Trump Promises ‘More Forward Motion’ on ‘Gay Equality’ Under Presidency

Trump Bay Windows-compressedEXETER, N.H. — Donald Trump told a lesbian publisher in New Hampshire on Thursday that the American people will see “more forward motion” on “gay equality” under his presidency, citing it as a part of his effort to bring people together.

Trump was interviewed in Exeter by Susan O’Connell, the publisher of Bay Windows, which according to its website is “New England’s largest publication for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender readers.”

“I’m a lesbian,” she told Trump. “And we’ve had some great progress for the gay and lesbian community through politics, through all sorts of judicial actions and elected actions over the past 20 years.”

“When President Trump is in office can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?” O’Connell asked.

“Well, you can,” Trump replied. “And look, again, we’re going to bring people together. And that’s your thing and other people have their thing. We have to bring all people together, and if we don’t we’re not going to have a country anymore. It’s going to be a total mess. It’s a mess right now, and it’s going to be worse.”

“So, it’s a very important choice this presidential year—very important—maybe the most important we’ve had in many, many decades,” he continued. “And I’m going to bring people together.”

Trump has stated that he does not support same-sex “marriage,” but also told reporters last year that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges is “the law of the land.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“You have to go with it. I mean, you have to go with it. The decision has been made, and that is the law of the land,” he told MCNBC last September when asked about the controversy surrounding Kentucky clerk Kim Davis.

Trump has also acknowledged that he himself has attended a homosexual “wedding,” telling the Hollywood Reporter last year that he attended the ceremony of Broadway theater owner Jordan Roth.

“I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation,” he told the homosexual publication “The Advocate” in 2000. “We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans. It’s only fair.”

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, who claimed to reporters last year that Jesus would support “gay marriage,” said last week that he would prefer Trump for president over Ted Cruz because he finds Trump to be “malleable,” meaning pliable or able to be influenced or swayed. He called Cruz “far right wing” and lamented that he is not “malleable” on the issues.

“Trump has proven already that he is completely malleable,” Carter said. “I don’t think he has any fixed positions that he would come to the White House and fight for.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • gizmo23

    Trump is no different than the other folks running. They will say whatever it takes to garner votes.
    So far it seems the GOP strategy is to see who hates gays, Muslims, and the Clintons more. Oh and now who will torture more people.
    Great way to pick a leader

    • afchief

      The HALLMARK of any Liberal Socialist (Democrat) is LIES, FRAUD, DECEPTION and CORRUPTION.

      • gizmo23

        Yeah but we make good fried chicken

        • BarkingDawg

          LOL

          • gizmo23

            I thought it was a good one considering afchief is a chicken rancher

          • afchief

            I’m not a chicken rancher. I’m a project manager for a company that makes the processing machines that are in processing plants.

          • gizmo23

            Ok sorry. I do love chicken so keep up the good work

          • Bob Johnson

            In Nevada certain establishments are called chicken ranches because they raise cocks.

        • afchief

          Liberalism has two great commandments; Love your God (0bama) with all your heart, and if your neighbor has more than you, it is within your right to take what is yours.

    • T robison

      Except Trump is a PROVEN problem solver and shows up to work every day .. where Cruz and Rubio do not have any executive experience and do not show up to work very often.

  • Rick

    Trump is the GOP’s version of Obama. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. He moves in a calculated way to gain power, he speaks what his current constituents want to hear and he has a personal agenda. Dangerous.

    • gizmo23

      All politicians have personal agendas

      • T robison

        That why it was refreshing to have two outsiders , non-politicians, come in huh :).. one who is spending his own money and one who is getting money from special interests. Love them both.

        • gizmo23

          and they both have personal agendas. Nothing wrong with that

    • afchief

      You are exactly right! It is saddening to see Christians fall for this man.

      • gizmo23

        Sounds like him and Cruz could use good old Biblical torture techniques since they know so much about the Bible

        • afchief

          Liberals get so upset about laying a terrorist down and splashing a little water on their face to get at the truth, however 1) beheading is ok, 2) Benghazi, what does it matter, 3) Fast and Furious, lets just use executive privilege, 4) illegal search and seizure of AP phone calls, it had security reasons, 5) IRS breaking laws to target conservatives while back dating friends/relatives of potus’ documents, we fired the temporary commissioner (wasn’t even there when the crimes occurred). 6) the Boston Bombers were not terrorists, just a couple of poor misguided lads.

          It truly IS a mental disease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • gizmo23

            Christian conservatives seem to love the idea of torture even though the Israelis don’t use it anymore and they are anti terrorist experts.

          • afchief

            Liberals seem to love to kill the unborn. Over 50 million of them.

            The Left is hate. Revenge is its pastime. Genocide is its legacy.

          • gizmo23

            Hillary gets to do bad things so I should be able to. What are you 5 ?

          • T robison

            lol

    • T robison

      Cruz is a constitutional lawyer with a wife who is a lawyer, does not show up to vote much, and we are still deciding if he is legal citizen… da ja voo, a perfect resume’ for Obama.. same

    • Gabriel A. King

      You have to be plain straight retarded to not see Trump is the real deal. The entire establishment both left and right… and the MSM…. have been attacking him RELENTLESSLY since June 16, 2015.

      Trump single handedly destroyed the psyops of “political correctness” which is the REAL weapon which has been destroying this country.

      If you want to watch your kids and America’s children raped and murdered by Muslims…. then go ahead and vote for your JP Morgan / Goldman Sachs / Freemason Koch CFR Rino’s like Cruz and Marco Rino.

      If you want to save this damn country vote for a true independent like Trump.
      NO DONORS. CAN’T BE INTIMIDATED, CAN’T BE STUMPED, CAN’T BE IGNORED.

      TRUMP 2016

  • amhater

    So you see, it doesn’t matter who you vote for or if you vote at all…

  • BarkingDawg

    I’m making pulled pork sandwiches with mustard sauce for Super Bowl tonight.

    Trump can’t have any.

  • maddie5050

    Pure Democrat running in the Republican party. What is wrong with him?

  • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

    Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    Actually, Trump is a bit different than the others. When looking at his overall standing, he seems to be a cross between the Democrats and Republicans, a conservative with certain liberal attributes. To even hint at Trump being a socialist is pure hogwash and laughable as he is one of the greatest Capitalists in modern history. Donald has said recently that he thought abortion was disgusting, but we can’t force these views down everyone’s throats. While his support for gay marriage is not necessarily good, his ideals to build a strong military and economy are the American thing to do. Also, he is a bit less hawkish than Hillary in that he prefers to work with countries like Russia and China to deal with the threat of ISIS, rather than just imposing our will on Putin and starting another Cold War, or a hot one which will probably kill us all. No, the does not need to get into anymore wars, but rather build up its forces, fix the economy, and protect OUR LAND rather than policing the rest of the world. Let Russia deal with ISIS, China will have to eventually step in as well, it’s their business not ours. Its not America’s responsibility to run the rest of the globe, and our national debt is testimony to that.

    • T robison

      agreed

  • Nidalap

    He’s a salesman. He seems to say whatever he has to to make the sale. Pay attention to his past history to get a clue as to whether what he’s telling you is just a ploy…

    • T robison

      lol.. and the rest do not? I was watching the ads last night cruz came on .. love the vets, love the gays, love the blh blah blah.. all stuff I cannot find in his resume” I can find all in Trumps. No one does their homework anymore.. dangerous.

    • Gabriel A. King

      He wants to save the country. Iv’e seen your kind of self righteous “Christian” arrogance many a time and it’s disgusting.

      I don’t think USA kids will much give a damn about your high horse postulating when they are being raped and assaulted by rapefugees. I do not intend to allow what is happening in Europe… to happen to innocent kids over here. And that is FAR more important than your arrogant false intellectualism.

      • Nidalap

        Well, that’s all well and good, so long as he’s telling the truth. In the past, he’s aligned himself with the Democrats because that’s what he needed to do in order to do business. Even now on the campaign trail, he’s said he’d be willing to work with those currently destroying our country, comparing himself to others whom he said would not.
        You want the nation saved? Don’t glom onto just anyone because they’ve told you what you want to hear…

        • Gabriel A. King

          If YOU want the country to be saved…. you wouldn’t be voting for establishment insiders funded by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the CFR, Big oil and the Freemason Koch brothers.

