GAY TRUTH

ANOTHER OFFENSIVE DEMOCRAT Hawaii’s Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono raised eyebrows during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, with a particular line of attack focusing on Barrett’s earlier use of the term “sexual preference” to reference homosexuality. “Even though you did not give a direct answer” on the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling (which made same-sex “marriage” the law of the land), Hirono said, “I think your response did speak volumes.” “Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community,” she went on. “And let me make clear: ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority’s opinion in Obergefell, whi

SCHOOLYARD FIGHT - JUSTICES FAIL THE PEOPLE WITH WISDOM When the Supreme Court extended the 1964 Civil Rights Act to gay and lesbian workers in a June ruling, the justices also protected transgender employees but made it open season on all religious people, religious bodies, and any individual who don't bow to LGBT tyranny. They made a grave error and betrayed common sense by bowing to the extreme voices and pressure of LGBT zealots who are also some Supreme justices.  THE ERRORS MADE WILL ENFLAME LGBT ZEALOTS But the case did not start out that way. In their private conference room in October with only the nine and no law clerks, the justices debated whether and how to provide the same anti-bias coverage for 1 million transgender workers, according to multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the court. THE ERRORS MADE WILL BURN RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS Some justices raised concerns related to religious interests and shared bathrooms, the sources said. But even

“Sex” in civil rights law now legally means sexual orientation, or whatever gender you think you are. That’s the result of a surprising Supreme Court decision (Bostock v. Clayton County) from Justice Neil Gorsuch. Problem? Yes. Here are five casualties of this ruling: 1. We the People If you think you have the ability to govern yourselves through your elected representatives, the U.S. Supreme Court has again made a mockery of that Constitutional principle. You can work to elect the right people and pass all the laws you want, only to see a handful of appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court nullify or replace your laws with their own. That’s what six justices did this week. They changed the 1964 civil rights law into a law that they desired, despite the fact that the very changes they made have been rejected by Congress in recent years. Now, just like that, “sex” no longer means biological sex but sexual orientation and whatever a person thinks their sex is at the time. As Ju

The US Supreme Court, which arbitrarily redefined human life in the Roe decision, and redefined marriage in Obergefell, has now redefined sex. There’s a frightening consistency to these decisions - it brings moral death. In the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean things that, in all likelihood, not a single member of Congress intended at the time the bill was enacted. At any time in the 56 intervening years, Congress could have amended that Act, or passed other legislation, to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Congress never did so. This decision is a pure act of judicial legislation. But this is nothing new. With Obergefell, the Court had legalized same-sex marriage without even a nod at Congress. In that case, the Court had discovered the right to homosexual marriage in the “emanations from penumbra” of the Constitution. As Kevin Williamson wrote in National Review: The gentlemen who wrote the Const

Americans should be able to rely on what the law says. Unfortunately, it seems the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree. Today, the Supreme Court ruled against our client Harris Funeral Homes. In doing so, the Court has delivered a truly troubling decision: Unelected officials and courts can effectively rewrite laws—forcing Americans to guess what the law means—including something as fundamental as the meaning of “sex.” Alliance Defending Freedom has represented Harris Funeral Homes since 2013. That year, a male funeral director expressed the intent to begin dressing and presenting as a woman at work while interacting with grieving families. This funeral director had worked at Harris Funeral Homes for nearly six years and agreed to abide by the sex-specific dress code throughout that time. Harris Funeral Homes have professional conduct and dress codes to ensure that the grieving families it serves can focus on healing and not on the funeral home or its employees. Such policies

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

Old habits are hard to break. And the mainstream media have been inaccurately reporting about homosexuality and gender confusion for a long time. A “progressive” takeover of journalism schools and professional “standards” often drives the bald-faced lies. The overreach is desperately deceptive, and most Americans recognize the constant propaganda as undisguised manipulation. CNN’s embarrassing, one-sided town hall on “LGBT” issues with Democratic candidates presented a horrifying glimpse into the dark hearts of these very foolish people. Politicians who proudly support deviance have risen to leadership in America and appeal to a sizeable segment. But promoting personal and societal destruction puts America in danger. Outlets that claim objectivity are far from it, and we need to keep calling them out. The reporting about the October 8 Supreme Court oral arguments on the Harris Funeral Home case illustrates the point. So let’s use this event and look at the five major flaw

City Council speaker Corey Johnson of New York City introduced a bill on Thursday to repeal a citywide ban on so-called gay conversion therapy, in place since 2017, out of fear of losing a Supreme Court challenge. The repeal came about after the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit law firm that has defended people of faith in several landmark cases, filed a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the ban. According to the New York Daily News, LGBT advocates fear that the ADF could win the case at the Supreme Court, which has become more conservative under President Donald Trump. The paper said campaigners fear that an eventual decision by the court could have a negative impact on such laws elsewhere in the country. According to the ADF, it filed a federal lawsuit in January on behalf of Dr. Dovid Schwartz, a licensed psychotherapist and member of the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish community. The ADF challenged the city ordinance that prohibits any person to provide

More than 200 corporations have signed an  amicus brief  urging the United States Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”  While many of the corporate signatories are household names, the brief was originated and authored by attorneys representing the interests of high-powered LGBT activist groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Out Leadership, Out and Equal, and Freedom for All Americans.  Lambda Legal transgender lawyer accused a Wedding Cake maker of discrimination the day the courts said he had not discriminated in another cake story. Bullies. Among the 206 companies who agreed to sign the LGBT activist-originated brief are: Airbnb, Amazon, American Express, American Airlines, Apple, Bank of America, Ben & Jerry’s, Best Buy, Disney, Domino’s, Expedia, Facebook, General Motors, Google, Hilton, IKEA, Macy’s,