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

At the DNC Convention, Michelle Obama made this presumptuous statement:

[T]his election and every election is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.

Her husband’s non-legal attempt to do just that—to exploit his power to shape the lives of other people’s children—is no more evident than in his command to every government school to allow boys in girls’ locker rooms and restrooms and vice versa. His order, delivered via the Department of Education’s Office for (un)Civil Rights, commands schools to allow students who reject their sex to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms and to do so based on nothing more than their claim that they feel like the opposite sex—or both sexes.

In order to attempt to undergird this diktat with a patina of legal authority, the Office for (un)Civil Rights falsely claims that when Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on “sex,” the word “sex” includes “gender identity.” If this redefinition of the word “sex” by unelected government bureaucrats prevails, schools will be prohibited from discriminating based on either sex or “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s objective, immutable sex) in even school facilities in which intimate, personal activities take place.

So, what will this mean? It means that eventually all restrooms, locker rooms, and showers will be co-ed. There will remain no way for schools to prevent non-“trans” students (i.e., normal students) from using opposite-sex locker rooms or showers. Schools will not be able to prohibit boys who accept their sex (i.e., normal boys) from using girls’ locker rooms based on the fact that they are objectively male because schools will have already have allowed other objectively male persons in girls’ locker rooms. And schools will not be able to prohibit normal boys (aka “cisgender” boys) from using girls’ locker rooms, showers, or restrooms because they are not “trans,” because that would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.” The end game is the obliteration of all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences even in private areas.

If Obama’s pernicious goal is realized, people of faith will no longer be able to justify keeping their children in public schools. Parents cannot ethically place their children under the tutelage of teachers, administrators, and school board members so foolish that they don’t understand the meaning of biological sex and who will not protect the physical privacy of children and teens.

In the service of preventing this abuse of power and the destruction of respect for sex differences in our taxpayer-funded schools, IFI has sent this letter of warning, written by attorney Jason Craddock, to the Illinois State Board of Education Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith and Board Chairman Rev. James Meeks.

(Click to enlarge)

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send  Superintendent Smith and Board Chairman Meeks an email or fax asking them to please prohibit school administrators from implementing a policy that would permit gender-dysphoric students to use opposite-sex restrooms and/or locker rooms.

Let these school officials know that under no circumstance will your child be permitted to share a restroom or locker room with students of the opposite sex. Let them know that as a taxpayer, you are concerned about the modesty, privacy, and safety of students and about the liability of school districts for failing to protect students.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Mainstream Media are master stagers, adept at slick productions edited to create the cultural scene, the public perception of their desiring.

In the world of stratospheric real estate, stagers move in furnishings and artwork, paint, light candles, bake bread or cookies — everything possible to touch the emotions of potential buyers and elicit a sale.

In the world of what poses as journalism, the authors and pundits selectively edit and present the news through the Leftist lens, such that Americans at large consume not facts, but ideologies.

If you had to ask John Doe on the street, “What issues are most important to Millennials?” their answers based on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, etc., would most likely be climate change, “choice,” LGBT and marriage equality issues, and marijuana legalization. Alas, John D. would be wrong.

Oh, Obama and his cohorts keep lambasting us with the “Climate Change is the biggest threat to mankind!” rhetoric.

Modern day climate and ecology tyrants exemplify Romans 1:

²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

The President is unable to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the same sentence and in that order. And yet, our POTUS recites ad nauseam the LGBTQ mantra of Pride! Does Pres. Obama realize his words confirm more verses in Romans 1?

²⁴ Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵ They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

²⁶ Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷ 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.

²⁸ Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

²⁹ They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ³¹ they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

President Obama proclaims “Islam is a religion of peace!” and the Islamic call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Left’s secular, Socialist indoctrination of America and her youth marches on, driven by education elites and the media.

And yet, despite this ever present Climate and Sexual Perversion Propaganda, millennials march to a slightly different beat.

A recent Ipsos study of 2016 election issue concerns which surveyed “1,141 adults age 18-34 from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii” returned strikingly unexpected results. Ipsos is a global market research company with worldwide headquarters in Paris, France.

Look closely at the chart below which lists the “most important issues for the next President of the United States to prioritize”:

Notice that Climate Change is number 9, Abortion number 13, Marijuana number 12 and LGBTQ issues number 13.

Those results are slightly heartening and would be more so were it not for MSM’s wholesale silence on the survey. All we hear in the ethernet and on broadcast news are the proverbial crickets of verboten knowledge.

Also of note, on page six of the report, 57 percent of the respondents either strongly or somewhat agree that “Terrorism fueled by religious extremism is a bigger threat than gun violence” and 58 percent either strongly or somewhat agree that “The government should protect the Second Amendment right of all Americans to buy guns if they want to.”

What this report and these results mean is there is hope!

With all of The Left’s high-powered marketing, glitzy Hollywood production, and monopoly of the broadcast news and education establishment, they still have not completely eradicated independent thought and values. Millennials do not quite yet walk in Progressive lockstep.

Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, are about 100 years late to the culture war Progressives (née Socialists/Marxists) have been waging via every possible societal gatekeeper.

What now?

Time to wake up. Time for each and every Conservative, every Bible-believing Christian to make haste and dive headlong into the fray. There are hearts and souls, and ultimately the future of our beloved nation in the balance.

We must use our time and our money to reach those whose hearts have not yet hardened to the truth of Psalm 32:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.

We must remind each American of the precepts of the Founders, which were the precepts of the Bible. We must implement superior marketing to message the sanctity of life and natural marriage, and every other value we hold dear.

Conservatism is no fad, no flash in the pan. It is a time-tested worldview tempered by biblical principles, principles which, when acted upon result in life and abundant life for individuals, families, and nations.

Mainstream Media has staged its Progressive Production; time for Conservatives to shatter that evil facade and deliver the truth that could rescue not only Millennials, but all of America.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Even as I write these words, different cities in America are considering dangerous and irrational laws that impose unfair and potentially dangerous burdens on the vast majority of citizens, all in name of helping a tiny number of deeply confused individuals. When will we learn?

To put it simply, you are guaranteeing trouble when you effectively make public bathrooms and locker rooms gender neutral. It is an experiment in social madness, and it is completely without justification, no matter how much we care about men and women who struggle with gender identity issues.

Many of us in the pro-family movement have warned for years that so-called anti-discrimination laws that include “gender identity” and “gender expression” as categories open the door to a host of potential problems and abuses.

First, these laws do not consider the needs of a multitude of women and children who will feel quite uncomfortable when a biological male comes walking into their bathroom or locker room, understandably so. (Note to LGBTQ activists: The fact that a biological male dresses like a female does not make women and children feel any more comfortable.)

