Washington, D.C.'s Bathroom 'Bigot Snitch' Law

The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights has issued an alert for all citizens to be on the lookout for private businesses with restrooms labeled as "men" or "women" in violation of the District's gender neutrality law.

Citizens are to photograph and electronically report renegade toilet facilities to the government.  Women's complaints about urine-spattered facilities will be disregarded, and all toilet seats will be left UP!

For background, read how enclosed restrooms will soon be eliminated to protect women and children from sexual predators.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Virginia Bathroom Privacy Bill Defeated in Legislature

Women's Voices Silenced: Washington Transgender Restrooms

President Obama's OSHA Teams Up with EEOC to OK Perverts in Employees' Restrooms

Transgender Restrooms Evolve for South Dakota Schools

Transgenderism Taught to Kindergartners Across America



-- From "DC Wants Residents To ‘Report’ Private Businesses Over Gender-Neutral Bathroom Law" by Alex Pappas, Political Reporter, Daily Caller 4/21/16

As the debate intensifies nationally over which bathrooms transgender people should use, the District of Columbia’s city government is asking people to report private businesses that have single-occupancy bathrooms that aren’t “gender-neutral.”

A 2006 D.C. law requires businesses and other places with single-occupancy public restrooms to change signs that say “men” and “women” to just “restroom.”

Some businesses, including those that say they were unaware of the law, are being fined for an “unlawful discriminatory act.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Safe Bathrooms DC - Report a Bathroom" posted at Office of Human Rights, District of Columbia

. . . If you see a public bathroom with one stall that is not gender-neutral, just tweet us the business name and location using #safebathroomsDC, or fill out our five question form. It takes just 20 seconds to play a part in making DC a more enjoyable place for transgender and other communities!

We will notify the business their bathroom(s) needs to be gender-neutral and follow-up to make sure it happens!

We've all waited outside an occupied bathroom while the bathroom for the gender we don't identify with was empty. Gender-neutral bathrooms are more efficient, allowing you to avoid that unnecessary wait.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "DC bar owner upset after receiving discrimination violation for not having gender-neutral restrooms" by Jennifer Davis, WTTG-TV5 (Washington, DC) 3/4/16

Madam's Organ in the Adams Morgan area of Northwest D.C. serves up food, drinks and music on a nightly basis. But according to papers just sent to its owner, they are discriminating against people too.

“Two of those bathrooms have urinals only,” [bar owner Bill Duggan] said. “They are labeled men's room. I guess we are going to see some interesting gymnastics to use them.”

The District of Columbia was one of the first cities to pass a regulation like this.

D.C. has heard from other cities looking to set up similar rules. Seattle has reached out for advice and will enact its own regulation there this coming week.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gender neutral: D.C. threatens fines for mislabeled bathroom signs" by Michael Neibauer, Senior Staff Reporter, Washington Business Journal 1/23/13

In D.C., the rule of the land is that single-occupancy public restrooms may not be set aside for men or women. They are gender neutral and must be designated as such, to avoid discriminatory, awkward or even violent incidents toward transgendered individuals.

But the 2006 regulation issued by the Office of Human Rights lacked teeth. While it won’t be flushed, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs’ Construction Codes Coordinating Board has stepped in with a more forceful rule — change your signs or face a hefty fine.

To designate a restroom meant for one person at a time (even if it has both a stall and a urinal) for either men or women would be a Class 3 civil infraction and could result in a $500 fine.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "D.C. Government Enlists The Public To Report Non Gender-Neutral Bathrooms" by Gerry Urbanek, Western Journalism 4/21/16

In a rather Orwellian development pertaining to the current transgender bathroom debate, the city government of Washington D.C. is calling on individuals to report private businesses that have single-occupancy, non gender-neutral bathrooms.

Some may point out that considering only 0.3% of the population is transgender, there is little reason to assume they will ever use the majority of bathrooms being made available to them. Instead it creates a much more likely scenario of these bathrooms being used by people who pose a direct threat to women and children.

As it currently stands, businesses who do not comply with these measures are being fined for “unlawful discriminatory act[s],” regardless of whether those businesses are even aware the law exists.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Transgenderism is a 'Delusion' According to Victims and Professionals

Illinois Fines Business $80K for Being Christian

Jim and Beth Walder, the owners of Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast near Paxton, Illinois, have been fined $80,000 by the state Human Rights Commission after being singled out in 2011 by homosexual men demanding their same-sex ceremony be officiated in the Walder's facility.  The Commission ordered the Walders to "cease and desist" from quoting the Bible to same-sex couples and welcome ceremonies of abomination in their facility in accordance with the Human Rights Act and pay the homosexuals $30,000 plus another $50,000 to the ACLU for legal fees.

"To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Our policy will not be changing. . . . We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God's Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for Biblical truth:  'It is better to obey God than men.' Acts 5:29."
-- Jim Walder

For background, read the history of homosexualists targeting Christians in Illinois in this manner.

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Christian Wedding Chapel

New York Christian Farmers Guilty & Fined over 'Gay Wedding'

Homosexualist Oregon Persecutes Christian Judge

Lesbians Attack Ohio Christian Videographer over 'Gay Wedding'

Christian School Sued by Homosexuals in New Mexico

Michigan Christian Business Trashed by Homosexualists

Also read Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons




-- From "Illinois inn fined for refusing to host gay civil union ceremony" by Reuters 3/29/16

[Michael R. Robinson, an] administrative law judge with the [Illinois] commission ordered TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast to pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen for emotional distress.

TimberCreek, located about 100 miles south of Chicago, must also pay $50,000 in attorneys' fees and $1,218.35 in costs.

The Wathens had contacted TimberCreek in 2011 as they looked for possible locations for the ceremony.

