Atlanta's Fire Chief Fired For Writing That Homosexual Behavior Is A Perversion

For writing this in a book, Kelvin Cochran was fired

Mayor Kasim Reed clearly admitted in the beginning of his press conference that he was firing him FOR HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS despite contradicting himself later. (his denials were the only parts picked up by the media of course)

"What I Want you to know is the cities position is a very clear one. The cities non discrimination policy endorsed by my office, and by the Atlanta City Council, really unequally states, that we will not negotiate, that we will not discriminate on the basis of race, nor gender, nor religon, nor creed, nor sexual orientation nor physical ability, nor gender identity, that's been codified by the City Council and that has been the rule of the executive branch as well.  And what we had said is that any person that violates this conduct, or creates an environment were we believe that is a concern, will not be a part of our administration.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

I also want to point out that if we had made the decision to retain Chief Cochran, really that the folks in the fire and rescue department, who may have been discriminated against in some future occasion, would have had a valid case in my mind (and I know Cathy is getting nervous) but after the fire chief so clearly stated his position on a number of issues, I thought that it created a potential liability for the city that was unacceptable to me as mayor of the City of Atlanta.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

ATLANTA — The city's fire chief was relieved of his duties Tuesday after he published "controversial" comments about homosexuality in a book.

In the self-published book titled "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" Kelvin Cochran referred to homosexuality as "unclean," "a sexual perversion," "vulgar" and "inappropriate."

Cochran received a month long suspension in November and had to attend mandated "sensitivity" training classes. At the time, Mayor Kasim Reed said, "I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran's book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the administration's work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all citizens  — regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race, and religious beliefs as long as it's pro gay."

At a news conference Tuesday, Reed announced Cochran had been "relieved" of his position.
"Not one time during the course of preparing this book did Chief Cochran ever think that it was appropriate to have a conversation with me despite the fact that I have made my opinion — and this administration's opinion — clear on this topic," Reed said.

Reed said Cochran was given an opportunity to resign and refused. "Bottom line, he was terminated," Reed said. so either quit or be fired unjustly is fair?

Still in uniform after the news conference, Cochran told reporters, "I'm not apologetic for writing the book."

He said he will not hide his Christian faith.

"Everything I wrote in the book is based on scriptures, not my opinions," said Cochran.

Cochran said he only learned that he was losing his job about an hour before the news conference.

"LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their belief regarding sexual orientation and deserve to be respected for their position without hate and discrimination, but Christians also have the right to express their beliefs as well," said Cochran.

Cochran said that he ran the idea of the book by the city's ethics department and didn't receive any pushback. He said that he gave Reed copy of the book a year ago.
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, supported Reed's decision.

"I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta," Wan said in a released statement. "This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value "diversity" and how we adhere to a non-"discriminatory" environment.

Wan's statement said Cochran's suspension came after some of Cochran's employees complained about internal distribution of his self-published book. Reed would not discuss details of the investigation.

Reed said that the Fire and Rescue Command staff and his Cabinet will undergo sensitivity training.

"We wanted the city to take strong, decisive action which today they've done," said Stephen Borders, president Atlanta Professional Firefighters.

Borders took his colleagues' complaints about Cochran's book to city officials before the controversy went public.

"It was the fire chief. He is our judge, and our jury, and our executioner when it comes to (discipline). He is the ultimate representative of the city when it comes to public safety," Borders said.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition posted a call to action on its website, asking members to contact the mayor demanding Cochran be reappointed.

"In our country we don't punish people for the potential to discriminate we punish them for actually discriminating. To our knowledge unless the mayor knows about it and hasn't said so there's no allegation to speak of," explained spokesperson Robert Potts.

However, Reed did not list discrimination as cause for termination. He said Cochran violated the city's code of conduct in releasing the book.

"This is about how we treat one another. And so those folks who are calling me and telling me I should retain him. I just want you to know one thing. His religious decisions are not the basis of the problem. His judgement based on the bible that homosexuality is a perversion is the basis of the problem," Reed said.
(usa today) highlights our additions

The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership. What’s more, Reed said he believes Cochran opened up the city to the potential for litigation over future discrimination claims.

Reed stressed that his decision is not because of Cochran’s faith: “His religious (beliefs) are not the basis of the problem. His judgment is the basis of the problem.”

The mayor said though Cochran consulted the city’s ethics officer before publishing the book, Nina Hickson did not grant approval.

Cochran has a differing account. He said he received verbal clearance from Hickson to publish the book, and therefore didn’t believe he needed permission from Reed as city law allowed it. Hickson could not be reached for immediate comment on Tuesday.

What’s more, Cochran said he gave a copy of the book to Reed’s executive assistant in January 2014, and that the mayor later confirmed receiving it. Cochran also said he was told not to speak to the media, specifically, about his suspension. Cochran has spoken publicly about the matter to religious groups.
____________________________________________


Among what city leaders said were troubling remarks in the fire chief’s book was a description of homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty. Reed said in November that such writings were inconsistent with the city’s employment policies how are private writings that have nothing to do with employment inconsistent with Atlanta's employment policies? and opened an investigation into potential discrimination within the fire department. The findings of that investigation have not yet been released.