Second, there is no way to keep heterosexual predators out of the ladies’ rooms, since a heterosexual male could simply pose as a woman to satisfy his voyeuristic (or worse) desires.

[Two weeks ago] in Seattle, “A man undressed in a women’s locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.”

As reported by Krem.com, “It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said ‘the law has changed and I have a right to be here.’”

Was he transgender? Heterosexual? Something else? Does it matter? If he feels he should be able to use the women’s locker room, he can, and no one can stop him.

In the words of pool regular Aldan Shank, “Sort of works against the point they’re trying to make. They’re causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable.”

When I posted this report on my Facebook page, a woman named Kati commented, “This is VERY real. This new policy that was recently adopted by our local YMCA in WA allows for people to use whatever locker room they self-identify with. Just two weeks ago a boy around the age of 13 walked right into the girls side of the women’s locker room. All he did was sit down and scroll through his phone. Little girls where surprised when they came in from showering with their towels wrapped around them to see him sitting there. My daughter was one of those girls. This policy opens the door to those who have malicious intent.”

What kind of lunacy is this?

Last year, at a Planet Fitness gym in Midland, Michigan, Yvette Cormier was in the ladies’ locker room when a man, dressed as a woman, entered the locker room. According to local ABC News, “Cormier, who had been a Planet Fitness member for two months, said she went to the front desk immediately. The man at the desk told her that Planet Fitness policy is ‘whatever gender you feel you are, that’s the locker room you’re allowed to go in,’ she said.

When Cormier warned other members about the Planet Fitness policy, her own membership was revoked.

Even more alarming, in 2012, in Olympia, Washington, female high-school students sharing a college campus swimming pool were shocked to see a naked, 45-year-old male student who identifies as “Colleen” sitting in their sauna. (The police report stated that “she” was exposing “her male genitalia.”)

The girls were traumatized and the parents outraged, but college officials said they could not do anything because of state policies against gender-identity discrimination: “‘The college has to follow state law,’ Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. ‘The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state.’”

Adding to the insanity is the fact that it was subsequently discovered online that Colleen also identifies as a lesbian and is strongly attracted to women, in other words, just like most heterosexual males. Yet it is perfectly legal for Colleen to sit in a sauna with naked teenage girls.

Who can possibly justify abuses like this?

Last October it was reported that, “The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.

“Two women showering in Whitney Hall, a residence at U of T’s University College, reported they saw a cellphone reach over the shower-stall dividers in an attempt to record them, in two different incidents, police Const. Victor Kwong told The Toronto Star.”

But of course. Is anyone surprised?

Recently, before speaking at a chapel service for a Christian middle school and high school, I stopped in the restroom, which, I discovered, was in the elementary school wing of the building.

As I walked out, three little boys walked in, perhaps 6 years old.

I thought to myself, “How could any adult possibly think that it is fair to these little boys to have a confused little girl use their bathroom, or a confused little boy use the girls’ room?” And how could any adult possibly think that it was fine for a confused (or opportunistic) teenage boy to share a locker room with teenage girls?

Yet in schools across the nation, this is hardly a theoretical question. In fact, in an extraordinary example of government overreach, last November a headlineannounced: “Department of Education orders school to allow boys to use girls’ locker rooms, showers.”

It’a time we say enough!

I urge every man or woman of conscience and decency to stand against these laws while, at the same time, working to help those who are gender-confused get to the root of their struggles.

This social madness must stop.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com

Written by Denise Shick

Denise Shick is author of “My Daddy’s Secret,” “When Hope Seems Lost,” and “Understanding Gender Confusion.” She serves on the academic council of the International Children’s Rights Institute and directs Help 4 Families Ministry.

Is it true that the push for “transgender rights” is simply a compassionate effort to protect a tiny, vulnerable portion of society? Is it an innocent, well-meaning effort that will not adversely affect other Americans? The answer to these questions is decidedly No. While we should be compassionate to those who struggle with gender identity issues, we should beware of the push for “transgender rights.”

To be sure, we already have reason to be concerned about the normalizing of transgender identity in our society, from the almost satirical choice of Bruce Jenner to be Glamor magazine’s Woman of the Year to shocking stories like this one, reported by family activist Linda Harvey:

A 17-year-old Chicago girl recently had healthy breasts amputated because she read about the possibility of becoming ‘transgendered’ and decided this was the answer to her depression and suicidal tendencies — and her parents said, ‘Well, OK.’ So Emily is now called ‘Emmett’ and has just begun hormone therapy to (supposedly) become a male.

Yet there is far more at stake than public perceptions about gender identity and the health and well-being of teenagers who amputate healthy body parts.

We’re talking about downright dangerous legislation that even affects our children in their schools. Under the guise of LGBT non-discrimination bills, an aggressive agenda is being advanced across the country, one that protects LGBT “rights” at the expense of the rights of other citizens, foremost of which are our religious rights.

Thankfully, many American Christians have recognized the very real, gay-activist threat to these freedoms of speech, conscience and religion. But when it comes to transgender issues, most are not as aware of the real issues involved.

One obvious concern is the impact on our privacy, specifically, in public bathrooms and locker rooms. If LGBT activists have their way, public bathrooms and locker rooms would be rendered gender neutral, leading to obvious chaos, confusion and possible danger.

As a woman, would you want to use a gender neutral bathroom? As a father, would you want to send your daughter into one? How about you as a woman having to get undressed in the fitness center’s locker room next to a biological male who identifies as a female? (This is not hypothetical; see here.)

How about that biological male getting undressed in the locker room next to your wife, sir?

Transgender activists want to be able to use the bathroom and locker room of their perceived gender identity, no matter how uncomfortable it would make anyone else, thereby imposing the struggles of less than 1 percent of the population on the other 99 percent.

And, while I do not believe that a man who truly believes he is a woman is going into the bathroom in order to check out the ladies — or worse — I’m quite sure that heterosexual predators have taken advantage of these situations to pose as transgender women in order to have access to unsuspecting women. As reported October 8, the “University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms after Peeping Incidents.”

Yes, “The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of ‘voyeurism’ were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.”

What kind of madness is this?

It is the madness of the gender-neutral bathroom craze, a direct result of transgender activism. More seriously still, younger children are being negatively impacted, without parental knowledge or consent. As reported by MassResistance on February 19, 2013, “The ‘transgender agenda’ onslaught is now hitting Massachusetts schoolchildren with full force. What you are about to read is nothing short of madness. But it is happening.”

