Anti-Christian Phoenix Law Challenged in Court

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, have sued the city of Phoenix in Maricopa County (Arizona) Court over a new "gay rights" ordinance that restricts their freedom of religion to operate their calligraphy business, which includes wedding invitations, according to their Christian conscience (e.g.: marriage is the union of one man and one woman).

“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail for disagreeing with the government.  The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will create and what art they won’t create.”
-- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

For background, click headlines below to read how "gay rights," including same-sex "marriage," are inherently anti-Christian:

Illinois Fines Business $80,000 for Being Christian

Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Christian Wedding Chapel

Lesbians Attack Ohio Christian Videographer over 'Gay Wedding'

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

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

Also read Michigan Christian Business Trashed by Homosexualists

And read Student Booted for Being Christian from Missouri State Univ.

-- From "Phoenix Is The Latest LGBT Battleground No One Is Talking About" by Casey Harper, Daily Caller 5/15/16

Lawyers for Brush & Nib, a calligraphy studio run by two Christian women who sell hand paintings and calligraphy for weddings and events, filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the Phoenix LGBT non-discrimination ordinance. The city’s ordinance prohibits businesses from refusing service based on sexual orientation. The lawsuit claims this could be used to punish Brush & Nib by forcing them to service a same-sex ceremony, thus violating the owners’ consciences and religious freedoms. The business argues that since calligraphy is art, it should be considered free speech that cannot be censored or compelled by government.

“The Phoenix non-discrimination ordinance protects fundamental civil rights for everyone, and we will defend it aggressively,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton [who voted for the ordinance] said in a statement.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Religious artists file lawsuit over Phoenix LGBT non-bias law" by Dustin Gardiner, The Arizona Republic 5/13/16

The lawsuit could reignite a fiery debate about the intersection of constitutional freedoms and Phoenix's ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Opponents want the city's law overturned to allow business owners to deny service to LGBT people if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Duka and Koski directed a request for comment to their attorneys. Their representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom said the plaintiffs cannot comment because they worry they could be violating the city's ordinance if they explain their desire not to do work for same-sex weddings.

Duka and Koski's lawsuit asks the court to declare the city's ordinance unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution's Free Speech Clause and Religious Toleration Clause, among other areas of the law, so they and other artists can create art that "reflects their beliefs, not the government's."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "No Gay Wedding Invitations, Please" by Jamie Ross, Courthouse News Service 5/17/16

The city ordinance says service cannot be denied due to sexual orientation. Violations are punishable by up to a $2,500 fine, six months in jail and three years probation for each day of violation. It also prevents businesses from displaying information about why they will refuse such service.

"Joanna and Breanna believe Jesus commanded Christians to love their neighbors no matter who they are, what they believe, or what they do," the complaint states. "To love their customers, Joanna and Breanna believe they must be upfront and honest with their customers and respectful toward their customers and their customers' time."

They say in the 86-page lawsuit that they do not object to selling artwork to customers of any background, except for same-sex marriages, because it violates their religious beliefs.

The City Council adopted the anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 to stop discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents by privately owned businesses.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Jail time for Phoenix artists who disagree with government?" posted at Alliance Defending Freedom 5/12/16

[ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said,] “Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean she is required to express all viewpoints. It’s unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence.”

The lawsuit is known in legal circles as a “pre-enforcement challenge,” a lawsuit that allows citizens to challenge a law—in this case, a law that threatens First Amendment freedoms—before the government enforces it against them. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood routinely file such lawsuits against laws they oppose.

“Phoenix has already investigated another business for declining to promote a same-sex wedding ceremony for religious reasons and issued a formal report saying [the ordinance] requires businesses like Brush & Nib—those that create expression—to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies if they promote opposite-sex wedding ceremonies,” the ADF complaint explains.

“We simply value art too much to let Phoenix invade the artistic process as if Phoenix were regulating widgets…,” the ADF brief contends. “And make no mistake. Phoenix is playing favorites. It allows artists to speak and create in favor of same-sex marriage yet threatens to incarcerate artists if they speak or create only for opposite-sex marriage. We should all be concerned when the government tries to eradicate a particular idea by silencing adherents and forcing dissenters to profess orthodoxy. When the government manipulates the artistic marketplace and commandeers artists’ minds to squelch an idea, no idea is safe. Everyone eventually loses.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read how Religious Liberty is in the Homosexualists' Crosshairs because they say that the Gay Agenda will be Complete once Christians are Muzzled.

Even so, the 'Gay Marriage' Battle is NOT Over in Some States

Student Booted for Being Christian: Missouri Univ.

Attorneys for Andrew Cash have filed a federal lawsuit against Missouri State University (MSU) saying that the graduate student was kicked out of a master's counseling program because he said that validating same-sex marriage violated his religious beliefs.

“[Andrew Cash] was targeted and punished for expressing his Christian worldview regarding a hypothetical situation concerning whether he would provide counseling services to a gay/homosexual couple. . . . Since he did not give the ‘correct’ answer required by his counseling instructors, he was considered unsuitable for counseling and terminated from the program.”
-- Complaint, filed in the Western District of Missouri Court

For background, read MSU Prof Required Students to Sign Petition Supporting 'Gay' Adoptions

Also read Federal Courts OK Christians being Expelled from Eastern Michigan University and also from Augusta State University for Biblical Beliefs

Click headlines below to read the latest news of "higher education" promotion of the Gay Agenda:

Bibles Removed, Deviant Sex Housing Added at Illinois University

Go To Jail for Bible Speech, Says Univ. of Texas Police

Christian Restaurant Rejected at University of Nebraska

Also read Toilet Privacy Banned in ALL Restrooms at New York College

-- From "Missouri State student says he was kicked out of school because he wouldn't counsel gay couples" by The Associated Press 4/23/16

Andrew Cash said he was removed from the master's counseling program at Missouri State in 2014 after telling a professor in 2011 he would not counsel gay couples. Cash started the program in 2007.

The Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, filed the lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of Cash. The lawsuit in federal court in Springfield names the university's board of governors and several school officials as defendants. It claims the university denied Cash's rights to religion and free speech and seeks unspecified monetary and punitive damages.

According to the lawsuit, W. K. Boyce, executive director of the Christian-based counseling center where Cash interned, made a presentation to one of Cash's classes in 2011. In response to a question during that presentation, Boyce said he would counsel gay individuals separately but would refer gay couples to other counselors who did not share his religious beliefs.

About a week later, Cash's internship coordinator questioned Cash about his own views on counseling gay couples, the lawsuit said. Cash said he also would counsel gay people individually but refer them to someone else for couple counseling.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "MSU sued by student who told professor he wouldn't counsel gay couples" by Harrison Keegan, Springfield News-Leader 4/21/16

The lawsuit says Cash was a student at MSU in January 2011 when he began an internship at the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute, a Christian-based organization.

Cash told his internship coordinator, Kristi Perryman, that he would also not counsel gay couples, according to the lawsuit, and Perryman told Cash that went against the American Counseling Association's code of ethics.

The lawsuit says Perryman told Cash he was not allowed to continue his internship at the Springfield Marriage and Family institute because of "ethical concerns."

In November 2014, the lawsuit says, Cash was removed from the master's program. The lawsuit says he had a 3.81 GPA.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Student Sues MSU" by John Thomas, KTTS-FM94.7 (Springfield, MO) 4/22/16

Andrew Cash claims the University is violating its mission of being a place for free exchange of ideas and values, both religious and secular.

"Traditionally, universities have been places for free exchange of ideas and values, both religious and secular," said Thomas Olp, Executive Director and Attorney for the Thomas More Society. "Unfortunately, Missouri State University departed from its mission by denying educational opportunity to Mr. Cash simply because he expressed, in an academic setting, sincerely-held religious beliefs which his advisor deemed hostile to her own and therefore unacceptable.

"An educator should not permit her own ideology and agenda to ruin the educational opportunities of her students. We feel the responsibility, on Mr. Cash's behalf, to try to correct this."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "It's not the first time MSU has faced 'religious freedom' lawsuit" by Alissa Zhu, Springfield News-Leader 4/25/16

Emily Brooker sued the university in 2006, accusing the school and a faculty member of violating her First Amendment rights when she refused to sign a letter supporting same-sex adoption. Brooker was a student in the School of Social Work.

Brooker alleged in her lawsuit that faculty members interrogated her for over two hours and asked her questions such as: “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?” and “Do you think I am a sinner?”

Brooker made national headlines before reaching a settlement with the university.

David Kaplan, the chief professional officer of the American Counseling Association, said students in other states have filed lawsuits against schools when they felt their religious beliefs came in conflict with the professional association's code.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Student files suit against MSU after being dismissed from counseling program due to his faith" posted at Houston (Missouri) Herald 4/27/16

. . . [Cash's] suit claims that he was unable to complete his counseling curriculum, and is now prevented from working as a counselor, causing him daily emotional suffering. He is seeking for MSU to reinstate him in his counseling program with safeguards put in place so that he can successfully earn his degree.

As a part of the degree program, students are required to complete clinical internship hours. Cash started his internship in January 2011 with the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute, which had been approved by MSU as an internship site. At least one other student in the M.S. in Counseling program had previously completed an internship there. The Institute is a Christian-based counseling agency, and MSU knew this when it approved Cash's internship in January 2011.

. . . Although Cash worked with the administration to find a different internship, the faculty advisor required him, as a condition of being re-accepted to a new internship, to prove to her that he "had learned something from the experience at the Springfield Marriage and Family Institute."  Later, the same advisor wrote a letter to department officials claiming that it appeared to her – despite a total lack of evidence – that she suspected that Cash had not recanted from his earlier-stated religious views. She then made a recommendation, which was accepted, to force Cash into "remediation."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Catholic University Suspends Employee for Espousing Catholic Views

Pro-abortionists Went 0 for 2 in Court Yesterday

In two unrelated court cases, judges dealt blows yesterday to the abortion industry.  A federal judge in Detroit dismissed an attempt by the ACLU to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and a judge in Illinois upheld the First Amendment rights of a pro-life organization to distribute fliers exposing the gruesome business of dumping babies in landfills.

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

ACLU Sues Catholic Hospitals to Force Abortions

Babies Dumped in Landfills: South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio

Aborted Babies Incinerated to Produce Waste Heat

Babies in Dumpsters Closes Michigan Abortion Clinics

South Carolina Abortion Licenses Suspended over Baby Disposal

-- From "Hospital with anti-abortion policy wins decision in lawsuit" by The Associated Press 4/11/16

Detroit federal Judge Gershwin Drain says the American Civil Liberties Union and its members have no standing to sue Trinity Health Corp. In a 13-page decision Monday, he said the ACLU failed to explain what medical conditions would place their members at risk or if they are currently at risk.

The judge says any harm is "speculative."

An attorney for Trinity, Kevin Theriot, says no one should be forced to perform abortions. The ACLU says it's considering its next step.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge throws out abortion lawsuit against Catholic hospital group" by Khalil AlHajal, mlive.com 4/11/16

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of its members last year, calling for an injunction against the anti-abortion policies of Trinity Health Corporation, a Livonia-based health care group with 90 hospitals that adhere to directives of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

ACLU lawyers pointed specifically to one member who was denied abortion procedures at a Trinity hospital despite suffering "emergency complications during her pregnancy that required the termination of her pregnancy in order to stabilize her condition."