(ajc) highlights out additions

To contact: Mayor Kasim Reed

55 Trinity Ave. SW #2500, Atlanta, GA, 30303

Phone: (404) 330-6100

Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules, That The City Of Providence, Is Able To Force Firefighters To Attend Gay "Pride" Parade

So they think having a fire truck show support for gay pride by driving in the deviant parade is part of the fire fighters work as public servants and equivalent to fighting fires and rescuing people? (this is from the court decision)

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has thrown out lawsuits brought by two Providence firefighters who said their constitutional rights were violated when they were ordered to drive a truck in a gay pride parade despite their religious objections.

The firefighters, Theodore Fabrizio and Stephen Deninno, argued that they are Roman Catholics and therefore do not support or condone homosexuality.

Justice William Robinson, writing for all five members of the high court this month, said the men appeared in the 2001 parade as public servants who were "relatively anonymous." He called it a legitimate work assignment.

"The respondents' appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part. Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department, of showing support for gay "pride"" Robinson wrote.

The two lawsuits, filed in 2004, were brought against former Mayor Buddy Cianci and James Rattigan, who was fire chief in 2001. The firefighters sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged alleged? violations of their freedom of religion and speech.

The court said the men were assigned to work the parade because they served in an engine company that was closest to the parade route. They asked to be reassigned but were refused, according to their lawyer. They said that during and after the parade, they experienced sexual harassment from parade-goers and their co-workers.

From the court decision

A lawyer for the city told the court during arguments in September that the city sent trucks to various parades as a matter of course, including the Columbus Day parade, Purim parade and others. notice this doesn't say chanuka parade maybe because this is no different than what the Greeks did.

After the September hearing, Cianci - who at the time was making an ultimately unsuccessful bid to reclaim the mayor's job he left in 2002 - complained about the glacial pace of the case before the court.

In his opinion, Robinson also made reference to the slow pace of the case, calling it a "jarndycean piece of litigation," an apparent reference to the fictional case Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the Charles Dickens novel "Bleak House," which drones on for so long and is so complicated that no one alive knows what it means.

(AP) highlight our additions

Cianci was the first mayor of Providence to fly the rainbow flag over city hall and to serve as grand marshal of the gay "pride" parade. In 1997, he was also the first elected official in the state to establish the Office of Gay Liaison within his administration and to appoint members of the city’s LGBTQ community to that position.

(WND)

Poll Shows Majority Of People In The UK Think Yeshivas Should Be Forced To Teach Homosexuality

We have asked you whether LGBT rights should also be included in faith schools' curriculum and you said: YES.

More than 50% of the people who took the poll said they would like to see gay rights taught at parochial schools  (yeshivas).

Over 36% said they wouldn't like to have their children discussing the topic at school whereas 12% said that it would depend on how the subject would be taught.

The poll was set after theEducation Ministry said that faith schools will not be forced to include LGBT rights in their curriculum. after they sent in Government Inspectors Teach Jewish Girls About Same Sex "Marriage" In Orthodox Girls Schools.

A reader has reacted to the poll on our Facebook page.

Joanne Jones said: "We all need to be tolerant of each other no matter what our sexual preferences, culture or religion. Thought that was a normal way of thinking in 2014 for the UK?"

(canterburytimes) highlight our additions

Poll Says Majority Of American Support Forcing Shuls/Churchs To Hire Gays

According to a new Harris poll released Thursday, two-thirds of Americans support federal legislation that would bar employers from "discriminating" against workers on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and 55 percent reject exemptions for any employers -- even Shuls/churches.

35% of American's think Shuls should not be forced to hire gays

The online survey, conducted Sept. 10-18 with Out & Equal Workplace Advocates and Witeck Communications, found that only 35 percent of Americans think religious organizations are legally justified to "discriminate" against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers on faith-based grounds. Slightly fewer respondents, 30 percent, made the same exception for privately held businesses. About 1 in 5 Americans said publicly held businesses should be able to claim a religious exemption as well, according to the survey, which interviewed 2,543 adults in the United States.

In July, President Barack Obama issued an executive order protecting LGBT employees of federal contractors and the federal government from employment "discrimination". The provision pertaining to federal contractors, which does not grant any exemptions for religiously affiliated contractors, affects 24,000 companies employing nearly one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. But in 29 states, all other workers can still be legally fired or harassed for being gay, lesbian or bisexual. For transgender employees, that's true in 32 states.

30% of Americans believe that a kosher restaurant should be required to hire gays who flaunt it

In Congress, legislation to remedy this gap has passed the Senate but stalled in the GOP-controlled House. The Employment Non-"Discrimination" Act, which would protect all LGBT workers from workplace "discrimination", has also lost support from a number of gay rights groups in recent months because of its inclusion of a wide-reaching religious exemption that would give faith-affiliated businesses legal cover to "discriminate" against LGBT employees.

"I think there's a broad consensus that the rules should apply to everyone including shuls, Yeshiva, and kollels, which is why we withdrew our support from ENDA," Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, explained in an Associated Press interview earlier this month. "If you have different standards, then it communicates a message that some kinds of "discrimination" are not as serious as others."

(Huffington Post) highlight my additions

granted the poll may be biased but even if it is it will be used to force this position into law

Shuls beware your next "rabbi" might be forced to be a homosexual

At Least 6 People Forced To Resign Due To North Carolina's Allowing Same Sex "Marriage"

NC magistrates resign over gay "marriage" rulings

When a federal judge cleared the legal path for same-sex "marriage" in North Carolina earlier this month, it set off a flurry of "weddings" and "celebrations", mostly in urban areas of the state.