These charges are then outlined in disturbing detail, with direct citations from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Gender Identity document, including:

• There is a difference between a child’s “assigned sex at birth” and his or her “gender-related identity.”
• All schools must include “gender identity” in policies, handbooks and written materials.
• “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl. So too with a student who says he is a boy and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of his life. Such a student should be respected and treated like a boy.”
• Parents can be excluded from the process of a student changing his or her gender identity if the student so desires, meaning that if Jane decides to become Joe at school while hiding this from her parents, she can do so, provided she has a letter from a “parent, health care provider, school staff member familiar with the student (a teacher, guidance counselor or school psychologist, among others), or other family members or friends” verifying that she wants to be treated as a boy.
• The concept of “gender”/biological sex will be removed from all school life.
• There will be mandatory transgender diversity training for children and school staff.
• There will be no tolerance for other students’ discomfort with transgenderism.

As Brian Camenker of MassResistance said to the school board when these changes were being announced, this is “complete lunacy.” But it could well be coming to a school near you if transgender activists succeed.

You have been forewarned.

This article was originally posted at the Stream.org.

A veteran-related story by The Associated Press focuses on 92-year-old Rupert Starr, a World War II veteran who was captured by the Germans and earned a Bronze Star. The angle of the story, however, is that the veteran is a homosexual who opposed the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – a policy that was lifted in 2011, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

Barbwire.com founder Matt Barber says the article is a slap in the face to veterans – on a day celebrating their heroism.  He tells OneNewsNow:

“To make this about sexual identity politics, and to focus on this individual’s abhorrent sexual proclivities and his lifestyle choices, and to somehow elevate those disordered behaviors as something to be proud of, is really offensive.”

According to Barber, the AP story – which mentions Starr’s homosexual lifestyle or homosexual activism 10 times in the 16-paragraph story – omits an important result of the military’s policy change: the “explosion” of male-on-male assaults in the U.S. military.

“I mean, immediately upon the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ these homosexual assaults spiked and are even – according to the Pentagon’s own statistics – are utterly out of control right now,” Barber tells OneNewsNow.

A 1,400-page Pentagon report conducted in 2013 reported 26,000 service members had been sexually assaulted; approximately 12,000 were female – 14,000 were male. Seventy-three percent of male-on-male assaults occurred on base, the report found.

The Washington Times reported on the findings earlier this year, quoting a homosexual in the story who claimed the male-on-males assaults weren’t done by homosexuals – that they were more like prison rapes.

Rather than truly honoring veterans in the story, Barber says AP is “acting as activists, in fact cheerleaders, for a radical agenda that has hurt the armed services.”

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

Is homosexuality compatible with Christianity? Can you be proudly “gay” and Christian? How do I reach out to my ‘gay’ friends without compromising the Gospel?

“Gay Christianity”—or a new apostasy? Dr. Michael Brown will address the hot topic of “Can you be ‘gay’ and Christian?” as the keynote speaker at Americans For Truth’s dinner-banquet Saturday, Oct. 25, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights IL. Doors open at 5:30. To sign up online for just $20/person, go to AFTAH.org/donate/; or mail you check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Tickets are $25 dollars at the door. Click HERE for a PDF Flier about the banquet.

[PRINTABLE BANQUET FLIER: for a printable PDF Flier announcing the Oct. 25 banquet with Dr. Brown, click HERE.]

AFTAH Banquet Web page: [Click HERE AFTAH website: AmericansForTruth.org

________________________

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is excited to host Dr. Michael Brown to keynote our Oct. 25 “Teaching Banquet” built around the theme of Dr. Brown’s new book, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?: Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality.” Please bring your friends and family to this information-packed event at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.

WHO: Dr. Michael Brown, author, “Can You Be Gay and Christian?: Responding with LOVE & TRUTH to Questions About Homosexuality” ; also, ex-“gay” leader Stephen Black and Mission America president Linda Harvey will be speaking.  And AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera will discuss his upcoming “Free Speech” trial in Canada, which almost BANNED him from entering that country on the basis that he would “incite hate.”

This is an excellent opportunity to bring your friends, family and young adults who are confused about homosexuality. They will hear Dr. Brown and the speakers answer such tough questions as:

• Are people ‘born gay’?
• How should I answer when an LGBT advocate says “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”?
• What do I say when I’m accused of “judging” my friends living a homosexual lifestyle?
• What is the best response when pro-homosexual “marriage” activists say: “How does a loving and committed ‘gay’ couple’s same-sex marriage affect YOUR marriage?”
• What is the best way to reach out in love to my homosexual friends and family members—without compromising the Gospel?

[To read Dr. Brown’s column, ‘No One is Born Gay,” go HERE. To read Brown’s column on Houston lesbian Mayor Annise Parker’s effort to subpoena the sermon notes of five local pastors, see his column: “Mayor Parker, City Attorney Feldman: You Will Not Put Us in the Closet”

ESSENTIALS:

WHEN: Saturday, October 25; doors open at 5:30 PM; dinner served at 6:30.

WHERE: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL

COST: Tickets are only $20/person in advance (payment received by Oct. 24) or $25 at the door. Dinner is included. Table Sponsorship: just $200 for a table of 10. Sign up online at www.aftah.com/donate/, or mail your check to:

AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

THEME: “Can You Be ‘Gay’ and Christian? A Teaching Banquet on Homosexuality and the Church”

AFTAH Banquet Page: [Click HERE]; PDF Banquet  Flier: [Click HERE]

Phone: 312-324-3787; E-mail to RSVP: americansfortruth@gmail.com; or email Brad Wallace at connops@yahoo.com.

Michael L. Brown holds a PhD from New York University in Near Eastern languages and literatures, and is recognized as one of the leading Messianic Jewish scholars in the world today. In addition to his latest book debunking “gay Christianity,” Dr. Brown is author of “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” a 691-page book on the LGBT agenda. He is the founder and president of FIRE School of Ministry and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire. The author of more than 20 books, Dr. Brown is a contributor to The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion and other scholarly publications.

_________________________________

PDF of Banquet Flier: click this link: AFTAH-Banquet-Flier-Dr-Michael-Brown_2014

** UPDATE**: Former homosexual (ex-”gay”) leader Stephen Black (right) of First Stone Ministries, based in Oklahoma City, will be attending our banquet. Stephen will offer his observations on the downfall of the ex-”gay” umbrella group Exodus International under false teaching–and the rise of Restored Hope Network to take its place as offering the hope of change for men and women struggling with homosexuality.

Also, Linda Harvey of Columbus-based Mission America–a leading Christian expert on the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda in schools–will be on hand at the banquet! Harvey will be signing her book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View on Homosexuality.”

