Colorado Same-sex Unions Trample Religious Liberty

Now that Democrats control all of Colorado state government, a homosexual unions law will be enacted by March to circumvent the voters' defeat of civil unions and passage of the state constitutional one-man-one-woman amendment.  Gay Agenda supporters say the amendment was passed in the dark ages of 2006 -- apparently before voters evolved to the current enlightened hedonistic condition.

“Human history has shown us that the most important institution is not government, it’s the family. And the family is a heterosexual couple raising and rearing children. I believe this [law] is not a small change or a refinement to the concept of marriage, I believe this is a distinct step away from what marriage is and does not serve our culture or our state.”
-- Colorado State Sen. Kevin Lundberg

For background, read Catholic Adoptions Closed by Illinois Civil Unions Law and also read Homosexualists' Action Terminates DC Foster Care as well as Court Says San Francisco Right to Condemn Catholic Church over Gay Adoption

And read about the Colorado baker and myriad other Christians sued in states with same-sex unions/marriage laws.

UPDATE 3/22/13: Gov. signs civil unions into law

UPDATE 2/11/13: Colorado Democrat Senator Says Christians Belong in Monastery



-- From "As expected, Senate committee passes Colorado civil unions bill" by Lynn Bartels, The Denver Post 1/24/13

A Senate committee on Wednesday passed a bill allowing gay couples to form civil unions despite protests it violates religious freedoms and overrides the will of Coloradans.

The outcome of civil unions this session is not in doubt: Democrats control the Senate, House and the governor's mansion. But that didn't stop a string of witnesses from testifying for more than four hours, urging the bill's passage or its death.

Kellie Fiedorek with the Alliance Defending Freedom said the bill "fails to provide significant safeguards for the religious liberties of all Coloradans."

Carrie Gordon Earll with CitizenLink, an arm of Focus on the Family, said the bill isn't about benefits, but about moving toward redefining marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colorado is one step closer to civil unions" by Greg Campbell, Daily Caller 1/24/13

Similar bills failed during the past two legislative sessions. The most recent attempt was defeated in dramatic 11th-hour fashion last spring, when Republicans who controlled the House didn’t bring the bill up for a vote before the session ended.

Two openly gay senators and two openly gay representatives are sponsoring the bill. The acting chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, which heard testimony from dozens of people on both sides of the issue, is also gay.

[In testimony, President and CEO of Catholic Charities of Central Colorado, Mark] Rohlena was concerned about the major difference between this year’s bill and the one from last year. The current version no longer includes a provision exempting adoption agencies that disagree with civil unions from placing children with same-sex couples. Catholic Charities, Rohlena said, only arranges adoptions to opposite sex couples who are married.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.


From "At rally, 'Pro-marriage' supporters offer alternative view of civil unions" by Eli Stokols, KDVR-TV31 (Denver) 1/26/13

At a “pro-marriage” rally on the Capitol’s west steps Friday, opponents of civil unions legislation that would grant same-sex couples equal protection under the law denounced it as “bigoted” and “hatred.”

Another speaker argued that the measure actually “persecutes” the religious.

Why isn’t the [religious] exemption for adoption agencies in the bill this year?

Because Democrats, who found it discriminatory, won the election and no longer have to worry about securing Republican votes.

Pretty simple, really.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Controversial civil unions bill clears first hurdle in committee" by Ernest Luning, The Colorado Statesman 1/25/13

. . . this time the legislation faces a less uncertain fate and is expected to land on Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk in March.

As in its two previous hearings before the committee, a cavalcade of supporters and opponents trooped before lawmakers, some waving Bibles and others brandishing stories about their commitment to committed couples, whether gay or straight.

“This to me is a bullying bill against those of us who believe in God’s teaching on homosexual behavior,” said Rosina Kovar, who gained notoriety and brief Internet fame two years ago with explicit testimony about bodily functions.

“This is a discrimination against their religious values. It’s a judgment call on the part of the state to say we will force them to participate in what they consider to be morally wrong,” [State Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud] said, predicting lawsuits will ensue if the bill is adopted.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholics criticize Colorado Civil Union Bill" by Catholic League for Religious and Civil rights 1/25/13

Far and away the biggest problem for the Catholic community, and for the rights of other faith communities, is the matter of religious liberty. To demand that Catholic adoptive agencies place children in a household of two adults of the same sex is to eviscerate their Catholicity. There is no getting around it.