But the joy was hardly unanimous, including among some public officials whose jobs include performing marriages.

At least six magistrates have quit or announced their resignations since same-sex "marriages" became legal Oct. 10, the Observer found.

Some left 20-year jobs that paid more than $50,000. Their decisions, they said, were based on religious beliefs.

“When you have convictions about something, you’ve drawn your line in the sand,” said Gayle Myrick, 64, a former Union County magistrate. “It ("marrying" gay couples) was not a consideration to me at any cost.”

Myrick joined magistrates in Gaston, Swain, Graham, Jackson and Rockingham counties who resigned – or announced plans to quit – because of the change in the marriage law. It’s unclear how many other magistrates have similar intentions.

Opponents of same-sex "marriages" said it’s likely other public officials feel the same but have chosen to keep their jobs for financial reasons.

The debate over a person’s individual rights versus their duties on the job is playing out across the country.

But the issue gets especially "murky" when it involves public officials, said Charles Haynes, director of the nonprofit Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute in Washington, D.C.

“From the beginning of our history as a nation, we have always valued our liberty of conscience and freedom,” he said. “(North Carolina’s situation this also happened in New York, one of the Clerks (Karl Brabenec) who quit is now running for assembly in KJ, and parts of Ramapo Township, please vote for Karl Brabenec if you live there is one of the tougher areas, because when you work for the state, you serve the people.”

some State Republican leaders are challenging the change in the "marriage" law. On Friday, Senate leader Phil Berger and 27 other Republicans asked the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts to grant protections to officials who refuse to participate in gay "marriages" because of religious beliefs.

Supporters of same-sex "marriages" said magistrates should do their job.

“State officials don’t get to pick and choose what laws they need to follow,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina. “They can’t turn people away just because of who they are and who they "love".”

Decision to leave

Four years after becoming a magistrate in Swain County, Gilbert Breedlove, 57, was ordained as a Baptist minister. He preaches to about 20 worshippers in the mountain county. Breedlove saw the changes coming through the courts.

“There are many who won’t let their personal beliefs interfere with their jobs,” Breedlove said. “In this case, I had no option.”

Breedlove left the magistrate job that paid $52,000 annually, more than the county’s median household income of about $43,400.

With his minister position only part time, Breedlove said it’s unclear whether he’ll be able to make a living off it or by helping to bind and translate Bibles into American Indian languages.

“You either go for the finances or you go for the faith,” he said. “I know the Lord has something for me to do.”

Breedlove said he’s received support from family and friends, though he acknowledged that critical online comments from news articles have been hurtful. 

Like Breedlove, Tommy Holland quit the job he held since the early 1990s. He was a magistrate in Graham County, on the Tennessee line, and also earned about $52,000 a year. He, too, is Baptist.

Holland, 58, said the decision to leave was tough, but simple. The county’s three magistrates received a state memo detailing the law change and reminding them that it’s their "duty" to perform "marriage" ceremonies no matter the sexual orientation of the couple.

“When you’re a magistrate, you take the oath to uphold the law of North Carolina,” he said. “It’s up to you to honor it. I just couldn’t.”

Jackson County magistrate Jeff Powell and Gaston County magistrate William Stevenson confirmed they left because of the change but declined to comment.

Magistrates’ duties

Same-sex "marriages" became legal this month when two federal judges ruled North Carolina’s ban on gay "marriages" unconstitutional In a clear judicial legislation from the bench considering that I'm 100% sure not a single person who voted to ratify the constitutional amendments used in the decision would have agreed with their decision . Since then, 188 gay couples have "married" in Mecklenburg County, said David Granberry, register of deeds. No state figures were available.

While registers of deeds issue "marriage" licenses, magistrates perform the ceremonies. Magistrates also issue warrants and set bail. They can accept guilty pleas and payments of fines for minor misdemeanors and traffic violations. Magistrates must hold a four-year college degree or a two-year degree, plus relevant work experience, according to the state. North Carolina employed about 670 magistrates last fiscal year.

Challenging the law

Berger, the Republican senator, said he’ll craft a bill that would protect state officials who refuse – because of religious reasons – to issue "marriage" licenses or marry gay couples.  so far no bill like this was ever sponsored in NY even though we have the same problem, people like Simcha Felder have more "important" issues to deal with like kissing up to Cuomo

He discussed his plans in Rockingham County, where magistrate John Kallam Jr. said he’d rather step down than marry same-sex couples.

“Here, in Rockingham County, forcing Magistrate Kallam to give up his religious liberties to save his job is just wrong,” Berger said.

On Friday, Berger and other state Senate Republicans sent a letter to the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts director, Judge John Smith. They said the courts failed to tell magistrates of religious protections afforded to state employees.

Two magistrates told the Observer that a memo they received from the Administrative Office of the Courts hinted at criminal prosecution if they did not perform gay "marriage" ceremonies.

“Assertions amounting to threats about job loss and criminal prosecution without acknowledgment of recognized and existing workplace protections appear to have misled some supervisors to believe that the law will not tolerate the actions of reasonable men and women,” stated Berger’s letter to Smith.

James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, said a law that lets government workers choose who they serve “violates the principles of fair play.