Said AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera:

“We are thrilled to have these two national pro-family leaders joining Dr. Brown at our banquet to answer your questions about the homosexual activist agenda and the “gay” campaign to subvert Christianity. If you are perplexed about how to respond to ubiquitous media propaganda surrounding homosexual ‘marriage’– and the new ‘gay Christian’ campaign to accommodate homosexuality–come and bring a friend or two to CLA on Saturday, October 25. You will leave better equipped to speak God’s truth in love in the culture!”

For the homosexuality-affirming movement to hold culture tightly in its foul grip, those for whom same-sex attraction and activity define “identity” must capture the hearts and minds of children who are our future. Hence the unholy clutching and scrabbling to rule public schools, even at the expense of intellectual freedom, diversity, and exploration.

They must also capture the hearts and minds of men—who are by nature leaders of culture. Hence the unholy scrabbling and clutching to transmogrify bastions of masculinity: the Boy Scouts of America, the military, and sports.

Those who find the video of homosexual NFL draftee Michael Sam “endearing” have had their consciences seared and values deformed. While it is a good thing that the rigid taboo against men expressing emotion has weakened, the image of a man tearfully stroking the arm of a weeping male lover and a celebratory homoerotic kiss between two men should provoke strong reactions—none of which should be “aw, isn’t that sweet.”

While pundits and the worldly wise celebrated the homoerotic predilections of Sam, Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones tweeted “OMG” and “horrible.” For those quickly deleted politically incorrect words, Jones is being fined and sent to re-education camp. “Horrible” means “dreadful; very unpleasant; and disagreeable.” Sentiments properly ordered should find homoerotic kissing “horrible.” God destroyed a city in large part because of homosexual activity, and God calls homosexual activity “abominable” and “detestable.” We should not find such acts “endearing.”

And a society that values diversity, tolerance (which means to endure that which offends you), religious liberty, and freedom of speech should not punish and “re-educate” those who dissent from “progressive” dogma or tweet one politically incorrect adjective

Click here to read this important article by English professor Robert Oscar Lopez who was raised by two lesbians. In it he provides a truthful overview of the history of and damage done by the homosexuality-affirming movement. This movement’s  disproportionate influence within our culture-making institutions accounts for the perverse cultural response to the Michael Sam video.  

Lopez predicts that a phenomenon as profoundly anti-nature and anti-culture as this one cannot last forever. One day the scales will fall from the eyes of America, and they will see what their ignorance and cowardice have birthed. The suffering of children who are being sacrificed on the altar of adult sexual desires will finally become known. There will be more tragic stories like that of 66-year-old French attorney who specializes in humanitarian law, Jean-Dominique Bunel, who shares what he thinks about being raised by two lesbians:

It is not therefore the taboo against homosexuality that made  me suffer, but rather, gay parenting….[E]quality cannot be applied rashly to the ‘right to a child’ which exists nowhere and can be drawn from no text at all.
…

I suffered from the indifference of adults to the intimate sufferings of children, starting with mine. In a world where their rights are each day rolled back, in truth, it is always the rights of adults that hold sway. I also suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation.

Divorce does not deprive a child necessarily of its parents, who normally are given shared or alternate guardianship of the child. Especially, divorce does not replace the father with a second woman, exacerbating even more the affective imbalance, both emotional and structural, for the child. All psychiatrists ought to recognize that the latter does not depend on a woman the way it depends upon a man, and that the ideal for the child is that the two accompany each other in an equal, complementary way.

…My father, who had abandoned my mother when I was three, precisely due to the [lesbian] relation she was engaged in, was never around, notably when I needed him. Also I turned as much as possible to the men of my surroundings, who begged for an oversized and sometimes unhealthy place in my life.

…All my life as an adult was thrust out of whack by this experience…. I doubt that many children of gay couples will open themselves up easily and honestly to journalists on this very delicate matter. It’s traumatizing to speak of suffering that one would rather silence.”

…As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray…. by the fact that we would be opening, necessarily, this code to adoption, institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow.

…I oppose this bill [to legalize same-sex “marriage” in France] because in the name of a fight against inequalities and discrimination, we would refuse a child one of its most sacred rights, upon which a universal, millenia-old tradition rests, that of being raised by a father and a mother. You see, two rights collide: the right to a child for gays, and the right of a child to a mother and father. The international convention on the rights of the child stipulates in effect that “the highest interest of the child should be a primary consideration” (article 3, section 1). Here this ‘higher interest’ leaves no doubt.” But it is the wounded man who concludes: “If two women who raised me had been married prior to the adoption of such a bill, I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of the rights of man, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad.”

Those whose inherent right to a mother and father is being stripped from them will someday tell their stories. It is hoped that when that day comes, there will remain some with a conscience to feel sorrow and shame.

 Stand with Illinois Family Institute!

For years now, anti-Christian activists have been pushing the hate button and accusing those of us who hold to biblical morality and family values of being intolerant, hate-filled bigots (and worse).

But this strategy, seen most recently in the attack on godly twin brothers, Jason and David Benham, will inevitably defeat itself. After all, when the alleged victims are the bullies and the alleged tolerant ones are full of bigotry, their rhetoric cannot be taken seriously.

Back in 2008, as Californians voted to preserve marriage with the Proposition 8 marriage amendment, the amendment was quickly dubbed Prop Hate, as if the only way anyone could believe that marriage was the union of a man and woman was if they were full of hate.

But that was only the beginning. In Sacramento, demonstrators held signs reading: 

• Prop 8=American Taliban
• Ban Bigots
• Majority Vote Doesn’t Matter
• 52%=Nazi [this referred to the 52-48% vote in favor of Prop 8]
• Don’t Silence the Christians, Feed Them 2 the Lions
• Your Rights Are Next

Taliban? Nazis? Feed them to the lions?

This kind of demonization will only defeat itself in the long run exposing who the real bigots are.

In the last week, as soon as my newest book was released, I was accused of being the incarnation of the late Fred Phelps (infamous for his “God hates fags” protests), as well as branded the leader of my own “religious cult” that “requires human sacrifices.” (I’m not making this up.)

So, by writing a book filled with compassion and speaking of God’s great love for those who identify as LGBT, also urging the Church to recognize the unique struggles faced by those with same-sex attractions, I have become a hate-filled bigot and cult leader.

It’s like calling Shaquille O’Neal small or Bill Gates poor.

At some point reality kicks in – in this case, the moment someone reads the first pages of my book (or the middle pages or the last pages) – and instead of advancing their cause, the anti-Christian activists undermine their own.