TimberCreek owner Jim Walder had responded to the Wathens' inquiry with an email that said "homosexuality is immoral and unnatural," according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "B&B ordered to pay $80,000 over refusal to host civil-union ceremony in 2011" by Will Brumleve, Editor, Ford County Record, posted at Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette 3/29/16

In September, [Judge] Robinson ruled that Jim Walder violated the civil rights of the Wathens when he denied them the opportunity to hold their civil-union ceremony at the B&B he co-owns with his wife — the TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast west of Paxton.

The landmark ruling marked the first time that the Human Rights Commission made clear that businesses in Illinois must serve the entire public and cannot pick and choose based on their personal religious views.

Following a public hearing held last November in Springfield to consider damages to be awarded to the couple, ACLU attorneys for the Wathens filed briefs to support the couple's request for a "cease and desist" order and for Walder to pay damages for emotional distress, attorneys' fees and costs. Lawyers for the B&B failed to respond in a timely matter, leading to the judge's ruling.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "B&B ordered to pay damages to same-sex couple, stop discriminating" by Will Brumleve, Ford County Record 3/29/16

The Wathens said they never contacted another B&B [other than Walder's]. They ended up being wed in a small ceremony on June 4, 2011, in their back yard . . .

Walder said in an emailed statement Tuesday that his B&B will not host civil-union ceremonies or same-sex weddings, regardless of last week’s ruling.

“Evidently, religious freedom does not exist within the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act or the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.

“In our opinion, neither the state of Illinois nor the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women. We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God’s design, and that is what ultimately matters.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Further refusals could cost B&B owner more; he won't change stance" by Nicole Lafond, Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette 4/1/16

University of Illinois law Professor Robin Wilson, an expert on the intersection of religious freedom and same-sex marriage, said the penalties the state could impose upon TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast owner Jim Walder include placing a lien on his personal estate.

"Every time he refuses," Wilson said, "the state can fine him again."

If Walder opts to fight the state ruling, Wilson said, he must file an appeal within 14 days. Since it was made by a single judge, Walder could request a rehearing by either a three-person panel or the full commission within 30 days. If six of the 13 commissioners grant a rehearing, the original order is nullified, pending the results of the rehearing.

If that doesn't go well, Walder "can jump right back over to the appellate court," Wilson said. In either case, though, "he's got hanging around his neck factual findings that they are going to assume are true," she said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Discrimination Charge" posted at Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast

We politely disagree.  God is not confused.  His Word clearly illustrates and declares that marriage is between one man and one woman.  It also labels homosexuality as an abominable sin throughout the Old and New Testaments.  God's Word is the ultimate authority, infallible, and unchanging.  It is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  His Word cannot be changed by a vote of the Illinois General Assembly when it passed the Civil Unions Act or the Gay Marriage Bill.  Marriage is only appropriate God's way.  Sexuality is only appropriate God's way.

Consequently, we cannot host civil unions or gay marriages at TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast.  It is not an issue of fairness or equality, but an issue of right and wrong.  We cannot be part of what God condemns.  Be assured that we are not lawless, hateful, judgmental, bigoted, or activists by any definition.  We did not initiate the present controversy.  We are not the ones who voted to change the 6,000 year-old definition of marriage.  We are just small business owners trying to be consistent in following God's Word and living it out practically in our lives.  And we are not alone. . . .

To read the entire statement above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists

Gender Redefined by NY City Law; Biology Be Damned

Sexual revolutionaries are trumpeting the latest New York City reinterpretation of existing law to elevate the Gay Agenda by giving special privileges to "transgender and gender non-conforming persons."  The new language rejects human biology with its new definition of gender as one’s “actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth.”

The new rules give special rights to perverts, as well as any and every variation of sexual deviant so that such “individuals be permitted to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs, consistent with their gender, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on their identification.”

. . . such a monumental event in the Culture War, yet so little media coverage!

For background, read Change Sex Overnight in New York With New Law

UPDATE 6/5/16: Washington's New K-12 Curriculum Redefines Gender

And read how the Gay/Transgender Agenda attacks one town at a time across America because the sexual revolutionaries have been unable to force the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) through Congress.

Also read Hillary Clinton Promises to Codify Even MORE 'Gay/Transgender Rights'

Just how extreme can the transgender movement get?  Read 52-year-old Man is Adopted as 6-year-old Girl

-- From "New York City lays out transgender protection on dress codes, bathroom use" by Ellen Wulfhorst, Thomson Reuters Foundation 12/22/15

New York City has warned landlords, employers and businesses they could be running afoul of the law by purposely calling a transgender woman "him" or "Mr." when she prefers a female title and pronoun, or by barring her from using a women's restroom.

New guidelines detail the legal protections of transgender and gender-nonconforming New Yorkers and what constitutes discrimination under the city's Human Rights Law, the New York City Commission on Human Rights said on Monday.

Failing to provide employee health benefits for gender-affirming care or failing to accommodate people undergoing gender transition, such as medical appointments, could violate the law as well, they said.

New York City provides stronger protections than most local laws in the United States and goes beyond federal law as well . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "New York City unveils new rules on gender discrimination" by The Associated Press 12/21/15

Some cities around the country have added transgender people to anti-discrimination protections, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did likewise for his state this fall. Other communities have rebuffed them: Houston voters this fall defeated an ordinance that would have established nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people.

The rules also declare that transgender people can't be denied access to the restroom or locker room where their gender identity belongs, at their discretion. Unisex, single-occupancy bathrooms are suggested but not required.

Objections from fellow patrons or employees "are not a lawful reason to deny access," the guidelines say. . . .

"Today's guidance makes it abundantly clear what the city considers to be discrimination," which can lead to fines of up to $250,000, Commissioner Carmelyn P. Malalis said in a statement. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "City updates regulations to extend transgender equality" by Rich Calder and Jennifer Gould Keil, New York Post 12/22/15

The guidelines are the progressive de Blasio administration’s new interpretation of city gender-discrimination laws that date to 2002.

