results from last Tuesday can hardly be overstated.

In Kentucky, while the liberal media mocked Kim Davis the people of her state stood with her, electing Matt Bevin as governor in a crushing and unexpected victory over Attorney General Jack Conway.

And make no mistake about it: This was a direct statement about religious freedoms and redefining marriage.

After all, it was Conway who rose to national fame last year when he refused to defend the state’s ban on same-sex ‘marriage,’ despite his oath of office, explaining to Time magazine that, “Once I reached the conclusion that the law was discriminatory, I could no longer defend it.”

I guess the people of Kentucky didn’t get the memo that the ship has sailed and the culture wars are over.

Then, in Houston, lesbian activist mayor Annise Parker suffered a stinging defeat when her “anti-discrimination” bill, which focused on LGBT “rights,” was crushed by the voters.

In the aftermath of the massive defeat – 62 to 38 percent – Parker was reduced to insulting those who voted against the bill, calling them “transphobes” and more.

So, the people of Houston, America’s fourth largest city, are a bunch of transphobes.

Or, perhaps the triumph of LGBT activism is not so inevitable and there are real issues that having nothing to do with “homophobia” and “transphobia”? And perhaps there’s something to the fact that some strongly conservative Republican presidential candidates are polling better than Hillary Clinton?

Perhaps this really is time for pushback?

And what should we make of the fact that the NFL has decided to bring the Super Bowl to Houston in 2017 despite the defeat of Parker’s bill, even though proponents of the bill had warned that Houston would lose the Super Bowl if the bill was defeated? Perhaps even the NFL, well-known for preaching LGBT “inclusion,” sees the bigger picture?

In the aftermath of the Houston defeat, there were also small signs of a breach between gay activism and transgender activism, as indicated by a petition launched on Change.org by “a group of gay/bisexual men and women who have come to the conclusion that the transgender community needs to be disassociated from the larger LGB community; in essence, we ask that organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, Lambda Legal and media outlets such as The Advocate, Out, Huff Post Gay Voices, etc., stop representing the transgender community as we feel their ideology is not only completely different from that promoted by the LGB community (LGB is about sexual orientation, trans is about gender identity), but is ultimately regressive and actually hostile to the goals of women and gay men.”

The petition was named “Drop the T,” and it’s a reminder of the fact that transgender activists have often felt left out by mainstream gay activism, as reflected in headlines like “Why The Transgender Community Hates HRC” (2007) and “Even After All These Years, HRC Still Doesn’t Get It” (2013).

This too is noteworthy, reminding us that there are cracks in the foundations of LGBT unity that could become wider in the coming years.

There’s one more story from Houston which is of interest, providing yet another example of LGBT overreach, this time in a case involving two Christians who were fired from the daycare center at which they worked when they refused to call a little girl a boy.

The girl in question, just 6-years-old, is being raised by two gay male parents, and we can only wonder if that has something to do with the child’s gender confusion.

As explained to Breitbart Texas by one of the fired workers, Madeline Kirksey, “the problem was not so much with the transgender issue as it was with telling young children that the little girl was a boy when she was not, and with calling her ‘John’ (not the name given) when that was not her name.”

Kirskey also noted that, “sometimes the little girl refers to herself as a little boy, and sometimes she tells the other children to not call her a boy or to refer to her by her masculine name.”

This child is clearly confused and needs professional help.

Instead, rather than getting help for the child, two Christians have lost their jobs, and I cite this example to say again that Americans will only put up with madness like this for so long, just as the selection of Bruce Jenner as Glamour’s woman of the year drew sharp criticism from a wide spectrum of women, including one well-known feminist.

The pushback continues, and the more that LGBT activists overplay their hand, the quicker the tide will turn against them. It’s only a matter of time.

And so, while as followers of Jesus we should seek to be peacemakers in our communities, loving our neighbors (including our LGBT neighbors) as ourselves, we should also stand tall against aggressive LGBT activism.

This too is part of our calling to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com

Written by Ryan T. Anderson

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay marriage, a question arises: Should we protect the rights of Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Latter-Day Saints and Muslims who believe that marriage is a union of husband and wife? Two bills recently introduced in Congress show diverging answers. One seeks to promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence; the other adds fuel to a culture war by treating that traditional belief as racism.

Last week, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and U.S. Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; and Cory Booker, D-N.J., introduced what they call the “Equality Act.” The legislation would add “sexual orientation and gender identity” to more or less every federal law that protects against racism.

Do we really need the federal government to coerce every last baker, florist and adoption agency to violate their beliefs about marriage? The market is already sorting these things out. The Human Rights Campaign reports, for example, that 88 percent of Fortune 500 companies voluntarily do not consider sexual orientation in employment decisions.