The lawsuit also argued that other pregnant members were "at risk of suffering similar harm should their pregnancies suffer complications in the future."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Health system wins suit over emergency abortion policy" posted at The Detroit News 4/11/16

In his ruling, [Judge] Drain said the ACLU did not provide enough specific proof of harm to its members to give the organization standing to sue.

“Therefore, even assuming that the complaint contains sufficient factual matter to establish past actual harm — considering the vagueness of the allegation, this is dubious — the allegations of past exposure to defendants’ illegal conduct is not sufficient to create standing,” he wrote.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court Dismisses ACLU Lawsuit Attempting to Force Catholic Hospital to Do Abortions" by Steven Ertelt and Emily Derois, LifeNews 4/11/16

Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] attorneys represent the Catholic Medical Association, the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which the court allowed on March 10 to intervene in the case in defense of Trinity Health Corporation. Trinity Health operates 86 facilities in 21 states.

“No American should be forced to commit an abortion—least of all faith-based medical workers who went into the profession to follow their faith and save lives, not take them,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot. “No law requires religious hospitals and medical personnel to commit abortions against their faith and conscience, and, in fact, federal law directly prohibits the government from engaging in any such coercion. As we argued in our brief to the court, the ACLU had no standing to bring this suit and demand this kind of government coercion.”

“Those who doubt that anyone would ever try to force someone to commit an abortion need only look at this case,” explained ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman. “This is precisely what the ACLU sought to do. The court came to the right conclusion in putting an end to their quest. The ruling relies on important case law that our pro-life medical group clients cited showing that the ACLU’s case was based on pure speculation.”

“Forcing health care workers to act contrary to the very faith and ethical convictions that led them into the medical profession—to serve, help, and bring healing to people—is counterproductive, unnecessary, and against the law,” Bowman continued.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge refuses to stop anti-abortion fliers targeting CEO" by The Associated Press 4/11/16

Lake County [Illinois] Associate Judge Margaret Marcouiller ruled Monday that the Ohio-based group Created Equal can keep distributing fliers that show pictures of an aborted fetus and a Lake Forest [Illinois] resident, and also include the executive's home address.

The fliers have been left with neighbors of Charles Alutto, who heads Stericycle, a medical waste company.

Created Equal says Stericycle "enables baby killing" by transporting medical waste from a Planned Parenthood facility in Ohio

Marcouiller said Monday that "even insulting and outrageous speech must be tolerated."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Judge refuses to stop anti-abortion fliers targeting Lake Forest CEO" by Susan Berger, Chicago Tribune 4/12/16

Created Equal Executive Director Mark Harrington called the court ruling a victory and said the campaign, which includes fliers, mobile billboards and postcards, will continue.

"If Stericycle wants to stop our awareness campaign, they simply need to cease transporting and disposing of aborted babies for Planned Parenthood," Harrington said.

Despite denying the emergency order, the judge said she will take up the issue again and gave the plaintiffs two weeks to update and resubmit their complaint.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Stericycle loses bid to stop campaign exposing it for transporting aborted babies’ remains" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews 4/11/16

Stericycle's “regulated medical waste acceptance policy” states that the company does not accept “complete human remains (including heads, full torsos, and fetuses).”

Mark Harrington, the national director of Created Equal says the company is playing a game of semantics.

“However, babies are not 'complete' after being dismembered, decapitated, and disemboweled in standard abortion methods,” Harrington said. “Their broken parts and torn tissue are categorized by Stericycle as 'pathological waste,'” which the company willingly transports.

He wrote a letter to Alutto on February 10 with a sample flier that would be handed out in his community to raise awareness of Stericycle's actions. It included Alutto's home address and business phone number. If the company would stop providing services to abortionists, Harrington said, he would not go forward with the campaign.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

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

'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

Officials in several states are not simply "falling in line" with the sexual revolutionaries' demands regarding same-sex "marriage."  For example, Kentucky appears likely to create new marriage license forms that will be absent any officials' names, and Alabama will likely eliminate marriage licenses entirely in favor of simple contractual forms that virtually negate government-sanctioned marriage.

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

Missouri Christians' Likely Big Win vs. Gay Agenda (RFRA)

Nullify 'Gay Marriage:' South Carolina; Other States

Supreme Court's 'Gay Marriage' Ruling is Illegitimate, Scholars Say

Also read Citizens Reject President Obama's Homosexual Ambassador

-- From "Kentucky Senate approves bill to require two different marriage license forms" by Jack Brammer, Lexington Herald-Leader 2/18/16

Under Senate Bill 5, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West, R-Paris, one marriage license would designate the “bride” and “groom” and the other would designate “first party” and “second party.” West said couples could use either form, both of which would require applicants to note their genders so historians who review marriage licenses could know their sex.

Opponents declared the bill unconstitutional minutes after the Republican-led Senate approved it on a 30-8 vote.

[Last year,] Then-Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, changed Kentucky’s marriage license form after the Supreme Court ruling to remove “bride” and “groom,” replacing them with “first party” and “second party.” Republican Matt Bevin issued an executive order shortly after taking office in December to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses and urged the legislature to take further action.

The bill now goes to the House, where Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, has indicated the chamber would pass its own marriage license bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama Senate approves replacing marriage licenses with contracts" by The Associated Press 3/15/16

Senators approved the bill 23-3 on Tuesday. It would require couples to file a form recording their marriage rather than have county probate offices issue licenses.

Republican Sen. Greg Albritton of Range says the change would end controversy over marriage licenses while ensuring that people can marry whomever they choose.

A few Alabama probate judges have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether to avoid giving them to same-sex couples.

The bill now moves to the Alabama House of Representatives.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Stopped in Alabama by Judges

From "Alabama Supreme Court Rejects U. S. Supreme Court’s Marriage Opinion" posted at Liberty Counsel 3/7/16

Today, in a 170-page ruling, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion by issuing its own Judgment in favor of Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus. In the petition, Liberty Counsel demanded on behalf of its Alabama clients – Alabama Policy Institute (“API”) and Alabama Citizens Action Program (“ALCAP”) – that the state’s probate judges obey Alabama’s Constitution and laws. On March 4, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges to immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“The ruling last year by the Alabama Supreme Court was historic, and is one of the most researched and well-reasoned opinions on marriage to be issued by any court in the country. Today’s opinion by the Alabama Supreme Court calling the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage opinion ‘illegitimate’ will be remembered in history like the ‘shot heard around the world,’” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker issued concurring opinions openly criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court marriage opinion. Using Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s term of “five lawyers” when referring to the Supreme Court Obergefell opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote a blistering 105-page concurring opinion . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Alabama's top judge: 'Same-sex marriage' creation 'lawless'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/4/16

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday dispensed with what probably was the last legal case over the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation last summer of “same-sex marriage,” dismissing several related petitions and ripping the nation’s highest court as “lawless.”

The Alabama court also left undisturbed its determination that the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, are constitutional and should be followed by the state’s probate judges, the only ones in Alabama who can issue marriage licenses.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote in the order dismissing several petitions in the case: “As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence, the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this court that uphold the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as explained above, I concur.”

He said the Supreme Court’s marriage ruling “is completely without constitutional authority, a usurpation of state sovereignty, and an effort to impose the will of ‘five lawyers,’ as Chief Justice Roberts stated … on the people of this country.

Moore wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is “like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade that preceded it, is an immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical opinion.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Why the Gay Marriage Legal Battle Just Entered Uncharted Territory" by Nate Madden, Conservative Review 3/9/16

. . . the highest court in the state [of Alabama] has ruled that Alabama’s laws hold on the grounds that the Supreme Court’s ruling only applies to the parties of the case. Now the Alabama order applies to all probate judges in the state, and judges could be held in contempt of Supreme Court order, according to a telephone interview with [founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat] Staver.

Many will wonder how a federal ruling could not apply to all states in the union. After all, this has been the commonly-accepted practice for similar rulings of this magnitude, especially ones involving the 14th Amendment incorporation. This is where it gets really fuzzy. What happens now still “remains to be seen,” according to Staver. This is because the last time the United States saw something like this was in the years following the pro-slavery Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in which several state and circuit courts issued rulings that were in direct contradiction to that of the Supreme Court of the United States.

. . . The fight over marriage has undeniably spilled over into several other different, yet interconnected, legal battles over religious freedom, free speech, freedom of association and, in this case, America’s very understanding of federalism itself. While the futures of the rights enumerated in the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is still up in the air regarding the ongoing and avaricious demands of the sexual revolutions, it would seem that the fate of the Tenth Amendment might not yet be completely sealed on this issue.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible

Missouri Christians' Likely Big Win vs. Gay Agenda

In the wake of the Supreme Court's creation of same-sex "marriage," Missouri voters will soon be given the opportunity to amend their state constitution to protect the religious liberty of citizens from attacks by the sexual revolutionaries.  Senate Joint Resolution 39, passed 21-11 this morning, and is expected to pass the Missouri House, thus putting the measure to the voters.

UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

West Virginia Legislature Passes Religious Freedom Restoration Act

North Carolina Lawmakers to Overturn Gay/Transgender Agenda

Indiana Religious Liberty Law (to fight Gay Agenda) Jettisoned by Republicans

Arkansas Religious Freedom Law NOT Gay Enough

Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs

Also read how Missouri voters brought prayer back to public schools.

-- From "39-Hour Filibuster Over Gay Marriage Issue Ends in Missouri Senate" by CBS News (KMOX) & The Associated Press 3/9/16

The measure comes after bakers and florists have faced legal challenges in other states for declining to provide services for same-sex weddings due to their religious beliefs.

“No one should be compelled to make a work with their own hands that’s offensive to their beliefs,” Republican sponsor Sen. Bob Onder said during earlier debate on the measure.

Democrats fought the measure for days, saying it would allow discrimination against same-sex couples and could hurt the state economy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri State Senators End Marathon Filibuster Over 'Religious Freedom' Bill" by Erik Ortiz and The Associated Press posted at NBC News 3/9/16

[Measure SRJ 39] proposes to amend the Missouri Constitution and prohibit the state from "penalizing clergy, religious organizations, and certain individuals for their religious beliefs concerning marriage between two people of the same sex."

Republican state Sen. Bob Onder, who sponsored the bill, said he believes the amendment "is entirely defensive, in that it prevents state and local governments from imposing penalties. It is a shield, not a sword."

Missouri's legislative session runs through mid-May, which leaves plenty of time for Resolution 39 to also move through the Republican-led House. It would then be submitted to statewide voters in either the August primary or November general election.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Epic Missouri Filibuster Over Bill Shielding Opponents Of Same-Sex Weddings Ends" by Merrit Kennedy, National Public Radio NPR 3/9/16

The proposed state constitutional amendment . . . states that clergy and places of worship would be protected should they decline to host or perform ceremonies and other services for same-sex couples because of their beliefs.

The measure would also shield vendors who refuse to provide services, and individuals who decline "to personally be a participant in a wedding or marriage."

St. Louis Public Radio says the bill sponsor argues it "would not harm the LGBT community or seek to revoke their right to marry."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri 'religious freedom bill' passes as 39-hour filibuster ends" by Greg Botelho and Seth Kovar, CNN 3/9/16

Similar bills have come up in other states where Republicans hold sway, almost always bringing controversy with them. . . .