          Donald Trumps presentation is one of inclusion and cooperation. Not crucifixion and fake pandering to the sheeple only to stab them in the back just like the Rino congress has done since the mid-terms.

          You just don’t get it yet. WE THE PEOPLE WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT INSIDERS / CAREER POLITICIANS FUNDED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT AND PROPPED UP BY THE MSM.

          Your choices are Trump, Carson, Sanders…. otherwise you are throwing away your vote. The people are FED UP with your establishment candidates and we will not tolerate it any longer.

          • Nidalap

            ::Sigh:: Did Trump just not exist for you before this presidential bid? It’s just like it was with candidate Obama. He’s anything you want him to be, just project whatever qualities you want onto him and, presto, he’s it…

          • Gabriel A. King

            You’re engaging in false arguments, because you simply cannot deal with the simple fact that Trump does not take establishment money. But after Trump wins…. just to make you happy- we’ll send over to your house 50 migrants from the “religion of peace” and you can take care of them.
            Sound good ?

          • Nidalap

            Really? And what made them false? Did he NOT express opposing beliefs in his past?
            By the way, you just made a promise of something you’d do after the election. Something you can’t really do, or at least you didn’t explain how you’d accomplish it. Sounds familiar somehow… (^_^)

          • Gabriel A. King

            It’s easy. Europe is the model. You will give the Muslims everything and let them rape you…. or you will be arrested for xenophobia.

            And the Rino establishment AS USUAL will do nothing to help you.

          • Nidalap

            That DOES sound about right. But Trump has been AWFULLY cozy with the very people who want that to occur here in his past. He’s expressed a willingness to work with those people in the future.

            Sometimes when a salesman offers you everything you want, they’re just trying to make a sale…

          • Gabriel A. King

            Fact is Trump would NEVER say half the stuff he does, if he was simply playing games. The establishment is literally freaking out over Trump. The “inside baseball” on Trump is that he is the real deal. He’s given money as a business man to BOTH Republicans and Democrats over the decades…. pretty standard business fare. He’s been pretty much solid red for 5 years now… since the Democrats have quickly gone deeper into the looney bin in recent years.

            Iv’e studied the “New World Order” for 30 years now and have NEVER EVEN ONCE heard Trump’s name come up in connection to it. Everyone remaining on that stage is an ESTABLISHMENT RINO blowing smoke up your backside.

            Trump and Carson are the only ones left on the GOP stage who are for real.

          • Gabriel A. King

            And you really shouldn’t compare the Democrats of 2016…. with the Democrats of 2006….. or the Democrats of 1996….. or the Democrats of 1963…..

            Or the first Democrat of 1792. Because the differences are so vast it’s almost like comparing apples to oranges.

            CASE IN POINT: Leftist Liberal SJW’s have recently called for the REMOVAL of a statue of Reverend Martin Luther King….. citing that MLK “wasn’t inclusive enough”…..

            You literally couldn’t make this stuff up.

          • mrpoohead

            Yes; Pro-lifers Regan and Bush told you what you wanted to hear and you put them in. Vote NoBody, none are deserving.

  • Michael C

    The vast majority of Americans incorrectly think that gay and lesbian citizens are already protected by federal nondiscrimination laws. Gay people are not, actually, protected from discrimination on the federal level. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against a gay person in employment, housing, and public accommodations in the majority of United States.

    Are we really criticizing Trump because he said that it’s not okay to fire someone from their job just because they’re gay? Are we really upset that Trump said that people shouldn’t be denied a place to live or service at a public accommodation just because they’re gay?

    Aren’t there plenty of other things to criticize him for?

    The strong majority of U.S. voters believe that lgbt people should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Even a majority of republican voters feel this way. Does the author of this article feel differently?

    • Sheri

      What you mean is, you want to make it impossible for someone to fire a gay guy from his job. You get hired, you goof off, and when your boss threatens to fire you, you threaten to sue for discrimination.

      Nice little racket there. You don’t want to be equal, you want to be privileged.

      • Michael C

        That’s an interesting argument against non-discrimination laws you have there. Do you feel the same way about all of the protected characteristics?

        Religion, for example, is a federally protected characteristic. Christians are protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

        You get hired, you goof off, and when your boss threatens to fire you, you threaten to sue for discrimination.

        Nice little racket, there.

        • acontraryview

          Or, if she goofs off and gets fired, she can sue because she is a woman. Right?

        • afchief

          As one who has served in the military, I would not want to be in a “fox hole” with a homo!!! There is a greater chance a homo has HIV. Besides I would not want him hitting on me.

          • Michael C

            What are you talking about?

          • Bob Johnson

            He is of the belief that in a “fox hole” his primary concern will be about unsafe sex.

            Me? I’d be worried about lead poisoning.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Yeah, there’s nothing sitting in foxhole with bullets flying over your head to get you in the mood.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Maybe the homo doesn’t want to be in a fox hole with an a**hole. Sometimes we just have to deal.

          • afchief

            They do not belong in the military for this reason!

          • acontraryview

            For what reason?

          • acontraryview

            “Besides I would not want him hitting on me.”

            From what I’ve seen and read, that would be the least of your concerns.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Read the homosexual manifesto. It was prescient as planned.
            Why did goal 26 of the COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA which was read into the Congressional Record on January 16,1963 state: “Present homosexuality promiscuity and degeneracy as normal, natural and healthy”.

            This is just one of 45 other filthy goals within the hateful constitutional wrecking screed all of which are in ways large and small part and parcel of the body politic in the Rotten States of America. Khruschev was right when he claimed in the 1950’s: “We will bury you”.

            The wrecking powers of goal 26 are enormous because with the scourge of homosexuality the USA automatically becomes infected with promiscuity and degeneracy in one poisoned package. It’s like having 3 different forms of self-inflicted behavioral cancer simultaneously. It builds in the end of humanity as we have always known it. It is ALWAYS fruitless and often fatal.

            Just a few questions:

            1). If homosexuality was good for America, why would it be a goal within the COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA?
            2). If homosexuality was natural, normal and healthy, why would the Communists want America to present is a such?
            3). If homosexuality was normal, natural and healthy, why would it ever need to be presented as normal, natural and healthy?
            4). Is Vaginaphobia normal, natural and healthy for men?
            5). Is Peniphobia normal, natural and healthy for women?
            6. Is Fecudaphobia normal, natural and healthy for life?
            7. Why does NAMBLA [National American Man Boy Love Association] have a marketing motto: “Sex before 8 before its too late.”?
            8. Why is there absolutely no evidence of a homosexual gene but massive evidence that homosexuality is rooted in early childhood abuse, trauma most often kinked to sexual molestation?
            9. Why do the LESBIAN AVENGERS have a marketing mottto: “10% is not enough – RECRUIT! RECRUIT! RECRUIT! ?
            10. Why does this motto use 10% when the homosexual controlled federal government has validated that homo’s [men and women combined] represent a puny 1.6% of the general population?
            11. If homosexuality was genetic, why would either of the above malevolent motto’s be necessary?
            12. Given that fruitless sodomy is the homosexual monogamy and given that sodomy has a ceaseless and ever growing number of siblings: [Rimming; Fisting; Bare Backing; Bug Chasing; Taking the Express; Golden Showers; Brown Showers; Tossing Salad; Fulsome Street Parades; Circuit Parties; Pegging etc., where is the proof that sodomy and its siblings are genetic?
            13. If homosexuality was genetic, why have so many who have been infected by it been cured of it?

          • acontraryview

            “Why did goal 26 of the COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA which was read into the Congressional Record on January 16,1963 state: “Present homosexuality promiscuity and degeneracy as normal, natural and healthy”.”

            I have no idea. Those goals were from a book written by Dr. Cleon Skousen and were nothing more than his opinions. Why he would choose to include #26 is beyond me as it has absolutely nothing to do with Communism. Ted Cruz read “Green Eggs and Ham” into the Congressional record. That doesn’t mean the story was true.

            “1). If homosexuality was good for America, why would it be a goal within the COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA?”

            Again, I can’t speak with certainty as to the motivations of Dr. Skousen for including that among his list of items. The two things are completely unrelated. Given that, it would appear that the inclusion of homosexuality on the list was simply a matter of prejudice. But, again, I cannot say so with certainty.