[Some of the new] rules go beyond federal requirements and even court rulings.

While courts have said female bartenders can be asked to wear makeup while slinging drinks, the city has decided they can’t.

City officials declined to comment on why their interpretation of the laws are different in numerous cases from the Bloomberg administration’s readings.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Gay Agenda Activists Launch Commerce Attack on Indiana

However in Texas, Lesbian Mayor's Gay/Transgender Agenda Defeated by Houston Voters

NY Farmers Guilty & Fined for Being Christian

Cynthia and Robert Gifford make a living by renting out a portion of their principle residence — a barn at their Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York (near Albany) — for birthday parties and wedding ceremonies.  However they declined to accept a lesbian couple's "wedding," so the lesbians from Newark, NJ filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which found the Giffords guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation and ordered fines against the Giffords totaling $13,000.

For background, read about states passing religious liberty laws to protect citizens and their businesses from lawsuits by homosexualists and/or fines by courts, and to ensure the free practice of religion without government interference.  In February 2014, the homosexualists exposed their goal to end religious liberty when they descended on Arizona's legislature.

Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "N.Y. farm owners fined $13,000 for refusing to host lesbian wedding" by Jessica Chasmar, The Washington Times 8/19/14

When Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin asked the Giffords to use the facility for a 2012 wedding, Mrs. Gifford, a Christian, said she could only host their reception on the farm, but not the wedding. Weddings typically are conducted on the first floor of the Giffords’ home, and Mrs. Gifford argued the lesbian wedding would “literally hit too close to home,” RNS reported.

New York City Administrative Law Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that the Giffords’ farm, which is also their home, is a place of public accommodation and is therefore subject to New York’s anti-discrimination laws, RNS [Religion News Service] reported.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A Win for Gay Rights Over 'Religious Liberty' in New York State" by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate 8/18/14

At the heart of the so-called religious liberty debate lies a very simple question: Do religious people, mainly Christians, hold a special right to defy anti-discrimination ordinances and refuse service to certain people based on their identity?

. . . New York state law bars places of public accommodation from discriminating based on sexual orientation—and the Giffords were quite honest about their reasons for turning away Erwin and McCarthy. As a result, the Giffords must pay a $10,000 fine for violating the law, plus $1,500 to both Erwin and McCarthy for “mental pain and suffering.”

. . . Under anti-discrimination law, when you open your business to the public, you open your business to all of the public. You don’t get to pick out certain classes of people and treat them differently, as the Giffords attempted to do. The Giffords don’t operate a church; they run a business—an LLC, in fact—and they are out to make a profit. If they don’t like following the laws that govern LLCs, they can simply forfeit their profit and establish a house of worship, or close their business to the general public.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Farm owners fined for saying no to lesbian wedding" by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Religion News Service, Washington Post 8/19/14

“It literally hits close to home,” said the Giffords’ lawyer, James Trainor. He said the farm owners attend a community church and cite their religious belief of marriage between a man and woman for declining to hold a same-sex wedding on their property.

“Liberty Ridge Farm has employed gay people and has conducted events for same-sex couples,” Trainor said. “The Giffords’ objection was to hosting and participating in the wedding ceremony itself and not to providing service in general to lesbians.”

McCarthy asked if it was legal for the farm to have a policy not to have ceremonies on the site, and Gifford responded that it was because “we are a private business,” according to the case.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read that Vice President Biden declared that the Gay Agenda must trump religious beliefs.

Obama Ignores Law for Religious Freedom Ambassador

In 1998, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) to highlight and alleviate religious persecution worldwide, but since Barack Obama was elected president, the position of IRFA ambassador-at-large has been vacant for a cumulative three years despite Obama's repeated promises to fill the post.

“A continued vacancy will confirm the suspicion that already exists among foreign governments, persecutors, victims and American diplomats that the issue is not a priority.”
-- Thomas Farr, professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown University

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

President Obama Claims Religious Liberty Around the World is his Priority

President Obama Prioritizes 'Gay Rights' NOT International Religious Freedom

President Obama Ignores Christian Genocide by Islamists, Focuses on Gay Agenda

Vice President Biden Says 'Gay Rights' Trump Religious Beliefs

Al Qaeda Proclaims War on Cross & U.S., Obama Silent

In addition, read Christians, Extinct in Middle East, as Islam Wins

-- From "Religious Freedom Is a Tenet of Foreign Policy, Obama Says" by Peter Baker, New York Times 2/6/14

Mr. Obama’s attention to religious freedom issues has sometimes been criticized. He did not nominate someone to fill the congressionally authorized position of ambassador at large for international religious freedom until the summer of his second year in office and his eventual nominee, Suzan Johnson Cook, was not confirmed until April 2011.

She stepped down in October and has yet to be replaced. Mr. Obama had no nominee to announce by Thursday’s [prayer] breakfast and so was left to promise vaguely that he looks forward to nominating a replacement, offering no timetable.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wanted: a new ambassador-at-large for religious freedom" by Lauren Markoe, Religion News Service — Washington Post 1/15/14

. . . wondering how long it’s going to take the White House to name a new ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

Many in the field hope it’s someone with more diplomatic background than Johnson Cook, a former Clinton administration official and popular Baptist minister whose international experience was mostly acquired on the job.

The ambassador-at-large position does not report directly to Secretary of State John Kerry, as do other ambassadors-at-large, further evidence to those who argue that the State Department needs to take the plight of the religiously oppressed more seriously.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Despite His February Promise, Obama Still Hasn’t Filled Religious Freedom Post" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com 7/9/14

Obama told the National Prayer Breakfast gathering last February, “I look forward to nominating our next ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom to help lead these efforts” to promote religious freedom around the world.

