Attack on morality, part 2
Last night, I posted information from “’Sexual Orientation’ and American Culture” by Robert Knight posted on www.cultureandfamily.org, a website sponsored by Concerned Women for America which is located at www.cwfa.org. Tonight, I continue with part 2 of that article.
“When ‘sexual orientation’ is added to a legal or corporate nondiscrimination code, it is a giant step toward the adoption of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality.
In companies that have ‘sexual orientation’ in nondiscrimination codes, employees face pro-homosexual diversity training, and even programs that openly assail traditional morality. (my underline) As homosexual ‘diversity guru’ Brian McNaught writes in his book
Gay issues in the Workplace, ‘There are people who believe that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Bible (my underline). This too is a personal belief.’ McNaught, who frequently consults for AT&T and other Fortune 500 firms, counsels employers to dispense with any references to marriage: ‘[H]eterosexist language can also be changed. We can say, for instance, partner or significant other rather than spouse. (Sound familiar: listen to any newscast; read any newspaper.—my addition) We can say, ‘Are you in a relationship?’ rather than, ‘Are you married?’’ As for employees who decline to go along with the homosexual program, McNaught has this advice:
‘If individuals insist that the company’s efforts to create a safe work environment for gay employees ‘discriminates’ against the religious conservative employee and their values, I would ask them to 1) utilize the support services, such as counseling, made available to distressed employees; 2) speak to their supervisors so that they will be aware of their stress; and 3) do their best to stay focused on the purpose of their time at work. If the stress is so great that they are unable to function at work, I would reaffirm the company’s policy on discrimination and tell them if they could not be comfortable with this policy I would understand why they would feel it necessary to seek employment elsewhere.’” (my underline)
The author then gives three examples of the results of these new “sexual orientation” policies for specific individuals. I will skip that portion and give three examples given of more far reaching consequences.
“Even though they won a U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2000 that affirms that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to set their own membership standards, the Scouts have been under attack in many places for resisting homosexuals’ demands for inclusion. In virtually all cases, critics of the Scouts point to laws or policies containing the term ‘sexual orientation.’
In June, 2001, the District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders.
In Broward County, Florida, in March 2001, the Scouts were forced to sue after county commissioners barred their access to public schools in the fall of 2000.
The Ann Arbor, Michigan, City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for its refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program.
More than two dozen chapters of United Way have cut off the Scouts, and at least 359 school districts with a total of 4,418 schools in 10 states have taken action against the Scouts, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Former Vice President Al Gore pledged someday to use the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill to empower the federal government to ban discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’ in all workplaces with 15 or more employees, to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals. (With an agenda like that being supported by the Democratic Party, why would anyone who knows that GOD condemns homosexual behavior ever vote for a Democrat until they change their policy position?—my addition)
During the week of June 17-23, 2001, PBS (The Public Broadcasting System—my addition) aired ‘Scout’s Honor,’ a one-sided documentary making the Scouts out to be bigots. (my underline)
On June 19, 2001, the American Medical Association’s policy-making arm, the House of Delegates, voted to urge the Scouts to admit homosexuals on the grounds that exclusion is a medical risk. Ignoring the voluminous data regarding the health risks of homosexual behavior, delegates aired comments like this one: ‘Homophobia is a health hazard,’ said Dr. Thomas Hicks, a supporter of the resolution, according to American Medical News.” (my underline)
I will add my own experience in this area. I was living in Tucson at the time. After the Supreme Court decision, the Tucson City Council voted not to provide funds to the Scouts as they have done in the past. Then, they threatened the local United Way with the loss of funds if the United Way did not do the same. The United Way buckled under to the blackmail and did just that. The President of the University of Arizona tried to remove the Boy Scouts from the approved list of organizations that UofA employees could donate to through the UofA. He rescinded the order only after UofA employees objected.
When the obvious was pointed out, that these actions were discriminatory, the largest local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, had one of their resident homosexuals write an article on good and bad discrimination. It was bad discrimination to discriminate against homosexuals according to this homosexual reporter. It was good discrimination to discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America. So much for tolerance as proclaimed by homosexual activists!!!!!!!
“Despite all the media-driven attacks, most Americans support the Scouts’ right to set their own moral standards. In an October 2000 Chicago Tribune poll of Chicago-area residents, ‘82 percent said the Scouts should be allowed to meet in schools and other public buildings. Only 10 percent disagreed, and 7 percent had no opinion.’”
“Another organization that has run afoul of laws containing ‘sexual orientation’ is the Salvation Army, perhaps America’s most respected charity. In 1997, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in San Francisco city funding rather than submit to an order for them to offer ‘domestic partner’ benefits to homosexual employees.
In Washington, D.C. homosexual D.C. City Councilman David Catania boasted in crude terms in July 2001 about how he threatened Salvation Army officials over their policy on ‘sexual orientation.’