            “2). If homosexuality was natural, normal and healthy, why would the Communists want America to present is a such?”

            The “Communists” did not present it as such. Dr. Skousen included it in his opinion piece.

            “3). If homosexuality was normal, natural and healthy, why would it ever need to be presented as normal, natural and healthy?”

            Because of people like you.

            “4). Is Vaginaphobia normal, natural and healthy for men?”

            To harbor a fear of a vagina would be irrational, regardless of whether that fear is held by a woman or a man. Did you have a point?

            “5). Is Peniphobia normal, natural and healthy for women?”

            To harbor a fear of a penis would be irrational, regardless of whether that fear is held by a man or a woman. Did you have a point?

            “6. Is Fecudaphobia normal, natural and healthy for life?”

            I’ll assume you are referring to the made-up word: “Fecundophobia”. To harbor a fear of children, large families, and fertile women would be irrational and not normal, natural or healthy for life. Did you have a point?

            “7. Why does NAMBLA [National American Man Boy Love Association] have a marketing motto: “Sex before 8 before its too late.”?”

            I wasn’t aware that NAMBLA does marketing nor that the above was their “motto”. Do you have any support for these claims?

            “8. Why is there absolutely no evidence of a homosexual gene but massive evidence that homosexuality is rooted in early childhood abuse, trauma most often kinked to sexual molestation?”

            Regarding the first part of that statement: There is significant evidence that sexuality is a function of both genetics and epigenetics. I am unaware of “massive evidence that homosexuality is rooted in early childhood abuse, trauma most often kinked to sexual molestation”. Would you please cite such “massive evidence”?

            “9. Why do the LESBIAN AVENGERS have a marketing mottto: “10% is not enough – RECRUIT! RECRUIT! RECRUIT! ?”

            I wasn’t aware that the Lesbian Avengers had a marketing motto. Do you have any support for that claim? If that is their motto it’s a silly one, as a person can’t be “recruited” to be a homosexual.

            “10. Why does this motto use 10% when the homosexual controlled federal government has validated that homo’s [men and women combined] represent a puny 1.6% of the general population?”

            Again, I’m not aware that is their motto. If it is, then the number is wrong, as is your contention that the federal government has “validated” that homosexuals “represent a puny 1.6% of the general population.

            “11. If homosexuality was genetic, why would either of the above malevolent motto’s be necessary?”

            The exact basis for sexuality – either homo or hetero – is unknown. Again, I don’t believe that is their “motto” but if it is, it is incorrect.

            “12. Given that fruitless sodomy is the homosexual monogamy and given that sodomy has a ceaseless and ever growing number of siblings: [Rimming; Fisting; Bare Backing; Bug Chasing; Taking the Express; Golden Showers; Brown Showers; Tossing Salad; Fulsome Street Parades; Circuit Parties; Pegging etc., where is the proof that sodomy and its siblings are genetic?”

            Your awareness of different sexual activities is curiously extensive. Acts of sodomy are just that – acts. They are not genetic nor am I aware of anyone who has suggested that they are. Are you aware of anyone who has suggested that chosen sexual acts are genetic?

            “13. If homosexuality was genetic, why have so many who have been infected by it been cured of it?”

            Since homosexuality is not a disease, it is not possible for someone to be “cured” of it. Your statement is false.

            “14. Homosexuals account for EXPONENTIAL shares of sexually transmitted diseases. This irrefutable fact exists before even including the granddaddy of them all HIV/AIDS which is the ultimate product of the inverted and perverted ant-sexual promiscuity driven ruination of the immune system allowing for the entrance of the plague.”

            World-wide, the vast majority of sexually transmitted disease is a result of heterosexual relations, including HIV infections.

            “What kind of a civilization; culture or country would exalt such suicidal behaviors?”

            I am unaware of any civilization, culture, or country that exalts the transmission of sexual diseases. Do you have any examples of this?

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Classic denying and defying mixed and matched with being impervious to reason; lacking in a functioning conscience; invulnerable to regret; academically anemic and intellectually insolvent.

          • acontraryview

            Classic deflection.

            Please cite what in my post would be “denying and defying mixed and matched with being impervious to reason”.

            Please cite what in my post was “lacking in functioning conscience; invulnerable to regret; academically anemic and intellectually insolvent.”

            I’ll ask again, and perhaps you will answer my questions rather than simply stating unsupported opinions regarding my post:

            To harbor a fear of a vagina would be irrational, regardless of whether that fear is held by a woman or a man. Did you have a point?

            To harbor a fear of a penis would be irrational, regardless of whether that fear is held by a man or a woman. Did you have a point?

            I’ll assume you are referring to the made-up word: “Fecundophobia”. To harbor a fear of children, large families, and fertile women would be irrational and not normal, natural or healthy for life. Did you have a point?

            I wasn’t aware that NAMBLA does marketing nor that the above was their “motto”. Do you have any support for these claims?

            I am unaware of “massive evidence that homosexuality is rooted in early childhood abuse, trauma most often kinked to sexual molestation”. Would you please cite such “massive evidence”?

            I wasn’t aware that the Lesbian Avengers had a marketing motto. Do you have any support for that claim?

            Your awareness of different sexual activities is curiously extensive. Acts of sodomy are just that – acts. They are not genetic nor am I aware of anyone who has suggested that they are. Are you aware of anyone who has suggested that chosen sexual acts are genetic?

            I am unaware of any civilization, culture, or country that exalts the transmission of sexual diseases. Do you have any examples of this?

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Your silly and sophomoric questions prove your incompetence. You would argue that 2+2 isn’t always 4 to propagate your Harry Houdini hocus- pocus hallucinations. You don’t want facts. If you did, you would already be in their possession thus helping assuage your contemptuous ignorance. The purpose of all lies is to hide and blur the truth. Thus, your contemptuous and impenitent comfort zone. You rail against irrefutable and immutable truth as part of your silly and sophomoric divide and conquer Communist Manifesto inspired madness. You rely on conjured feelings not well established facts. Go secure the unadulterated facts.

          • SashaC

            Translation: I have no support for any of my ludicrous claims, but hopefully no one will notice if I bloviate enough.

            Duly noted.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Stop looking in your mirror when you spout.

          • SashaC

            So the best retort you could come up with is the equivalent of, “I know you are, but what am I?” Well that’s just sad. Now I just feel sorry for you. 🙁

            Btw, I neither made any claims, nor did I bloviate. You seem to enjoy making comments you perceive to be clever. Unfortunately you aren’t clever enough to know better. Poor thing.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Muddle headed response. You are infested with and infected by exaggerating exceptions; eviscerating norms; scapegoat making; and finger pointing. Alinsky’s imbecilic and soulless rules for radicals are for the moronic; malevolent and Marxist.

          • SashaC

            Thank you for proving my original point, lol.

            Run along now, you’re dismissed. 😉

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Go back and play in your unflushed toilet.

          • acontraryview

            If you can’t back up your claims, then you can’t. I assumed as much. No worries.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Facts galore have been poured out to the obtuse in an effort to instruct the ignorant by caring individuals over many years all to no avail. For me to spend the time to rehash the mountains of irrefutable and immutable facts [evidence and proof especially from medical science] as to the horrors and havoc caused by inverted and perverted anti-sexual perversions for your benefit would make me more insane than you. You may as well claim not to know your phone number or your social security number as to site your bewildering suicidal intransigence. The purpose of all lies is to hide the truth. All you have is lying. One of your earliest admirers Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Communist Revolution determined his most important dictum as: THE LIE IS SACRED.

            At this point nobody really cares what you do. In fact, the more you do what you do the better it is for humanity because you are killing yourself into oblivion through self-loathing acts of extinction and extermination through excrement. Your impenitence and insolence will be secured. The only thing that will never happen is the acceptance or the coercion to accept that what homo’s do [easily the equivalent to the playing in; eating from; and living in unflushed fecal matter filled toilets] as normal, natural and healthy. Sexual perversion, [especially homo perversion] akin to driving vehicles up exit ramps to drive said vehicles North in South bound lanes, is what equality always isn’t; love never is; and normal, natural and healthy can’t ever be.

            In fact there is no such thing as a homo; or a hetero; or a Bi; or a trans. All there is and all there ever needs to be are men and women and boys and girls. Everything else is a deviant aberration. The fact that homo’s represent a picayune 1.6% of the general population; and that the laundry list of bi’s etc represent an even more tiny 0.7 % of the general population is rock solid evidence and proof. The massive inverted and perverted anti-sexual sexual dis-orientations and their intended confusions are rooted in the voodoo psuedo-science called psychology as just one of the 45 goals so precisely and forthrightly stated by Dr. Cleon Skousen who spent 16 years in the FBI and who had an inside view of the betrayal [especially during the administration of FDR] of America to Communism. Roosevelt as just one example once stated: “I see nothing wrong with the Communists in this country. Some of the best friends I have are Communists”. And they littered his administration especially at the policy making level.

            Of the 45 goals precisely stated in Dr. Skousen book THE NAKED COMMUNIST whose initial printing sold more then a million books only 1 remains unmet. Inch by inch enslavement is a cinch. Dr. Skousen prescience has earned him the NOSTRODAMUS award in prediction.

            Why don’t you secure just 3 books: THE NAKED COMMUNIST by Dr. Cleon Skousen; THE AMERICAN BETRAYAL by Diana West. And STALINS SECRET AGENTS THE SUBVERSION OF ROOSEVELT’S
            GOVERNMENT.

            You will learn as Thomas Aquinas said: “Against a fact there is no argument.” And what John Adams said: “Facts are stubborn things….”

          • acontraryview

            Well, if nothing else, you are certain verbose.

            “Facts galore have been poured out to the obtuse in an effort to instruct the ignorant by caring individuals over many years all to no avail.”

            You have provided no facts in answer to my questions.

            “as to the horrors and havoc caused by inverted and perverted anti-sexual perversions”

            I didn’t ask any questions about that.

            “All you have is lying”

            Please cite one thing i said that was a lie, and your basis for labeling it as such.

            “One of your earliest admirers Vladimir Lenin”

            Lenin did not know me and if he had he would certainly not have admired me based upon my political or social views.

            “At this point nobody really cares what you do.”

            I clearly matters to you or you wouldn’t have spent so much time commenting.

            “In fact, the more you do what you do the better it is for humanity because you are killing yourself ”

            Other than not getting as much exercise as I should, I am not doing anything to kill myself.

            “The only thing that will never happen is the acceptance or the coercion to accept that what homo’s do [easily the equivalent to the playing in; eating from; and living in unflushed fecal matter filled toilets] as normal, natural and healthy.”

            You seem to have quite a fixation on fecal matter. You are free to accept or not accept whatever you care to as being normal, natural, and healthy.

            “In fact there is no such thing as a homo; or a hetero; or a Bi; or a trans. ”

            Reality says otherwise.

            Again, if you can’t back up your statements, then you can’t. No worries. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Read the 3 books! In the meantime stop misstating what other people said and stop misstating what other people didn’t say.

          • acontraryview

            It is not up to ME to do research to find proof for claims YOU made, nor will those books provide answers to the questions I asked you.

            “stop misstating what other people said and stop misstating what other people didn’t say.”

            Interesting statement considering that YOU accused me of lying but have provided no proof that I lied. You may want to consider taking your own advice.

            Please cite where I misstated what other people said or didn’t say.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            You are a misstatement.

          • acontraryview

            So you can’t back up your own statements. You can’t cite where I lied. Nor can you cite where I misstated what other people said or didn’t say.

            So, basically, you are just making things up. Got it. Thanks.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            You are incapable of discernment and learning because your mind – like cement itself – is all made up and permanently set. Stop finger pointing and blame shifting. Facts galore have already been shared on sites like this proving the havoc and horror of hateful coercive homo’s whose self-hate and loathing is part of a misery loves company perversion.

            Go do your hateful homework and stop your impenitent insolence.

          • acontraryview

            “You are incapable of discernment and learning”

            Since you have provided no answers to my questions, what are you basing that statement on?

            “Stop finger pointing and blame shifting. ”

            Please cite where I have finger pointed or shifted blame.

            “proving the havoc and horror of hateful coercive homo’s whose self-hate and loathing is part of a misery loves company perversion.”

            I didn’t ask you any questions that would be related to that. I asked you simple questions about the statements you made, which you have failed to answer. Again, you may wish to consider taking your own advice about finger pointing and shifting blame.

            “Go do your hateful homework”

            As I have stated before, it does not fall upon ME to do homework to find support for YOUR claims. If you can back them up, then do so.

            “and stop your impenitent insolence.”

            How is my asking you to answer questions about the claims you made “impenitent insolence”? Considering that you have lobbed several accusations against me “lying, misstating” as well as a number of insults, it appears that you are projecting regarding “impenitent insolence”.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            TO PERVERT is defined by Webster as: “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right: CORRUPT: to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted: MISDIRECT: to divert to a wrong end purpose: MISUSE: to twist the meaning or sense of
            MISINTERPRET.

            Let’s picture the primary act of sodomy which is the homosexual monogamy and then we will simply match that filthy act with the definition of TO PERVERT. Sodomy in the main is when hallucinogenic pampered and perverted punks drive their penises up into the fecal contaminated rectums of other hallucinogenic pampered and perverted punks who then switch between being the jammer and the jammed…like being pitcher and catcher and then reversing roles. By the way jamming is defined as: “to drive or squeeze into a tight place”; “to fill to excess , cram; “to crush or bruise.”

            Surely this inhumane and dehumanized act is “turning aside or away from what is good or true or morally right” especially since the rectum and the anus where made for EXIT ONLY transactions involving the elimination of human waste [excrement]. If sodomy is moral, then anything is moral.

            Surely this inhumane and dehumanized act is CORRUPT as it “turns aside or away from what is generally done or accepted since it is the “all the time”depraved action of 1.6% of the general population whose STD are exponentially higher than their irrelevant puny share of the general population. Has a pregnancy ever occurred inside a rectum -especially a male rectum? Two penises can never be the same as and equal to one penis or one vagina. Redundancy can never be the same as or equal to complimentary.

            Surely this inhumane and dehumanized act is MISDIRECTED as it “diverts to a wrong end purpose inside a wrong end place. Penises belong inside vaginas not rectums.

            PERVERSION is defined by Webster as: ” a perverted form: esp. an aberrant sexual [actually anti-sexual] practice esp. when habitual and preferred to normal coitus”.

            PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY is defined by Webster as: “an emotionally and behavioral disordered state characterized by clear perception of reality EXCEPT FOR the individual’s social and moral obligation and often by the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction or sexual perversion.

          • acontraryview

            Since it is not possible to “cause” someone to be homosexual, your premise is incorrect from the start.

            “Sodomy in the main is when hallucinogenic pampered and perverted punks drive their penises up into the fecal contaminated rectums of other hallucinogenic pampered and perverted punks who then switch between being the jammer and the jammed”

            Your fixation on anal sexual acts is….well….interesting. Over half of all homosexuals do not participate in such acts. Sodomy, by the way, is defined as any sexual act other than penile/vaginal intercourse. A significant portion of heterosexuals engage in acts of sodomy.

            “Surely this inhumane and dehumanized act is “turning aside or away from what is good or true or morally right””

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter, but it is just that….your opinion.

            “PERVERSION is defined by Webster as: ” a perverted form: esp. an aberrant sexual [actually anti-sexual] practice esp. when habitual and preferred to normal coitus”.”

            Hmmmm…..I went to Merriam-Webster, found the definition of “perversion” and could not find the words “and preferred to normal coitus”. Would you please provide me with the link that includes those words in the definition MW provides?

            “PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY is defined by Webster as: “an emotionally and behavioral disordered state characterized by clear perception of reality EXCEPT FOR the individual’s social and moral obligation and often by the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction or sexual perversion.”

            Hmmm….I went to MW and was unable to find that definition there. Would you please provide me with the link to that definition at MW?

