GAY TRUTH

English: Saint Gerard's Roman Catholic Church School, Buffalo NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) ES MOINES, IA, April 9, 2015  – At one time, critics bashed Catholic schools for firing teachers who openly violated Christian teachings. Now, students and alumni are criticizing one parochial high school in Iowa for  refusing to hire  a teacher who flagrantly violates the Roman Catholic Church's moral standards on homosexuality. More than 100 students staged a walk out at Dowling Catholic High School in Des Moine, Iowa, yesterday to protest the school's decision not to offer a substitute teacher a full-time job after discovering the applicant – Tyler McCubbin – was “engaged” to another male. "The Catholic faith is central to our mission, and in order to deliver on that mission it is our expectation that staff and teachers support our moral beliefs," the superintendent, Luvern Gubbels, Ed.D., wrote in a letter to parents, which did not identify McCubbin by name.

Barely five days after  The New York Times  ran a major news article on the firing of Atlanta ’s fire chief for his views on homosexuality, a major  Times  opinion writer declared that religious liberty is a fine thing, so long as it is restricted to “pews, homes, and hearts” — far from public consequence. The firing of Kelvin Cochran as chief of Atlanta’s Fire Rescue Department came after the city’s mayor, Kasim Reed , determined that the chief could not effectively manage the department after he had written a book in which he cited Scripture in defining homosexuality as a sin. The most crucial portion of the  Times  story includes the mayor’s rationale: “At a news conference, Mr. Reed said that Mr. Cochran’s ‘personal religious beliefs are not the issue.’ But Atlanta’s nondiscrimination policy, the mayor added, is ‘nonnegotiable.’ ‘Despite my respect for Chief Cochran’s service, I believe his actions and decision-making undermine his ability to effectively manage a large,

Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service. Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill: 1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted t

January 6, 2014 ( Public Discourse ) - Last November marked the twentieth anniversary of the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act . At an event hosted by the  Newseum  and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty , RFRA’s champions shared stories of how the statute came into being and the long odds it had to overcome. Though no one was resting on his or her laurels, there was a general sense of a job well-done. And then  Douglas Laycock , one of the primary architects of RFRA, began to speak. He warned that millions of Americans view religious liberty as their enemy because they resent religion’s interference in their sex lives. Even though RFRA is a “super statute,” it will offer religious believers little protection if the nation turns against religious liberty. Statutes can be repealed. Courts can empty them of their meaning. Laycock’s warning may seem overwrought, but consider just a few news items. In New Mexico, multiple organs of state government have said that a 

Image via Wikipedia Today’s Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They’ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It’s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked-tongue test.” If Dems say “ Fairness Doctrine ,” expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the “ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ,” we know that the patient gets hosed, and the “care” breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the “No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,” bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda. And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled  “ Employment Non-Discrimination Act ” or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House) . According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage