A former Novartis saleswoman wept on the witness stand yesterday as she recalled her boss counseling her to get an abortion after she asked for a transfer to move in with her husband-to-be.
-- From "Lawsuit: Drug company Novartis derailed careers of moms-to-be" by Alison Gendar, New York Daily News Staff Writer 4/6/10
Senior sales consultant Christine Macarelli is among the first witnesses who hope to show the drug giant treated women as second-glass citizens.
"Our goal is to make clear the problems these women experienced are systematic of deep problems across the company," said attorney David Sanford.
The class-action suit covers 5,600 Novartis employees who claim the company paid them less than male colleagues and derailed their careers once they became pregnant.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Novartis gal's tale of boss 'abort' pressure" by Bruce Golding, New York Post 4/9/10
"I told Mr. Holstein [abortion] was not an option for me," [Christine Macarelli,] the upstate mother of two testified in Manhattan federal court.
"I was very disturbed. I had to collect myself and decide what to do . . . I felt very alone."
Asked why she never reported Holstein to the company's higher-ups, Macarelli said it was because "I had a co-worker who worked for Bruce, and she complained about him quite a bit, and ultimately she was fired."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Obama Codifies Sexual Deviance Protections in Federal Employment
If you think government bureaucracies are largely inefficient operations now, wait until you see federal workplaces where much of the workday is consumed with accommodating any variety of cross-dressers, the sexually mutilated, sexually confused people, and more.
Perhaps new management positions will be created to schedule restroom usage for the spectrum of genders.
And, those who undergo sex-change operations will be considered normal, but the other employees will be placed in psychotherapy in order to cope and learn how to work with the "normal" ones.
-- From "Obama rewriting rules on transgender rights" by Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times 6/24/09
Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.
Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.
The rules are almost certain to stoke criticism from cultural conservatives already displeased with Mr. Obama’s stand on gay rights, abortion and stem cell research.
The White House has not done much to advertise the provisions, which are being written along with the new same-sex domestic partnership benefits Mr. Obama announced last week for federal workers.
John Berry, the director of the federal agency in charge of such workplace issues, the Office of Personnel Management, said in an interview on Tuesday that the administration was not trying to hide its work on the new provisions.
“There’s been no attempt to hide anything or be coy,” he said.
Mr. Berry, the administration’s highest-ranking openly gay official, said he had been an early advocate for the new protections for transgender workers.
The Library of Congress recently lost a discrimination case after it rescinded its hiring of a former Army Special Forces commander, David Schroer, as a terrorism analyst upon learning he was undergoing a sex change. The library said it was concerned that the former commander — now Diane Schroer — would be unable to qualify for vital security clearances in a timely fashion. In April, a federal judge awarded Ms. Schroer nearly $500,000 in lost pay and damages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Perhaps new management positions will be created to schedule restroom usage for the spectrum of genders.
And, those who undergo sex-change operations will be considered normal, but the other employees will be placed in psychotherapy in order to cope and learn how to work with the "normal" ones.
-- From "Obama rewriting rules on transgender rights" by Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times 6/24/09
Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.
Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.
The rules are almost certain to stoke criticism from cultural conservatives already displeased with Mr. Obama’s stand on gay rights, abortion and stem cell research.
The White House has not done much to advertise the provisions, which are being written along with the new same-sex domestic partnership benefits Mr. Obama announced last week for federal workers.
John Berry, the director of the federal agency in charge of such workplace issues, the Office of Personnel Management, said in an interview on Tuesday that the administration was not trying to hide its work on the new provisions.
“There’s been no attempt to hide anything or be coy,” he said.
Mr. Berry, the administration’s highest-ranking openly gay official, said he had been an early advocate for the new protections for transgender workers.
The Library of Congress recently lost a discrimination case after it rescinded its hiring of a former Army Special Forces commander, David Schroer, as a terrorism analyst upon learning he was undergoing a sex change. The library said it was concerned that the former commander — now Diane Schroer — would be unable to qualify for vital security clearances in a timely fashion. In April, a federal judge awarded Ms. Schroer nearly $500,000 in lost pay and damages.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Swearing at Work 'Boosts Team Spirit, Morale'
From "Swearing at work 'boosts team spirit, morale'" posted 10/17/07 at yahoonews.com
LONDON (AFP) - Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers.
In a perverse way, they may be right about building solidarity - at least among people who cuss.