The bill also requires that biological males who identify as women be able to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Shouldn’t these decisions be made closer to the ground? By parents, teachers, principals—not federal bureaucrats? Most outrageously, the bill specifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act cannot be used to defend people against its requirements. Rather, it treats decent people of faith as irrational bigots, simply for believing that we’re created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other in marriage.

Whether you agree with this belief or not, it’s easy to see that the “Equality Act” is bad public policy. It fuels the culture war rather than seeking peaceful coexistence.

As I argue in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” there is an alternative.

The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent the federal government from discriminating against citizens or organizations because they believe that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would ensure that no federal agency will ever revoke non-profit tax-exempt status or deny grants, contracts, accreditation or licenses to individuals or institutions for following their belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

This bill simply continues the practice of the United States for all of our history. It takes nothing away from anyone. It changes nothing. It protects pluralism amid disagreement.

And it is necessary. In the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, Justice Samuel Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether a school might lose its tax-exempt status because of its conviction that marriage is the union of husband and wife. Verrilli’s response was chilling: “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.”

This shouldn’t be an issue. Schools should be eligible for non-profit tax status, government contracts, student loans and other forms of support as long as they meet the relevant educational criteria.

As I explain in Truth Overruled, government policy should not trample on the consciences of citizens who dissent from official policies on sexuality. Government discrimination against social service providers who believe marriage is a male-female relationship undermines our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and diversity. The First Amendment Defense Act would prevent this.

Predictably, the left has attacked this bill. The Sunday after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, Mark Oppenheimer wrote a column for Time magazine headlined “Now’s the Time to End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.” Oppenheimer, the New York Times’ religion columnist, argued: “Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.”

But it has long been understood that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Americans who believe that marriage is a union of husband and wife should be free to live and work in accord with their convictions.

When he “evolved” on the issue in 2012, President Barack Obama insisted that there were reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of the marriage debate. Supporters of marriage as the union of a man and a woman “are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective,” he insisted. “They’re coming at it because they care about families.”

He added that “a bunch of ’em are friends of mine … you know, people who I deeply respect.” But as the stories of bakers, florists, photographers and adoption agencies show, there’s good reason to worry about the government’s respect for the beliefs of all Americans.

America is in a time of transition. The court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. Will the right to dissent be protected? Will our right to speak and act in accord with what Americans have always believed about marriage—that it’s a union of husband and wife—be tolerated?

Most Americans say yes, they want ours to be a tolerant, pluralistic nation. They want peaceful coexistence. We must work together to protect these cherished American values, despite the ideologues and activists who would sow disharmony by having the government coerce those with whom they disagree.

The First Amendment Defense Act is one way of achieving civil peace even amid disagreement. To protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, liberals should forswear coercion and embrace tolerance.

Originally published in National Review Online.

Whether you’re going out for a pizza, a coffee, a grocery run, a tank of gas or a washer and dryer, chances are more than 142 times greater that your hard-earned dollars are lining the pockets of your favorite corporations that are funding liberal, anti-family organizations and activities.

Krispy Kreme or Dunkin Donuts? A VW or a Toyota? Carl’s Jr. or McDonald’s? A Coke or a Dr. Pepper? Lowes or Home Depot? Whatever you purchase, your dollars are more than likely going to liberal or conservative causes … and most likely the former.

2ndVote has just unleashed a multi-faceted scoring system that pinpoints the most anti-family and pro-family corporations (and those in-between) vying for consumers’ dollars. Unfortunately for conservative and Christian consumers, most of their dollars often end up funding causes that work against the family values and causes they champion.

2nd Vote National Outreach Director Robert Kuykendall wants to get conservatives in tune with what they’re supporting with every purchase.

“2nd Vote is dedicated to helping conservative consumers keep their spending in line with their values,” Kuykendall told LifeSiteNews, announcing the launch of the organization’s newest project. “We believe that everyone has one vote for their values at the ballot box, but they have the opportunity to vote on their values every day with their wallets.”

To make consumers more aware of where their dollars are going and to hold corporations accountable for the activities and behaviors they support, hundreds of corporations have been graded on seven different issues — Marriage, Pro-Life, 2nd Amendment Rights, Common Core, Corporate Welfare, School Choice, and Environment.

“We believe the reason for this is that Americans who hold pro-life and other traditional values have not done a good job holding these entities accountable,” Kuykendall explained. “We use a 5-point scoring scale to represent a philosophical orientation on the issue and overall: a score of 1 means a corporation’s activity is Liberal and a 5 means the activity is Conservative. However, we also believe that a Neutral score, which we designate as a 3, is a good thing because we can show that that corporation’s activity does not go against our values.”

Kuykendall gives an example of what started his endeavor and how purchases or donations are more than they might seem. For instance, most didn’t know that buying a Ford Mustang, using your American Express, filing up your tank at Shell or drinking an Ensure would fund abortions through Planned Parenthood.