[However,] Missouri's legislation is different than most in that it involves amending the state's constitution and it has a narrow focus, according to its sponsor.

"We spent a lot of time writing it to avoid the controversies we've seen in other states," Republican Sen. Bob Onder said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Missouri Senate Filibusters Against Bill Protecting Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage" by Austin Huguelet And Richard Pérez-Peña, New York Times 3/8/16

. . . the Missouri bill, similar to one being considered in Georgia, would go further than any law now in place, prompting challenges that could keep the issue before the courts for years.

Donald Hinkle, the director of public policy for the Missouri Baptist Convention, which supports the measure, said he was confident of passage. “You’re talking about a state that voted 71 percent to 29 percent to say that marriage is between one man and one woman and put that in the Constitution,” he said, referring to a 2004 ballot measure banning same-sex marriage.

Twenty-one states — including Indiana and Arkansas last year — have enacted what backers call religious freedom laws [RFRA], which do not mention same-sex couples but subject discrimination lawsuits to tough scrutiny if the discrimination is based on a defendant’s sincere religious belief.

. . . But the bill would also protect any religious organization acting “in accordance with a sincere religious belief” about same-sex marriage, in a passage that does not limit itself to weddings. And it gives a long list of things that qualify as religious organizations, including schools, charities and retirement homes, as long as their public identity and purpose are “in whole or in part religious.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Said Government Should Favor God of the Bible

'Anti-Gay' Religious Liberty Law: West Virginia

The West Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HB 4012) passed the House of Delegates 72-26 and is favored in the Republican-controlled Senate, but Democrat Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin may veto the bill.  Christians say the new RFRA law is necessary because the growing number of local nondiscrimination ordinances allow violations of their religious beliefs.  Sexual revolutionaries are threatening businesses in order to pressure politicians to kill the bill.

"This bill will give state courts a balancing test that guides judges in considering cases alleging that the action of a governmental body has violated a citizen's deeply held religious belief."
-- House Speaker Tim Armstead

"Religious freedom is a basic human right, and a vital Constitutional right, that deserves protection under West Virginia law. Every West Virginian should be free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being punished by the government."
-- House Majority Whip John O'Neal

For background, read about the state-by-state momentum for Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA).

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Indiana Religious Liberty Law to Fight Gay Agenda Jettisoned by Republicans

Arkansas Religious Freedom Law NOT Gay Enough

Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs

Homosexualists Launch Commerce Attack on Indiana to get Gay Rights

Also read Supreme Court Justice Scalia Says Government Should Favor God of the Bible

-- From "W.Va. House passes Religious Freedom Restoration Act" posted at The Herald-Dispatch (Huntington, WV) 2/11/16

The proposal would let people cite religious objections to state actions in certain court proceedings.

Proponents say it protects people's freedoms to express sincere religious beliefs, as long as there isn't a compelling state interest to restrict them.

Opponents say it's a license to discriminate, particularly against gay people.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "W.Va. House passes Religious Freedom Restoration Act" by WSAZ-TV3 News Staff (Huntington, WV) 2/11/16

The bill models after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and laws that have been adopted by more than 20 other states.

Under the bill, if a person attempts to defend in court their religious beliefs against government action, a judge would use the following questions to evaluate the merits of the case:

1.) Does a person have a sincerely held religious belief?
2.) Has that belief been substantially burdened by government?
3.) Does the government have a compelling interest to substantially burden that belief?
4.) Has government exhausted all other means to achieve its goals without infringing on that belief, and is the action the least restrictive of that citizen’s religious beliefs?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "WV House passes Religious Freedom bill, sends to Senate" by Erin Beck, Staff Writer, Charleston Gazette-Mail 2/11/16

Supporters, mainly Republicans, argued that the bill simply codifies a balancing test for courts to abide by when determining if a person’s religious beliefs are being violated by state action and doesn’t guarantee any outcome of that test. Opponents, mainly Democrats, argued that the potential legislation will be bad for business, harm West Virginia’s reputation and encourage discrimination against marginalized groups.

Delegate Mike Azinger, R-Wood, spoke fervently and at length about his belief that the Founding Fathers supported a Christian government.

Some Democratic lawmakers noted that religion has been used to discriminate in the past.

Mayors of several cities with LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances, as well as a coalition of businesses worried about the economic impact of the bill, had spoken out against it.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "WV [small] businesses show support for LGBT patrons in wake of RFRA bill" by Erin Beck, Staff Writer, Charleston Gazette-Mail 2/15/16

Local business owners plan to display “All Kinds Welcome Here” stickers, designed by Jessica Kennedy, to signal that the businesses are friendly to the LGBT community.

Paul Greco, owner of Sam's Uptown Cafe and the Boulevard Tavern, in Charleston, said he hopes, “All Kinds are Welcome Here” stickers, which were designed by Jessica Kennedy, will be ready for distribution at Sam's by the end of the week. Interested businesses can also reach out through the Sam's Facebook page.

Keeley Steele, owner of Bluegrass Kitchen, Tricky Fish and Starling's, said she would post the sticker at her businesses.

Julia and Frank Gonzales, owners of Mi Cocina de Amor, said they would post the sticker, as well.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Major employers mum on WV Religious Freedom bill" by Erin Beck, Staff Writer, Charleston Gazette-Mail 2/17/16

A spokesman for Procter & Gamble, which is building a $500 million plant near Martinsburg, said the company believes it is “premature and inappropriate” to comment on the bill, since the company doesn't yet employ anyone in West Virginia.

The West Virginia United Health System is the second-largest private employer in the state, according to a Workforce West Virginia report from last fall.  Amy Johns, a spokeswoman for WVU Medicine, said . . . that no administrators were available to comment on the bill.