            I find it interesting that you are willing to respond with such a long, and faulty, diatribe, yet you fail to answer my basic questions about the statements you have made. it would appear that you are much better at deflection than you are at actually defending your statements.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Now you are calling the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition a liar? This robust dictionary of the lexicon has 1,557 pages. On page 866 you will find the word PERVERT defined as previously stated. On page 866 you will also find the word PERVERSION defined as previously stated. On page 940 you will also find the words PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY defined as previously stated. Moreover, on page 316 the word DEVIANT is defined as: “Deviating esp. from an accepted norm.” On page 463 the word FREAK is defined in part as: “A sexual deviate.” On page 945 the word PUNK is defined in part as: “A youth used as a homo partner.”

            You are one of the best examples of the lost who love being lost. Your pathetic squirming is invigorating.

          • acontraryview

            “Now you are calling the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition a liar?”

            No, I never called the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition a liar. To suggest I did is simply a lie on your part. First, it is a book, and therefore it cannot lie. People lie. Not books. Books can contain things that are not true, but it is the author that is lying, not the book. What I said was that i was not able to find the definitions you presented.

            Based upon the online version here is one of the definitions of perversion: 2: a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual

            I didn’t see “and preferred to normal coitus””. Are you saying that phrase exists in the printed version but not the online version, just as you are suggesting that other definitions I mentioned are different in the printed version versus the online version?

            Regarding the word “freak” the definition of “a sexual deviate” that you pulled from Websters is the third one – showing that it is not a primary definition – and it is used as “slang”, thus not a true definition. I guess you missed that part, huh? The same applies to the definition you provided of “punk”, although I have no idea how that word is relevant to the discussion.

            “You are one of the best examples of the lost who love being lost.’

            How so?

            “Your pathetic squirming is invigorating.”

            Your pathetic grasping at straws and continued attempts at deflecting from answering questions you were asked, is sad.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            You are divided and conquered.

          • Dianne

            Bravo!! Again very well said!!!😇

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Thank you!

          • Dianne

            Thank you for SPELLING OUT THE FACTS loud and clear!!! Everything that you have listed is so true, and yet so many still turn a blind eye. Let God be true and every man a liar.
            For the TRUTH will endure forever. Peace and blessings to you.

          • no more mr. nice guy

            Thank you! It is my pleasure to shine the light of gay on the enemy within.

      • acontraryview

        “What you mean is, you want to make it impossible for someone to fire a gay guy from his job.”

        Why would that be the result? Women are a protected category – does that mean it’s impossible to fire a woman? Religion is a protected category – does that mean it’s impossible to fire a person who proclaims to follow a religious belief?

        You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be in a protected category regarding employment.

        “You get hired, you goof off, and when your boss threatens to fire you, you threaten to sue for discrimination.”

        Yeah. Good luck with that lawsuit. The only basis for such a suit would be if the employer allowed other people to goof off and did NOT fire them. It would behoove you to gain a better understanding of employment law as relates to discrimination before commenting further.

        • T robison

          Sounds like I wont open that business afterall if its that cranky out there.

          • acontraryview

            Certainly your choice.

        • Rachel

          So how would someone’s sexuality be a private sector’s business? And how would someone’s sexual orientation be found out anyway? Would a person have to appear transgender?

          • acontraryview

            “So how would someone’s sexuality be a private sector’s business?”

            It isn’t.

            “And how would someone’s sexual orientation be found out anyway? ”

            Hmmmm……I’m thinking maybe family photos on a desk or perhaps typical workplace conversation between coworkers.

            “Would a person have to appear transgender?”

            Transgender is not a sexuality.

          • Rachel

            Of course transgender isn’t a sexual orientation. But it’s correlated with sexuality. This is why I said “appear” to be transgender because a noticeable alteration of one’s gender identity typically implicates one’s sexuality. False? If not, then what is hetero- or homosexuality to the trans-gendered person? Can their minds even conceive the difference?

            Anyway, so how could you certainly prove someone’s awareness of an inherently internal attribute of another: their sexuality? Exposure to pictures and typical conversation? Wow you’re right; that would make suspects hard to prove.

            ”I know you’ve seen my romantic picture! You pass by it every day so you must have figured! And my sexuality is the only difference among me and my equally effective/adequate colleagues.”

            Or ”You were in the cafe near the chip stand while I mentioned my husband’s/wife’s favorite choice of soup to the cook”

            Or ”You saw me holding my partner’s hand in public.”

            Unless someone overtly proclaims their discriminatory thoughts and decisions, the alleged victim wouldn’t have a case. So don’t be lucky enough to deny/fire/write up a homosexual who also knows that you’re aware of their inherently ”unseen” sexuality because they may retaliate by proving your knowledge of their sexuality and how you really feel about it. Moreover, they could prove your awareness of the other employees’ sexuality. Interesting and ridiculous…Idk maybe I just lack imagination and should watch Philadelphia again.

          • acontraryview

            “Of course transgender isn’t a sexual orientation.”

            Oh good. Then we agree that your contention that it IS a sexuality was false.

            “Unless someone overtly proclaims their discriminatory thoughts and decisions, the alleged victim wouldn’t have a case.”

            Agreed. Discrimination cases are very difficult to prove. Which completely negates your assertion that: “You get hired, you goof off, and when your boss threatens to fire you, you threaten to sue for discrimination.”

          • Rachel

            ”Oh good. Then we agree that your contention that it IS a sexuality was false.”

            No, you presumed that I thought transgender was a sexuality. Which is okay- all I had to do was explain how being transgender was relevant so that you could retract your unnecessary refutation – BUT obviously my explanation escaped you. Would it have made sense if I said ”appear homosexual”? I was trying to think of an example of what could possibly qualify as evidence of a person’s AWARENESS of another person’s sexuality besides an outward confession of that awareness.

            You didn’t thoroughly read my comment but I won’t complain. Perhaps the amount of content wasn’t what you preferred. But that’s cool because you already realize how hard these sort of cases would be to prove. However, the sad irony is that the filers of these lawsuits will probably be enabled by the courts to win many cases carrying false accusations ANYWAY.

            ”Which completely negates your assertion that: ‘You get hired, you goof off, and when your boss threatens to fire you, you threaten to sue for discrimination.'”

            Actually someone else made that comment.

          • acontraryview

            “However, the sad irony is that the filers of these lawsuits will probably be enabled by the courts to win many cases carrying false accusations ANYWAY.”

            Basis?

            “Actually someone else made that comment.”

            My apologies.

          • Rachel

            ”Basis?”

            My other opinion that people can be so audacious and so consumed by evil thinking that they’ll pervert justice.

            …please don’t mention Kim Davis.

          • acontraryview

            So you have an opinion that has no basis. Got it. Thanks.

          • Rachel

            Although this is meant to seem only about systemic gay discrimination in the workplace, it’s really about affirming homosexual behavior in our moral code, to no longer make it equal to depravity because of the lie that ”it doesn’t harm anyone”. Federal-level protection in the workplace will just be another accomplishment indicating successful LGBT influence over the minds of the majority.

          • acontraryview

            “Although this is meant to seem only about systemic gay discrimination in the workplace, it’s really about affirming homosexual behavior in our moral code”

            What is “our” moral code? Who is “our”?

            “to no longer make it equal to depravity”

            People are free to believe that something is depraved. Having laws that protect against discrimination in the workplace based solely upon sexuality would not require that anyone change their views on what is depraved and what is not.

            “because of the lie that ”it doesn’t harm anyone””

            In what way does a person being homosexual harm others?

            “Federal-level protection in the workplace will just be another accomplishment indicating successful LGBT influence over the minds of the majority.”

            How would providing protections in the work place require that anyone change their mind regarding their views on homosexuals? By the way, the majority believes that people should not be fired based solely upon their sexuality. So a more accurate statement on your part would be: “influence over the minds of the minority”.

          • Rachel

            What is “our” moral code?

            Behaviors (or thoughts) one believes to be acceptable or righteous. There are ideas or beliefs about our relationships to one another and systems in society a person can have. We often fight or galvanize to defend and establish ways to protect our moral code or even just to support a particular aspect of it- like, our morals regarding sexuality. There’s a presence of ”moral code” or sense of morality within our constitution. It all just becomes a matter of interpreting it, acknowledging it, applying it, or modifying it.

            Who is “our”?

            ”Our”, an individual which can also make up a large group of individuals.

            ”Having laws that protect against discrimination[…] would not require that anyone change their views ”

            True. But my opinion is that this is about a movement which is using the matter of discrimination to affirm its erroneous identity.

