GAY TRUTH

A flood of lawsuits over immoral unreasonable LGBT agenda is making its way through courts and will continue, no matter the outcome in the Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision in the case of a Colorado baker who would not create a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. Courts are engaged in two broad types of cases on this issue, weighing whether sex discrimination laws apply to immoral  LGBT people and also whether businesses can assert religious objections to avoid complying with secular  anti-discrimination  measures in serving customers, hiring and firing employees, providing health care and placing children with foster or adoptive parents. The question must be asked who decided and on what basis were these anti-discrimination laws founded. They are now being abused by the LGBT ideology. The outcome of baker Jack Phillips ' fight at the Supreme Court could indicate how willing the justices are to carve out exceptions to poorly written secular anti-discrimin

As you may have read in news, late last week Georgia’s lawmakers passed a critical bill,  SB 375 , or the “Keep Faith in Adoption and Foster Care Act.” The purpose of the bill is simple: to prevent discrimination against faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies that believe that marriage, the basis of family, is solely between a man and a woman, and that therefore only place children in intact homes with a loving mom and dad. The proposed law prohibits the denial of grant funding to faith-based agencies based on their beliefs on marriage, and provides additional protections. I know this takes a bit of time and effort, but it is  absolutely critical  that these lawmakers  hear from you today  and know that you support this common-sense policy. It’s simple:  moms and dads aren’t interchangeable . We at NOM have been saying that for years. But in the wake of  Obergefell , when the Supreme Court illegitimately placed a lie about marriage into our public policy and tried to rede

Last week the nation of Bermuda became the first country in the world to repeal same-sex 'marriage.' We were very active in this victory behind the scenes. I twice met with leaders of the pro-marriage movement in Bermuda to discuss strategies and approaches. We suggested that they push for a national referendum to preserve marriage, which they did, eventually persuading 68% of Bermuda voters to reject gay 'marriage.' After their country's Supreme Court imposed same-sex 'marriage' despite the tremendous electoral outpouring, we advised launching a national petition effort to keep the issue before Parliament, and the coalition followed our advice. Thanks to strong grassroots support for marriage, Parliament passed a new law eradicating gay 'marriage' and it was signed into law last week. In 2016, NOM was a leading national group urging the Mississippi Legislature to enact HB 1523 , comprehensive religious liberty legislation designed to protect

Now that Australia has, in response to the vote in a postal survey, redefined the law of marriage to allow same-sex couples to be married, what are the implications for the religious freedom of those who believe this is contrary to God’s will? This paper will simply outline some issues, all of which will need careful further thought. [2] One preliminary point worth noting is that many of these matters are issues which would have come up even if the Australian public had not voted to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. Biblical Christians have been ‘out of step’ with the broader Western culture ’s views on sex and marriage for some time. [3] But there are some specific issues that arise with the change inthe nature of marriage, especially around the law on solemnising marriage. And there seems little doubt that the ‘moral imperative’ to approve homosexual behaviour given by the statutory recognition of same sex marriage ( SSM ) will encourage further oppos

Acceptance of “LGBT” people – which had experienced a dramatic upswing in recent years – has peaked and begun to decline according to a report unveiled by the LGBT media advocacy group GLAAD . The  GLAAD report , based on a Harris Poll , set off loud alarm bells, sirens, and flashing lights in gay and mainstream media. One headline  trumpeted , “Shocking report finds acceptance of LGBTQ people is rolling backwards in the age of Trump.” “In a single year, we’ve seen significant declines from what had been an increasingly accepting America to one now less supportive,” Harris Polling said in a statement from a GLAAD press release, adding, “this lost ground of acceptance cuts across many in American society.” In last year's report, 53 percent of Americans said they were “very” or “somewhat” comfortable with LGBT people. This year, that figure dropped four points to 49 percent, nearly an 8% decrease. LGBT, Inc. is scared. As it turns out, LGBT, Inc. was prematurely con

A state judge handed a Christian bakery owner a temporary reprieve last week from an effort to compel her to make cakes for same-sex weddings in violation of her religious beliefs . Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the state of California a temporary restraining order last Thursday against Cathy Miller, a cake artist and owner of Tastries Bakery, to forbid her “from selling to anyone any item they are unwilling to sell.” California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) had filed a surprise motion for the TRO the day before, according to the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF). The legal group representing Miller said this was done specifically to compel Miller to create wedding cakes for same-sex individuals despite the fact that doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs. “ The government sprung this needless motion on Cathy without notice, forcing her to scramble with less than 12 hours to prepare,” said Charles

What I didn’t say was that I wouldn’t sell them a cake. I’m happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. I don’t have to agree with them. But I am responsible for my own choices. And it was that responsibility that led me to decline when two gentlemen came into my shop and invited me to create a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony . Baker's case is not about the First Amendment  Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When people commission such a cake, they’re requesting something that’s designed to express something about the event and about the couple. What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration. In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate w

Texas businesses will not be forced to give spousal benefits to employees in same-sex “marriages” after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the issue. The city of Houston, Texas , sought to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling allowing for the elimination of spousal insurance benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees, but the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal. The Texas court had ruled in June that while the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision required states to recognize same-sex “marriage,” the high court “did not hold that states must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.”  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton summed up the meaning of the court’s decision at the time, saying, “While the U.S. Supreme Court declared a right to same-sex marriage, that ruling did not resolve all legal issues related to marriage.”  The ruling was “a huge win for Houston taxpayers and for those who support the state’s marriage laws,” added

Three dozen corporations recently banded together to file an amicus brief in which they take a stand against religious liberty in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court . The case concerns Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religious beliefs. In 2013, a lower court ruled that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The baker was then ordered by the state's civil rights commission to create a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage” against his will.   In 2015 , the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision. Then the Colorado Supreme Court   refused to hear the case in July 2016 . Consequently, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), representing Phillips, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take it up. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. In the lead-up to the court hearing,  37 corporations , organized by the LGBT-promoting Human Rights Camp