Over the ensuing period State Department spokeswomen have periodically agreed that the ambassador position is an important one, while saying that other officials from Secretary of State John Kerry down regularly bring up religious freedom issues in their interaction with foreign governments.

“You know how strongly we feel about having someone in that position,” department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Monday, as she confirmed that she had nothing to report on a nomination.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rep. Wolf: Int’l Religious Freedom Commission Gives ‘Unvarnished Truth’ About Allies, Foes" by Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.com 7/9/14

At a time when religious persecution is on the rise across the globe, the U.S. House voted Tuesday to reauthorize a statutory religious freedom watchdog. . . .

Pakistan arguably has been the biggest beneficiary of the State Department’s reluctance to impose penalties on a country viewed as an important counter-terrorism partner. Citing notorious blasphemy laws and other abuses, the USCIRF [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom] has called for Pakistan to be designated a “country of particular concern” (CPC) every year since 2002, and the State Department has overruled the recommendation each time.

Under the IRFA the administration may impose sanctions or take other measures against CPCs, designed to generate improved behavior from governments which either themselves violate citizens’ religious freedom, or permit other parties to do so.

Even when the administration has followed a USCIRF recommendation on CPC designation, it has at times chosen to waive sanctions, favoring dialogue instead. The clearest case of this has been Saudi Arabia, which has been blacklisted since 2004 but which neither the Bush nor Obama administration has sanctioned as a result.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read President Obama Provokes Second 'In God We Trust' Movement as well as ObamaNation: Alters of Worship to Sexual Deviancy

Obama, Hypocrite in Chief, Holds Prayer Breakfast

This morning, at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama, whose signature healthcare law restricts freedom of religion, claimed the banner of religious liberty. And as the most pro-abortion president in American history, Obama said he believes "in the inherent dignity of every human." In addition, although the president has taken virtually no action with Iranian leaders concerning their imprisonment of a pastor for behaving as a Christian in their country, Obama told those attending his breakfast that the pastor should be released, and he offered prayers.

“. . . I’ve made the case that no society can truly succeed unless it guarantees the rights of all of its peoples . . .”
-- President Barack Hussein Obama

UPDATE 2/6/15: At Prayer Breakfast, President Obama Compares Christians to Islamic Terrorists

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Biblical Prayer Stricken from Obama Inauguration

Secret ObamaCare Abortion Fees Make President Obama a Liar

President Obama Praises Abortion on Roe v. Wade 41st Anniversary

President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood

President Obama a Christian? No, Say Two-Thirds of Americans

President Obama Prays to an Unknown God

President Obama Rewrites History, Repeatedly Omits Creator

President Obama Praises Islam for Making America What It Is

President Obama Redefines 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion

President Obama Raises Gay Agenda above Religious Liberty

President Obama Ignores Christian Genocide in Nigeria, Favors Gay Agenda

-- From "Obama: Religious freedom a US diplomatic priority" by The Associated Press 2/6/14

Speaking at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, Obama cast his message as an international call for human rights, singling out countries that he said have fallen short, particularly when it comes to extending protections and freedoms to all faiths.

Obama also offered prayers for Kenneth Bae, a U.S. missionary being held in North Korea, and Saeed Abedini, an Idaho pastor who is in custody in Iran. Bae was arrested in November 2012 in North Korea while leading a tour group and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for unspecified anti-government activity. Supporters say he did nothing wrong. Abedini, who is of Iranian origin, has been held since September 2012 and is serving an eight-year sentence after being convicted of trying to establish a network of Christian churches in private homes.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama: ‘Freedom of Religion Is Under Threat’" by Jared A. Favole, Wall Street Journal 2/6/14

In his address to the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual gathering of lawmakers and numerous faith leaders, Mr. Obama  said it’s clear that “around the world freedom of religion is under threat.”

. . . Mr. Obama also mentioned Pastor Saeed Abedini, who was arrested in Iran for his efforts to spread Christianity and sentenced to eight years in prison on national security charges. “As we continue to work for his freedom, today, again, we call on the Iranian government to release Pastor Abedini, so he can return to the loving arms of his wife and children in Idaho,” the president said.

Mr. Obama, a Christian, told the gathering that God’s teachings led him to do community service in Chicago and to his wife, Michelle. His faith, he said, “led me to public service, and the longer I serve, especially in moments of trial or doubt, the more thankful I am of God’s guiding hand.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Freedom of Religion Is Central to Human Dignity, Obama Says at National Prayer Breakfast" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 2/6/14

"Today we profess the principles we know to be true," he said. "We know that each of us is wonderfully made in the image of God. We therefore believe in the inherent dignity of every human being – dignity that no earthly power can take away. And central to that dignity is freedom of religion – the right of every person to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith if they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do this free from persecution and fear."

The United States leads the world in promoting religious freedom, which is one of the main foreign policy goals of the United States, Obama declared.

"Promoting religious freedom is a key objective of U.S. foreign policy, and I'm proud that no nation on Earth does more to stand up for the freedom of religion around the world than the United States of America."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Irony: Obama Tells Prayer Breakfast: 'We Believe in the Dignity of Every Person'" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/6/14

Obama took the podium at the 62nd National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton and spoke to a crowd of about 3,500.

. . . Obama told the attendees, “No society can truly succeed unless it protects the rights of all of its people.”

He also said the breakfast gives participants the chance to “put aside labels of party and ideology and (be) what we are first, children of a loving God.”

“Our concern should not be whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God’s side,” he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 7/9/14: Obama Ignores Law for International Religious Freedom Ambassador

Supreme Court Opens Girl's Room to Men in Maine

Overturning a lower court, the Supreme Court of Maine has ruled that any male student may choose to use the girl's locker/restroom, from grade school through college.  The attorney for the Orono school district, the defendant in the lawsuit, welcomed the defeat saying, “The court has also provided helpful guidance about how to handle this issue” -- as the school now awaits possible monetary judgement in the case against the taxpayers.