It is not without meaning that Senate Bill 11 explicitly says, “A priest, minister, rabbi or other official of a religious institution or denomination or an Indian nation or tribe is not required to certify a civil union in violation of his or her right to free exercise of religion.” So if the sponsors of the bill recognize the religious liberty implications of forcing the clergy to give their blessings to homosexual unions, they should also recognize the religious liberty implications of forcing religious social service agencies to give their blessings to such arrangements. To offer one exemption but not the other is illogical and unconstitutional.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Colo. Civil-Unions Bill Could Endanger Catholic Child Services" by Kevin J. Jones, Catholic News Agency 1/22/13

If the legislation passes this year, civil unions for two people of any sex would be legally equivalent to marriage under state law. The 2012 Colorado Senate bill proposing to create the unions had stated that the bill “shall not be interpreted to require a child-placement agency to place a child for adoption” with a couple in a civil union.

That language, however, is absent from the 2013 bill, S.B. 11.

[Mark Rohlena, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of Central Colorado, said] “we probably would cease the operation of our adoption programs [due to this law].”

Rohlena said the Colorado state Constitution, like Catholic teaching, defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He said this recognizes “the importance of that traditional marriage relationship for stability and advancement in society.”

Colorado has become a center for homosexual-activist groups, and several influential multimillionaires have supported these causes. In 2008, software entrepreneur Tim Gill told the LGBT Caucus at the Democratic National Convention in Denver that they should specifically concentrate donations on state legislatures and primary races to shift politics in their favor and to block potential rivals from rising to higher office.

In April 2011, Gill’s lawyer, Ted Trimpa, told Denver’s Fox 31 News that Gill could spend as much as $2 million in 2012 Colorado political races to shift the state House to Democrat control.

The Democrats took control of the Colorado House in the 2012 elections and elected Rep. Mark Ferrandino as the first gay Speaker of the House. He is co-sponsoring the bill with Sen. Pat Steadman.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Bishops Say Catholic Church Will Defy ObamaCare

Bishop James Conley, incoming bishop to Lincoln, Nebraska, as well as other Roman Catholic leaders, including Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, say they have chosen to obey God's Laws over President Obama's health insurance mandates. Therefore, Catholic-affiliated organizations, such as charities, schools, universities and hospitals, will not provide health insurance covering contraceptives, abortifacients, or sterilization as the ObamaCare laws require.

“The Catholic Church is not going to back down. We are never going to compromise our principles. We will defy it and face the consequences.”
-- Roman Catholic Bishop James Conley

For background, read Bishops Throw Down Gauntlet: Obama War on Christianity and also read Bishops Warn Voting for Democrats is 'Grave Sin' as well as Religious Liberty & Anti-Christian Totalitarianism in America

-- From "New Lincoln bishop: Church will defy health mandate on birth control coverage" by Joe Duggan, Omaha World-Herald Bureau 11/9/12

Roman Catholic officials in Omaha and Des Moines expressed similar sentiments this week over a plan by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requiring all employers to provide their employees contraception coverage without copays.

The so-called HHS mandate for religious organizations, currently the subject of dozens of legal challenges nationally, is set to take effect next August.

Opponents of the rule say the [ObamaCare religious employer] exceptions are inadequate.

“Insurance companies have said there is no free lunch, (religious groups are) going to end up paying for it, so it’s a shell game,” said Emily Hardman, communications director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C., firm that takes up legal cases for all religious faiths.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "‘We will defy’ Obama’s birth control mandate, says new Nebraska bishop" by Kirsten Andersen, LifeSiteNews.com 11/12/12

Conley’s remarks echo those of the head of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone, who said last week that Obama’s re-election means that “the collision course of the Obama administration with the Catholic Church…is assured.”

Fr. Pavone called on pro-lifers to “an unwavering commitment to civil disobedience.”

[Archbishop] Lori, who serves as head of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at their annual meeting Monday that “whatever setbacks or challenges in the efforts to defend religious liberty we may be experiencing, we’re going to stay the course.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Denies Leading War Against Christianity

Judge Halts IL Anti-Catholic, Pro-Gay Move

Illinois County Judge John Schmidt in Springfield has countered Gov. Quinn's decision to terminate state contracts with Catholic Charities because of its Christian bounds on placing children, who are wards of the state, with unmarried and/or "gay couples."