“That’s not religious freedom,” Esseks said. “That’s discrimination.” showing once again that gay rights trump religious rights in the eyes of the left, 1st for private people finally they will push it even on rabbis

A balancing act

Haynes, the director at the Newseum Institute, said he expected push-back in states with newly minted "marriage" laws. In 2012, North Carolina voters passed a state constitutional ban on gay "marriages" by approving Amendment One.

That ban, along with an existing state law limiting marriages to a man and a woman, were overturned after two federal judges said they were illegal under an earlier gay "marriage" ruling by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Haynes said there is a balancing act between society’s interest and the interest of a person’s religious freedom.

highlights my additions

“Nondiscrimination and religious freedom are both core American principles,” nondiscrimination only became a value in recent years religious freedom was always one, as the former has grown into a value the later has been disintegrating he said. “If we can have "marriage" equality and also protect freedom of conscience, then I think that’s really the best way to go forward.”

Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis have hired lawyers to appeal the federal "marriage" ruling. They’re hoping to get another hearing before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court about the legality of the state’s constitutional marriage ban.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said there were no more legal options left and Republican Gov. Pat McCrory said all state agencies would comply with the federal decision. showing once again that republicans can't be trusted, if McCroy had any decency or integrity he would ignore the courts Judicial activists decision and use the power of his office to force all magistrates to refuse to comply with the court and uphold the will of the people.

(charlotteobserver)  highlights my additions

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/10/25/5266424/nc-magistrates-resign-over-gay.html#.VFH1QvnF-O4#storylink=cpy

City Threatens To Arrest Ministers Who Refuse To Perform Same Sex "Weddings"

From the law suit against the City for forcing
the Knapps to violate their religion

The Hitching Post is one of the most well known chapels in the Inland Northwest. In its 95 years of operation thousands of people have been married in the small chapel. But the owners are willing to walk away if the ban on gay "marriage" is permanently lifted.
(kxly.com)

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings




Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing read the law suit Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.

“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” their ADF attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail.”

- Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Jeremy Tedesco

According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local "nondiscrimination" ordinance.

That ordinance, passed last year, prohibits "discrimination" based on sexual orientation, and it applies to housing, employment and public accommodation.

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any including Jewish ones wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”

Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex "weddings".

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to 180 days in jail.

Now all of that was a moot point because, until last week, gay "marriage" was not legal in Idaho.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex "marriages" to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. Two days later, the folks at the Hitching Post received a telephone call.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex "wedding" ceremony. The Hitching Post declined, putting it in violation of the new law.

City officials did not respond to my requests for an interview, nor did they respond to requests from local news outlets.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” Tedesco said.

“The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected, just as the First Amendment intended.”

Alliance Defending Freedom also filed a temporary restraining order to stop the city from enforcing the ordinance.

“The Knapps are in fear that if they exercise their First Amendment rights they will be cited, prosecuted and sent to jail,” Tedesco told me.

It’s hard to believe this could happen in the United States. But as the lawsuit states, the Knapps are in a “constant state of fear that they may have to go to jail, pay substantial fines, or both, resulting in them losing the business that God has called them to operate and which they have faithfully operated for 25 years.”

The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me it’s “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans,” Perkins said.

Why should evangelical Christian ministers be forced to perform and celebrate any marriage that conflicts with their beliefs?

“This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions – where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs,” Perkins told me.

As I write in my new book, “God Less America,” we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack.

The incidents in Houston and now in Coeur d’Alene are the just the latest examples of a disturbing trend in the culture war – direct attacks on clergy.

“Government officials are making clear they will use their government power to punish those who oppose the advances of homosexual activists,” Perkins said.

I’m afraid Mr. Perkins is absolutely right.

No one should be discriminated against but have you noticed that any time a city passes a “nondiscrimination” ordinance, it’s the Christians and Jews who wind up being discriminated against?

(Fox News) highlights my additions

read this editorial from the daily beast showing how liberals want to force you to violate the Torah

Refusing to Marry Same-Sex Couples Isn’t Religious Freedom, It’s Just Discrimination

A ‘Christian or Jewish’ wedding chapel—a private business—in Idaho is suing for the right not to "marry" gay couples. There is no such right. Yet.

The first thing you need to know is that most “wedding chapels” are not actually chapels. They are private businesses, sometimes run by ordained ministers who are thus licensed to perform marriage ceremonies, but just as often run by Elvis impersonators. Thus, the question of how so called "marriage"-equality laws apply to private wedding chapels is ostensibly a question of under what circumstances the government can lawfully step on a for-profit company’s blue suede shoes.

Ground zero for this debate is now Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. There, the city is apparently requiring the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel to officiate gay weddings. Now, it’s hard to imagine any gay couple wanting to get "married" at the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel. Their website talks about “the difference between men and women because we all know men and women are identical in all ways including anatomically” and says “women respond to love positively because they were created that way” and “men respond to respect because that is the way they are created.”

Yeah. And the private “chapel” reportedly gives its newlyweds a conservative Christian CD with hetero-reinforcing marriage sermons. Then again, given the über-butch Paul Bunyan log-cabin façade, if some gay men mistook the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel for a for a Western bar, that would be understandable.

Anyway, after a court effectively made so called "marriage" equality the law of the land in Idaho a week ago, it appears some misguided gay couple wandered into the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel. The owners, Evelyn and Donald Knapp, apparently declined to marry the couple and instead filed a federal lawsuit to stop the city of Coeur d’Alene from enforcing its non-discrimination law. Yup, Evelyn and Donald Knapp are “ordained Christian ministers” suing for the right to discriminate.