            ”In what way does a person being homosexual harm others?”

            Homosexuality IS the harm. Whether or not you believe and understand that depends on your beliefs.

            My statement, ”[…]to no longer make it [homosexuality] equal to depravity because of the lie that ‘it doesn’t harm anyone”’ in context would mean: the homosexual or gay advocate would deem homosexuality good or acceptable because it isn’t ”violence” when that isn’t the basis for what makes a behavior or desire good or bad. But the LGBT of course believes that they can be morally validated on this basis or by other false reasoning.

            ”So a more accurate statement on your part would be: ‘influence over the minds of the minority’.

            Not necessarily. Why would I say that? The minority isn’t a hindrance or threat. I said “Federal-level protection in the workplace will ‘just be another accomplishment indicating successful LGBT influence’ over the minds of the majority.” The majority is what’s celebrated or indicative of the level of influence.

          • acontraryview

            “Behaviors (or thoughts) one believes to be or not be acceptable or righteous.”

            By definition, “one” is singular. “Our” is plural and includes everyone that is part of that group. By “our” are you referring to everyone who holds the same beliefs as you regarding the totality of what is moral and what is not?

            “like, our morals regarding sexuality.”

            Views of the morality of sexuality vary. There is no singular view of that shared by everyone. Again, if by “our” you are referring to everyone who shares your belief, then you should state it as such. But to simply state “our” indicates that everyone holds the same view, which they do not. Even within the Christian belief system there is a not singular view of the totality of what is moral and what is not. Different sects of Christianity have different beliefs.

            “There’s a presence of ”moral code” or sense of morality within our constitution.”

            I concur that it could be argued that the Constitution contains a sense of morality in the sense that it spells out that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law and therefore it would be “immoral” to fail to do so. In that, by supporting laws which do NOT treat all citizens equally under the law, you are supporting immorality.

            “”Our”, any individual or individuals”

            By definition, an individual is singular – not plural.

            “True”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “But my opinion is that this is about a movement which is using the matter of discrimination to affirm its erroneous identity.”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I am curious as why you think their identity is “erroneous”.

            “when that isn’t the basis for what makes a behavior or desire good or bad.”

            What is the basis?

            “Homosexuality is harmful and immoral. ”

            While you are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding the immorality of being homosexual, how is being homosexual “harmful”?

            “I know of former homosexuals who genuinely believe the truth and now enjoy their freedom from homosexuality”

            Really? So you know of people who were exclusively attracted physically, emotionally, and romantically to people of the same gender and now are exclusively attracted physical, emotionally, and romantically to only people of the opposite gender? I’d be most interested in knowing who these people are.

            “The minority isn’t relevant.”

            Well that’s an interesting view, and one that is completely at odds with our Constitution. How callous of you to suggest that the minority is not relevant.

            “Federal-level protection in the workplace will ‘just be another accomplishment indicating successful LGBT influence’ over the minds of the majority.”

            Federal level protection in the workplace based upon sexuality does not exist. Despite that protection not being in place, the majority of people believe that federal protection in the workplace based on sexuality should be in place. Therefore, it is illogical to assert that putting such protection in place will influence the majority, as the majority already believes such protections should be in place.

          • Rachel

            ”By definition, ‘one’ is singular. ‘Our’ is plural and includes everyone that is part of that group.”

            The term ”our” obviously means a SINGULAR (being) is constituting a PLURAL (beings) when applied.

            ”But to simply state “our” indicates that everyone holds the same view”

            ”Our” doesn’t automatically mean that the characters of which it is regarding has some particular and acknowledged commonality. I would have replaced ”our” with ”Christian’s” or the phrase ”us Christian’s moral code” if that’s what I meant. Within my context, ”our” simply referred to people, which means even one single person has a value in that. Everyone. Especially citizens of this country. Now, ”US citizens” is the only ”acknowledged group” ,so to speak, for my application of the plural ”our” , which is of course, broad and didn’t need to be specified. And I’m aware of our country’s diversity, however people do work to unite. And there are people want unity regarding the beliefs on homosexuality- not just equal and protected rights. And I believe it’s been working.

            ”Views of the morality of sexuality vary”

            Of course.

            ”it could be argued that the Constitution contains a sense of morality in the sense that it spells out that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law”

            Homosexuality is immoral just as discriminating against someone, on virtually any ground, is immoral. Righteousness is rooted in God, whom you do not know. The Constitution borrowed from God, mentioned his relevance, but did not specify Him.

            ”In that, by supporting laws which do NOT treat all citizens equally under the law, you are supporting immorality.”

            Yes, I know I DON’T support immorality.

            ” I am curious as why you think their identity is ‘erroneous”’.

            Because they are in error, just as we all are before we have faith in Christ. Can a homosexual believe that homosexuality is not wrong and claim to have faith in the God of Jesus Christ? Yes. But do they really have faith? No.

            ”how is being homosexual ‘harmful”’

            Homosexuality is harmful as it is sexual dysfunction ruling your sexuality. I can’t argue the harmful effects of homosexuality because its consequence is, in essence, self-destruction on a spiritual level- which can also manifest physically. To explain how this is true to a faithless person is like preaching to an atheist . Nevertheless, homosexuality being immoral is the primary judgment.

            ”Really? So you know of people who were exclusively attracted physically, emotionally, and romantically to people of the same gender…”

            Yes I do. And even if I hadn’t I’d still believe it’s possible. And actually it’s homosexuality that’s particularly the problem with a gay person’s sexuality. A ”bi-sexual” who engages in homosexuality is also engaging in sexual immorality. Their homosexual desires are sexually immoral. Any desire that could potentially lead a homosexual act, is immoral.

            ”How callous of you to suggest that the minority is not relevant.”

            I said the minority wasn’t relevant to my statement. When I stated ”indicating successful LGBT influence’ over the minds of the MAJORITY”, then with regard to my statement, the MAJORITY was the intended focus. You believed I misrepresented my own thought by not saying “MINORITY” which I said was not relevant to my statement itself . I actually believe that the LGBT IS the minority winning the majority’s minds and support regarding the views of what is or isn’t sexual immorality.

            ”Federal level protection in the workplace based upon sexuality does not exist.”

            Right. But how are you under the impression that I don’t know that?

            ”Therefore, it is illogical to assert that putting such protection in place will influence the majority”

            I never asserted or implied that it WOULD influence the majority , I said it would be INDICATIVE of an already existent influence.

            ”Even within the Christian belief system there is a not singular view of the totality of what is moral and what is not”

            Wrong. In authentic Christianity, both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ under one covenant and are united under one Spirit and one mind. Doctrinal differences exists but that only means that somebody is lying. This is why we are engaged in the spiritual warfare and discernment.

            Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
            – 2 Timothy 2:19-21

            Homosexuality is iniquity. Those who claim it isn’t, is a liar. Even those who claim to know the God of Israel who is the God of Jesus Christ .

          • acontraryview

            “”our” simply referred to people, which means even one single person has a value in that.”

            “Our” is multiple. “My” is single.

            “Now, ”US citizens” is the only ”acknowledged group” ,so to speak, for my application of the plural ”our””

            Since US citizens do not share a common belief, your use of “our” in that context would not be accurate.

            “The Constitution borrowed from God, mentioned his relevance”

            Please cite what portions of the Constitution are “borrowed from God” and where it mentions his relevance. Considering that the protections of the Constitution directly violate seven of the ten commandments, it seems clear that the Christian belief system is not involved in our Constitution.

            “Yes I do.”

            I’d be fascinated to know more about who these people are, as I am unaware of any.

            “And even if I hadn’t I’d still believe it’s possible. ”

            On what basis?

            “And there are people who want unity regarding the beliefs on homosexuality”

            Are you referring to your desire that there be unity regarding the belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral/iniquity?

            “Homosexuality is harmful as it is sexual dysfunction ruling your sexuality.”

            That is your opinion. It is does not answer the question of how homosexuality is harmful to others.

            “Their homosexual desires are sexually immoral.”

            Please allow me to provide a more accurate wording of that statement:

            “It is my opinion that homosexual desires are sexually immoral based upon the religious teachings I have chosen to follow while recognizing that just because I have chosen to follow a certain set of religious teachings, that does not make them definitively true.”