Recalling a conversation with a national Salvation Army official, Catania related: ‘I said this faggot [referring to himself] controls federal grants in the District as well as local and you’ll never see another cent as long as you live. I’ll subpoena every one of you mother [expletive]s and I’ll bring you down and I’ll turn my chamber into a national circus. Do we understand each other?’ (Personally, I would have taken his offer of a national circus. He would have been the one to look bad—not the Salvation Army.—my addition)
Catania had made news on July 11, 2001 when he threatened the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts with cutting off city grants in the wake of a Washington Post report that Salvation Army officials had tried to reach an agreement with the Bush White House on the faith-based charity initiative. The Post had reported that Army officials wanted assurances that they would be exempt from local and state policies mandating special rights for ‘sexual orientation.’”
“We need to look no farther than our neighbor to the north to see what America’s future may hold as ‘sexual orientation’ policies and laws proliferate. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech, press, religion and free assembly. But Canadians share many cultural similarities with Americans, so their experience with ‘sexual orientation’ contains clues about where the concept eventually leads.
Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code banning ‘public incitement of hatred and promoting hatred’ has been used against people who are critical of homosexuality. (my underline)
Dianne Haskett, the mayor of London, Ontario, was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for declining to declare ‘Gay Pride Weekend.’ The city was fined a total of $10,000, of which the mayor helped pay half by stepping down and forfeiting salary for three weeks. (Later, in an election in which her opponent backed ‘gay’ rights, Mayor Haskett prevailed in a landslide.)
A Saskatchewan newspaper publisher and a man who bought an ad featuring a list of five Biblical verses about homosexuality were fined $4,500 each and warned never to run a similar ad.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has warned major U.S. broadcasters such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family that Canadian stations may carry their programs only after excising any segment dealing with homosexuality. Following a 1997 Focus on the Family program in which panelists discussed scientific claims about genetic studies and homosexuality as well as the aims and activities of homosexual pressure groups, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council issued a statement saying that Focus on the Family “attributed to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, which, in the view of the Council, constitute abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’’”
Can the same type of thing happen in the United States? Yes! If we continue to remain silent and/or continue to vote for and support libertine Democrats, homosexual activists, and murderers of the unborn; that is probably exactly what will happen in the United States. We can not expect to be protected by provisions of the Bill of Rights. Supreme Court members have demonstrated time after time a proclivity to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own desires and agenda. United in CHRIST we can not fail; divided and silent GOD may very well allow evil to momentarily triumph. HE has done so in the past when the faithful have not done their part to support the will of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD.
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)
(To be continued)
“When ‘sexual orientation’ is added to a legal or corporate nondiscrimination code, it is a giant step toward the adoption of policies that discriminate against people with traditional views of morality.
In companies that have ‘sexual orientation’ in nondiscrimination codes, employees face pro-homosexual diversity training, and even programs that openly assail traditional morality. (my underline) As homosexual ‘diversity guru’ Brian McNaught writes in his book
Gay issues in the Workplace, ‘There are people who believe that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Bible (my underline). This too is a personal belief.’ McNaught, who frequently consults for AT&T and other Fortune 500 firms, counsels employers to dispense with any references to marriage: ‘[H]eterosexist language can also be changed. We can say, for instance, partner or significant other rather than spouse. (Sound familiar: listen to any newscast; read any newspaper.—my addition) We can say, ‘Are you in a relationship?’ rather than, ‘Are you married?’’ As for employees who decline to go along with the homosexual program, McNaught has this advice:
‘If individuals insist that the company’s efforts to create a safe work environment for gay employees ‘discriminates’ against the religious conservative employee and their values, I would ask them to 1) utilize the support services, such as counseling, made available to distressed employees; 2) speak to their supervisors so that they will be aware of their stress; and 3) do their best to stay focused on the purpose of their time at work. If the stress is so great that they are unable to function at work, I would reaffirm the company’s policy on discrimination and tell them if they could not be comfortable with this policy I would understand why they would feel it necessary to seek employment elsewhere.’” (my underline)
The author then gives three examples of the results of these new “sexual orientation” policies for specific individuals. I will skip that portion and give three examples given of more far reaching consequences.
“Even though they won a U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2000 that affirms that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to set their own membership standards, the Scouts have been under attack in many places for resisting homosexuals’ demands for inclusion. In virtually all cases, critics of the Scouts point to laws or policies containing the term ‘sexual orientation.’
In June, 2001, the District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders.
In Broward County, Florida, in March 2001, the Scouts were forced to sue after county commissioners barred their access to public schools in the fall of 2000.
The Ann Arbor, Michigan, City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for its refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program.