In a blog post entitled, “The homophobic rantings of Michael L Brown,” Jay H. wrote, “Fred Phelps is dead. Long live Fred Phelps, apparently. Or rather his new incarnation: Michael L. Brown.”

Unfortunately for Jay H., when people actually read my book, rather than “homophobic rantings,” they find the opposite. As one reader noted, “[Brown] . . . freely uses life testimonies of people who were divinely delivered from homosexuality, and others NOT divinely delivered from homosexuality. This isn’t cherry-picked propaganda here…there are sections in this book that are very sobering for [an] evangelical believer to read.”

And so, readers quickly realize that I am no more the new Fred Phelps than I’m the new Michael Jordan, and the anti-Christian rhetoric exposes itself.

That’s what is happening with my good friends David and Jason Benham, Christian businessmen and committed husbands and fathers.

They were about to be the stars of a new reality show on HGTV that featured them helping hurting families get their dream homes, until a single post on RightWingWatch caused HGTV to pull the plug. (For those unfamiliar with RightWingWatch, the website is a project of Norman Lear’s ultra-liberal People for the American Way. The website references Christian family activist Phyllis Schafly 351 times, conservative political leader Gary Bauer 334 times, President Ronald Reagan 111 times, author Chuck Colson 57 times, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 37 times, just to give a few examples. You can be sure most all of the references were not flattering.)

Shortly after HGTV announced its decision, a young man on YouTube opined that the Benham brothers were “the textbook definition of a psychopath” and that “they have no feelings, no consideration for other people.”

The problem, of course, is that the moment you get to know David and Jason – or even watch them on a TV interview for a few minutes or see them interacting with their families – you realize that they are not the ones who need help. It’s the young man on YouTube who needs help, and I can guarantee that if they had the opportunity, the Benhams would reach out to him directly to show him the love of God. (When I played part of this YouTube clip for Jason on my radio show, he responded with real compassion and concern.)

But it’s not just some anonymous YouTuber who is spouting such extreme, self-disqualifying anti-Christian rhetoric.

Dan Savage, a leading gay activist (and sex columnist) supported HGTV’s decision, comparing the Benham’s pro-family viewpoints to “white people” who used to “go on TV and say the most racist [expletive] imaginable (argue against legal interracial marriage, argue in favor of segregation) and keep their jobs and be invited back on TV to say that [expletive] a second time.”

Savage facetiously remarked that “hating the [expletive] out of gay people is something all Christians have in common,” titling his blog, “HGTV Cancels Reality Show After Twin Stars Anti-Gay Activism and Rabid Homophobia Exposed.”

What is rabid, however, is not the position of the Benhams. It is Dan Savage’s militant and vicious anti-Christian rhetoric that is rabid, and so, when reasonable, thinking people listen to Savage and to the Benham brothers, it’s easy to see who is filled with hate and who is filled with love.

Eventually, as those who claim to be champions of tolerance and diversity continue their crusade to silence and defame those who differ with them, they will ultimately defeat themselves.

Watch and see.

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

The NFL is celebrating the sexual equivalent of a brain concussion by going gaga over Michael Sam’s sexual proclivities.

As I predicted on my radio show, the NFL pressured somebody into drafting the out-of-the-closet Sam, whose combine performance revealed that he is not big enough and strong enough to play defensive line in the NFL and not fast enough and quick enough to play linebacker. In other words, if he were not an open practitioner of the infamous crime against nature, he wouldn’t have gotten drafted at all.

His coming out, as they say, was a good career move. He apparently was shrewd enough to know his own limitations, and shrewd enough to know that the NFL wouldn’t dare not to draft him if he made a huge deal out of his sexual preference. And he was right.

Sam didn’t go until the 7th-from-the-last pick, at #249. I predicted that he wouldn’t be drafted until late, because of his obvious limitations, but that he would be drafted because the NFL was determined to keep the Gay Gestapo off their backs. They knew the entire league would be tagged as a bunch of homophobic bigots if Sam wasn’t picked, and the NFL long ago lost whatever testosterone they once had that might have enabled them to stand up to the bullying of homosexual activists.

But I knew he wouldn’t be drafted dead last, because that guy is always nicknamed “Mr. Irrelevant.” So #249 it was. Sam became the first 7^th-round draft pick ever to get a call from the president of the United States, and the president wasn’t calling him to congratulate him for his football prowess.

The contrast between the media’s treatment of Michael Sam and Tim Tebow couldn’t possibly by more striking. Tebow, a devout practitioner of Christianity, was pilloried and ridiculed. Sam, a devout practitioner of the act of sodomy, is lionized and celebrated. It truly is a world turned upside down.

Dolphins safety Don Jones has already – already! – been fined by the NFL and sent to reeducation camp for sending out critical Tweets of Sam’s sloppy wet kiss for his gay lover, the photo of which was plastered all over the top of Drudge on Sunday. Jones won’t be allowed to return to the team until his lobotomy is complete.

For a league increasingly priding itself on concern for player safety and health, it is bizarre that they are enthusiastically praising a draftee for a lifestyle that could send him to an early grave.

The NFL has already spent $765 million in compensation to former players who suffered concussions during their careers, and are limiting helmet-to-helmet contact in such a way that the league will soon be reduced to flag football, all in the interest in player health.

This makes their fluttering hysterics over Sam inexplicable in a sane, rational world. According to the Centers for Disease Control – not, you will note, a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy – young black males comprise the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS.

While the CDC reports that 78 percent of all new HIV infections are among males, primarily those who have sex with other men, HIV/AIDS is taking a monstrous toll on young males in particular. According to the CDC, more than a quarter of all new HIV infections in the U.S. are found in young males between the ages of 13-24, particularly in young males between 20-24, the category into which Sam falls. In fact, young men are the only age group in which the rate of HIV/AIDS infections is showing a significant increase.

Despite the fact that blacks comprise just 12 percent of the population, blacks who are Sam’s age represent an astonishing 57 percent of all new cases among young males. There are more new HIV infections among young black males (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group, period. Alarmingly, the estimated rate of new HIV infection for black males is eight times as high as that of white men.

In other words, as a young, black, homosexual male, Michael Sam is in the single highest risk category for HIV/AIDS that exists on the planet. The NFL should be warning him, not glorifying him.

According to a study published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology, again not a part of the vast rightwing conspiracy, active participation in the homosexual lifestyle will cut anywhere from eight to 20 years off a male’s expected life span. The NFL is extolling behavior that may well turn out to be a death sentence for this young man.