Charleston Area Medical Center spokesman Dale Witte said officials with that hospital system, the third-largest private employer in West Virginia, would not comment on the bill.

Marshall University spokesman Dave Wellman said the school also would not comment on the bill.

Representatives of Wal-Mart, West Virginia's largest private employer, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the state's fifth-largest employer, did not return multiple phone calls and emails. Wal-Mart opposed a similar bill in Arkansas, where the company is based.

Gary Broadbent, spokesman for Murray Energy Corp., said the company would not comment. Murray Energy is the sixth-largest private employer in the state, employing about 3,000 people in West Virginia. Broadbent did say the company has an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination policy.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

In addition, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Gay Agenda: IBM Boycotts Christian Louisiana Gov. Jindal

Corporations Embrace Gay Agenda, With a Vengeance

Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supreme Court to Go Gay

And 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

Homosexualists Launch Commerce Attack on Indiana

Last April, the Indiana legislature and governor were bullied by homosexualists nationwide to weaken the religious liberty of citizens, but that law didn't go far enough according to Gay Agenda advocates.

UPDATE 2/3/16: Gay Agenda Bill Dies in Indiana Legislature (see excerpts below)

For background, read Indiana Law to Fight Gay Agenda Jettisoned by Republicans and also read Media, Gays Shut Down Indiana Christian Pizza Restaurant

And read Homosexualists' Bullying of Commerce Challenged

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Lesbian Denver Official Nixes Christian Business at Airport

Gay Agenda: IBM Boycotts Christian Louisiana Gov. Jindal

Corporations Embrace Gay Agenda, With a Vengeance

Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supreme Court to Go Gay







-- From "150 businesses in group pushing for Indiana LGBT protections" by Brian Slodysko, Associated Press 12/2/15

A coalition of 150 Indiana businesses said Wednesday that the absence of a state law guaranteeing LGBT civil rights protections could hamper the ability of companies to draw talented workers, harming the state economy.

Indiana Competes, which includes Eli Lilly and Co., Cummins, AT&T and Anthem among its ranks, plans to hold events around the state in the coming weeks to publicize the issue ahead of the legislative session that begins in January.

[Last April, the] law was changed amid the unrest. But in the aftermath, business groups and other supporters of gay and lesbian rights have pushed for a statewide ban on disicimination in housing, employment and public accommodation based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Religious conservatives, however, object because they believe it could force Christian businesses owners to violate sincerely held religious beliefs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Businesses Join Forces To Push For LGBT Protections" by Mike Perleberg, WSCH-FM99.3 (Lawrenceburg, IN) 12/3/15

The coalition plans to hold events throughout the state to recruit business pledges and educate other business leaders on LGBT equality’s impact on economic growth.

Indiana is still struggling to include them in the state’s civil rights law without angering conservatives and religious groups who supported the original version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA]. The law passed earlier this year caused many businesses and states to boycott Indiana, worrying many in the business community.

Proposed legislation from Indiana Senate Republicans would add sexual orientation and sexual identity to the state’s civil rights law, but would also carve out religious exemptions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Firms: Protect LGBT rights" by Olivia Covington, The Republic (Columbus, IN) 12/4/15

Local lawmakers don’t believe a lack of statewide civil rights protections for LGBT Hoosiers hinders employers from attracting quality workers or stifles the state economy.

. . . state Sen. Greg Walker, a Republican representing Columbus, said Indiana’s economy is growing, even after the nationwide uproar over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act last spring.

Ultimately, lawmakers passed an amended bill that said businesses could not discriminate based on sexual orientation but declined to add that protection to the state’s civil rights code.

. . . State GOP leaders are already working toward finding the common ground with Democrats. Republicans in the Senate proposed a bill last month that would grant protections to LGBT Hoosiers while also carving out certain religious exemptions.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana businesses join in LGBT campaign" by Jeff Swiatek, Indianapolis Star 12/2/15

The Indy Chamber has organized the coalition, using its office space in the Chase Tower. Joining the coalition, called Indiana Competes, is free for businesses, but donations are requested, said Indy Chamber CEO Michael Huber.

Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, which has fought past efforts to pass statewide LGBT protections, called the business coalition "an unnecessary politicizing of the workforce."

Ron Johnson, executive director of Indiana Pastors Alliance, also criticized the coalition, saying, "It's really buying into a false narrative … that there is a large population of LGBT workers who are being discriminated against."

"There are Christian … business owners … who are being fined and discriminated against. Those are the people we should be trying to protect," he said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana's proposed new religious freedom plan draws ire" by Michelle L. Quinn and Carrie Napoleon, Chicago Tribune 11/26/15

Senate Republicans recently detailed a plan that would extend civil rights to include people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Business groups and other supporters, for example, would like to see housing and public accommodations made for those groups.

It would also, however, leave religious or religious-affiliated groups — such as private schools, adoption agencies, social service and charitable service agencies — exempt from abiding by any protections offered. It also would prohibit the state from taking any action against those groups that don't abide by the protections. The state could not evoke tax exemptions, deny tax deductions, withhold grants or contracts, or deny accreditation or licenses, under the plan.

Additionally, the proposal allows small businesses with fewer than four full-time employees to refuse providing marriage-related services or goods on religious grounds, and transgender people would have to prove they'd had at least 12 months of medical care and actively lived as the sex to which they identify before they could use a coinciding restroom or dressing room, or file a complaint to the Indiana Human Rights Commission.

And any person identifying as LGBT who files a "frivolous" complaint to the Indiana Human Rights Commission would be fined $1,000, under the proposal.