There is another perspective that doesn't carry quite the gravitas and credibility of a university study. It does, however, reflect the desire of our Creator for us:
Ephesians 4:29 - "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
1 Peter 3:10 - "For, Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech."
James 3:9-12 - "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
More on swearing from a Biblical worldview, Seven Reasons for Swearing
LONDON (AFP) - Regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings as well as develop social relationships, according to a study by researchers.
Yehuda Baruch, a professor of management at the University of East Anglia, and graduate Stuart Jenkins studied the use of profanity in the workplace and assessed its implications for managers.
They assessed that swearing would become more common as traditional taboos are broken down, but the key appeared to be knowing when such language was appropriate and when to turn to blind eye.
...Banning swear words and reprimanding staff might represent strong leadership, but could remove key links between staff and impact on morale and motivation, he said."We hope that this study will serve not only to acknowledge the part that swearing plays in our work and our lives, but also to indicate that leaders sometimes need to 'think differently' and be open to intriguing ideas.
Read the whole article.In a perverse way, they may be right about building solidarity - at least among people who cuss.
There is another perspective that doesn't carry quite the gravitas and credibility of a university study. It does, however, reflect the desire of our Creator for us:
Ephesians 4:29 - "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
1 Peter 3:10 - "For, Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech."
James 3:9-12 - "With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."
More on swearing from a Biblical worldview, Seven Reasons for Swearing
Monday, August 27, 2007
Christian Public School Teachers Have a Right and Responsibility to Speak Out About Homosexuality
One scurrilous tactic that homosexual activists use to censor conservative voices is to notify employers whose employees have, in their free time, expressed traditional views on homosexuality in public forums like radio interviews, blog comments, or letters to the editor. I and others have experienced this deeply troubling, anti-liberal, and anti-American phenomenon. The point must be made that traditional views on homosexuality are not equivalent to racism, and homosexuality is not equivalent to race. Expressing the view that homosexual conduct, no matter what the origin of homosexual impulses, is immoral is not hateful and does not imply that those who identify as homosexual have less intrinsic worth than other humans.
Some public school employees who have experienced this bullying tactic have been “persuaded” to self-censor even outside their workplace. This demand for compliance constitutes a troubling abridgment of speech rights and an equally troubling intrusion into private lives. We must be prepared for these unethical demands for conformity and resist them, even when non-compliance results in persecution.
Some public school administrations believe they have the right to dictate the content and context of employee speech outside of the workplace. They believe they have the right to insist that employees refrain from making public statements that may generate controversy for the employer or that make students feel “unsafe,” by which they really mean uncomfortable. They are seriously in error. Public school administrations are wrong ethically and legally when suggesting that employees refrain from making political or moral statements on controversial topics in a public medium. They have no right to determine what kinds of public statements their employees make or where they make them.
As private citizens, teachers have a perfect right to be interviewed on the radio, write letters to the editors of newspapers, comment on blogs, speak at public protests, be interviewed by print reporters, or appear on television to discuss socio-political issues. If others identify where these teachers work, and if some students or parents dislike their views, that's unfortunate, but that is a messy fact of life in a participatory democracy. Are employees who oppose the war, or oppose capital punishment, or support gay marriage, or support partial birth abortions obligated to refrain from public engagement because others may object? And we must remember, the National Education Association, to which many public school teachers belong, has long made public statements on a number of highly controversial issues including homosexuality. So, it's really just conservative teachers who are expected to self-censor even in their private lives. But, despite the wishes of public school administrators, teachers in public schools retain the full complement of civil rights, including speech rights. Not even the objections of parents and students can abrogate this central civil right. Free speech does not come with guarantees of agreement. It's messy.
The right of employers to shape or circumscribe faculty speech ends at the schoolhouse door, with the exception, of course, of slanderous, libelous, or defamatory speech directed at the school or school personnel. How meaningless, hollow, and hypocritical it is for educators to teach students about the importance of civic engagement and standing firm on principle (like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.) even in the face of demands for conformity, and then tell faculty to silence themselves in order to avoid controversy. Is that nothing else but an inappropriate demand for conformity? It's frightening that so many teachers are willing to sacrifice their free speech rights in the service of avoiding controversy for their employer or persecution for themselves. If all public school employees capitulate, then the bullies have won. All the intolerant bullies need to do is generate controversy, and conservatives self-censor. We as Christians have a number of role models including Paul who did not did not allow the prospect of controversy or the threat of persecution determine the contexts in which he spoke or the content of his speech.