If the NFL possessed one ounce of genuine compassion instead of the ersatz kind that exalts what should be condemned, they would be meeting privately with Michael Sam to urge him, in the strongest possible terms, to pursue reparative therapy in the hopes of saving his life.

Alas, the only people who truly care for Mr. Sam are those who love him enough to tell him the truth about the health risks of homosexual behavior – and that sadly does not include the leadership of the NFL. They long ago sold their souls to the virulent, vitriolic bullies and bigots of Big Gay. But it will be Michael Sam who pays the price for their soulless cowardice.

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

How did they vote?

This afternoon, the Illinois House voted 64 to 43 to pass HB 5707, a completely unnecessary proposal by State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), constituting nothing more than a reiteration of the Bullying Prevention Task Force recommendations that are available to all schools on the ISBE website.  Moreover, the fact that the bill’s sponsors and the ACLU have refused to ensure the rights of students and school employees to opt-out of “programming” and “training” that promote ideas that conflict with their personal and/or religious beliefs reveals the real goal, which is to use public education to promote unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and “transgenderism.”  

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this legislation, or look at the graphic below.  State Representatives Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Renee Kosel (R-Mokena), and Sandra Pihos (R-Lombard) spoke against the bill.

Unfortunately, Republicans Tom Cross (Plainfield), David McSweeney (Barrington), Jim Durkin, (Burr Ridge) and Kay Hatcher (Yorkville) all voted in favor of it.

The bill now moves to the Illinois Senate.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator. Ask him/her to please vote against HB 5707.  (If you have already sent an email to your state representative, please now send an email to your state senator.)

 Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.

Written by Rod Dreher

Nick Zukin, a Portland restaurateur who believes in same-sex marriage but who publicly criticized the boycott of the Chauncy Childs store (for background, see yesterday’s post), writes to say:

A couple comments and corrections:

1) The business owners did not make their opinions known on their business Facebook page. The woman had posted on her personal page and the author of the video had been investigating her and found it out. I’m not sure why he was investigating her. I believe he said in the video that he had heard rumors. I don’t know if those rumors were about her comments on gay marriage or about her being Mormon or what. In fact, the only reference they originally made to the controversy on their Facebook page was to say that they do not and will not discriminate in any way. I think some people are still under the impression that this battle is over discrimination, but the leaders of the movement to boycott their business clearly know that this is over her beliefs about gay marriage, not about any actions on her part or the part of her business — other than her quasi-public statement on her Facebook page.

2) I was very clear throughout this mess that I was a strong proponent of marriage equality. It didn’t matter. It was enough that I thought a boycott was excessive to be deemed an enemy. Today I had someone leave a 1-star review on my restaurant’s Facebook page saying that they were regular customer who liked the food, but they don’t like the “hate” that comes with it. Here is how the Oregonian quoted me:

“The idea of blacklisting and boycotting people for their thoughts and beliefs, as opposed to their actions leads to a world that is less tolerant, less caring and more segregated,” Zukin told The Oregonian. “I don’t think the results will be the ones that people want.”

He went on to say that if a business was actively discriminating, “if it wasn’t serving gays, or people were disrespectful to gays in their store, I would be there protesting and boycotting.”

3) Since taking down his video, the author has been attacked as well on the boycott’s Facebook page and in the comments sections for local news stories. They’re now calling him a “sell out” for trying to make something positive out of this and for being willing to meet with the people he disagreed with and vilified.

4) The restaurant I used to work for and still own a part of posted on their Facebook page that they find my position “appalling”. I posted in response merely the two paragraphs from the Oregonian above and my response was deleted and I was banned from commenting.

This has gotten so out of proportion. It really is sad and counter-productive. I don’t think anyone is being helped by this. I wrote this on Facebook in response to someone attacking me today:

Certainly there have been horrible crimes against individual homosexuals and the gay community in general throughout history and even recently in the United States. People still do and probably will do terrible acts against LGBT people here in the United States and elsewhere. And if they do, they should be punished for it. Hardly seems fair to lay all of that at the feet of this woman, though, even symbolically.

Only 2 years ago, Barack Obama’s stated position was the same: against gay marriage. As was probably 95% of Congress, including Democrats. It was not the right position, but it didn’t prevent well over 60% of Portlanders voting for him in 2008. That’s actually less than the national average for the percentage of gay Americans that voted for Obama in 2008, which was 70%.

So apparently being leader of the free world is not important enough to keep the gay community from supporting him despite his failings for their community, but a woman with little or no political power who doesn’t believe in gay marriage owning an organic grocery store is a bridge too far?

And what’s the end result? Now you have people sympathetic to gay rights thinking that rights aren’t enough, but that they’ll be punished if they don’t share the same beliefs. They go from feeling sympathetic to feeling threatened. Maybe you think that you’ve galvanized the gay community and left-leaning activists? I don’t think that’s true. I received Facebook messages from a local LGBT leader saying that she supports me and not to let this get me down. I got several emails and messages from gay friends condemning what you guys are doing. My Facebook page is filled with gay friends echoing and supporting my position. People like Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are coming out against the efforts to purge businesses of those that differ in their beliefs, as well. You’re not bringing communities together, you’re tearing them apart, creating competing factions within the community and losing sight of the prize: equal rights.

I remember my mom telling me stories about this boy she liked in grade school. She didn’t know how to get his attention, so one time while he was at the drinking fountain, she came by and hit him in the head. He smacked his teeth on the faucet and started bleeding everywhere. The boy never liked her. I think she would have been better off talking to him and showing him kindness.

Brendan Eich is deemed unfit to run the company he helped found, not because he would discriminate in the workplace, but because six years ago he gave money to the Prop 8 campaign, which was supported by a majority of Californians. The Childs family will almost certainly lose their investment in what was an empty storefront they were rehabilitating to open an organic food store, not because they have mistreated gay customers, but because of Chauncy Childs’ personal disapproval of same-sex marriage. Nick Zukin strongly believes in same-sex marriage rights, but because he publicly stated his objection to punishing a business owner for her privately held opinions, his business is now the target of a boycott.

A gay reader of this blog (I leave it up to him to identify himself if he likes) who has campaigned for same-sex marriage and gay rights in general e-mailed last night to say he’s being called a “self-hating homosexual” and a “coward” for objecting to these tactics.

Nice movement for tolerance, diversity, and acceptance you have there. Is this what America has to look forward to? Will America become a place where people are denied their livelihoods because they support traditional marriage, or even, as in Zukin’s case, when they simply express disagreement with the more radical edge of the gay rights movement? Because it looks like this is where we’re headed.