State and federal laws generally exempt only religious institutions from having to perform gay "marriages". Yet the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel is not a church or a synagogue or a mosque but a private business—apparently one in the newly created categorical mold of Hobby Lobby, a “for-profit religious corporation.” If you wondered what the slippery slope of the Hobby Lobby decision might entail, here’s a good look. In the Hobby Lobby ruling, Justice Alito wrote that the decision does not “provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.”  We’ll see about that. The faith-based legal advocacy group defending the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel will undoubtedly lean on Hobby Lobby to make its case.

Either way, it’s worth noting that the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel is at this point being required to officiate same-sex "weddings" not because of any federal or state law, but because of local non-discrimination laws passed in Coeur d’Alene. So much for all those conservatives who want the federal government to butt out and let local jurisdictions rule. I guess that’s only when they agree with the local jurisdictions.  showing the first amendment is irrelevant 

By the same token, conservatives seem to only support government forcing people to do things when it comes to requiring that doctors read out loud misleading information written by abortion opponents to any women patients contemplating terminating a pregnancy like many women regretting this after the fact. That kind of government coercion of speech and action seems a-OK to the conservative liberty crowd like how the liberals did with repairetive therapy or MBP. But forcing a religious person to violate their religion by requiring a private business to provide unequal accommodation to all Americans, including the gay ones? Tyranny! first amendment be darned

Mind you, just as Hobby Lobby initially covered the forms of contraception that it later stopped covering and objected to when filing suit, the Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel entirely reincorporated its business just last month with a new business certificate and a new operating agreement that suddenly includes the religious values also asserted in their lawsuit to protect themselves from gay terrorist who want to force them to violate their religion. They now have a new Employee Policy and Customer Agreement saying they will only perform weddings “between one biological male and one biological female.” most likely (like every states original marriage laws) never dreaming years ago that the definition of marriage would need to be clarified

It’s hard to argue that opposing so called "marriage" equality is a central tenet of Christianity when majorities of Christian voters support same-sex "marriage".  just like it's hard for a Jew to claim that Judaism forbids lighting a fire on shabbos when most Jews break shabbos in and do so?

if you suspend the fist amendment Conservatives are already trying to conflate the issues here , saying that Coeur d’Alene is forcing “Christian pastors” to perform same-sex "weddings" or “face jail”—deliberately blurring the line between this for-profit chapel because religion only exist in officially sanctioned environments?  and actual religious institutions and entities so according to liberals anything that is not officially a religious institution can be forced to violate their religion. But regardless, even in the case of florists or cake makers or photographers who want to practice  their religion by "discriminate" against gay couples, their grounds for doing so are thin provided you don't believe in the first amendment. It’s hard not to argue that opposing so called "marriage" equality is a central tenet of Christianity when majorities of Christian voters support same-sex marriage like majority of all Jewish voters don't believe in torah mishamayim, as do an increasing number of denominations like "Reform-Judaism" is a branch of Judaism . In Kansas, where Republicans tried to pass a law legalizing discrimination by private businesses and individuals, the pastor of the state’s largest church took a stand for equal treatment, saying, “Jesus routinely healed, fed, and ministered to people whose personal lifestyle he likely disagreed with.” Reform Temple Emanuel is the largest "synagogue" in NYC do you think your rav should pasken based on them?

Pastor Andy Stanley, head of the second-largest evangelical church in America, said, “Serving people we don’t see eye to eye with is the essence of Christianity. Jesus died for a world with which he didn’t see eye to eye. If a bakery doesn’t want to sell its products to a gay couple, it’s their business. Literally. But leave Jesus out of it.” In other words, using Christianity to rationalize discrimination against one’s fellow human beings doesn’t seem very, well, Christian.

Jesus also spoke very clearly about the dangers of private profit (“You cannot serve God and money.”), but I don’t see any of these so-called religious businesses rushing to embrace those teachings.

The Hitching Post Lakeside Chapel is a for-profit business, just like the Elvis Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas that also wants to "discriminate" against gay couples in violation of local, state, and federal laws and deeply held principles of fairness and equality on which our country was founded Liberals forget this country was founded on freedom of religion and speech not fairness and equality, fairness and equality the way liberals understand is closer to Marxisim . The image of an Elvis impersonator trying to claim religious exemptions should strike us all as a hunka-hunka burning crap.

These entrepreneurs have chosen to incorporate as private businesses, with all the legal rights and privileges that entails. That means they have to follow the laws that apply to private businesses and suspend their first amendment rights?. Don’t wanna "marry" everyone who are entitled to "marry" legally under the law? Then don’t run a wedding business. After all, the government isn’t forcing you to be in that line of work.

Wedding businesses under liberal rule

(thedailybeast) highlights my additions

Catholic Church Sued Over Same Sex "Marriage"

Neither Missouri law nor federal law prohibit employers from hiring or firing people on the basis of their sexual orientation.


KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A parish food pantry worker who was fired over her "marriage" to another woman is suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Colleen Simon says a human resources director wrote a letter to Simon stating that the reason for her termination was because of “an irreconcilable conflict between the laws, discipline and teaching of the Catholic Church.”

It listed her relationship to a person of the same sex as one of the reasons for her termination, according to Simon.