“. . . it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her [his] gender identity, denying access to the appropriate bathroom constitutes sexual orientation discrimination in violation of the [Maine Human Rights Commission].”
-- Justice Warren Silver, writing for the Supreme Court majority

For background, read the saga of this lawsuit from the beginning, and also thereafter.

In addition, read Boys & Girls Shower Together in Co-ed Locker Rooms at Iowa College

And read how the Gay Agenda permeates public schools with "transgender rights."



-- From "High Court Reverses Transgender Ruling" by Jon Small, WABI-TV5 (Bangor, Maine) 1/30/14

The family of Nicole Maines [born Wyatt Maines, a boy] and the Maine Human Rights Commission sued after she [he] was denied access to the girls’ bathroom at her [his] elementary school in 2007.

. . . in a written ruling issued today, the Maine Supreme Court said while the school had a program in place designed to address gender identity issues, banning Maines [a male student] from the girls’ bathroom constituted discrimination.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Maine Supreme Court allows transgender student to use girls' restroom" by Judy Harrison, Maine Sun Journal 1/30/14

In a 5-1 decision, the justices said that Superior Court Justice William Anderson erred when he ruled in favor of what is now Riverside RSU 26.

The incident that sparked the court case began in 2007 when a child, who was born male but identifies as female, was forced to stop using the girls bathroom at the Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. She [he] was told to use a staff bathroom after the grandfather of a male student complained.

The justices’ questions at oral arguments in the case in June in Bangor focused on a conflict between a law passed in the 1920s that requires separate bathrooms for boys and girls in schools and the provision enacted in 2005 in the Maine Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders of Boston represented the girl [boy] and her [his] family.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Maine’s highest court: Transgender student’s rights were violated" by Matt Byrne, Staff Writer, Maine Sunday Telegram 1/31/14

The ruling is the first in which a state supreme court has affirmed a transgender person’s right to equal access to restrooms in places of public accommodation.

Lawyers representing Nicole [born Wyatt, a boy] Maines, who is now 16, said the decision could lay a foundation for other states’ courts that are facing questions about the emerging rights of people who identify as the opposite of their birth gender.

The court’s 5-1 ruling is the first interpretation of a 2005 amendment to the Maine Human Rights Act that added language protecting transgender people in schools.

The decision overturns a lower court’s ruling that sided with the school district. Arguing before the supreme court, attorneys for the district said a 1983 law requiring schools to offer sanitary bathrooms segregated by sex created a pre-emptive exception to the Maine Human Rights Act.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Maine Supreme Court rules in favor of transgender girl in Orono school bathroom case" by Judy Harrison, Bangor Daily News Staff 1/30/14

It is the first time the state’s highest court has interpreted amendments to the Maine Human Rights act [MHRA] that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. It also is one of those rare times when a law court decision makes law, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine.

“The Law Court made very good law here and it’s going to help not only the people involved in this case,” Zachary Heiden, Legal Director at the ACLU of Maine, said Thursday.

[Justice Andrew Mead dissented from the Supreme Court majority.] “I depart from the court’s casual dismissal of the fact that the plain language of a specific statute explicitly requires segregating school bathrooms by sex,” he wrote. “The plain language of the provisions of [the school bathroom statute] and the MHRA are in conflict, and I believe that principles of comity require us to defer to the representative branch of government to resolve the issue.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For further background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Boy, OKd in Girls Restrooms, Harasses Schoolgirls

Naked Man in Girls Locker Room OKd in Washington

Colorado Court: Parents Can Force Son into Girls Restroom

California OKs Boys on Girls' Teams and in Their Showers

Massachusetts Government Says Boys Free to Use Girls Locker Room

President Obama's DOJ Forces Girl into Boys Locker Room

Supremes Rule Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada

The path of anti-Christian intolerance leads south of the Canadian border . . .

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that citizens are NOT free to quote the Bible regarding the sin of homosexual behavior.  Bill Whatcott's pamphlets (from 2001) using the word "sodomites," and criticizing the Gay Agenda in public schools, were deemed to incite hatred against homosexual people.  The ruling requires Whatcott to pay a fine to two homosexuals who claimed to be offended, plus six-figure loser-pays legal costs.

Whatcott is now complaining that the Supreme Court ruling was based on a statement that he never made:  That homosexuals are pedophiles.

“The ruling and the reasoning [of the court] is terrible.  It’s worse than I expected. What it means is that my life is over as I know it.”

For background regarding Canada, read Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime and also read Government Bans Pastor from Speaking Against Homosexuality

And the European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

UPDATE 4/12/14: American Christian Arrested for Hate Speech at Canadian University

UPDATE 6/11/16: Canadian Supreme Court Legalizes Sex With Animals

For background regarding the U.S., read Oregon Gov't Says Christian Baker Must Do Lesbian 'Wedding' and also read Christian School Sued by Homosexuals in New Mexico as well as Lesbians Sue Catholic Hospital

UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel

In addition, read Senator Ted Cruz Says Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

-- From "Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’" by Staff Reporter, The Zimbabwe Mail 3/5/13

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,” and contended that children are more interested in playing Ken and Barbie than “learning how wonderful it is for two men to sodomize each other.” The justices ruled that because the use of the word “sodomy” only referred to “two men” and not also the sex acts of heterosexuals, it was a direct target against a specific group of people.

The Supreme Court noted in its opinion, among other concerns, that Whatcott’s use of the Bible to target homosexuals was a problem.

“[Whatcott's] expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that could threaten the safety and well-being of others, makes reference to respected sources (in this case the Bible) to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred,” the panel ruled on Wednesday.