Administrations express concern about the effect of teacher comments made outside of work on students in class, focusing exclusively on student discomfort. Teachers must understand that the presence of student discomfort does not mean that something wrong or inappropriate has been done. If student discomfort is allowed to determine what is said in school, teachers will be prevented from expressing disapproval of a host of behaviors including drug use, alcohol use, aggression, or promiscuity because some kids will feel uncomfortable. But even more problematic is the fact that teachers are now expected to refrain from making moral statements outside of their workplace.
Moreover, student comfort is not the only consideration of import within the academic setting. There are other values of even greater importance that must be considered. First, students need to see that the First Amendment right of free speech is truly valued within academia. Second, conservative students too need role models; they need to see that men and women of compassion, intelligence, and courage participate vigorously in the thorny task of shaping our culture, and do so even in the face of personal and professional persecution. And third, liberal students and homosexual students need to see that those who espouse traditional views really don't hate. How can any of these goals be achieved, if everyone capitulates in order to avoid controversy. I am not recommending that anyone generate controversy just for the sake of controversy. I am suggesting that we all speak the truth boldly in order to please God and help "hold back the effects of the fall."
Sexual orientation and sexual identity are topics that cannot be discussed without generating controversy.
What will the cultural and political climate be for our children and grandchildren in a decade or two if all conservatives decline from engaging in public dialogue because doing so generates controversy? No more letters to the editor, no more radio or television interviews, no more public protests or petitions -- that's the goal. One of the goals of homosexualists is to render it impossible for conservative views to be spoken; and all manner of rhetorical manipulation and bullying tactics will be used to achieve that malevolent end. Don't misunderstand, I don't think all administrators are malevolent or even minimally aware of the spiritual battle in which they are unwitting participants, but Christians are aware of it. What we desperately need are gracious, intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, faithful, wise servants who will speak the truth in love and stand firm in the face of persecution.
What today are considered legitimate topics for public debate may tomorrow be considered highly controversial. Just thirty years ago, it would have been unimaginable that statements of disapproval of homosexuality would be considered controversial. And it would have been unimaginable that a public school teacher would be expected to abstain from making those statements publicly in their free time. What if in a decade abortion, or euthanasia, or cloning are as controversial as sexual orientation is today? Imagine that some years hence, it is controversial to claim that salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ. Already many find that to be a highly objectionable claim. Will Christians then refrain from making public statements about their belief in the exclusivity of Christ's claims? Will Christians agree never to comment on a blog, be interviewed by a print or broadcast journalist, or write a letter to the editor? And most importantly, does a steadfast refusal to speak the truth please God?
Laurie Higgins
Laurie is a public school teacher and writer who practices what she preaches...
Some public school employees who have experienced this bullying tactic have been “persuaded” to self-censor even outside their workplace. This demand for compliance constitutes a troubling abridgment of speech rights and an equally troubling intrusion into private lives. We must be prepared for these unethical demands for conformity and resist them, even when non-compliance results in persecution.
Some public school administrations believe they have the right to dictate the content and context of employee speech outside of the workplace. They believe they have the right to insist that employees refrain from making public statements that may generate controversy for the employer or that make students feel “unsafe,” by which they really mean uncomfortable. They are seriously in error. Public school administrations are wrong ethically and legally when suggesting that employees refrain from making political or moral statements on controversial topics in a public medium. They have no right to determine what kinds of public statements their employees make or where they make them.
As private citizens, teachers have a perfect right to be interviewed on the radio, write letters to the editors of newspapers, comment on blogs, speak at public protests, be interviewed by print reporters, or appear on television to discuss socio-political issues. If others identify where these teachers work, and if some students or parents dislike their views, that's unfortunate, but that is a messy fact of life in a participatory democracy. Are employees who oppose the war, or oppose capital punishment, or support gay marriage, or support partial birth abortions obligated to refrain from public engagement because others may object? And we must remember, the National Education Association, to which many public school teachers belong, has long made public statements on a number of highly controversial issues including homosexuality. So, it's really just conservative teachers who are expected to self-censor even in their private lives. But, despite the wishes of public school administrators, teachers in public schools retain the full complement of civil rights, including speech rights. Not even the objections of parents and students can abrogate this central civil right. Free speech does not come with guarantees of agreement. It's messy.