Simon worked for St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church, 1001 E 52nd St., as Director of Social Ministries. She says when she applied for the job, she told them she was gay and "married" to Reverend Donna Simon, who works at another church.

“During my interview with the pastor, I shared that I am married and that many people in Kansas City know about us,” Simon said. “I could not have been more transparent.”

She was fired when the couple was mentioned last April in a newspaper article in the Kansas City Star’s 816 magazine about her pantry work.

“After I was employed, my "wife", like any "spouse" attended a fundraiser at the food pantry, and many of my co-workers had the opportunity to meet her as my "spouse",” Simon said.

A spokesperson for the diocese told FOX 4 that no one could speak on camera on Thursday about the lawsuit because they had not yet received and reviewed it, but they did issue a statement that said, “As a church we have the right to live and operate according to our faith and church teachings.” The statement also said that while it regrets the litigation, it will defend its “constitutional freedom to practice our faith and uphold the integrity of our mission and public witness.”

The Missouri lawsuit is among a growing number of clashes over gay rights between Catholic leaders and their employees.

Dioceses in Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio; Honolulu; Oakland, California, and elsewhere have added morals clauses to their teacher contracts barring public support for gay rights. As a result, more than 15 employees have lost their jobs or resigned since 2010.

“This is the job I always dreamed of, the job I always wanted, and the job I want back,” said Simon. “Like anyone who loses something that they love dearly, I am heartbroken.”
(Fox 4 Kansas City)
If not fought this will be coming soon to your local Orthodox Shul

Dov Hikind Sponsors Bill Exempting Students From Gay Propaganda In Schools

Hikind Sponsored this bill on behalf of a regular reader of this blog (with no affiliation to any politically Mainstream Orthodox orginazation) that asked to remain anonymous 

To understand what this proposed law does understand that everything in lower case letters is the current law, and capital letters are what (the best of all the assemblyman that currently represent the Jewish community) Assemblyman Dov Hikind is adding to the current-law to lessen the evilness of the law so religious people will not be subjected to anti religious indoctrination (I'm going to bold part of the old law and proposed law that are particularly important) (bracketed section is being taken out)

S 801-a. Instruction in civility, citizenship and character education.
The  regents  shall  ensure  that  the  course  of instruction in grades
kindergarten through twelve includes a component on  civility,  citizen-
ship  and character education. Such component shall instruct students on
the principles of honesty, tolerance, personal  responsibility,  respect
for  others, with an emphasis on discouraging acts of harassment, bully-
ing, discrimination, observance of laws and rules, courtesy, dignity and
other traits which will enhance the quality of their experiences in, and
contributions to, the community. Such component shall  include  instruc-
tion  of  safe,  responsible use of the internet and electronic communi-
cations. The regents shall determine how to incorporate  such  component
in  existing  curricula  and the commissioner shall promulgate any regu-
lations needed to carry out such determination of the regents.  For  the
purposes  of this section, "tolerance," "respect for others" and "digni-
ty" shall include awareness and  sensitivity  to  harassment,  bullying,
discrimination  and  civility  [in the relations of] WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
DISCOURAGING ACTS OF BULLYING AND WITH OUT REGARD TO THE  REASONING  FOR
THEIR  BEING  BULLIED, TOWARD ALL STUDENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
people of different races, weights,  national  origins,  ethnic  groups,
religions,  religious  practices,  mental  or physical abilities, sexual
orientations, genders, and sexes. ANY STUDENT, PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN,
EXPRESSING A MORAL OR RELIGIOUS OBJECTION TO THIS COURSE OF  INSTRUCTION
IN  THIS  SECTION,  SHALL  BE  PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERTAKE AND
COMPLETE AN ALTERNATIVE PROJECT THAT SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH STUDENT'S
TEACHER.  STUDENTS WHO PERFORM ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS WHO  DO  NOT  ATTEND
THIS  COURSE  OF INSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE PENALIZED. THE BOARD OF EDUCA-
TION OR TRUSTEES OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL DEVELOP  A  POLICY  TO  GIVE
REASONABLE  NOTICE  TO  ALL STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THIS COURSE OF INSTRUC-
TION, AND STUDENTS' PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIANS ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS.  SUCH
NOTICE  SHALL  BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST AT THE SCHOOL AND DISTRIB-
UTED TO ALL PARENTS AND STUDENTS. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO
PRIVATE, CHARTER, RELIGIOUS OR DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

(remember bolds/underlines are for emphasis, lower case letters are the old law, capital letters are the new proposed additions, bracketed section is taken out)


1. Notice the original law (NOT the one that Dov Hikind is sponsoring) has gender, and sexes implying they are 2 separate things
2.  Notice the original law (NOT the one that Dov Hikind is sponsoring) never says anything against bullying for reasons besides the 11 stated reason (height, accent, athletic ability etc.) showing that the only reason it was sponsored was for gay propaganda in schools and the anti-bullying was just a ruse (excuse to pass the law) In short it's 100% OK  legally to bully someone in NY for their height
3. the original law (NOT the one that Dov Hikind is sponsoring) was vague (it's currently interpited as not applying to non public school, but unfortunately that could change in a few years time) as to whether this applies to private school (including Yeshivas)
3. Dov Hikind proposed law would allow children and parents the right to freedom of religion and be excused from a pro-homosexuality curriculum.
4. Dov Hikind's proposed law would make it that this law will be less about the 11 stated reasons for bullying (including homosexuality) and more about not bullying period
5. Dov Hikind's proposed law would make it that people who are not from the 11 protected class (height, accent, athletic ability etc.) are also protected lessening the gay propaganda in this bill and truly making it more to bullying (which the state was supposedly trying to protect us from)
6. Dov Hikind's proposed law would make it clear that only public schools are required to teach this bullying course that includes homosexuality and not Yeshivas.