For background, read Illinois Civil Unions Law, so Now to "Gay Marriage" and also read Illinois Civil Unions Not Enough; Must Destroy Marriage

UPDATE 1/10/12: Bishops give up - Catholic Charities transfers its foster care

UPDATE 9/26/11: Judge rules against Catholic Charities - adoptions to end

UPDATE 8/19/11: Foster children lose - Illinois can force gay adoptions, judge rules; end of Catholic Charities looms

Illinois residents, take action to Reverse the Gay Agenda in Illinois Law (click here)

-- From "Judge stops state from dropping Catholic Charities from foster care" by Ray Long and Manya Brachear, Chicago Tribune 7/12/11

The order is temporary and a hearing will take place in August on the issue.

. . . Schmidt said that his order freezes the state’s contract with Catholic Charities as it was before the state decided to cut it off earlier this month.

Three Catholic Charities groups sought the injunction to continue serving families and abiding by Catholic principles that prohibit placing children with unmarried cohabiting couples.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholic Charities in danger of losing state contracts" by Bob Okon, The Herald-News/Chicago Sun-Times 7/11/11

The state wants to end foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities in Joliet and elsewhere in a dispute centered on the new Illinois civil union law and questions of religious freedom.

The Department of Children and Family Services last week sent a letter to Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Joliet, Springfield, Peoria and Belleville informing the agencies that they will not get contracts for adoptions and foster care in 2012.

A DCFS spokesman said Catholic Charities violates the law because of its practice of referring gay and unmarried couples to other agencies that provide adoption and foster care services.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In Illinois, same-sex marriage again an issue for religious charities" by Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post 7/12/11

The issue is the same as it was last year in Washington, when the City Council approved same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities, one of the D.C. area’s largest social service providers, said same-sex marriage violates core church tenets and it couldn’t be in the position of validating gay relationships by placing children in the homes of same-sex couples.

While church officials initially said the passage of the law could force Catholic Charities to end its work with the city, ultimately church lawyers crafted a policy that proved controversial: Washington’s Catholic Charities ended spousal benefits for all new employees in order to not give them to a same-sex spouse. Some Catholics said the city had forced the charity’s hand; others were outraged to see basic benefits eliminated in tough economic times.

These local fights are microcosms of a broader, national issue: How to reconcile civil rights (the rights of same-sex couples) with those of religious liberty (the rights of religious conservatives to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs). While federal law and many local laws explicitly exempt religious groups from bans on religiously-based employment discrimination, how that applies to programs that receive public dollars is still a matter of huge dispute.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Civil Unions Fallout: Homosexuals Sue IL Christians over Their Faith

Catholic Charities Reacts to D.C. Same-sex 'Marriage'

As homosexuals in Washington D.C. lined up to get 'married' this week, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington announced that the health coverage of employees of Catholic Charities will avoid offering benefits to same-sex 'marriage' partners.

-- From "Same-sex marriage leads Catholic Charities to adjust benefits" By William Wan, Washington Post Staff Writer 3/2/10

. . . Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage [became] legal in the District.

"We looked at all the options and implications," said the charity's president, Edward J. Orzechowski. "This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city's new requirements and remain faithful to the church's teaching."

After the council voted to legalize gay marriage, Catholic Charities last month transferred its foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

Those who use their health benefits to cover spouses will be grandfathered into the new policy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Same-Sex Marriage Becomes Legal in D.C." by Jessica Gresko, Associated Press 3/3/10

Washington [is now] the sixth place in the nation where gay marriages can take place. Because of a mandatory waiting period, however, couples won't actually be able to marry in the District of Columbia until March 9. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont currently issue licenses to same-sex couples.

. . . the marriage bureau has changed its license applications so they are gender-neutral, asking for the name of each "spouse" rather than the "bride" and "groom." And at civil marriage ceremonies to be performed in the courthouse, a booklet for the official performing the marriage now reads, "I now pronounce you legally married" instead of "I now pronounce you man and wife."

The gay marriage law was introduced in the 13-member D.C. Council in October and had near-unanimous support from the beginning. The bill passed and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed it in December, but because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review period that expired Tuesday.