“2nd Vote was actually born out of pro-life principles,” Kuykendall points out. “One of our founding members discovered that the dollars he was regularly donating to the March of Dimes were going to Planned Parenthood. The question from the beginning was, ‘Why would a charity or corporation fund a group whose activity goes against the traditional values of so many Americans?'”

Calling all corporations …

Here’s a glimpse of how 2ndVote rated some of the world’s top corporations when it comes to the stuff and services it buys. The ratings represent the average score the corporations earned on all seven issues combined. Scoring ranges are as follows: 1─ Liberal, 2─ Lean Liberal, 3─ Neutral, 4─ Lean Conservative, 5— Conservative. Just a note … only two corporations scored in the Conservative 4─5 range, while 285 corporations rated in the Liberal 1─2 range (142.5 times more than their Righter counterparts).

To start things off, let’s rev into a test drive, but instead of the lowest 0─60, conservatives will be looking for highest from 1─5: Hyundai (3.0), Volkswagen (3.0), Nissan (2.8), Audi (2.8), Subaru (2.5), Honda (2.0), Chrysler (2.0), Ford (1.8), GM (1.3), Toyota (1.0), Lexus (1.0).

After revving off the showroom floor, here ‘s how the high-octane caffeine and baked goods corporations line up out of the blocks, with Starbucks not looking too stellar and Seattle’s Best looking worst to conservatives: Krispy Kreme (3.0), Tim Horton’s (3.0), Caribou Coffee (2.8), Dunkin Donuts (2.5), Seattle’s Best Coffee (1.0), Starbucks (1.0).

Now it’s time for the shopping carts to roll. Here’s a report card that wouldn’t make the late conservative Sam Walton very proud: Albertsons (3.0), Trader Joe’s (3.0), Kroger (3.0), Whole Foods (2.3), Costco (2.3), Target (1.8), Safeway (1.8), Walmart (1.3), Sam’s Club (1.0).

Well, we haven’t seen anything over 3.0 yet, so here’s a taste of what conservatives want to know, with everyone’s favorite chicken sandwich maker scoring the highest overall conservative rating of all corporations in the project: Chick-fil-a (4.3), Papa John’s (3.0), Domino’s (3.0), Long John Silver’s (3.0), Carl’s Jr. (3.0), Jamba Juice (3.0), Outback Steakhouse (3.0), Burger King (3.0), Cheesecake Factory (3.0), Arby’s (3.0), Orange Julius (3.0), IHOP (2.8), Wendy’s (2.8), Sonic ((2.8), Denny’s (2.8), White Castle (2.8), Chili’s (2.8), In-N-Out Burger (2.6), Panera Bread (2.6), Subway (2.5), Cracker Barrel (2.5), Baskin Robbins (2.5), Jack in the Box (2.5), Dairy Queen (2.5), Hardee’s (2.4), Applebee’s (2.3), McDonald’s (2.3), KFC (2.2), Pizza Hut (2.2), Taco Bell (2.0), Red Lobster (2.0), Olive Garden (2.0), Chipotle (2.0), Longhorn Steakhouse (2.0).

And here’s to hitting your favorite filling station after a quick bite: ConocoPhillips (2.8), Chevron (2.5), Valero (2.3), Shell (2.0), BP (1.9), ExxonMobil (1.9).

Ironically, the world’s largest corporations specializing in making kid’s toys aren’t as kid-friendly when it comes to the anti-family causes they fund: Toys R Us (2.8), Mattel (2.4), Lego (2.4), Hasbro (2.3), Crayola (2.3).

When Americans run to their retailers, the family values champion Hobby Lobby is the only conservative standout: Hobby Lobby (3.8), Jo-Ann (3.0), Bed Bath & Beyond (3.0), Radio Shack (3.0), Dillards (3.0), Zales (3.0), 7-Eleven (3.0), Michael’s (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Rite Aid (2.8), Kohl’s (2.8), Barnes & Noble (2.5), JCPenny (2.5), Hallmark (2.5), Kmart (2.5), Sears (2.5), Dollar General (2.4), Walgreens (2.2), Office Depot (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Macy’s (2.0), Office Max (1.9), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), eBay (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), Nordstrom (1.8), Marshalls (1.8), Best Buy (1.3).

And many apparel and accessories giants aren’t conservative in more ways than one: Cabela’s (3.5), Under Armour (3.3), Eddie Bauer (3.0), Christian Dior (3.0), Zales (3.0), Jockey (3.0), Aeropostale (3.0), Kay Jewelers (3.0), Ann Taylor (2.8), Hanes (2.8), Tommy Hilfiger (2.8), Van Heusen (2.8), Forever 21), New Balance (2.8), Russell Athletic (2.8), Fruit of the Loom (2.5), Ambercrombie & Fitch (2.0), Calvin Klein (2.0), REI (2.0), Ralph Lauren (2.0), Adidas (2.0), Gap (1.9), Banana Republic (1.8), Old Navy (1.8), T.J. Maxx (1.8), Dockers (1.5), Levis (1.5), Converse (1.5), Hurley (1.5), Victoria’s Secret (1.3).

