GAY TRUTH

Bishop William Love addressed the Diocese of Albany’s Convention this weekend, using the moment to rail again against the actions of last year’s General Convention to extend provisions for marriage equality across dioceses, and even invoking brutal images of the martyrdom suffered by Christians elsewhere in the world to paint a picture of a faith under attack at home from forces of “social justice or women’s rights, or political correctness.” Bishop Love quickly defined his firm stance against marriage equality and “political correctness” as “Standing Firm in the Holy Spirit,” as he drew up his battle lines: Tonight, I need to talk about the crisis that faces this Diocese and Christianity in general.  The Diocese of Albany is in the midst of a battle whose outcome is not yet known.  The very nature and character of this Diocese as we have known it, is under attack from forces outside as well as within.  Each of us must decide how we will respond. We have all read the final ch

The Swiss have voted by a large majority to make “homophobia” a criminal offense.  On Sunday, 63.1 percent of the voters who turned out for several popular initiative referendums agreed that “discrimination,” “hate speech” and other forms of public “insults” aimed at homosexuals because of their “sexual orientation” will be punishable by a fine and up to three years’ imprisonment. During the run-up to Sunday’s vote, the Catholic hierarchy in Switzerland was mostly conspicuous by its absence from the debate.  With the new legislation, the aggravating circumstance of a victim's homosexuality will be added to the original 1994 anti-discrimination and hate speech law in Switzerland's penal code that already criminalized discrimination on the basis of race or religion. How it will be applied in practice will be determined by jurisprudence. To date, sanctions for discrimination and hate speech under the original law are usually limited to fines, only rarely moving up the scale

In the UK a court ruled that comments which expressed opposition to same-sex marriage did not fall into the category of punishable “hate speech”. In Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch) (16 November 2012) Mr Smith, a council officer, had expressed some concern on Facebook about same-sex marriage being conducted in churches. A colleague, who had asked him to explain his views further, took offence at what he said. The result was, as the court said at para [5]: For making those two comments Mr Smith was suspended from work, on full pay, on 17 February, made the subject of a disciplinary investigation and then disciplinary proceedings leading to a hearing on 8 March, at the end of which he was told that he had been guilty of gross misconduct for which he deserved to be dismissed. Due to his long record of loyal service he was told that he was with immediate effect only to be demoted to a non-managerial position with the Trust, with a consequential 40 per cent reduction

A California judge has issued his final judgment in favor of a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex “wedding,” ruling that cakes celebrating events are a form of speech. Last August, Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio sought a wedding cake from Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller, who declined on the grounds that affirming a homosexual union would violate her Christian beliefs , Bakersfield.com   reports . The couple filed a complaint with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), arguing that the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act forbids businesses from refusing to provide services on the basis of sexual orientation (among other grounds). “Everyone is God’s creation and I love everyone,” Miller has   previously explained . “But there are certain things that violate my conscience, and my conscience will not allow me to participate in things that I feel are wrong. Most of what that’s based on is scripture.” The department subseq

In a Federation like Australia , different jurisdictions (States and Territories) may have different rules on what amounts to “discrimination” or “vilification”, and how those things interact with religious freedom. One of the pressing issues here in recent years has been whether there will be a “race to the bottom” in freedom of speech on religious issues, with one jurisdiction in particular, Tasmania, raising deep concerns with a very broad prohibition on causing “offence” related to matters such as sexual orientation. Today the High Court of Australia , on appeal from NSW , has affirmed the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that State and Territory “tribunals” (non-judicial panels usually used in discrimination issues) have no jurisdiction to impose penalties on residents of other Australian jurisdictions under their own local laws. The important decision in  Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15 (18 April 2018) (court-prepared summary available  here ) is a good outcome, and at

Margaret Somerville is Professor of Bioethics in the School of Medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia . Her most recent book is  Bird on an Ethics Wire: Battles about Values in the Culture Wars . It seems that the only issue in relation to same-sex marriage on which politicians can agree is that the debate which would surround a plebiscite must be civilized and mutually respectful. To have any chance of achieving that "tone", we need first to identify what the issues are and where we disagree. Homosexuality is not the issue in the debate. Sexual orientation is not a "life style choice" as some opponents of same-sex marriage argue. Whatever its origins, which is scientifically uncertain, it is an innate way of being and a matter of personal morality, not one attracting public or legal disapproval or disrespect. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a grievous wrong and must be prevented. And committed same-sex couples h

The Left claims a debate on gay marriage will unleash the haters. But these hypocrites meant themselves - and now threats by same-sex marriage activists have forced Christians to cancel a meeting . A ferocious campaign against Christian groups planning to meet on same-sex marriage has forced them to cancel the event at a major hotel next week, amid claims of physical threats from marriage-equality advocates. The Accor Hotels group confirmed late yesterday that the function had been abandoned after a social media storm triggered phone calls that “rattled” employees and left the company concerned about the safety of staff and guests. In the first test of the “civil” debate promised for a plebiscite on gay marriage, advocates for the “yes” case were being blamed last night for the kind of “ hate speech ” that Bill Shorten and others have claimed would come from the “no” case. A spokeswoman for the Mercure Sydney Airport Hotel said the campaign by marriage-equality advocates had forced

There was confirmation from the Government this week that the long-awaited people’s vote on marriage is to be pushed back into next year. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney General George Brandis had previously indicated their preference to hold it before Christmas. Australian Electoral Commission advice is that there is not enough time to organise another national poll to meet this timeline. The AEC had actually signalled this some weeks ago. But a leak from somewhere within the Government to a Sunday newspaper confirming that the Government agreed with this advice set the media in a frenzy. The story also contained details of a draft question. This was disappointing given that consultations with both sides of the debate about the plebiscite process and question has not yet been held . The Prime Minister’s office and senior ministers were quick to distance themselves from the story and stressed that Cabinet was yet to consider these issues. That’s code for the process ha

This assertion is utter nonsense, but unfortunately it carries the force of law in some countries that have adopted same-sex marriage. In fact, speech codes and “hate-crime” legislation seem to follow the approval of same-sex marriage. In Canada and Sweden, for example, speech is already restricted against homosexuality to the point that even pastors have been fined or jailed for quoting Bible verses ! 73   In the United States , Democrats continually put forth “hate-crime” legislation which may lead to the same result. 74 Why do advocates of “hate-crime” legislation ignore the fact that  all  crimes are “hate” crimes (there are certainly no “love” crimes)? And why do they ignore the fact that  all  people—including homosexuals—are already protected equally under existing criminal law?  Perhaps it’s because they are not really concerned with equal protection, fairness, or truth—they seek special protection because it will validate homosexual behavior. In other words, hate-crime legi

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews ) – In an  interview  with the Christian Broadcasting Network , Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said he believes the legalization of same-sex “marriage” may lead to those who express religious objections to homosexuality being prosecuted for hate speech . Sen. Ted Cruz “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” Cruz told CBN host David Brody. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage, that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.” In Canada, where gay ‘marriage’ was legalized in 2005, Christian pastors, public officials, educators and business owners have all faced heavy fines and lengthy court battles after speaking critically of the homosexual lifestyle. In one case a pastor  was fined $7000  a