Protections that 20 municipalities have carved out for the LGBT community, meanwhile, would be superseded, a point over which the Lake County Council expressed disbelief. That council passed an LGBT protection ordinance in May.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Republicans Going Gay, to be 'Moderate' & Likeable

From "Senate GOP unveils bill with LGBT protections" by Niki Kelly, The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, IN) 11/17/15

The proposed legislation - Senate Bill 100 - would generally bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in housing and employment.

The bill also delves into the issue of bathroom usage in schools and public places by stating it is not discriminatory or unlawful segregation to have restroom and shower policies, as well as dress codes, based on sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

According to conservative group Advance America, "making gender identity a protected class will give men, including sexual predators (rapists and child molesters), legal access to women’s restrooms throughout Indiana, as well as women’s locker rooms in a fitness facility and other locations like public pools thereby placing women and girls at risk of being harmed!"

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 2/2/16: From "Indiana gay rights bill is dead: 'We took a beating from all sides'" by The Associated Press & Chicago Tribune wire reports

Indiana Republican lawmakers abandoned efforts to strengthen protections for lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people on Tuesday, opting not to vote on a measure designed to restore the state's reputation following a national boycott over a religious objections law last year.

Efforts to find a balance between the civil rights of the LGBT community and religious liberty had satisfied no one, said Sen. David Long, leader of majority Republicans. He said efforts to pass a gay rights bill were dead for this legislative year.

The measure abandoned by Republicans was faulted by Democrats and LGBT rights activists for not including transgender people and allowing broad religious exemptions. Religious conservatives said it would still require people to provide services for same-sex marriages such as flowers or cakes even if they had religious objections.

Some evangelical Christians welcomed its demise, saying it would have whittled away religious freedom. American Family Association of Indiana director Micah Clark said the bill was a "fatally flawed concept."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 2/3/16: From "Why Indiana lawmakers killed the gay rights debate for this year" by Stephanie Wang, Chelsea Schneider and Tony Cook, Indianapolis Star

The end of the debate marks a huge win for religious conservatives, who have been battling a changing cultural tide on gay rights issues. It also relieves political pressure on Republican Gov. Mike Pence, a born-again Christian who last month questioned the need for such legislation, as he seeks re-election.

Pulling the plug on legislation deals a blow to influential Indiana businesses that pushed for LGBT rights, and to advocacy groups that have, until now, successfully fought to advance the status of LGBT Hoosiers.

It was a swift death for the gay rights proposal, Senate Bill 344, which was carried by Republican leadership in the Senate. Last week, a Senate committee crafted and gave initial approval to the proposal to extend civil rights to gay Hoosiers, but not transgender people, with some exemptions for religious organizations, faith-based groups and small businesses providing wedding services.

Social conservatives and tea party activists who were upset with recent legislative losses on same-sex marriage and the so-called RFRA “fix” had pledged to exact revenge on Republican lawmakers who crossed them again.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about the Gay Agenda strategy of attacking one town (or one state) at a time to elevate "gay rights" over religious liberty.

And 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

'Gay Dads' Get Christians Fired over Pretend Son

Madeline Kirksey, a daycare manager at the Childrens’ Lighthouse Learning Center in Katy, Texas, and another worker were fired for refusing to encourage a sexually confused 6-year-old girl to believe that she's a boy simply because her homosexual "parents" want their daughter to be a son.

“One day, she wanted to be a girl, the next day she wanted to be a boy.  The other kids are confused as well, calling her a boy and she would start screaming, 'I'm not a boy!'”
-- Madeline Kirksey

For background, read how Parents and Schools are to Blame for Kids' Transgenderism, which is a 'Delusion' According to the Victims and Professionals

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Kindergartners Taught Sex Change in Maine School

Secret Government-Paid Child Sex Change Surgery in Oregon

San Antonio Gay Agenda Ordinance Bans Christian Workers

ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'

Also read President Obama Demands Transgender Communal Nudity — Illinois School Balks



-- From "Katy Transgender Child Sparks Debate" by Cliff Saunders posted at KTRH-AM740 (Houston, TX) 11/6/15

One of the workers, Madeline Kirksey, went public with her concerns for the child that is being raised by a gay couple.

“I don’t think that we should be talking to other people’s children that are under the age of 18, about transgender,” Kirksey said.

“One day she wanted to be a girl. The next day she wanted to be a boy,” Kirksey explained.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Did school fire 2 for concerns about 6-year-old transgender child?" posted at FoxNews.com 11/4/15

Two staff members say they were fired from a Texas school when voicing concerns after being told last week to refer to a 6-year-old girl by a new name and start acting like she was a boy.

School administrators allegedly handed out a “common sense” set of guidelines for “How to Handle Transgender Students” to the staff, according to a document viewed by FOX26. The “mini-guide for teachers” suggested steps such as “Accord them the same respect you wish for yourself,” “Help defend their dignity” and “Educate yourself and your students.” One section begins, “Like the first black student in a white school 30 years ago, the transgender student today faces a population that finds them strange and frightening.”

Kirksey said she advocated talking to parents about the directive, and shortly thereafter she was fired from her position as a manager.

A teacher at the learning center also said she was fired for voicing her concerns.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Workers fired for raising concerns about transgender student Children's Lighthouse Learning Center" by Damali Keith, KRIV-TV26 (Houston, TX) 11/4/15

“It caused confusion,” says one employee. At Children’s Lighthouse Learning Center on Clay Road in Katy, Madeline Kirksey says last week she and her staff were told a six-year-old student is transgender. According to Kirksey, the child's parents cut the girl's hair short and Children’s Lighthouse Learning Center workers were instructed to start calling the girl a boy and by a boy's name.

After insisting on notifying parents regarding the transgender 6-year-old student at Children’s Lighthouse Learning Center, Kirksey says she was fired. The termination letter includes claims that she failed to tell a worker to leave a game room and "When requested by parent and management to call a transgender child by the child's new name, Madeline does not follow instructions."