In the sporting goods industry, there are a number of conservative good sports: Bass Pro Shop (3.5), Cabela’s (3.5), Remington (3.4), Under Armour (3.3), Dick’s Sporting Goods (3.3), Russell Athletic (2.8), Amazon (2.3), Adidas (2.0), NFL (2.0), REI (2.0), Converse (1.5), Nike (1.5).

Here’s how the home and garden products merchandisers stacked up, showing that ACE is the place for conservatives: ACE Hardware (3.5), John Deere (2.8), Toro (2.8), Black & Decker (2.8), 1-800-Flowers (2.6), Overstock.com (2.6), Lowe’s (2.5), Clorox (2.3), Amazon (2.3), DuPont (1.9), Dow (1.8), IKEA (1.8), Home Depot (1.8).

And when traveling away from home, some destinations are more conservative than others: Expedia (3.3), Priceline (3.0), American Airlines (2.8), AAA (2.8), Hyatt (2.5), United Airlines (2.4), Orbitz (2.4), JetBlue Airways (2.3), Hilton (2.3), Marriot (2.3), Southwest Airlines (2.3), Alaska Airlines (2.0), British Airways (2.0), Delta Airlines (1.5), US Airways (1.5).

Not so shockingly, most corporations putting out electronic gadgetry are leaning to the Left, with some exceptions: Vizio (3.0), Acer (3.0), Texas Instruments (2.3), Oracle (2.3), Adobe (2.3), Sony (2.2), Lockheed Martin (2.0), Dell (1.9), IBM (1.9), Cisco (1.8), Intel (1.7), Hewlett Packard (1.5), Xerox (1.5), Apple (1.2), Microsoft (1.2), Samsung (1.0).

And phone and Internet companies are witnessed making some liberal connections, as well, with one exception: The Sienna Group (3.7), Twitter (2.6), Verizon, (2.1), Sprint (2.0), AT&T (1.7), Comcast (1.4), Motorola (1.3), Facebook (1.2), Google (1.2), T-Mobile (1.0).

Health and beauty also tends to lean toward the Left: Chanel (2.8), Mary Kay 2.6), L’Oreal (2.4), The Body Shop (2.4), Colgate-Palmolive (2.3), Lancome (2.0), Clinique (2.0), Estee Lauder (2.0), Unilever (2.0), Calvin Klein, (2.0), Avon (1.8), Johnson & Johnson (1.5), Bath & Body Works (1.3).

Proceeds from everybody’s favorite foods don’t always go to everybody’s favorite causes: HoneyBaked Ham (3.0), Butterball (3.0), Godiva (3.0), Blue Bell Ice Cream (3.0), Russell Stover (3.0), Hormel (2.8), Tyson Foods (2.8), Hillshire Farms (2.8), Campbell’s Soup (2.5), Dr. Pepper/Snapple (2.5), Nestle (2.5), Hershey (2.4), Anheuser-Busch (2.2), Kraft (2.0), Ben & Jerry’s (1.8), General Mills (1.5), Kellogg’s (1.5), Tostidos (1.5), Coca-Cola (1.3), Pepsi (1.3), Mars (1.0).

And some financial corporations don’t put your money everywhere you want it to be: American Express (3.0), H&R Block (3.0), Capital One (2.8), Master Card (2.4), Discover (2.3), Fannie Mae (2.0), Sun Trust (2.0), Freddie Mac (1.8), PayPal (1.8), Morgan Stanley( 1.6), Citigroup (1.5), JP Morgan Chase (1.4), Bank of America (1.4), Visa (1.3), Ernst & Young (1.3), Goldman Sachs (1.0), Wells Fargo (1.0).

Originally published at OneNewsNow.com.

 The Truth Project

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Yet another high profile “gay” activist has been arrested for homosexual assault on a child. This time authorities caught one of the big fish (a rainbow trout?). Terrance Patrick Bean founded the “Human Rights Campaign” (HRC), which is one of the world’s largest, wealthiest and most powerful anti-Christian organizations. To this day he remains on the board of directors. HRC was developed for the sole purpose of pushing the extremist homosexual political agenda. Bean is also a major player for the DNC and a big Obama supporter.

The Oregonian reports:

Detectives from the Portland police Sex Crimes Unit arrested Portland developer Terrence Patrick Bean on Wednesday on a Lane County indictment stemming from alleged sex abuse involving a teenage boy in 2013.

Bean, 66, a prominent gay rights activist and major Democratic Party fundraiser, was arrested at his home in Southwest Portland and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center at 10:12 a.m.

