GAY TRUTH

In what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called one of the most “brazen abuse[s]” of the Supreme Court’s authority, a six-member majority of the court led by Justice Neil Gorsuch has rewritten Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of “sex.” Why bother trying to pass the proposed Equality Act when you can get the justices to make law for you? Title VII prohibits an employer from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  Gorsuch — joined by the four liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts — decided that employment decisions that take any account of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entail discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.  A Giant Leap In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was combine

In a devastating 6-3 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt religious liberty a brutal blow and handed the LGBT movement a victory that stunned even them by deciding that both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Antonin Scalia’s replacement Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, and John Roberts joined him. President Donald Trump called it a “very powerful decision,” and most of the top GOP senators greeted the ruling with a collective shrug. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley offered criticism, but for the rest, it appears that Rod Dreher has been correct in his constant warnings that much of the Republican Party is disinterested in doing the tough work necessary to protect religious liberty. To discuss the implications of the ruling, I contacted Dr. Darel E. Paul, professor of political science at Williams College and author of the essential book  From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to

Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the ruling, which concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning. "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Gorsuch wrote. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids." Trump’s reaction did not discuss any of the details of the ruling and did not address the fact that his own administration weighed in against the position Gorsuch ultimately chose, by filing an amicus brief that argued that Title VII  “simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identit

Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.  Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning. The case consolidated several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gay; and a county child welfare servi

A Christian businessman began his federal prison sentence Wednesday after being convicted of the crime of “international parental kidnapping” for helping a mother and her child escape the control of an unrelated lesbian “mother” imposed on the child by a Vermont court. Philip Zodhiates, 61, is president of the direct mail fundraising company Response Unlimited, which helps conservative organizations raise money for their causes. The following prosecution by the Obama administration for driving Lisa Miller and her daughter Isabella to the Canadian border in 2009, Zodhiates is now inmate 18649-084 in the Ashland, Kentucky Federal Correctional Institution, where he turned himself in Wednesday according to the sentence of a federal judge. Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian and revert to Christianity, sought to escape from the U.S. following court-imposed visitations of her daughter Isabella with lesbian Janet Jenkins. Jenkins is biologically unrelated to Isabella, but was named by a Vermon

Grandmother Barronelle Stutzman , the Washington State florist found guilty of violating the state’s antidiscrimination law by refusing to provide flowers for a homosexual couple’s wedding, is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court . Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, filed her petition with the high court Friday. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Washington State Supreme Court in February unanimously upheld the Benton County Superior Court’s ruling that this grandmother violated state law by refusing to bullied into providing floral arrangements for the immoral wedding of openly gay and aggressive Ingersoll and Freed in 2013. The government then threatened her business and chose to bully her as an example and fined her $1,000.  Grandmother Stutzman has said her refusal was based on her Christian beliefs about marriage, not antigay animus, and that the state court rulings violate her freedom of speech and religion. “Rob Ingersoll and I ha

Should a Jewish person be forced to serve a Nazi soldier? In the USA they might be forced or jailed.  The Supreme Court is due to consider the case of Jack Phillips , who says his refusal to bake for same-sex weddings is protected by the First Amendment The USA Supreme Court will hear in its term beginning October 2nd is the Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Division, Charlie Craig , and David Mullins . It’s not every day that the justices hear a conflict between a sweets purveyor and both a gay couple and a government agency charged with policing discrimination. But the clash was inevitable.  In Obergefell v Hodges , Justice Anthony Kennedy inserted a caveat into his immoral opinion opening marriage laws nationwide to gays and lesbians. These judges took it upon themselves that they had the right to redefine marriage. A small group of un-elected individuals with no authority regarding the foundation and purpose of marriage chose to allow homosexuals to be ma

Rachelle and Charles Black were married for nearly 20 years and have three sons. They raised their children in a conservative Christian church and sent them to private, Christian schools . In 2011, Rachelle told Charles that she is a lesbian. Rachelle Black abandoned her children, husband and home to pursue her lesbian lifestyle. She was banned from coming out as gay to her three sons has had the court ruling overturned. Rachelle Black came out as gay and filed for divorce from ex-husband Charles in 2011. Following her sexual lust for lesbianism , the mum-of-three abandoned her home, her children and Charles her husband. Charles is a Christian , and he gained primary custody of their children.  The trial court found that Charles was the more stable parent in part because he is better suited to maintain the children’s religious upbringing, which includes certain beliefs about same-sex relationships: Here, [Charles] is clearly the more stable parent in terms of the ability

Three Republican lawmakers have filed a bill seeking to outlaw same-sex marriage within North Carolina . House Bill 780, otherwise known as the “Uphold Historical Marriage Act," says the United States Supreme Court "overstepped its constitutional bounds" when it negated an amendment of North Carolina's constitution in its 2015 landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. If passed, North Carolina's new bill would invalidate same-sex marriage, reportedly including marriages that have already been officiated — both in and out of the state — despite the Supreme Court's ruling. The bill's main sponsors are Reps . Larry Pittman , Michael Speciale , and Carl Ford , who in the filed bill cite a 61% affirmative vote for Article 14, Section 6 of the state's constitution that voided same-sex marriage and civil unions in 2012. Related articles North Carolina Republicans File Bill to Ban Same-Sex Marriage (time.co

The United States ’ commitment to   religious liberty   is   being tested   and hostility toward traditional moral beliefs is on the rise, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told a group of Catholic lawyers Wednesday night. Justice Alito repeated the words he had written in his own dissent in the   Obergefell case   legalizing homosexual “marriage,” telling the group that he suspected the decision would be used to “vilify those who disagree, and treat them as bigots.”  "We are seeing this is coming to pass," Alito said. He then referenced a famed Bob Dylan song lyric, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." "A wind is picking up that is hostile to those with traditional moral beliefs," Alito said.   He told the audience that while religious freedom has been recognized in Congress and in the courts, attitudes are not so quick to change. The Supreme Court Justice described how a Democratic lawmaker  oppose