This article was originally posted at TheAmericanConservative website.

Written by Rod Dreher

A reader alerts me to an ongoing saga from Portland. It seems that a woman named Chauncy Childs is planning to open a premium food store, a place where she can sell locally-raised and grown fresh meat and vegetables, including the non-GMO food she grows on her farm. But the people in the progressive neighborhood where she’s planning to open read her Facebook page, and found that she does not support same-sex marriage, and was kind of ugly about it. Ruh-roh! Excerpt from the Oregonian report:

Childs said she is religious and has a libertarian view that government should not be allowed to dictate whom a business does or doesn’t serve.

“We’re not going to refuse to serve anybody,” she said. “But we believe a private business should have the right to live their conscience.”

She said she believes that gay marriage is wrong because it is the start of a slippery slope that could eventually lead to pedophilia and bigamy. But she said those are her private religious beliefs and don’t reflect how the store will operate.

Childs, who owns a farm in Oregon City, said her idea was to open a place where she could sell her own GMO-free produce and dairy along with other GMO-free products made by local vendors.

Well, naturally there’s talk of boycotting her store when it opens, even though she’s spent a lot of money renovating the empty storefront. The Oregonian said that the locals had been excited about having a new store from which to buy the kinds of food they like. No more. From the story:

“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”

Think about the paradox of a neighborhood so open-minded that it will not tolerate the presence of a businesswoman who privately holds negative views about same-sex marriage.

But now boycott talk is swinging towards a local thought criminal restaurant owner who said on Facebook that it’s wrong to boycott a business for the private opinions of its owner.

This comments thread started when a stay-at-home dad in that neighborhood posted a seven-minute video (now taken down) expressing angst and hostility toward the as-yet-unopened food store. One thing he said: What about the children who have to walk past that store every day, knowing that it is owned by a woman who doesn’t support gay marriage?

Yes, he said that. Portlandia!

Nick Zukin makes sense; from that comments thread:

I’m wondering, Robert, if you’ve researched any of the other businesses nearby. Who are their owners? What are their religious beliefs? Do they give money to a political party? Etc? What about your dentist, your doctor, your wine vendors? It’s a bad way to live.

Yes it is. But it looks like we’re going to be living that way, at least those of us who live among the Progressive Puritans, who keep vigil day and night to prevent witches from living among them, poisoning their wells and worse. How are we to know that Chauncy Childs won’t kidnap liberal children and bake gluten-free cakes from non-GMO flour in the back room of that foodie boutique of hers?

When we lived in Brooklyn, we routinely shopped at a local food store owned by Yemeni Muslim immigrants. If I had to bet, I would guess they held strongly anti-gay views, strongly anti-feminist views, and probably strongly anti-Christian views. But you know what? They were always polite to us — friendly, even — and their products were good. They were good neighbors. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

When we lived in Philly, we shopped all the time at a local organic food co-op that was fairly Portlandish in its progressivism. But the food was good and the people were really nice to us. If they had known that they were dealing with a right-wing Christian troglodyte every time they saw me at the register buying food, it probably would have appalled them. And I’m sure that at least some of those workers held offensive prejudices about Christians and conservatives. But you know what? They were nice and we were nice and we enjoyed sharing the same neighborhood with them. Who cares what they think privately, as long as they treat customers with respect?

In the Philadelphia area, you run into Amish folks at farmer’s markets, selling their produce. I was told by a local foodie that long before farmer’s markets became popular, the Amish were holding the line on locally-grown fresh food. According to this person, the reason the farmer’s market movement started so early and became so strong in Philly was because of the presence of the Amish from Lancaster County and elsewhere. People love them. You think the Amish are for gay marriage? You think the Amish hold properly progressive views on sex, gender roles, or anything else? Who the freak cares?! At the Baton Rouge farmer’s market, the best local milk comes from Mormon dairy farmers, and the best chicken comes from Muslim chicken farmers. You think they are pure enough for Portlandia? In my town, which is fairly conservative, some of the most beloved businesses are run by liberals, and employ gay people. Nobody cares. Nobody should care. You are a bad neighbor if you care, and not just a bad neighbor, but an asshole.

From what I’ve read about Chauncy Childs, it sounds like she was, and is, obnoxious on the subject of same-sex marriage. She doesn’t sound like the kind of person I would want to socialize with. But if I lived in Portland, I would make a point to go shop at her store, just to take a stand against this rotten movement to investigate the personal lives and beliefs of people and ruin their livelihoods if they don’t measure up. Besides, I believe that we can’t have enough places to buy organic farm-raised meat, vegetable, and dairy. Chauncy Childs, whatever her sins and failings, has apparently invested a lot of money in opening that kind of place, a food store that the neighbors were looking forward to until somebody went online and discovered her thoughtcrime. Do you think Chauncy Childs’s mind is going to be opened to gay rights after this? Do you think this kind of thing builds community, or makes it more possible for we who live in a pluralistic community to get along better with each other, despite our differences?

Portlandia’s version of sharia is no way to live.

UPDATE: A reader posts this, which explains why the Portlandia guy took down his video:

“My name is Sean O’Riordan and on April 2nd I released a video on YouTube regarding the Facebook postings of an owner of a business that was moving into our neighborhood. I, and much of the greater community at large, found these postings to be objectionable. Since we were unable to get a reply from Moreland Farmer’s Pantry after several requests for clarification, the video containing the information was made and uploaded.

On the morning of April 3rd, John Childs, one of the owners of the Moreland Farmer’s Pantry came to my home, introduced himself and asked if we could have a conversation. I found Mr. Childs to be a man who is sincere in his beliefs and passionate in discussion.

Although he and I fundamentally disagree on several issues, we were not disagreeable in our discussions. Mr. Childs asserted that he understood our family’s position and assured us that neither he nor his wife nor their business would ever discriminate toward their customers.

Mr. Childs realized that words had been spoken and it was time for action. He proposed to donate to a local LGBT program in Portland as a show of good faith. This was before any press was involved. I agreed that was a great start and once that was achieved I would take the YouTube video down.

We shook hands and gave our word.

Soon after he and I found ourselves in front of the camera broadening the conversation. In Portland, the conversation exploded and I implore all of us to act with the dignity that we expect to receive. John and I can do that face to face. Don’t allow the anonymity of the keyboard reduce you to your worst self.

After the interviews, John reached out again via email. I have included his note below with his permission.