The indictment charges Bean with two counts of third-degree sodomy, a felony, and one count of third-degree sex abuse, a misdemeanor, police said.

Bean, who bailed out of jail by late Wednesday afternoon, will be arraigned on the indictment in Lane County. …

The alleged incident involved a sexual encounter in Eugene with a 15-year-old boy. …

Bean has been one of the state’s biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state. He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama. He’s also a close friend of former Gov. Barbara Roberts. …

Bean’s Flickr account shows him talking with Obama at several events, posing with first lady Michelle Obama and numerous other political figures, including former President Bill Clinton.  A blog post from his sister, Sue Surdam Bean, detailed her brother’s work on a July 24, 2012 Obama fundraiser in Portland.  She included three photos of Terry Bean’s ride on Air Force One with Obama to a subsequent event in Seattle.

Just two years ago 68 year old Larry Brinkin, another high profile and similarly respected (at least among Democrats) homosexual activist, was arrested in San Francisco for possessing and distributing reams of child pornography.

CNS News Reported at the time:

Police said that Brinkin, a former city employee, apparently had photos of children, as young as 1- or  2-years-old, performing sexual acts and being sodomized by adult men in attachments linked to the email address, reported The Chronicle. The email account was also linked to Yahoo discussion groups involving sexual exploitation of young people.

Concerning Brinkin, Theresa Sparks, director of the Human Rights Commission, told the Huffington Post, “It’s almost incredulous, there’s no way I could believe such a thing.”

“He’s always been one of my heroes, and he’s the epitome of human rights activist,” she said. “This is [the] man who coined phrases we use in our daily language. I support Larry 100 percent; hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.”

Brinkin later plead guilty to the charges.

Yep – These monsters are “heroes” to the HRC and the larger “gay” activist community.

Ever wonder why?

The cases of Bean and Brinkin follow a long-established pattern as old as the ancient Greek bathhouse. Of course, not every “gay” man – self-identified or otherwise – is a pedophile, but studies indicate demonstrably that homosexual assaults against boys occur at an alarmingly disproportionate rate when compared to heterosexual assaults. The very act of a man molesting a boy unquestionably involves both same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior (a “gay” by any other name…).

Consider, for instance, a study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, of over 200 convicted pedophiles. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as noted by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that “homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”

But don’t repeat these facts out loud or you might find yourself on the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate group” smear list.

Let the HRC damage control begin…

This article was originally posted at the BarbWire.com website.

You knew it would happen sooner or later. An outspoken, wildly popular, conservative Christian who doesn’t give a hoot—or in this case, a quack—about political correctness would air his views about homosexuality, and overnight, Hollywood hell would break loose.

To catch you up on the latest events, earlier this week, the text of Phil Robertson’s interview with GQ Magazine was released online, containing controversial comments about homosexual practice, among other things. (For those who have been living under a rock, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan, and he is a self-proclaimed “Bible thumper.”)

Shortly after the interview was released, and quite predictably, GLAAD issued a statement condemning Robertson’s remarks as “some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication” and said “his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.” (Reminder: GLAAD officially stands for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, but I have long suggested that a more appropriate name would be the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.)

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz says, “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans—and Americans—who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (Note to GLAAD: The majority of Louisianans do not support same-sex marriage.)

This was followed by a clarification and apology of sorts by Robertson: 

I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and, like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

The Human Rights Campaign, the world’s largest gay activist organization, also condemned Robertson’s remarks and called for A&E, the cable network that airs Duck Dynasty, to take action: “The A&E network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views.”

Later the same day, A&E issued its own statement:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.

In support of Robertson, the Faith Driven Consumer Facebook page started an “I Stand With Phil” campaign, while another Facebook page, “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back on Duck Dynasty,” had more than 100,000 “likes” in a matter of hours. Talk about a clash of two cultures!

What did Robertson actually say that was so controversial?

First he remarked, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Was he accusing all (or most) gays of engaging in bestiality or of sleeping with multiple women? It appears not, although I can easily see why his critics would think otherwise, and in that context, he was right to clarify his comments.

What he was saying, though, was that gay sex should be seen as part of the “anything goes” mentality of the sexual revolution of the ’60s, and in that regard he was right. In fact, while gay activists emphasize homosexual identity, placing the gay rights movement in the context of the civil rights movement of the ’60s, Robertson and other conservative Christians emphasize homosexual behavior, placing gay activism in the context of the sexual revolution of the same era.

Robertson next quoted from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, a famous passage in Paul’s letters in which he clearly states that practicing homosexuals, along with practicing heterosexual sinners of various stripes, will not inherit God’s kingdom. (For the record, despite frequent objections to the contrary, the Greek text is quite clear in terms of its overall sense.)

