Left Demands Religious Groups Promote Gays, Cross-Dressers

The Daily Caller ^ | June 16, 2014 | Neil Munro, White House Correspondent

[2ndDivisionVet]

President Barack Obama is expected to deny federal contracts to companies and non-profits — including religious employers — that treat homosexuality differently from heterosexuality, according to White House officials.

That’s a huge step, because federal contractors employ roughly 20 percent of the nation’s workforce.

Progressives applauded the announcement — which comes one day before a major fundraiser with gay donors — and demanded that Obama leave no exceptions, even for religious non-profits that use federal dollars to aid the poor and disadvantaged.

“It is now vitally important for all of us to insist that this executive order, when eventually signed by the president, does not include religious exemptions that would permit taxpayer dollars to be spent on discrimination,” said a statement from Heather Cronk, the co-director of the GetEQUAL advocacy group.

The executive order has no been written yet, but if there are few or no exceptions, federal contractors or religious charities that aid the poor would be exposed to lawsuits if they decline to hire and promote homosexuals or people who dress as members of the other sex. Religious charities frequently provide services under government contracts....

[2ndDivisionVet]

I'm opposed to divorce in general, but a national divorce? Looking better all the time.

[Mastador1]

Left Demands Religious Groups Promote Gays, Cross-Dressers

Tell you what, when the left starts demanding that Atheists promote religion, I might pay attention.......................nah!

[Vinylly]

So now they insist that churches teach what they want them to teach which is an abomination to God.

[madprof98]

The only remaining question is whether all perish or just some perish.

[WMarshal]

Absolute proof that freedom cannot coexist with BIG government. You can have one or the other, not both. Remember the adage the bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

[Dilbert San Diego]

The left is a danger to us in different ways.

Already, we have seen groups such as Catholic Charities being forced out of the adoption business, because they don’t arrange adoptions for homosexuals. I think it’s based on religious belief that they do this. But in any case, as I understand it, they have pulled out of adoptions in a few states.

What I’m getting at, is that the left, in their insistence that we push homosexuality, are creating unintended consequences.

In the case of Catholic Charities, fewer children are being adopted.

If they are able to ban faith based charities from doing their work under federal contracts, then fewer needy people will be getting these charitable services.

Does the left prefer that fewer people are served, just so they can score political points with homosexuals? These are real world impacts we are talking about. Which the left seems not to care about.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


So now they insist that churches teach what they want them to teach which is an abomination to God.


Yep ... and some day coming to all IRS 501-C3 tax-exempt churches in America.

Don't blame me ... I'm just the messenger.

Questions ?

Muster up the courage to do the free IRS download of "Pamplet P1828" which specifies the legal details of your tax-exempt church's sertitude to it's U.S. Government Masters.

Heck, I'll even do you the favor of providing the internet link:

IRS Legal Obligations of Tax-Exempt Christian Churches and Pastors" - (click)













.




IRS & Church Marriage vs. "Render Unto Caesar" ...

IRS & Church Marriage vs. "Render Unto Caesar" - (click)



America's Spiritual Revival and Healing - The Obstacle ...

.America's Spiritual Revival and Healing - The Obstacle ... - (click)




Pro-Life Victory vs. "Render Unto Caesar" ...

Pro-Life Victory vs. "Render Unto Caesar" - (click)




Tea Party Christians and "Render Unto Caesar" ...

Tea Party Christians and "Render Unto Caesar" - (click)


.

[Steely Tom]

Seems like only yesterday they were only asking to be left alone by the government.

[Pollster1]

I hope that motivates a whole lot of decent but politically inactive Americans to push for cutting FedGov back to its proper size.

[theBuckwheat]

Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.

Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.

Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.

[theBuckwheat]

One of the main roots of such utter foolishness is the ease with which government can create almost unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government, and a bureaucracy that is generously finded can entertain its fantasy dreams about how it can expand its power and control over its realm.

Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.

The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to spend and create near-infinite amounts of money.

[SECURE AMERICA]

What evil rotten slugs these people are. Not content with destroying their own lives they want to destroy everyone else’s...

[kaehurowing]

This is exactly why I was against Bush the Elder’s “Thousand Points of Light” proposal to give federal funds to religious organizations to carry out federal social programs. Once you have them dependent on you, then you start telling them what they can believe and do.

[JSDude1]

Will this come back and bit them in the *ss in the inner cities?? Only if Republicans got of their *ss and actually reached out the minority Christians through promotion of social issues based compatibility (not likely with the current group of GOP-e running the party)!

[all the best]

I was against it because it was immoral and unconstitutional. Taking money from some to give to others is plain wrong. No good comes of it.

[cloudmountain]

So now they insist that churches teach what they want them to teach which is an abomination to God.

Since American churches get $0.00 from our government, why should any church care what the Left wants?

Only .5 - 1.5% of the population is homo/bisexual. They are all but invisible.

[Verginius Rufus]

The First Amendment forbids Congress to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

James Madison failed to foresee that the executive branch and the courts could eviscerate the free exercise of religion without Congress doing anything.