 
If you think this law is not necessary remember this story
11 Years old Girls Required To Ask To Kiss Others Girls Due To New York Law  
Young girls at a New York middle school were instructed to ask one another for a lesbian kiss and boys were given guidance on how to tell if women are sluts during an anti-bullying presentation on gender identity and sexual orientation, angry parents allege.

 Coon told Fox News that her daughter was upset by the classroom lecture and was confused about why she had to ask another girl for a kiss.

“She told me, ‘Mom, we all get teased and picked on enough – now I’m going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,’” Coon said.

She said the school told her that the purpose of the lesson was to “teach girls boundaries and how to say no.” 

“They also picked two girls to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date,” Coons said. (click to read our previous coverage of this story)


How come Simcha Felder does not sponsor the same bill in the Senate?
How come not a single member of the New York Assembly including the "orthodox" ones co-sponsor this urgent bill?

Catholic School Sued For Firing Teacher Who Had A Gay "Wedding"

 Next could be a Yeshiva

For the past four years, Flint Dollar has been teaching music at Mount de Sales Academy, a Catholic school in Macon, Ga. He is, by "all" accounts, beloved by his students.

But Dollar won't be leading the band or teaching the chorus in the fall. His contract was not renewed after administrators found out he plans to "marry" a man.

Under federal Anti-"discrimination laws for now Democrats are trying to pass ENDA Supported by many including republicans such as John McCain showing once again that republicans can't be trusted and we must look at the individuals in every single case, employers are not prohibited from hiring or firing people on the basis of "sexual orientation". Dollar is working to change that.

He says when he was hired, he was honest with school administrators about his sexual orientation. But a month ago, just as Dollar was letting his students out for summer, he was called to see the school president.

"When you're called in the last part of the day on the last day of the week, it's not a good sign," Dollar says. "I was told that ... the bishop the Catholic hierarchy for an area of the Diocese of Savannah called and expressed his concern that if I was to return it would be against the teachings of the Catholic Church thus should be allowed under the first amendment even if homosexuality was covered in federal, state, and local anti "discrimination laws, showing once again that homosexual "rights" takes precedence over freedom of religion in the minds of liberals."

What changed? Well, Dollar had announced on Facebook that he plans to "marry" his longtime partner in Minnesota this summer. The Catholic Church's position against same-sex "marriage" is clear thus making this a religious issue and the Catholic church immune in a rational conversation from all discrimination laws, and the diocese says it supports the school in its decision to let Dollar go.

School officials, without addressing this case specifically, released a statement saying they have to consider an employee's ability to teach Catholic doctrine when making staff decisions.  just like a Yeshiva should have the right have not to higher people that they think go against the Torah even as a janitor (who can still have exposure to kids and influence them and it's the Yeshivas prerogative to do so or not to do so)

"I was told very specifically I didn't do anything wrong besides the obvious, that there were no parent complaints, no student complaints, but regardless, I would not be returning," Dollar says. "I'm still kind of processing that."

Since neither federal law nor state law in Georgia expressly forbids employers from discriminating against gays, it initially seemed like there was nothing Dollar could do. But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which turned 50 this week, does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex notice how liberals purposely misinterpit "discrimination" based on sex like they did in the Williamsburg stores casehttp://unitedtosaveamerica.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-city-won-their-attack-on.html. Dollar's lawyer, Charles Cox, sees an opening there.

"When you fire somebody because they are engaging in a same-sex "marriage", I "think" that pretty clearly fits with gender discrimination," Cox says. "You're being fired because you're not complying with traditional gender stereotypes, and that's "wrong", and we "believe" it's unlawful."

Enterprising lawyers have been making that argument since at least the 1990s, and federal courts have been saying "nice try" just as long. But in April, a judge in Washington made a ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal employee Peter TerVeer. TerVeer claims his supervisor at the Library of Congress made his work life miserable because TerVeer is gay.

LGBT rights attorney Greg Nevins, who is helping with TerVeer's case, "explains" how TerVeer sued under Title VII:

"His romantic or intimate interest in men is something that the women workers at the office were not penalized for, but he was," Nevins says. "He made that claim in federal district court, and the court allowed it to proceed, despite a motion to dismiss by the Department of Justice." possibly the only decent move they have made in recent years

Now the TerVeer case is giving "hope" to people like Dollar. He's filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, alleging sex discrimination. Matthew Franck, a constitutional scholar at Princeton, says that might work — but it shouldn't.

"I realize that in half a century a lot of judicial interpretation has gone into the application of Title VII," Franck says, "but I think it's fairly clear that Title VII's reference to sex as a category of discrimination, that the people who wrote that had nothing like sexual orientation in their minds. It was not contemplated similar to the 14th amendment which Kennedy had no problem reinterpreting to include a constitutional right to practice homosexual acts."

The EEOC said in a 2012 case that "discrimination" against transgender people constitutes sex "discrimination". Franck says he's not a fan of that either, but he thinks it's at least closer to the original intent of the Civil Rights Act.