While speech opposing homosexuality remains legal in the United States, some note that the nation is heading in the same direction as Canada, as discrimination laws are being enforced by state Human Rights Commissions across the country.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Anti-gay pamphleteer asks for Supreme Court do-over on test of hate-speech laws" by Joseph Brean, National Post 3/15/13

[Whatcott's lawyer Thomas] Schuck said neither of the flyers that were found to violate the hate speech code referred to homosexuals as pedophiles, merely as promoters of a dangerous lifestyle. He said Christians have been similarly criticizing heterosexual behaviour like fornication and adultery for 2000 years. Still, he said his chances of a second kick at the can [via a Supreme Court rehearing] are slim.

The flyers, which drew four official complaints, did not explicitly state that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

One stated that “sodomite propaganda” will corrupt the children of Saskatchewan, and that civil law should discriminate against “sodomites and lesbians who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people… Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong.”

The other said that society’s acceptance of homosexuality “will lead to the early death and morbidity of many children.” It also says that “sodomites,” by which he means gays, are “3 times more likely to sexually abuse children!”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: Saskatchewan v. Whatcott" by John McKiggan, Attorney, posted at The Legal Examiner 3/4/13

A complaint was filed with Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission alleging Whatcott was promoting hatred against individuals based on their sexual orientation. The Human Rights Tribunal held the publications contravened s.14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code on the basis that Whatcott’s views exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Whatcott argued that the statements contained in the leaflets did not meet the test for hate comments as defined under the Code. . . . [and] also argued that he was entitled to make the statements based on his constitutional protected right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that certain parts of the Human Rights Code that prohibited the statements that ridiculed or belittled persons on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination were not constitutionally protected and did violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the sections of the Human Rights Code that prohibited hatred against persons based on a prohibited ground of discrimination was constitutional and was not protected on the basis of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Whatcott case leaves troubling concerns" by Joanne McGarry, Executive Director of the Catholic Civil Rights League of Canada 3/14/13

In its decision, the Court pleased free-speech advocates by striking down a portion of the human rights code that prohibited expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity” of identifiable groups. But the Court then upheld the phrase “tends to expose to hatred,” wording which can have subjective meaning, and it left the right to hear free-speech cases with the province’s human rights commission.

In effect, the court upheld a system in which people can be prosecuted for hate speech without benefit of the rules of evidence, right to counsel and the presumption of innocence, rights found in a court of law when Criminal Code charges are laid. This means people remain vulnerable to complaints about religious expression . . .

. . . the ruling also made the rather startling claim that criticizing behaviour is essentially the same as criticizing a person because, said the Court, in some cases behaviour is integral to a group’s identity.

The Court’s conflation of behaviour and individual puts it at odds with most religious teaching and is a troubling conclusion to come from our highest court. Additionally, the ruling states that truth is not always an acceptable defence if statements are delivered in a “hateful” way.

To read the entire (liberal) opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists

In addition, read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

EU High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Christians must accommodate, celebrate, and even participate in the homosexual lifestyle. The court ruled that Gary MacFarlane, a Christian British marriage counselor, was rightfully fired for refusing to enhance a patient's deviant homosexual lifestyle, and Lilian Ladele, a Christian civil servant, was likewise rightfully fired for refusing to perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies.

The court also "threw a bone" to Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, ruling that she shouldn't have been fired for wearing a tiny cross around her neck.

For background, read Lilian Ladele's Religious Liberty Upheld in London Tribunal after being Forced to Choose Between Her Job and Jesus, but then both the Ladele and MacFarlane Cases Go Back and Forth in British Commission

-- From "British Christian wins bias claim, three others lose" by Emily Alpert, Los Angeles Times 1/15/13

Religious freedom is “one of the foundations of pluralistic, democratic societies,” the European court wrote, but religious freedom can nonetheless be restricted where it “impinges on the rights of others.”

Although [the court] sided with Eweida, the court said a British hospital was justified in barring a nurse [Shirley Chaplin] from wearing a crucifix because it could touch an open wound or a patient might pull on it. Protecting health and safety were more weighty reasons to ban the cross than buffing a corporate image, it concluded.

Judges also rejected the claims of a relationship counselor and a former registrar who balked at providing their services to same-sex couples. The counselor was fired for violating company policies that he had agreed to; the registrar was disciplined and warned that if she did not perform civil partnerships, she would be terminated.

The three people whose cases were rejected are now planning to appeal to the Grand Chamber, the BBC reported. The chamber is a higher panel of five judges that would deliver a final judgment.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wearing Cross Is Sometimes Protected, European Court Rules" by Stephen Castle, New York Times 1/15/13

The rulings Tuesday came from the European Court of Human Rights, which polices the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe. But the legal issues surrounding religious symbols are particularly complex, as they can also fall within the scope of national legislation or of anti-discrimination law adopted by the 27-member European Union. Those cases may be brought in the E.U. Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The Strasbourg court has, in the past, tended to rule that the right to allow or prohibit the display of symbols is reserved to national governments, and it been reluctant to force them to adopt or relax bans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ruling on Christian's right to wear cross 'does not trump other human rights'" by Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent, UK Guardian 1/15/13

Secular groups have welcomed a Strasbourg court ruling that religious freedoms do not trump other human rights as a victory against discrimination.

John O'Doherty of the Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland's largest gay and lesbian organisation, said: "Religious belief cannot be used as a smokescreen for discrimination, and all service providers must recognise that they may not pick and choose which members of the public are worthy of accessing services."

Employment lawyers accepted the clear reasoning of the judgment. Jennifer Skeoch, an employment lawyer at the law firm Taylor Wessin, said: "The judgments clarify this long-running issue: employees may have the right to manifest their religious beliefs in some ways providing this does not adversely infringe on the rights of others or jeopardise health and safety.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford also welcomed the decision, saying . . . "The insistence by registrar Lilian Ladele and Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane that their Christian consciences made them refuse to perform certain duties was unacceptable because it could result in unacceptable discrimination against gay clients."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian registrar loses European court case" posted at The Christian Institute 1/15/13

Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute which backed Miss Ladele’s case, said: “Obviously, we are disappointed to have lost by a majority decision.