The right of employers to shape or circumscribe faculty speech ends at the schoolhouse door, with the exception, of course, of slanderous, libelous, or defamatory speech directed at the school or school personnel. How meaningless, hollow, and hypocritical it is for educators to teach students about the importance of civic engagement and standing firm on principle (like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr.) even in the face of demands for conformity, and then tell faculty to silence themselves in order to avoid controversy. Is that nothing else but an inappropriate demand for conformity? It's frightening that so many teachers are willing to sacrifice their free speech rights in the service of avoiding controversy for their employer or persecution for themselves. If all public school employees capitulate, then the bullies have won. All the intolerant bullies need to do is generate controversy, and conservatives self-censor. We as Christians have a number of role models including Paul who did not did not allow the prospect of controversy or the threat of persecution determine the contexts in which he spoke or the content of his speech.
Administrations express concern about the effect of teacher comments made outside of work on students in class, focusing exclusively on student discomfort. Teachers must understand that the presence of student discomfort does not mean that something wrong or inappropriate has been done. If student discomfort is allowed to determine what is said in school, teachers will be prevented from expressing disapproval of a host of behaviors including drug use, alcohol use, aggression, or promiscuity because some kids will feel uncomfortable. But even more problematic is the fact that teachers are now expected to refrain from making moral statements outside of their workplace.
Moreover, student comfort is not the only consideration of import within the academic setting. There are other values of even greater importance that must be considered. First, students need to see that the First Amendment right of free speech is truly valued within academia. Second, conservative students too need role models; they need to see that men and women of compassion, intelligence, and courage participate vigorously in the thorny task of shaping our culture, and do so even in the face of personal and professional persecution. And third, liberal students and homosexual students need to see that those who espouse traditional views really don't hate. How can any of these goals be achieved, if everyone capitulates in order to avoid controversy. I am not recommending that anyone generate controversy just for the sake of controversy. I am suggesting that we all speak the truth boldly in order to please God and help "hold back the effects of the fall."
Sexual orientation and sexual identity are topics that cannot be discussed without generating controversy.
What will the cultural and political climate be for our children and grandchildren in a decade or two if all conservatives decline from engaging in public dialogue because doing so generates controversy? No more letters to the editor, no more radio or television interviews, no more public protests or petitions -- that's the goal. One of the goals of homosexualists is to render it impossible for conservative views to be spoken; and all manner of rhetorical manipulation and bullying tactics will be used to achieve that malevolent end. Don't misunderstand, I don't think all administrators are malevolent or even minimally aware of the spiritual battle in which they are unwitting participants, but Christians are aware of it. What we desperately need are gracious, intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, faithful, wise servants who will speak the truth in love and stand firm in the face of persecution.
What today are considered legitimate topics for public debate may tomorrow be considered highly controversial. Just thirty years ago, it would have been unimaginable that statements of disapproval of homosexuality would be considered controversial. And it would have been unimaginable that a public school teacher would be expected to abstain from making those statements publicly in their free time. What if in a decade abortion, or euthanasia, or cloning are as controversial as sexual orientation is today? Imagine that some years hence, it is controversial to claim that salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ. Already many find that to be a highly objectionable claim. Will Christians then refrain from making public statements about their belief in the exclusivity of Christ's claims? Will Christians agree never to comment on a blog, be interviewed by a print or broadcast journalist, or write a letter to the editor? And most importantly, does a steadfast refusal to speak the truth please God?
Laurie Higgins
Laurie is a public school teacher and writer who practices what she preaches...
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Bible-Believing Christians No Longer Qualified for Surgeon General Position?
From "The Holsinger Question - A New Religious Test for Surgeon General" by Albert Mohler, posted 6/16/07 at AlbertMohler.com
Have we reached the point that a Christian who affirms traditional church teachings cannot be appointed to public office?
pharmacist or pharmacy owner
mayor
transit board member
military chaplain
police psychologist
corporate employee
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Read the whole commentary.
Have we reached the point that a Christian who affirms traditional church teachings cannot be appointed to public office?
The case of Dr. James Wilson Holsinger, Jr. now raises that question. President George W. Bush has nominated Dr. Holsinger to be the next Surgeon General of the United States, the nation's highest ranking health official.
As a physician, Dr. Holsinger is unusually qualified for the position. He holds a medical degree from Duke University, where he also earned a Ph.D. in anatomy and physiology. He also holds graduate degrees in hospital administration and biblical studies.