Opponents, however, are still attempting to overturn the bill in court.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Homosexualists' Action Terminates D.C. Foster Care Program

The [Roman Catholic] Archdiocese of Washington's decision to drop its foster care program is the first casualty of the District of Columbia's pending same-sex marriage law that will obligate all outside contractors dealing with the city to recognize gay couples.

-- From "Catholics end D.C. foster-care program" by Julia Duin, Washington Times 2/18/10

"We regret that our efforts to avoid this outcome were not successful," Catholic Charities Chief Executive Officer Ed Orzechowski said in a statement. "Foster care has been an important ministry for us for many decades. We worked very hard to be able to continue to provide these services in the District."

The transfer of services also means Catholic Charities will discontinue offering public adoption services. The agency processed 12 such adoptions throughout 2009 and including into this year.

"It was a very high-quality program, so this was really hard," archdiocesan spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said of the foster care/adoption service. "We said last fall that we could not continue this program if the bill was passed as written. Well, this has come to pass."

The Vatican has long opposed any church role in aiding homosexuals to adopt. In 2003, it said that placing children into same-sex households was "gravely immoral."

But with more states legalizing same-sex unions, the Washington Archdiocese is the third diocese in the country to leave the adoption/foster care business. The archdioceses of San Francisco and Boston, which had contracts with California and Massachusetts, respectively, ceased their programs in 2006 after each state legalized gay marriages and made it clear that the local Catholic Charities affiliate would have to work with homosexual couples. (California has since repealed its law allowing same-sex marriage.)

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "D.C. Archdiocese Ends Foster Care Program Over Same-Sex Marriage Bill, Which Allows Homosexual Couples to Adopt Children" by Edwin Mora, CNSNews.com 2/19/10

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has ended its 80-year tenure as a public foster care provider because of a same-sex marriage bill in the nation’s capital that allows children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

On Feb. 17, Catholic Charities transferred its foster care and public adoption programs in D.C. to the National Center for Children Families (NCCF), a private, non-profit organization that has been serving the less fortunate for 95 years.

The move by Catholic Charities and Archbishop Donald Wuerl came in the wake of the D.C. Council approving a same-sex marriage bill on Dec. 16 by an 11-to-2 vote. The bill, among other things, would require foster care groups under contract with the District to allow and facilitate adoption of foster-care children by homosexual couples.

This policy violates the moral teaching of the Catholic Church, which says that only a man and a woman can be united in marriage and that together with their children they form a family. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2201-2203.)

If the same-sex initiative clears the 30-day congressional review period, which is expected given the Democrat majority in Congress, the legislation will become law in the next couple of weeks.

While the bill is expected to become law, congressional Republicans and some conservative Democrats have indicated they will try annul the legislation by getting Congress or a court to block it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Calif. ACLU Fights Abstinence Education

A battle over sex education is under way in Sonoma County [California], pitting a longtime abstinence-only group against California Department of Education officials who say the group breaks state law when it teaches in the classroom.

-- From "Simmering sex-ed battle heats up" by Kerry Benefield, the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, California 6/7/09

Among the players in the unfolding debate are the ACLU of Northern California, the California Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Free to Be, a Sonoma County group that has been promoting abstinence until marriage for 17 years.

Caught in the middle are schools and districts that have hosted Free to Be speakers, including teens, to talk to students about the benefits of abstaining from sex until they are married.

Free to Be was established in 1992 in association with Catholic Charities as an abstinence-until-marriage outreach program relying heavily on teen presenters. Free to Be ended the affiliation with Catholic Charities approximately 18 months ago, said executive director and founder Sue Bisbee.

As far back as 2000, Free to Be has received annual federal funding for its abstinence program, which helps train teen speakers to spread the word about waiting until marriage before having sex, as well as living drug free and making what it describes as “healthy choices.”

Bisbee said the group gives presentations in about 30 schools each year. According to the group’s Web site, more than 75,000 teens have heard a Free to Be presentation . . .

President Barack Obama last month proposed eliminating abstinence-only education funding from teen pregnancy prevention initiatives.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Court: San Francisco Right to Condemn Catholic Church

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the local government resolution was correct to officially label the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant."

-- From "S.F.'s blast at Vatican was legal, court says" by Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer 6/4/09

San Francisco didn't cross into constitutionally forbidden territory of government hostility to religion when the Board of Supervisors denounced a Vatican order to Catholic Charities not to place adoptive children with same-sex couples, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 2006 resolution condemned the Vatican's "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric" and urged local church officials to defy the order by Cardinal William Levada. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sued, contending the city was expressing hostility toward Catholicism in violation of the Constitution.