            “I said it would be INDICATIVE of an already existent influence over the majority.”

            Correct. My apologies. However, if the influence already exists, then it wouldn’t matter if federal protections were put into place, would it?

            “Wrong”

            So you are saying there aren’t different views among the sects of Christianity as to the totality of what is moral and what is not? You contradict that when you later state: “Differences in doctrinal interpretation and application exists”

            “but that only means that somebody is lying and misapplying.”

            So let me guess…..you’re interpretation is the correct one all others are lying. Oddly though, others would say the same about your interpretation. So who is to be believed?

            “Homosexuality is iniquity.”

            Based upon the believe system you have chosen to follow. That have chosen to follow a believe system which you have interpreted as saying that homosexuality is iniquity, does not mean that it definitively IS immoral. That is simply your view. Should everything that you view as being immoral be illegal? Should anyone who engages in activities which you believe are immoral not be treated equally under the law in our nation?

          • Rachel

            ” ‘Our’ is multiple. ‘My’ is single.”

            I did not conflate these definitions. Within context, ”our” respected my claim that EveryONE (US citizens) had a moral code of their OWN. So we, as individuals, have a moral code. Our did not mean we were all subject,collectively, to ONE particularly shared moral code.

            ”Please cite what portions of the Constitution are ‘borrowed from God’ and where it mentions his relevance”

            Right. The Declaration of Independence which mentioned the ”Creator” should’ve been my example.

            ”it seems clear that the Christian belief system is not involved in our Constitution.”

            It’s clear that Christianity has never been involved with the forefather’s establishment of America. But their ideas of God were relevant.

            ”Are you referring to your desire that there be unity regarding the belief that homosexuality is inherently immoral/iniquity?”

            That’s not what i’m after. So no. The church’s edification is my desire. America will perish and so will falsehood…

            ”It is does not answer the question of how homosexuality is harmful to others”

            Are you meaning to ask how it inflicts harms onto other people? I didn’t claim that homosexuality was harmful to anyone other than the homosexual.

            “It is my opinion that homosexual desires are sexually immoral based upon the religious teachings I have chosen to follow while recognizing that just because I have chosen to follow a certain set of religious teachings, that does not make them definitively true.”

            That’s inaccurate and compromising. Truth is truth.

            ”if the influence already exists, then it wouldn’t matter if federal protections were put into place, would it?

            No, it wouldn’t matter.

            ”You contradict that when you later state: ‘Differences in doctrinal interpretation and application exists’ ”

            That doesn’t mean that I agree that Christianity has many types.

            ”Oddly though, others would say the same about your interpretation. So who is to be believed?”

            They’d say that homosexuality isn’t iniquity? Well they believe a lie and of course the wrong interpretation of scriptures. Actually, some just blatantly reject the truth and just have to be called a Christian. Their decision.

            ”Should everything that you view as being immoral be illegal?”

            No. Should immorality be called morality? No.

            ”That is simply your view”

            According to you and those who agree with you.

          • acontraryview

            “Our did not mean we were all subject,collectively, to ONE particularly shared moral code.”

            That’s for clarifying.

            “Right. The Declaration of Independence which mentioned the ”Creator” should’ve been my example.”

            I’m glad we agree. The DOI, while an important historical document, is not the basis for our laws.

            “But their ideas of God were relevant.”

            How so? the founding fathers did not share a common religious view.

            “I didn’t claim that homosexuality was harmful to anyone other than the homosexual.”

            Your statement was: “Homosexuality is harmful”. You made no distinction as to that being only applicable to the homosexual individually. However, if that was what you meant, then please explain how homosexuality is harmful to the individual.

            “Truth is truth.”

            Regarding matters of faith, there is no singular truth. While you have certainly chosen to believe that certain things are true, your belief does mean that the definitively are true. That’s why it is called “faith” and not “fact”.

            “No, it wouldn’t matter.”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “That doesn’t mean that I agree that Christianity has many types.”

            If you disagree with that, then you are blind to reality.

            “Actually, some just blatantly reject the truth and just have to be called a Christian. ”

            Again, that would be truth as you have chosen to interpret it. Just as others who claim to be Christian have different views as to truth. So I’ll ask again: Who is to be believed?

            “No”

            I’m glad we agree.

            “Should immorality be called morality? No.”

            What is considered moral and immoral varies from person to person.

            “According to you and those who agree with you.”

            No, it is your view, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

          • Rachel

            Actually, my statement should’ve read as : ”our ‘moral codes’ ” so that it would be grammatically correct. But still, it probably wouldn’t have prevented your assumption that I was implying one objective code

            ”The DOI, […] is not the basis for our laws.”

            I was attempting to use an official document relevant to the topic in order to make a separate point regarding morality- but I chose the wrong one. Also, I wasn’t intending to directly connect that point to the matter of amending the constitution to fight sexuality-based discrimination in the workplace.

            ”How so? the founding fathers did not share a common religious view.”

            There were ideas about God that they agreed on like the “Creator’s” relation to our ”inalienable rights”. It’s the main notion believed to be the moral foundation of the Constitution you wield. And no, I don’t believe any of them were Christian. This ”sense of morality” I believed they were inspired by was really something else. This prompts theological terms and concepts you don’t believe in of course.

            ”Regarding matters of faith, there is no singular truth”

            That’s your belief. By saying this, your own reasoning has caused you to believe that you have the authority over truth to determine whether or not truth it can be revealed to and understood by a person.

            ”That’s why it is called ‘faith’ and not ‘fact’.

            Faith is to believe what you’ve heard without needing to see what you’ve heard seemingly manifest in the present time of your belief. The truthfulness of what you heard is either real or not real. Faith, being a religious opinion, is a carnal and false understanding of faith. The Son of Man had disciples who didn’t have faith in his power and authority at times during his ministry. But his power and authority was and is, real.

            ”If you disagree with that, then you are blind to reality.”

            You say this because you yourself can’t identify authentic Christianity. And misinterpretations or different interpretations don’t always result in the formation of contradictory meanings of Christianity. Misinterpretations or unsure interpretations can be corrected as individual people everyday grow in their knowledge and understanding of scripture. It’s always your own responsibility to seek and desire God. These ”sects” aren’t actually, just by existing, changing what it means to have Christ. But since you believe Christianity originated with man, you believe it can also change in meaning and conform as man see’s fit- and that’s a lie. My interpretations are true or not true. And truth is the judge of that. Also, God’s intervention will expose lies and inconsistencies; but unbelievers will never understand how to benefit from that while embracing their state of unbelief.

            ”So I’ll ask again: Who is to be believed?”

            God.

            ”I’m glad we agree.”

            I say that only because I know that all unrighteousness is already cursed. Prophecy must be fulfilled; and so, things should be as it was foretold. Governments shall correspond to the world’s efforts as it passes away. God has already judged this world and its vain, evil, self-righteous agendas. While we’re here we can do good but be dead, or we can do good and have life.

            ”What is considered moral and immoral varies from person to person.”

            But it doesn’t vary with God.

            ”No, it is your view, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.”

            That’s what you wish to limit it to.

            ”However, if that was what you meant, then please explain how homosexuality is harmful to the individual.”

            ”Homosexuality is harmful as it is sexual dysfunction ruling your sexuality. I can’t argue the harmful effects of homosexuality because its consequence is, in essence, self-destruction on a spiritual level- which can also manifest physically. To explain how this is true to a faithless person is like preaching to an atheist . Nevertheless, homosexuality being immoral is the primary judgment.”

            The relationship between spiritual acts, such as sex, and their consequences alludes to the convergence of the spiritual and natural. This already makes no sense to you… Adulterers, fornicators- anyone led into sexual sin can suffer spiritual consequences/harm as well. But of course to you, that is a claim completely incapable of being validated; and so detailed explanation is unnecessary.

          • acontraryview

            “Actually, my statement should’ve read as : ”our ‘moral codes’ ” so that it would be grammatically correct.”

            Had you said “our personal moral codes”, then you would have been saying what you claim to be saying as you would be indicated that all of use have moral codes, but they are individual rather collectively shared.