Was A&E genuinely unaware that Phil Robertson held to these views? I seriously doubt it. My guess is that they were just glad (not GLAAD) that he hadn’t aired them publicly.

Finally, Robertson suggested (speaking first for himself) that the female sexual organ was “more desirable” than a man’s rectum and that a woman had “more to offer” a man.

And for these comments he was promptly suspended.

The fact is, though, no matter how much two men may love each other, it remains indisputably clear that men were biologically designed to be with women, and vice versa. In that regard, no matter how crude Robertson’s comments may have been, they were correct.

As for his quotation from 1 Corinthians 6, did anyone really think that Robertson would say, “You know, now that I’ve become a TV celebrity, I’m going to revise my views on God’s intent for human sexuality and marriage”?

Personally, I don’t believe for a moment that Robertson will bow down to A&E and compromise his convictions, although I could see him offering a further clarification of his statements, explaining, for example, that he was not accusing homosexuals of practicing bestiality any more than heterosexuals engage in such perversion.

And I don’t see how A&E can back down from its position regardless of how popular the show is. The gay lobby is far too powerful. (I imagine that Alec Baldwin has an opinion on this as well, although, to be clear, I am not comparing Robertson to Baldwin.)

In fact, I don’t see either of them about to blink, which means the culture wars are about to hit the fan, and this could get very ugly very quickly.

I suggest that those of us who agree fundamentally with Robertson make clear that: 1) We are unashamed of our belief in Jesus and in biblical morality; 2) we stand against the mistreatment of all people, including gays and lesbians; and 3) we will not support the radical redefinition of marriage, regardless of the cost involved, nor do we see cultural capitulation to gay activism as inevitable.

Now would be a perfect time to take a stand, but with grace, precision and wisdom.

This article was originally posted at the Charismannews.com blog.

The urgent battle to defend and preserve marriage in Illinois is heating up in Illinois and is being watched with feverish interest by homosexual activists and their ideological allies throughout the country (Click HERE to read what the powerful Washington D.C.-based Human Rights Campaign is doing).

As evidence that “progressives” outside Illinois are watching Springfield, here is an email IFI received late last week from a Tampa, Florida attorney, followed by my response. It’s my hope that this exchange may help others in their discussions about marriage with friends, neighbors, colleagues, and lawmakers—which we should all be having:

Do you realize that U.S. citizens are not required to be religious, let alone Christian?

Do you realize “traditional marriage” was polygamy and trading women for property?

I have two friends in Chicago who want to get married.  They are gay.  I am 100% in favor of that.

Jonathan S. Coleman, Esq.
Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Counselors at Law
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Mr. Coleman,

The term “traditional” is imperfect in that not all past (i.e., traditional) marital customs were sound, right, or good. As most readers understand, when we use “traditional,” we are referring to the most enduring, cross-cultural, and inherent feature of marriage: sexual complementarity. We are also fully aware that polygamy has been legal in some countries at different times in history. A better term would be “natural marriage” or “true marriage.”

But just as “progressives” believe that marriage has some inherent constituent features, so do we. Very few “progressives” argue that society creates marriage out of whole cloth. Most “progressives” assert that marriage is inherently binary and is inherently constituted by the presence of subjective feelings of love. We, in contrast, believe that marriage is inherently binary and sexually complementary. Government doesn’t create marriage. Government merely recognizes and regulates a type of relationship that exists and predates the state.

If, as “progressives” assert, marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential, and is constituted merely by the presence of love, why the magic number two? Why should the government prohibit the legal recognition of polyamorous unions as marriages? Are polyamorists being denied their equal rights? Why should the government prohibit two brothers who love each other from marrying? And why not recognize platonic friendships as marriages?

The government has no vested interest in the feelings of those seeking to marry. There is no government interest in promoting, recognizing, or affirming love between two people (homosexual or heterosexual)—never has been, never will be.

The government is involved in marriage because the sexual union of one man and one woman is the type of union that produces children (whether every union can or will produce children is irrelevant to the government). And the government has a vested interest in protecting the needs and rights of children. If humans did not procreate sexually, there would be no such thing as government-recognized/regulated marriage.

From your peculiar question regarding whether we are aware that U.S. citizens are not required to be either religious in general or Christians, I have to assume you’ve read virtually nothing of what I’ve written about marriage because the reasons given in my articles for defending marriage as inherently sexually complementary are secular and logical—not religious.

If marriage were solely a religious institution or practice, like Communion, the assumption embedded in your question would make more sense. But marriage is both a religious ritual or sacrament and a civil institution that directly affects the public good and necessitates and justifies government involvement.

I don’t see the relevance of your friendship with a homosexual couple to the question of what marriage is or why the government is involved. If I knew a father and daughter who were in love and committed to spending their lives together, my view of the importance of the criterion regarding blood kinship would not change. And recognizing homosexual unions as “marriages” is far more radical a redefinition of marriage than would be recognizing incestuous heterosexual unions as marriages.