He has served as Medical Director for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, an agency he served for 25 years. He also served for 31 years in the United States Army Reserve, where he received numerous citations and retired at the rank of Major General.Beyond these qualifications, he served as Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center, which also involved his supervision of the schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, and health sciences. He later served as Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services for Kentucky.
By any measure, he is one of the most qualified physicians in the United States. So, why are so many people -- including several influential Democratic senators -- opposing his nomination?
Reporter Art Jester of the Lexington Herald-Leader explains:
The nomination of University of Kentucky professor Dr. James W. Holsinger as U.S. surgeon general has come under fire from groups that fear his actions as a high-ranking official in the United Methodist Church indicate he is anti-gay.
What a terrible thought: Nominating a man who actually refuses to affirm a physically unhealthy, psychologically destructive behavior for the position of chief medical officer of our country...
Apparently we must now add the office of Surgeon General to the rapidly increasing list of positions and careers Bible-believing Christians are deemed unfit to hold:
fertility specialistpharmacist or pharmacy owner
mayor
transit board member
military chaplain
police psychologist
corporate employee
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Read the whole commentary.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
UK: Judiciary won't allow Christian beliefs
Magistrate forced out of family court for opposing homosexual adoptions
From Judiciary won't allow Christian Beliefs, posted March 3, 2007 at WorldNetDaily.com
A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court's Family Panel, even though he's been recognized as having "an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates" because he is a Christian.
"This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society," said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. "It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular 'new morality' and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children's welfare."
The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England's Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be "screened" from such cases.
He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.
"Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption," Williams said. "The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society."
McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield, where he'd been a Justice of the Peace since 1988 after he was told in 2004 he must preside over cases that involved homosexual duos proposing to adopt. His lawsuit was against the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Constitutional Affairs, in which he explained that he had suffered discrimination because of his religious beliefs.
His request for accommodation was called for under Regulation 10 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.
"If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially," the Tribunal ordered.
Read the rest of this article.
This should be serve as a warning to American Christians. If laws are changed to recognize homosexual behavior as the equivalent of heterosexual behavior Christians will not be allowed to function in the workplace according to biblical truth. They will often be forced to choose between loyalty to Christ and their jobs...
From Judiciary won't allow Christian Beliefs, posted March 3, 2007 at WorldNetDaily.com
A magistrate judge in Sheffield, England, has been told he cannot serve on the local court's Family Panel, even though he's been recognized as having "an unblemished record and is well regarded by fellow magistrates" because he is a Christian.
"This case is a clear picture of how Christian faith is becoming privatized in society," said Andrea Williams, of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. "It is yet another example of the repression of Christian conscience and signals the prevalence of a secular 'new morality' and the erosion of Christian values at the expense of our children's welfare."
The case arose when McClintock realized he would be assigned to hear cases involving adoption by homosexual couples, which are allowed now under England's Civil Partnerships Act 2002. Realizing the concerns that might arise, he asked that his religious beliefs be accommodated and he be "screened" from such cases.
He also expressed concern that children would be put at risk by the unproven social experiment of homosexual duo adoptions.
"Andrew McClintock believes that the best interests of the child are served by placing them in a situation where they would have both a mother and a father and therefore he could not agree to participate in gay adoption," Williams said. "The imposition of secular values in every aspect of our lives will force those who hold Christian beliefs out of jobs. It will be to the detriment of the whole of society."
McClintock took his case to the Employment Tribunal in Sheffield, where he'd been a Justice of the Peace since 1988 after he was told in 2004 he must preside over cases that involved homosexual duos proposing to adopt. His lawsuit was against the Lord Chancellor and the Department of Constitutional Affairs, in which he explained that he had suffered discrimination because of his religious beliefs.
His request for accommodation was called for under Regulation 10 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
The Tribunal, however, said the case did not involve religious freedom or conscience. Further, the Tribunal concluded even if Mr. McClintock had been able to show he made his decision to resign based on his religious beliefs, there still was no case for discrimination.
"If a judge personally has particular views on any subject, he or she must put those views to the back of his or her mind when applying the law of the land impartially," the Tribunal ordered.
Read the rest of this article.
This should be serve as a warning to American Christians. If laws are changed to recognize homosexual behavior as the equivalent of heterosexual behavior Christians will not be allowed to function in the workplace according to biblical truth. They will often be forced to choose between loyalty to Christ and their jobs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