“But we are encouraged that two judges thought we should have won.

“What this case shows is that Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold.

“If the Government steamrollers ahead with its plans to redefine marriage, then hundreds of thousands of people could be thrown out of their jobs unless they agree to endorse gay marriage.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "European Court of Human Rights rules against Christians in conscience cases" by Hilary White, LifeSiteNews.com 1/16/13

Sophia Kuby of the European Dignity Watch NGO called the ruling a case of “obsessive political correctness trumping religious freedom.” These “equality and diversity” policies, she said, while claiming to be about safeguarding freedoms are having the opposite effect.

It is an “obvious paradox” that they are “creating new discrimination against Christians,” she said. The ruling has “marked a new step in the discrimination against Christians who act according to their consciences or wear a non-controversial sign of their faith.”

Two of the justices dissented and issued a minority ruling saying, “The state is obliged to respect the individual’s freedom of conscience.”

“Instead of practising the tolerance of the ‘dignity for all’ it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness,” said the dissenting ruling. “It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience of face the extreme penalty of dismissal – something which … cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Human-rights panel: 'Gay' trumps 'faith'" by Alex Newman, World Net Daily 1/15/13

[Grégor Puppinck, Director of the European Center for Law and Justice, said] “The [court] majority obviously missed the fundamental difference between conscience and religion,” Puppinck told WND after the verdict was published. “Whereas the cases of Eweida and Chaplin are cases of ‘freedom of religion’ – freedom to wear religious items in public – the ones of Ladele and McFarlane are cases of ‘freedom of conscience,’ conscientious objection to homosexuality.”

“The state has the positive obligation not only to abstain from forcing someone to act against his moral conscience, but also to undertake positive measures to accommodate this person, as much as reasonably possible,” he continued.

“In the case of Ms. Ladele, the state not only forced her to celebrate same-sex unions, violating its negative obligation to respect individual conscience, but also made no effort to find a reasonable accommodation in order to respect her genuine conscientious objection, violating its positive obligation to respect individual conscience,” Puppinck said.

“It is not the same to force someone to abstain from wearing a religious item, and to force someone to act against his conscience, for example forcing someone to perform a homosexual union, or any other practice that can be genuinely considered as immoral such as abortion,” he concluded.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read U.S. Supreme Court Allows Gay Agenda to Trump Parental Rights

In addition, read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.

Christians, Extinct in Middle East, as Islam Wins

The new study, entitled ‘Christianophobia’ by the British think tank Civitas, shows that the vast majority of Christian populations in the Middle East in the 20th century have either fled or been killed.  Whereas the Holy Land was 20% Christian in 1945, today that demographic is only 2%, and worldwide, 200 million Christians are “socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.”

“Exposing and combating the problem ought in my view to be political priorities across large areas of the world. That this is not the case tells us much about a questionable hierarchy of victimhood.”
-- Rupert Shortt, journalist and visiting fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford

For background, read Christians Becoming Extinct in 9 Western Nations and also read Pope Calls Secularized, Anti-Christian Europe to God as well as Obamanation: Secularized Like Europe, Spiritualized Like Oprah

During the 2012 election season, the media tout the political significance: Christians OK with Romney, Non-religious Prefer Obama

-- From "Christianity 'close to extinction' in Middle East" by Edward Malnick, UK Telegraph 12/23/12

[The study] claims politicians have been “blind” to the extent of violence faced by Christians in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The most common threat to Christians abroad is militant Islam, it says, claiming that oppression in Muslim countries is often ignored because of a fear that criticism will be seen as “racism”.

It warns that converts from Islam face being killed in Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Iran and risk severe legal penalties in other countries across the Middle East.

"A far less widely grasped fact is that Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christianity at risk of wipe-out in the Middle East, warns new Civitas study" by Institute for the Study of Civil Society 12/23/12

The refusal of young Christians in the West to become “radicalised” and mount violent protests against the attacks on their faith also helps to explain the “blind spot” about “Christianophobia” in influential liberal Western circles.

[Christians] are more likely to be the target of discrimination or persecution that any other religious group and they are particularly at risk in Muslim-dominated societies. Oppression is magnified by anti-Americanism and the false belief that Christianity is a “Western” creed, even though it originated in the Middle East and has been an integral part of that region’s belief systems for 2000 years.

The pace of this assault is now intensifying with the rise of militant Islam in countries such as Egypt, Iraq and now, with the civil war, Syria.

The report surveys in detail the extent of Christian persecution in seven countries – Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, Burma, China and India. And it cites findings from the Freedom House think-tank report to highlight the way that Muslim-majority countries are the most hostile to Christians.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "'Militant Islam' Greatest Threat to Middle Eastern Christianity, Says Think Tank" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 12/26/12

While noting the large-scale persecution of Christians in societies that are Communist, Buddhist, or Hindu, [author of the report, Rupert] Shortt stressed the growing impact of intolerance in Islamic countries.

"In the large area between Morocco and Pakistan, for example, there is scarcely a country in which church life operates without restrictions. Syria has been one of the exceptions until now," wrote Shortt.

In the past, Civitas has published other works focusing on contemporary issues involving Islam. In 2006, the think tank published a book by Caroline Cox and John Marks titled The West, Islam and Islamism: Is ideological Islam compatible with liberal democracy?