One final question: Do you believe that children have an inherent, unalienable right to be raised whenever possible by their biological mother and father?

With all due respect, I am continually surprised by the poor thinking of so many attorneys who are trained to think logically and base arguments on reason and evidence rather than feelings. I have asked multiple “progressive” attorneys this question: Why should marriage be limited to two people? No response. I have asked if children have a right to be raised by their biological parents. No answer. Not even a bad answer. Frankly, I don’t sense that many of our leaders or pundits on either the Left or Right are thinking deeply, logically, or philosophically about the implications of this radical redefinition of marriage. We’re an intellectually lazy, morally degenerate, self-centered culture. And it’s children and the First Amendment that will suffer.

Sincerely,

Laurie Higgins

We frequently hear that the views of many Americans, including elected leaders like U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) or Illinois State Representatives Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein) and Ron Sandack (R-Westmont), on the issue of marriage are shaped by the knowledge that someone they love experiences same-sex attraction. It’s passing strange that so many Americans base their moral convictions on the feelings and behavioral choices of friends and loved ones. By that dangerous moral reasoning, we should abandon virtually all moral proscriptions since all moral proscriptions arise precisely because there are people (including people we love) who experience powerful, seemingly intractable feelings to engage in the proscribed behavior.

Conservatives should care more about protecting marriage than the Left does in destroying it.  To demonstrate our investment in marriage, we must extricate ourselves from our self-imposed moral paralysis. The consequences of our unconscionable acquiescence to the feckless voices of the Left are perilous. In order to indulge our fear and intellectual laziness, we’re even willing to bequeath to our children and grandchildren an America with religious and speech protections as well as children’s rights in tatters. We’re willing to teach our children by example to conform to evil and rationalize it as love.

For those of you who attend churches whose leaders rationalize cowardly, unbiblical inaction by claiming that the church has no business being involved in political issues (including, apparently, even political issues that are also biblical issues), ask them this question: 

If a bill were pending in Springfield that would legalize slavery and which was very close to passing, would you still refuse to speak and act publicly? 

If they answer that they would remain silent, perhaps it’s time to find a new church.

Help us protect marriage & family!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square.

Rev. Wallis, you told us in 2008 that “the sacrament of marriage” should not be changed and that “marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.” Now, in 2013, you want to redefine marriage and make it gender-neutral. In doing so, you have betrayed the Word of God and the people of God.

To be candid, sir, I’m not surprised by your theological flip-flop—just pained and distressed by it, since your name is still associated with evangelical Christianity in America and you are a prominent church leader.

In the past, you raised some valid criticisms about the “religious right” and its deep solidarity with the Republican Party, but then you joined yourself to the religious left and the Democratic Party, even campaigning for Democratic candidates. So much for taking a kingdom-of-God position that transcends partisan politics and challenges the political establishment.

To be sure, you have rightly challenged us to consider the poor and the oppressed, pointing to the hundreds of Scriptures that call us to “social justice.” But then you have turned around and applauded Communist dictatorships that championed oppression and tyranny.

When it comes to Christian integrity, you disappointed us when you received funding from pro-abortion, pro-atheism billionaire George Soros and when you allowed the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s largest gay activist organization, to take out paid advertising in your Sojourners magazine, even though the HRC would love to silence all religious opposition to homosexual practice.

It is true that in 2008, you expressed having “mixed feelings” about the HRC ads, stating that you “probably wouldn’t do it again.” But today, the HRC celebrates your defection from biblical values, announcing in headline news, “Leading Evangelical Christian Voice Announces Support For Marriage Equality.”

Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.

You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”

Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”

How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?

I’m sure you have met devoted gay couples that love each other and love the kids they are raising. I’m sure you have also met devoted “gay Christians” who have told you about the rejection and pain they have experienced at the hands of the church. And I’m sure you are concerned about the institution of marriage.

But you don’t strengthen marriage by making it genderless, by replacing bride and groom with “Partner A and Partner B” (or, worse still, by adding formulas like, “I now pronounce you husband and husband or bride and bride”).

However sincere you might be, you are calling for changes that will ultimately result in removing the categories of mother and father from birth certificates, to be replaced instead with “Progenitor A and Progenitor B” (as is the case in Spain, where same-sex “marriage” is accepted under the law of the land).

Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?

You even state that you want to make marriage “more and more inclusive,” which by extension means the support of polygamous marriage and polyamorous marriage and more, as the MarriageEquality blog states, “Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence and marriage without limits on the gender, number or relation of participants.” Have you really considered the implications of your words?

Worst of all, you have reversed your earlier position on what the Bible clearly says about marriage based largely on where “the country is going.”

What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?

You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.

Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.