Back in Georgia, Dollar is playing organ part time at a Presbyterian church while he looks for a job and fights his case. He says getting his old position back is not the goal. forcing religious institutions to violate their religious doctrines in the name of gay rights is

"I don't want anybody else to have to go through what I've been through," he says. "This last month has been up and down. It's been painful. There are days that I don't want to get out of bed."

But as the courts keep rapidly changing the way they view sexual orientation, Dollar hopes that he may be among the last generation of people who risk losing their jobs at a religious institution because they're gay.
(NPR) highlights my additions

Jerry Nadler, And Chuck Schumer Think You Lose Your Freedom Of Religion When You Open A Business?

By Kristina Peterson

June 30, 2014 3:11 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—Monday's Supreme Court decision enabling some private companies to opt out of the federal health law's some contraception coverage requirements ignited partisan dueling over not just the 2010 health-care law but over a 1993 religious-freedom law cited in the decision

The high court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case refocused attention on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1993, with the support of some lawmakers still serving in both the House and Senate. this law was passed by congress after the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) (opinion written by Scalia) weakened the first amendment's religious protection from the government having a compelling interest (banning suicide bombings) to only a rational reason for the law (a law that forces grocery stores to be open 7 days a week would be a rational based reason due to the government's interest in allowing consumers to shop any day of the week) that would infringe on religion , congress passed this law to restrengthen it back to it's original protection.  The RFRA was later weakened by the Supreme court again in 1997 in the case of state laws. The statute requires federal laws to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest as opposed to a rational reason as was the case after the 1990 court decision at stake that can't be attained through other means.

While Republicans on Monday triumphantly pointed to the law's role in the decision, Democrats said they hadn't anticipated the law would be so broadly expanded or more accurately that it would be applied to a law they agree with.

The Supreme Court's so-called Hobby Lobby decision attracted a lot of attention this week because it's an important ruling on the Affordable Care Act. WSJ's Jerry Seib discusses the decision's long-term political ramifications. 

In the case, the owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., an Oklahoma City arts-and-crafts chain owned by an evangelical Christian family, and other companies challenged the Affordable Care Act by saying their religions consider certain birth-control methods that were abortion-like immoral and therefore they weren't obliged to help provide them under the religious-freedom law.

The Supreme Court's majority agreed, citing the religious-freedom law in its decision and not the first amendment like they should have.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the lead Republican sponsor of the religious-freedom law when it passed the Senate in a 97-3 vote, said Monday's decision affirmed Congress' decision to pass the law in the first place.

"As the Supreme Court rightfully said today, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not have been clearer in saying religious liberty of all Americans must be equally protected and not unnecessarily burdened," Mr. Hatch said in a statement. "That's why RFRA passed Congress overwhelmingly more than 20 years ago."

The bill passed the House on a voice vote and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 

The U.S. Supreme Court said "closely held" companies can, on religious grounds, opt out of covering employees' contraception costs in health-care plans.

But Democrats who had supported the religious liberties law in 1993 said Monday they hadn't intended it to be used to enable for-profit employers to avoid complying with federal laws so that would mean if chas veshalom they would make a law mandating a store (under the interstate commerce clause) opening up on Shabbos they would interpret that as a constitutional law and the RFRA to not cover it . The law shouldn't shield businesses from meeting the health law's requirements or the working on shabbos law, they said. The 1993 law refers to "persons," and the Obama administration contended that the law doesn't include for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby or your store under the shabbos work law.
 
"No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit employers—like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—should not be allowed to wield their beliefs as a means of denying employees access to critical preventive health-care services," or the law mandating stores open up on Saturday said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) who supported the law in 1993. At the time, lawmakers kept in place a principle that religion doesn't exempt for-profit businesses from complying with civil rights laws, for example, Mr. Nadler said.

The bill was introduced in March 1993 by Charles Schumer of New York, then in the House, now a member of the Senate's Democratic leadership. Mr. Schumer joined a group of 18 other Senate Democrats who filed an amicus brief supporting the Obama administration in the Hobby Lobby case. In the brief, the Democrats had urged the court to clarify that the religious-freedom law doesn't permit for-profit businesses to deny health coverage or close on Saturday to their employees based on their owners' religious objections.

In a statement Monday, Mr. Schumer called the Supreme Court's decision "dead wrong," saying the law he introduced was intended to give individuals the ability "to exercise their religious beliefs without government interference." The law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market a Jewish business is required to follow all laws even if they go against the Torah," he said.

Republicans had filed their own briefs supporting the challengers and arguing that the health law's mandate violated the religious-freedom law.

The law in question was originally intended to nullify a decision from Justice Antonin Scalia in the early 1990s that denied religious exemptions from generally applicable laws last year he explicitly said that would include legislation to ban Milah Scalia's view on the lack of freedom of religion may in the future make him just as dangreous as Ruth Bader Ginsburg currently is, if the liberals push in laws that mandate following liberalism over Judaism (this has applications in way more areas than the obvious wedding cake for a same sex "wedding"ex. the gays push an anti Milah law and Scalia signs off on it). The dispute arose when Oregon denied unemployment benefits to adherents of a Native American religion who used peyote, a controlled substance, in their ceremonies.
—Jess Bravin, Beth Reinhard and Louise Radnofsky contributed to this article.
Write to Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@wsj.com
(Wall Street Journal) highlights our additions