. . . In response, Catholic Charities of San Francisco stopped placing children for adoption, the same step it has taken in Massachusetts and other areas with similar nondiscrimination policies, said Brian Rooney, a lawyer at the Thomas More Law Center, which sued San Francisco on behalf of the Catholic League.

Rooney said the league would appeal Wednesday's ruling.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

San Francisco Officially Condemns Catholic Church

It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

UPDATE 11/8/09: Full 9th Circuit to Hear Appeal

-- From "Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church" © 2008 WorldNetDaily 7/15/08

A San Francisco city and county board resolution that officially labeled the Catholic church's moral teachings on homosexuality as "insulting to all San Franciscans," "hateful," "defamatory," "insensitive" and "ignorant" will be challenged tomorrow in court for violating the Constitution's prohibition of government hostility toward religion.

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."

Thomas More attorney Robert Muise will present oral arguments in the case tomorrow morning in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic Church," Muise said.

The cultural, and now political, straight-arm to adherents of the Christian faith in San Francisco has been increasingly public in the last two years. Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution was passed, the San Francisco Board issued a similar resolution against a mostly evangelical group.

Following a gathering of 25,000 teens at San Francisco's AT&T Park as part of Ron Luce's Teen Mania "Battle Cry for a Generation" rally against the sexualization of America's youth culture by advertisers and media, the board spoke out formally again.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most tolerant and progressive city."

The Chronicle also reported a San Francisco protester against the evangelical youth rally carried a sign that may sum up the sentiment: "I moved here to get away from people like you."

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Anti-Discrimination Law May Force Closing of Catholic Charities

"This is not idle talk. I am very serious," says Archbishop

From "Archbishop Chaput: "Anti-Discrimination" Bill May Force Closing of Catholic Charities" by Hilary White, posted 1/28/08 at Lifesite.org

DENVER, Colorado, January 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an editorial in the Register, the newspaper of the Denver archdiocese, Archbishop Charles Chaput has warned that a proposed law may result in the end of one of the largest charitable organisations in the state.

HB 1080 seeks to impose restrictions on religious groups, forbidding them from hiring staff based on religion, and adding "sexual orientation" to the list of characteristics against which it is prohibited to "discriminate" in employment. HB1080 applies to religious groups that receive federal or state funding, which would include the organization Catholic Charities.

The bill, currently before the Colorado General Assembly, will place Catholic Charities in the position of having to close its doors, warns the Chaput. While Catholic Charities purpose is to help the poor, not proselytize, it exists "as part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and not just for the sake of "generic do-goodism."

"When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be 'Catholic', it will end its services. This is not idle talk. I am very serious."

Read the entire article.

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

From "Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church" posted 4/23/07 at Thomas More Law Center

ANN ARBOR, MI – In its brief filed last week with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Thomas More Law Center urged the court to reverse a federal judge’s ruling that an anti-Catholic resolution of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was constitutionally justified because the Church opposed adoptions by homosexual couples. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, a President Carter appointee and one-time counsel for the National Organization for Women (NOW), ruled that the Board resolution condemning Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality and urging the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities of San Francisco to defy Church directives does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national Christian legal advocacy group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is appealing the ruling on behalf of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and two Catholic residents of San Francisco. Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, observed, “Judge Patel clearly exhibited hostility toward the Catholic Church. During oral argument and in her written decision she claimed that the Church ‘provoked the debate’ by publicly expressing its moral teaching, and that by passing the resolution the City responded ‘responsibly’ to all of the ‘terrible’ things the Church was saying. This judge attempted to rationalize the evocative rhetoric and venom of the resolution which are sad reminders of Catholic baiting by the Ku Klux Klan.”

Just one week after the anti-Catholic resolution, the San Francisco Board voted—again unanimously—to condemn some 25,000 Evangelical teens who gathered in the city to express their opposition to homosexual conduct. Openly gay San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno said the teenage group is “obnoxious” and “disgusting” and should not be tolerated. He told the Christian group to “get out of San Francisco.”

Thompson remarked, “The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct. My concern is that if the judge’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden the San Francisco Board in its anti-Christian attacks.”

Read the whole article.