"To this end we need to be able to conduct an open and mutually respectful dialogue," [a 2006 Civitas statement] said. "However, the situation is complicated by the way in which some defenders of Islam have tried to shut down the sort of full and free discussion which we expect in Western societies to be able to have about all systems of belief by accusing critics of 'Islamophobia'…"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Study: Christianity Faces Extinction in Middle East" by Paul Arnold, Canadian Christianity 12/28/12

Rupert Shortt, a journalist and author of the study, says that the removal of Christianity from the Middle East has been influenced by political upheaval, Israeli nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and the rejection of Christianity as a vehicle for Western values or Western expansion, even though Christianity originated in the Middle East and has been integral to the region’s belief systems for 2000 years.

Shortt also points out that Christians and public authorities in the West have developed a “blind spot,” which has encouraged the discrimination or persecution of minority religious groups and could lead to further infringements of human rights. As Shortt explains, “The blind spot displayed by governments and other influential players is causing them to squander a broader opportunity. Religious freedom is the canary in the mine for human rights generally.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama Wants Catholic Vote but Dem Platform Anathema

While Nancy Pelosi disparages her fellow Catholic bishops as D.C. charlatans, illusionist President Obama pulls Plan B from his hat, no doubt one of many elusive 2012 olive branches.

For background, read Bishops vs. ObamaCare on Right of Conscience and also read Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm as well as Christians Flex Muscles/Wallets: Gov't Influence

And from the Vatican: NEVER Vote for Pro-choice Candidate



-- From "Catholic Vote in 2012: Why Either Political Party Could Win It" by Deal W. Hudson and Matt Smith, The Daily Beast 12/10/11

Battles over abortion, and now marriage, will continue to be the baseline of any appeal to the religiously active Catholic voter. But this year, candidates will discover Catholics are viscerally troubled by three additional issues—religious liberty, budget cuts, and immigration reform.

The most troublesome of these issues for Democrats is the increased volume of Catholic complaints over religious liberty.

The [ObamaCare] bill, as it turns out, is only the tip of the iceberg in this administration’s attack on religious liberty.

. . . In kowtowing to pressure from abortion activists, the Democrats have created a significant problem for themselves in 2012.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups" by Jerry Markon, Washington Post 10/31/11

A contentious battle between Catholic groups and the Obama administration has flared in recent days, fueled by the new health-care law and ongoing divisions over access to abortion and birth control.

The latest dispute centers on a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services in late September to end funding to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to help victims of human trafficking, or modern-day slavery. The church group had overseen nationwide services to victims since 2006 but was denied a new grant in favor of three other groups.

The bishops organization, in line with the church’s teachings, had refused to refer trafficking victims for contraceptives or abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union sued, and HHS officials said they made a policy decision to award the grants to agencies that would refer women for those services.

The bishops conference is threatening legal action and accusing the administration of anti-Catholic bias, which HHS officials deny.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Rep. Smith: 'Obama Adminstration's Bias Against Catholics Is an Affront to Religious Freedom'" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 12/1/11

The answer is discrimination, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee: “If you are a Catholic or other faith-based NGO, or a secular organization of conscience, there is now clear proof that your grant application will not be considered...under a fair, impartial, and totally transparent process by the Obama administration. The Obama adminstration's bias against Catholics is an affront to religious freedom and a threat to all people."

Smith, who authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, is furious:

“In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power, the Obama administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging: denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization -- the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) -- with an exemplary ten-year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) that got the grant.”

“The Obama administration’s discriminatory practice of funding NGOs [non-governmental organizations] that provide or refer for abortions even when they fail to win a competitive process is not only unjust, unethical and in violation of conscience laws, but it severely undermines public -- and congressional -- confidence and support for what is an otherwise laudable program,” said Smith.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pelosi Dismisses Catholic Bishops as ‘Lobbyists’—For Opposing Obamacare Reg Forcing Catholics to Act Against Faith" by Edwin Mora, CNSNews.com 12/1/11

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) on Thursday described America’s Roman Catholic bishops as “lobbyists in Washington, D.C.” in their efforts to persuade the Department of Health and Human Service to rescind a proposed regulation under the new health-care law that would force Catholics to act against the teachings of their church by compelling them to purchase health-care plans that cover sterilizations and all-FDA approved contraceptives, including abortifacients.

“. . . as a mother of five children in six years, as a devout Catholic, I have great respect for our bishops when they are my pastor. As lobbyists in Washington D.C., we have some areas of disagreement.”

The regulation HHS has proposed includes a “religious exemption” that does not apply to individuals who, under Obamacare, will be mandated to buy health insurance. . . .

As drawn, the exemption from the sterilization-and-contraception mandate would not apply to Catholic individuals, Catholic hospitals, Catholic universities and Catholic charitable organizations.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Contraceptive rule a pill for Obama" by J. Lester Feder, Politico 12/7/11

A new rule issued under his health care law requires virtually all insurance plans to cover contraceptives, and Obama is now personally involved in a decision about how broad an exemption for religious employers should be.

HHS exempted a narrow set of religious employers from this requirement — essentially allowing churches to deny contraception coverage to their employees, but not organizations like religiously affiliated universities or hospitals.

Anna Franzonello, staff counsel with Americans United for Life, said that although Obama has said he favors a "robust" conscience clause, "what this actually shows is that robust to him means a fig leaf of protection." The group maintains that emergency contraceptives that would be covered by this mandate are a form of abortion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama turns his back on Catholics" by Michael Gerson, Washington Post 11/14/11

Obama’s [sudden] Catholic outreach is being revealed as a transparent ploy a year before he faces reelection. A portion of the Democratic coalition — including civil libertarians and pro-choice activists — has decided to attack and marginalize Catholic leaders and institutions. And HHS is actively siding against Catholic organizations.

“We are in a war,” Sebelius told a recent pro-choice meeting. Opponents of the administration, she said, are trying to “roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America.” This is no longer the “presumption of good faith.” It has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 3/6/12 - Catholics called to vote in November (video):