More than two dozen chapters of United Way have cut off the Scouts, and at least 359 school districts with a total of 4,418 schools in 10 states have taken action against the Scouts, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Former Vice President Al Gore pledged someday to use the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill to empower the federal government to ban discrimination based on ‘sexual orientation’ in all workplaces with 15 or more employees, to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals. (With an agenda like that being supported by the Democratic Party, why would anyone who knows that GOD condemns homosexual behavior ever vote for a Democrat until they change their policy position?—my addition)
During the week of June 17-23, 2001, PBS (The Public Broadcasting System—my addition) aired ‘Scout’s Honor,’ a one-sided documentary making the Scouts out to be bigots. (my underline)
On June 19, 2001, the American Medical Association’s policy-making arm, the House of Delegates, voted to urge the Scouts to admit homosexuals on the grounds that exclusion is a medical risk. Ignoring the voluminous data regarding the health risks of homosexual behavior, delegates aired comments like this one: ‘Homophobia is a health hazard,’ said Dr. Thomas Hicks, a supporter of the resolution, according to American Medical News.” (my underline)
I will add my own experience in this area. I was living in Tucson at the time. After the Supreme Court decision, the Tucson City Council voted not to provide funds to the Scouts as they have done in the past. Then, they threatened the local United Way with the loss of funds if the United Way did not do the same. The United Way buckled under to the blackmail and did just that. The President of the University of Arizona tried to remove the Boy Scouts from the approved list of organizations that UofA employees could donate to through the UofA. He rescinded the order only after UofA employees objected.
When the obvious was pointed out, that these actions were discriminatory, the largest local newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, had one of their resident homosexuals write an article on good and bad discrimination. It was bad discrimination to discriminate against homosexuals according to this homosexual reporter. It was good discrimination to discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America. So much for tolerance as proclaimed by homosexual activists!!!!!!!
“Despite all the media-driven attacks, most Americans support the Scouts’ right to set their own moral standards. In an October 2000 Chicago Tribune poll of Chicago-area residents, ‘82 percent said the Scouts should be allowed to meet in schools and other public buildings. Only 10 percent disagreed, and 7 percent had no opinion.’”
“Another organization that has run afoul of laws containing ‘sexual orientation’ is the Salvation Army, perhaps America’s most respected charity. In 1997, the Salvation Army gave up $3.5 million in San Francisco city funding rather than submit to an order for them to offer ‘domestic partner’ benefits to homosexual employees.
In Washington, D.C. homosexual D.C. City Councilman David Catania boasted in crude terms in July 2001 about how he threatened Salvation Army officials over their policy on ‘sexual orientation.’
Recalling a conversation with a national Salvation Army official, Catania related: ‘I said this faggot [referring to himself] controls federal grants in the District as well as local and you’ll never see another cent as long as you live. I’ll subpoena every one of you mother [expletive]s and I’ll bring you down and I’ll turn my chamber into a national circus. Do we understand each other?’ (Personally, I would have taken his offer of a national circus. He would have been the one to look bad—not the Salvation Army.—my addition)
Catania had made news on July 11, 2001 when he threatened the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts with cutting off city grants in the wake of a Washington Post report that Salvation Army officials had tried to reach an agreement with the Bush White House on the faith-based charity initiative. The Post had reported that Army officials wanted assurances that they would be exempt from local and state policies mandating special rights for ‘sexual orientation.’”
“We need to look no farther than our neighbor to the north to see what America’s future may hold as ‘sexual orientation’ policies and laws proliferate. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have a First Amendment to protect the freedoms of speech, press, religion and free assembly. But Canadians share many cultural similarities with Americans, so their experience with ‘sexual orientation’ contains clues about where the concept eventually leads.
Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code banning ‘public incitement of hatred and promoting hatred’ has been used against people who are critical of homosexuality. (my underline)
Dianne Haskett, the mayor of London, Ontario, was brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for declining to declare ‘Gay Pride Weekend.’ The city was fined a total of $10,000, of which the mayor helped pay half by stepping down and forfeiting salary for three weeks. (Later, in an election in which her opponent backed ‘gay’ rights, Mayor Haskett prevailed in a landslide.)
A Saskatchewan newspaper publisher and a man who bought an ad featuring a list of five Biblical verses about homosexuality were fined $4,500 each and warned never to run a similar ad.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has warned major U.S. broadcasters such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family that Canadian stations may carry their programs only after excising any segment dealing with homosexuality. Following a 1997 Focus on the Family program in which panelists discussed scientific claims about genetic studies and homosexuality as well as the aims and activities of homosexual pressure groups, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council issued a statement saying that Focus on the Family “attributed to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and a malevolent, insidious and conspiratorial purpose, which, in the view of the Council, constitute abusively discriminatory comment on the basis of ‘sexual orientation.’’”
Can the same type of thing happen in the United States? Yes! If we continue to remain silent and/or continue to vote for and support libertine Democrats, homosexual activists, and murderers of the unborn; that is probably exactly what will happen in the United States. We can not expect to be protected by provisions of the Bill of Rights. Supreme Court members have demonstrated time after time a proclivity to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own desires and agenda. United in CHRIST we can not fail; divided and silent GOD may very well allow evil to momentarily triumph. HE has done so in the past when the faithful have not done their part to support the will of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD.
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galatians 6: 7-9)
(To be continued)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home