GAY TRUTH

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on whether a Christian baker should be forced to go against his religious beliefs and create a same-sex “wedding” cake when asked to. The baker fighting for his right to not celebrate a same-sex “wedding” by creating a cake for it is Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado . In 2012, a same-sex couple asked Phillips to create a cake for their “wedding.” Phillips is a Christian who won’t bake cakes celebrating Halloween, divorce, or bachelor parties. He referred the couple to another baker who was willing to participate in their union. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) , the couple pursued legal action against Phillips. Phillips and his staff were also ordered to undergo re-education and file quarterly “compliance” reports on their application of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act for two years. In 2013, a lower court ruled that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In 2

The Supreme Court won't hear the major  religious liberty case  until Tuesday, but already hopeful spectators and line-holders are bearing colder temperatures equipped with sleeping bags, coolers and lawn chairs hoping to secure a rare seat in the majestic chamber for what could be one of the most important cases of the term. At issue is a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips , who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig , who say Phillips' actions amount to discrimination. No cameras, please: How the Supreme Court shuns the spotlight LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its own opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide

And one of the most closely watched cases this term will be Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are the right to express themselves freely and the right to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment . But these rights are not absolute, and sometimes may clash with a duty toward others. Masterpiece Cakeshop is a case that will test these limits. It started in July 2012. Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips refused, saying he didn’t want to promote a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs . Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. The Commission ordered the cakeshop to change its policie

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

This article outlines how homosexuals progressed to the point of achieving homosexual marriage  in the USA. It is worth reading to understand how sin got changed into a virtue - how words were changed. How Hollywood and politicians changed their minds.  You can also read the faulty logic that was used then promoted but not questioned. How science, evolution, common sense were all ignored. For example; the false argument saying historical inter-racial marriage was banned just like homosexual marriage. But the two cannot be compared at all as inter-racial marriage is still heterosexual whereas homosexual is male to male or female to female plus others because it is built on lust.  You'll note how language changed - negative phrases such as antigay - seeking to demonise those who disagree as bigots and haters. Why a small number of judges have given themselves the rights to change historic understanding of marriage based on an inheritance case. How Presidents led their

German politicians have voted to legalise immoral homosexual marriage - a move opposed by Chancellor Angela Merkel . Yet she opened the opportunity for political gain. Merkel, daughter of a pastor - should know the repercussions of such a decision. Merkel paved the way for the law change by giving MPs a free vote , allowing them to decide based on their own personal belief. But why should MP's personal beliefs influence historic marriage. We have seen the very same if not worse imposition of personal worldviews of a very small number of US judges imposing on behalf of many millions immoral homosexual marriages based on an inheritance case. Ms Merkel, who is seeking a fourth term in a national election on 24 September, said although she voted against the measure, she hoped it would lead to more social cohesion. Does she not read the damage this has done around the world? Homosexual agenda doesn't stop at marriage - Court cases, schools, re-educating those who disagree, re

A group of three homosexual men living in Medellín, Colombia have successfully registered their union with the federal government, according to local media reports. The polyamorous union, which the three refer to as a “trieja” (or “thruple” – as opposed to “pareja” or “couple”) was registered by the city as a “Special Patrimonial Regime of a Thruple” (“Regimen Patrimonial Especial de Trieja”) according to a document provided by the group to the Colombian magazine  Semana . Proponents of homosexual “marriage” have long  denied  that a redefinition of the marital bond would lead to polygamy. However, defenders of the natural family as well as Supreme Court justices , have  argued  that the claim that people have a “right” to “marry” whomever they wish implies the legalization of such unions. Although the union is not a “marriage” under Colombian law, it is a regime of inheritance rights that corresponds to what are called “unions of fact,” which correspond roughly to “common

A federal appeals court upheld Mississippi 's Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act on Thursday that is considered one of the broadest religious objections measures enacted by any state. The measure ensures Christians and those who object to same-sex "marriage" will not be forced to violate their sincerely held beliefs . District Judge Carlton Reeves had blocked the 2016 religious freedom law from going into effect, declaring it unconstitutional, but a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district judge's declaration.   The Fifth Circuit panel noted that those against the law “have not clearly shown injury-in-fact,” which means they did not show how those who favor same-sex “marriage” are harmed by allowing those with contrary beliefs to live consistently with their beliefs. Nevertheless, the law will not go into effect until appeals are exhausted. The law protects from discriminat