‘Sean,
Thank you for taking the time today to speak with me about the Facebook posts. As I mentioned in our conversation, neither Chauncy nor I have a discriminatory bone in our bodies. We abhor discrimination in any form. But what we abhor more than that is anyone imposing their will on someone else even when they are in the right.
I believe our post said that “of course a business can discriminate against gay people”. I apologize, we probably could have chosen a better subject to express the view that we should not restrict anyone’s right to free speech and expression, even when we disagree with them. Other businesses and people can discriminate as much as they want, but to their detriment. Our business does not and will not discriminate.

We understand how this post could have been interpreted as anti-gay but I assure you that was not our intention in the least.
Thank you again for your understanding ear.

John Childs
Moreland Farmers

At 4:56 pm 04/04/14 I received a confirmation of a sizable donation from Mr. Childs to Equity Foundation,http://www.equityfoundation.org/, a Portland based LGBTQ foundation.

The purpose and mission of the Equity Foundation is to “leverage resources to create social, economic, and political equity for the LGBTQ community”.

Mr. Childs kept his word as I have mine; The video has been removed and perhaps light has been shed on a subject that runs pretty deeply in our community. We have agreed to disagree. In a healthy, open society people are free to not want to patronize any business that does not fit their value system, and they are free to try to persuade other people to do the same. While I wish John well, I will continue to shop with businesses that align with my values.

My hope is that the day will come when equal rights for all is no longer an issue. Sadly, we are not there yet, but perhaps we are just a little closer.

Sean O’Riordan
04/04/14
Sellwood, Oregon

So Sean O’Riordan is still going to boycott this guy’s store. Sounds to me like John Childs wasted his money donating to the LGBT organization as a show of good faith. This is about purity.

This article was originally posted on TheAmericanConservative.com website.

Dear _____,

Thanks very much for your call yesterday and conciliatory email today.

I agree that discourse between un-likeminded people is important. In fact, one of the problems I see in the Left’s relentless labeling of all who hold beliefs like mine as hateful, ignorant bigots is that it undermines or destroys any possibility of discourse or relationships between those who hold opposing views on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

In a diverse world, most people I know are perfectly capable of enjoying the company of, appreciating the admirable qualities of, and even deeply loving those who hold beliefs and make life choices that they believe are wholly misguided. Most of us do it all the time. Most of us have figurative and literal brothers and sisters whom we sit down with, eat with, and love, but whose beliefs, behavioral choices, and relationships we believe are flawed and will undermine human flourishing (which is not necessarily the same as human pleasure).

But I disagree with your implication regarding the appropriateness of publicly stating which behaviors constitute moral acts. And I would be surprised if you apply it consistently. I doubt you would argue that all public statements regarding which acts are sinful/immoral are off-limits. You likely believe that there are a whole host of public statements that can and, indeed, should be made about what constitutes sinful/immoral acts. You likely say that homosexuality is the one topic about which negative moral propositions should not be publicly expressed because you believe homosexuality is at the core of an immutable identity and because you believe homoerotic acts are ontologically and morally equivalent to hetero-erotic acts. But that’s the unsettled debate. I reject all those ideas as objectively false. This leads to a larger discussion of “identity,” a subject on which we would surely disagree also.

The public square is not merely about friendships between individuals (e.g., you and me). It’s also about the full, free, and messy exchange of ideas that have real life implications for individuals and society. Feelings get hurt. People get angry. Despite what the culture says, our feelings are not superordinate to all other aspects of human experience. In fact, feelings are woefully unreliable arbiters of truth and morality.

I believe that your same-sex attraction is unchosen, powerful, persistent, and disordered. It is a tragic sin predisposition. Welcome to the world that every single human—save one—has inhabited. The reason I and others must talk about this topic more than other sin predispositions is that homosexual activists and their ideological allies are talking about it vociferously and volubly. And they’re coming in to our public schools and teaching their subjective beliefs to children while censoring competing views.

Moreover, they want the public square to themselves. They arrogate the right to make public statements about the nature and morality of homosexuality to themselves alone. In our phone conversation, you asserted that my statement that unchosen same-sex attraction is a “sin predisposition” was a vile, hateful conversation-stopper. Well, describing homosexuality as a sin predisposition is just about the mildest way to describe conservative beliefs on homosexuality. There is no less offensive way to say it while still representing conservative beliefs. If I were to concede to your request (or demand) not to use “inflammatory conversation-stoppers,” I would have to refrain from expressing conservative moral propositions at all, while you and others who share your views would be free to express yours in any way you see fit in public schools, the mainstream press, the arts, and political halls of power. If the term “sin predisposition” is a “conversation-stopper,” it’s because some on your side get huffy and pouty and stop conversing. They won’t converse with anyone who expresses any propositions with which they disagree.

You want to have conversations as long as you can establish the ground rules, first and foremost of which is that I must concede to your definitions of terms, your ideas, and your assumptions and that I not use any terms or arguments that hurt your feelings, or—in your view—“harm” people. And I have to use your definition/understanding of “harm.” In my experience, the Left believes that harm is significantly or centrally constituted by the presence of uncomfortable feelings (e.g., guilt, shame, sadness). I, on the other hand, believe that sometimes, perhaps often, the presence of guilt, shame, and sadness are indicators that people (including me) are doing something wrong. But in any case, to be honest and comprehensive, discourse on controversial topics will be uncomfortable. 

What’s most fascinating in the public debate is that the Left has so intimidated conservatives and so abused the notion that uncomfortable, unpleasant “feelings” = harm that conservatives rarely demand that “progressives” actually defend with reasons their own presuppositions.

 

• For example, how exactly is homosexuality per se analogous to race?

   

• Or, if marriage is solely constituted by romantic feelings, why should it be limited to two people?

   

• Or, since the Left claims that the expression of moral propositions about volitional behavior is equivalent to hatred, are they guilty of hatred when they claim polyamory or consensual adult incest, or income inequality is wrong?

   

• Or, what is the evidence that homosexuals are “born that way”? If the evidence is simply that they have experienced unchosen powerful, persistent, seemingly intractable feelings from a young age, do they then argue that acting on all unchosen, powerful, persistent, intractable feelings is inherently and automatically moral (and central to identity)? My orthodox Christian faith is central to my identity, and as a Calvinist, I don’t believe I chose my Christian identity. I believe God called me inexorably to him. And yet I don’t believe that everyone must affirm or approve of my beliefs. Nor do I call people hateful and vile for thinking my beliefs are wrong and destructive. I actually know there are people who love me despite our passionate disagreements on sexual morality and theology.

As for “yelling,” at me, water under the bridge. All of us lose our cool on occasion, especially when we care deeply about something.

I do wish you all that’s good and true and beautiful. And God tells us what that is.

Sincerely,

Laurie

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.