Posts

Showing posts with the label intolerant gays

From Tolerance to Celebration: How Corporations Impose Sexual Orthodoxy

Image
June is Pride Month for many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, and popular fashion retailer J. Crew has collaborated with the Human Rights Campaign to create a clothing collection to support the “ fight for equality .” The clothing includes adult and children’s socks, T-shirts and a tote bag, and depicts rainbow-printed slogans such as “Love First” and “Love to All” as well as the yellow equal sign logo of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s largest advocates of the LGBT political agenda. The items come in sizes for children as young as 2. J. Crew says it will donate 50 percent of the purchase price of items in the collection to HRC. In addition, J. Crew stores nationwide reserved June 9 as a day of “LGBTQ pride” celebration on which customers could “share the love” or “get ready for a parade” with free flags and temporary tattoos. J. Crew is a private company that has the right to partner with any organization. But it is part of a growing trend in corpor

Mike Huckabee forced off Country Music board for opposing gay ‘marriage’

Image
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee ’s Christian views on marriage have cost him his new post on the board of the Country Music Association Foundation.  HOMOSEXUAL INTOLERANT BULLIES - HATE CHRISTIANITY The pro-life conservative former presidential candidate was forced to step down from the post which he held less than 24 hours after LGBT advocates in the industry became outraged over his appointment. “The message here is ‘Hate Wins.’ Bullies succeeded in making it untenable to have ‘someone like me’ involved,” wrote Huckabee in a March 1  letter of resignation  to board members. Governor Huckabee’s resignation came amid a flurry of criticism from CMA members and others, reportedly alarmed at the appointment of a ‘homophobe’ to the prestigious board position.  "If the industry doesn't want people of faith or who hold conservative and traditional political views to buy tickets and music, they should be forthcoming and say it," said Huckabee in his let

Bermuda realizes its error - abolishes same-sex marriage after legalising it a year ago

Image
Bermuda has abolished immoral homosexual marriage less than a year after it was legalised, replacing homosexual unions with domestic partnerships .  On Wednesday, Bermuda Governor John Rankin signed into law  a bill that reverses an earlier Supreme Court ruling on immoral sinful homosexual marriage. SHARE SHARE ON FACEBOOK   SHARE SHARE ON TWITTER   TWEET LINK Bermuda Governor John Rankin (inset) has signed into law a bill that reverses an earlier Supreme Court ruling legalising same-sex marriage.  Photos: Supplied The new law gives domestic partners in the British island territory similar rights as married couples - but without the legal title.  The government said the Domestic Partnership Act was "intended to strike a fair balance" between opposing parties on the conservative island that sees and will always see homosexuality as an offence sinful behaviour. "While the majority of Bermudians do not agree with immoral homosexual marriage," according t

Declining to make a same sex wedding cake is not discriminatory

Image
A recent decision by a California Superior Court Judge holds that a bakery cannot be required by discrimination law to make a same sex wedding cake, where the owner has a religious reason for declining to do so. In  Department of Fair Employment and Housing v Cathy’s Creations Inc  (Cal Sup Ct, Kern Cty; BCV-17-102855; Lampe J, 5 Feb 2018) Judge Lampe refused an injunction against Cathy Miller, proprietor of Tastries Bakery, which would have required her to create a wedding cake for the same sex wedding of Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio. The basis for the decision was the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution , the judge holding that creating a wedding cake was a constitutionally protected form of “free speech”. The decision is possibly subject to appeal, and it is not, of course, binding on Australian courts . But it provides an excellent example, in my view, of how the case can be made for protecting the free speech and religious freedom