"I said, ‘this is what this whole thing (firing) is about?' So she said, 'We'll scratch that off,' and that’s when she scratched off the line about the transgender child and wrote her initials by it,” explains Kirksey.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian Daycare Worker Refuses To Call Transgender 6-Year-Old A Boy. Now She’s Paying The Price" by B. Christopher Agee, Western Journalism 11/6/15

. . . After explaining that the girl often changes her own mind regarding which name she preferred, that point was removed from the letter. Her termination still stood, though, reportedly because she notified others of her concerns.

This, Kirksey determined, was not only inappropriate but contrary to her beliefs.

She said the aforementioned colleague echoed her concerns, leading them both to decline the order. Their decision, Kirksey said, earned them both a pink slip.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Houston Lesbian Mayor's Transgender/Gay Agenda Defeated by Voters

Churches Sue Calif. ObamaCare: Forced Abortion $$

Three churches are suing Michelle Rouillard, the director of the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), in federal court for First Amendment violations of requiring churches to pay for surgical abortions via the ObamaCare-forced employer health insurance.  Last year, the DMHC reclassified abortion as a “basic health service,” thus mandating all heath insurance coverage to include elective abortion as if it's a medical ailment.

“Because Obamacare requires health insurance coverage, and the California mandate requires abortion coverage in any health plan, these churches are truly left with no way to opt out of paying for abortions.  What’s absurd, though, is that the same government that rightfully does not require California churches to pay for contraceptive coverage requires them to pay for elective abortion coverage.”
-- Jeremiah Galus, Litigation Staff Counsel (for the churches) of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

California Law Forces Abortion Business on Pro-lifers

ACLU Forces California Catholic Hospital To Sterilize Woman

Judge Orders California Citizens pay for Prisoner Sex Change

ObamaCare Loses to Christians in High Court, Again

Catholics Defeat ObamaCare: Appeals Court Ruling

Christians Oppose ObamaCare, Support Hobby Lobby

Also read President Obama Edicts More Transgender Rights via ObamaCare

-- From "California Churches File Lawsuit to Fight Mandatory Abortion Funding in Health Plans" by Lauretta Brown, CNSNews.com 10/19/15

The California DMHC stated in an August 2014 letter to seven insurance companies that they were required to include elective abortions in their health plans with no exceptions. The letter came in response to complaints after Santa Clara University and Loyola Marymount University excluded elective abortion from their employee insurance policies on religious grounds.

The letter cites California’s Constitution and the 1975 Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act, which “requires the provision of basic health care services” in justification of their abortion mandate.

The lawsuit states that the churches have been searching for a way to “provide health insurance coverage to their employees in a way that does not also cause them to pay for abortions,” as they believe that “abortion kills an innocent human life.”

The lawsuit also charges that the DMHC “realizing that Plaintiffs and others have sincerely held religious beliefs against paying for or providing coverage for abortion,” still “encouraged the insurers to hide these changes by informing them that they may ‘omit any mention of coverage for abortion services in health plan documents.’”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "California Forces Churches to Fund Abortions, Churches Refuse to Comply and File Lawsuit" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 10/16/15

ADF filed the lawsuit, Foothill Church v. Rouillard, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of Foothill Church in Glendora, Calvary Chapel Chino Hills in Chino, and The Shepherd of the Hills Church in Porter Ranch.

Last year, ADF and Life Legal Defense Foundation filed formal complaints with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services against DMHC regarding California’s mandate and its violation of federal conscience law. Those came on the heels of a complaint filed directly with DMHC, which responded by affirming its decision to force all plans to cover all abortions without any explanation as to how that decision squares with the Constitution and contrasting federal law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Churches forced to cover abortion file federal complaint against Calif. agency" posted at Alliance Defending Freedom 10/9/14 (last year)

The complaint explains, “DMHC is an arm of the State of California and purports to be interpreting and applying the law of California, a state that receives billions of taxpayer dollars…. California accepted those funds with full knowledge of the requirements of the Weldon Amendment, but it has chosen to ignore this law. The need to remedy this discrimination is urgent because it is immediately depriving Complainants of a health plan that omits elective abortions.”

“The DMHC created this abortion mandate in response to political pressure from the abortion lobby,” said LLDF Legal Director Catherine Short. “DMHC would have us believe that, while the Legislature exempted these churches from the state’s contraceptive coverage mandate, it nonetheless intended to force them to cover all abortions under the rubric of ‘basic health care.’ This move was a pure power play, and we trust that the Department of Health and Human Services will take the necessary steps to bring the state into compliance with federal law.”

“Forcing a church to be party to elective abortion is one of the utmost-imaginable assaults on our most fundamental American freedoms,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “California is flagrantly violating the federal law that protects employers from being forced into having abortion in their health insurance plans. No state can blatantly ignore federal law and think that it should continue to receive taxpayer money.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Churches war with state over religious freedom" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 10/19/15

Evidence that Rouillard was specifically targeting churches, the complaint says, was demonstrated by the fact that the mandate “does not apply to health benefit plans offered by the California Public Employees Retirement System and other policies.”

“Defendant imposed the mandate with full knowledge that it would coerce religious employers and churches like plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

[The complaint] cites violations of the First Amendment and creates a pages-long list of damages, including chilling religious exercise, a government-imposed coercion regarding religious beliefs and exposing the plaintiffs them to damages and penalties.

“Defendant issued the mandate to suppress the religious exercise of plaintiffs and other similarly situated churches and religious employers,” it states.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read ObamaCare Funnels $1 Million to Planned Parenthood

And read ObamaCare Lies: Taxpayers Now Fund Abortions, Says Government Study