Originally posted at:  http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39106-jim-wallis-you-have-betrayed-the-word-of-god-and-the-people-of-god 

Organizers of Chicago’s annual celebration of sexual deviancy, oxymoronically named the Chicago “Gay Pride” Parade, decided to change the parade route and time for the 2012 parade. This change would have resulted in the disruption or cancellation of the 10:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church.

On FOX Chicago Sunday, Mike Flannery and Dane Plancko asked Cardinal Francis George how he felt about this. Cardinal George expressed his hope that the “gay liberation movement” would not “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” Dane Plancko followed up by suggesting that such an analogy might be “a little strong,” to which Cardinal George agreed, adding that we should “look at the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and the rhetoric of some of the gay liberation people.” Cardinal George explained that in the rhetoric of both groups, the enemy is the Catholic Church.

In the face of silly demands by homosexual activists that he resign or apologize, Cardinal George instead offered the following clarification:

“Organizers [of the parade] invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church…One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.”

As is their wont to do, homosexual activists — ever the embodiment of tolerance and freedom — became livid over Cardinal George’s analogy. As too is customary for homosexual activists, they seem to believe their indignation and “hurt feelings” serve just as well as an actual argument.

Here are some of the responses of prominent homosexual activists to Cardinal George’s comments:

He has crossed so far over the line of basic decency that he couldn’t see it with a pair of binoculars…This outrageous comparison of the LGBT community to the Ku Klux Klan was so degrading… that apologizing will not be sufficient….If he has a shred of dignity and a shard of class he will immediately step down. (Homosexual activist Wayne Besen, Founder of Truth Wins Out)

As a lay Catholic, I am profoundly saddened that Cardinal Francis George defiles his office by comparing our LGBT family, friends and fellow Catholics to the Ku Klux Klan. (Catholics for Marriage Equality)

This is a sacred time of year for many people of faith, a time when we should be creating and cherishing unity in our communities-not casting about dangerous and divisive rhetoric. (Human Rights Campaign)

How ironic that those who defend a parade that celebrates sexual perversion and violates public indecency laws would describe Cardinal George’s rhetoric as indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. It is homosexual acts that are indecent, degrading, undignified, and defiling. We would do well to remember the words of Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” In reality, homosexuality is a sin so serious that Scripture warns that those who engage in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

As such, affirmation of homosexuality would be a desacralizing act. Unity and peace are goods to be sought but never at the expense of truth and never with the “unfruitful works of darkness.” Jesus says, “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.” If we truly love those who experience same-sex attraction, we will speak the truth about homosexuality, offer them the hope that is found in Christ alone, and come alongside them as they seek to pursue holiness.

Cardinal George’s analogy is fair and apt. Many homosexual activists harbor unconcealed hatred for not only the Catholic Church but also for all Protestant denominations that hold orthodox views of homosexuality. And these homosexual activists openly express their hatred in vile and vitriolic rhetoric. If Fox Sunday Chicago reporter Dane Plancko is unaware of this, he needs to do more research.

Was Cardinal George comparing the celebration of sexual deviance to the racism and violence of the KKK? Of course not. He was comparing the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of the KKK to the anti-Catholic rhetoric and actions (i.e., parades) of homosexual activists. But once again, petulant homosexual activists, desperate for the ideological high ground, are demonstrating either their obtuseness in dealing with analogies or their deceitfulness.

Homosexual activists become enraged — or feign indignation — at any analogy that compares any aspect of homosexuality or the homosexuality-affirmation movement to anything immoral, unethical, or sinful because they don’t believe homosexual attraction and acts are immoral, unethical, or sinful. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to accept the ontological or moral assumptions of homosexual activists.

The salient question for conservatives is, “Does the analogy work?” In other words, are there points of correspondence between the two ideas or phenomena being compared, and are the points of correspondence relevant to the issue or issues being debated? Whether it offends the sensibilities of those who choose to make their unchosen homosexual attractions central to their identity is irrelevant.

If every Catholic parish and every Protestant church had a leader who would speak the truth about homosexuality with the clarity, conviction, and courage that Cardinal George did, perhaps we could end the sorry spectacle of the Chicago “gay pride” parade for good.

To read more on the attitudes and actions of homosexual activists to Christian orthodoxy, please click on the following links:

Homosexual Rainbow Sash Movement Threatens to Disrupt Pentecost Mass, Confront Cardinal George (Catholic Online)

‘Jesus is a homo’ Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service (Catholic Online)

Anti-Christian Activists Seek to Intimidate and Censor Church Doctrine (Illinois Family Institute)

‘Safe schools’ chief was member of radical Act Up (WorldNetDaily.com)

‘Hunky Jesus’ Contest in San Francisco Mocks Christianity on Easter Sunday, but Don’t Look for ‘Hunky Muhammad’ Contest Anytime Soon (Americans For Truth About Homosexuality)