            “That’s your belief. ”

            By definition, matters of faith cannot be definitively proven. Therefore, unless you ARE God, you cannot say with 100% certainty what is singularly true and what is not. It is a matter of faith. I have no doubt that you are convinced that your views are the “true” and “correct” ones, but your believing they are does not make them so. They may be….they may not. It is a matter of faith. Unless, of course, you ARE God. Are you God, Rachel?

            “Faith is to believe what you’ve heard without needing to see what you’ve heard seemingly manifest in the present time of your belief.”

            Thus differentiating itself from “fact” and thus being something that cannot be stated with 100% certainty as the correctness of any one view.

            “You say this because you yourself can’t identify authentic Christianity. ”

            Well apparently neither can the majority of Christians, excepting you of course, who is certain that your views are correct and all others not.

            “God.”

            Which version? Oh, never mind, yours, of course.

            “But it doesn’t vary with God.”

            Yet, using the same book, different sects of Christianity have differing views as to the totality of what is moral and what is not. So, clearly, there is not consensus as to what God says is moral and what is not. I know, i know. Only your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one, and all others are false, which is exactly what many Christians claim. But, somehow, you are certain that yours is the correct one.

            “I can’t argue the harmful effects of homosexuality”

            Clearly.

            “because its consequence is, in essence, self-destruction on a spiritual level”

            While you are certainly entitled to your belief in that regard, it is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of your belief.

            In your condemnation of all those who do not share your interpretation of the Bible, you seem to be ignoring Matthew 7:1-2.

          • Rachel

            ”Had you said ‘our personal moral codes’, then you would have been saying what you claim to be saying”

            By saying this you realize that what I meant to say wasn’t that hard to clarify. I still believe a ”universally shared” moral code is evolving anyway and that its defying all religious and cultural barriers- the sexuality aspect of it especially.

            ”By definition, matters of faith cannot be definitively proven”

            That’s a misconception of faith. Faith isn’t ”not proven”. There are elements of evidence, confirmation, and assurance involved in an authentic relationship with God in whom we believe. Lifelong faith itself isn’t even accomplished in our own strength but only by the grace of God. We have faith in God for our salvation and conformity. Our salvation is made evident during our lives while we walk with Him.

            ”but your believing they are does not make them so”

            Thank God… And If I want to experience it I must believe it.

            ”Thus differentiating itself from ‘fact’ and thus being something that cannot be stated with 100% certainty as the correctness of any one view”

            We either have faith in something that’s true or false. To say that what we have faith in can’t be proven, is not true. Fact can most times be stated with 100% certainty, but truth can always be stated with 100% certainty.

            ”Well apparently neither can the majority of Christians, excepting you of course, who is certain that your views are correct and all others not.”

            If they claim to be authentically Christian, that better be true. Whatever actions you’ve noticed about self proclaimed Christians better be consistent with Christianity.

            ”Which version? Oh, never mind, yours, of course.”

            The confusion and division concerning these alleged ”sects of Christianity” has obviously intimidated you. Christians know who they are.

            ”different sects of Christianity have differing views as to the totality of what is moral and what is not”

            I’m sure false Christianity can be rendered in different types that hold different views…

            The ”totality” of what is or is not moral is not hard to grasp. Being born of God means more than being moral. It means we’re godly. Godliness has power to expose sin even without being verbalized. People fight things their conscience don’t even agree with. And if their conscience is seared, they really can’t discern.

            ”Clearly”

            Well clearly my premise is that sex is both a physical and uniquely spiritual act. The harmful effects I’d present to you wouldn’t ever be ascribed (ultimately) to the condition of the soul and spirit, but only to what you’d qualify as ”realistic” problems and choices. Do you believe we as creatures are souls that can be harmed by means of spiritual activity? Do you believe that spiritual activity and conditions are capable of being manifested physically? As Christians we mature in the understanding of the visible and invisible.

            ”In your condemnation of all those who do not share your interpretation of the Bible, you seem to be ignoring Matthew 7:1-2.”

            We have all already been judged by the truth. If they are following falsehood they’re already condemned.

            An interpretation alone isn’t what has the potential to lead someone into falsehood. Lusts (especially for power), fears, and vain tradition can also lead self-proclaimed Christians into falsehood or the acceptance of ungodly things. But that can be changed by the power (not only the knowledge) of the truth that will humble and enable them to embrace authentic Christianity.

          • Rachel

            ”Would a person have to appear transgender?”

            This is EXACTLY how I meant to word my question. I did not intend to say ”Would a person have to appear ‘homosexual’?” and neither would it make sense to suppose that someone’s ”sexuality” could be ”physically” apparent . However, it could be ”apparently” IMPLIED by someone’s ”noticeable” alteration of their gender identity. Reason: I’m sure many find it rare for a person who feels that they are physically the wrong gender to not also ”be” homosexual or engage in homosexuality. Could a trans-gendered person claim to be asexual? Sure. Could a trans-gendered person claim to be heterosexual? Sure, but they’d most likely be stereotyped as homosexual if their ”sexuality” was NOT discovered by means other than their ”obviously” trans-gendered (or ”in transitioning”/altered) physical appearance. And no, not everyone’s transition is noticeable to everyone.

            Someone has to verbalize their own awareness of someone else’s sexuality AND also their prejudice beliefs/feelings about said sexuality for an accusation of sexuality-based discrimination to even be legitimate. If some inconsistency in how employees are being treated in the workplace is only suspected to be evidence of sexuality-based discrimination, then proof of the alleged perpetrator’s AWARENESS of the alleged victim(‘s)’ sexuality would have to substantiate that evidence.

      • SFBruce

        Nonsense. It’s perfectly legal to fire someone for “goofing off,” because that has a direct impact on their job performance. Remember, when a person brings a discrimination claim, the burden is on them to produce evidence showing that the firing was illegal.

        • T robison

          but in the meantime don’t u have to hire attorney when they do that?

          • acontraryview

            Most companies maintain legal counsel. It would be no different than if someone filed a suit alleging discrimination based upon race, gender, disability, religious belief, etc.

      • T robison

        yeah ive seen a lot of that not only gays. I think its important if your gonna make a rule about beliefs or color their should be some provisions in there for the goofs and totally bad people.. and there are some everywhere. But hate to see someone stuck with a person like that.

        • acontraryview

          You and Sheri would benefit from a better understanding of anti-discrimination laws when it comes to employment. The laws do not limit the ability of a business to terminate someone for not doing their job. What the laws provide is that a person cannot be terminated for reasons UNRELATED to their job performance. For instance, terminated because they are black, female, pregnant, etc.

      • no more mr. nice guy

        This is correct!

  • 1no Yamanaka

    He’s like the Kennedys – trash. You can be very rich and very trashy, and that’s what he is. If Hellary wasn’t such a horrible person to contemplate as president, we wouldn’t be paying this Trump piece of baggage the slightest heed. When the guiding principle is “Anybody but Hellary!” look where we end up – with a trashy rich guy leading the pack.

    • SFBruce

      If you don’t like Clinton, that’s fine, but it’s certainly not her fault that Trump is doing well, in spite of having nothing to offer but bombast and name-calling. All the other GOP contenders at least show some degree of respect for the country. Why is it they’re being beaten so badly by someone who’s long on his own ego, but very short on specifics, or a consistent ideology?

    • Gabriel A. King

      Cheap shotting Trump because he won’t crucify the gays? Stupid.

  • acontraryview

    Uh ho. Stating that Supreme Court rulings are valid when they go against the religious beliefs of some people and that something the Bible says is a sin doesn’t justify discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation is certainly going to cost him the votes of those who dislike our Constitution and would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy.

    • afchief

      Silly homo, the SCOTUS does not make, change or remove laws. Only Congress can do so!!!!

      Know your Constitution!! Know the law!!!

      • Bob Johnson

        So true, the court can not make, change, or remove laws. The court can however, declare a law to be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

        This has been a great help to religion, as when the Court sided with Hobby Lobby and “struck down” portions of the law that required Hobby Lobby to provide birth control coverage for their employees.

        • afchief

          Silly liberal!!! Show me one law that the SCOTUS has ruled on that is not enforceable! KNOW THE LAW!!!!

          “Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

          For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

          The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.”

          http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9e.asp

          • Bob Johnson

            Actually the ruling was Worcester v Georgia in 1832. The 1931 case Cherokee Nation v Georgia the court agreed with Jackson. Jackson’s use of the US Army to remove the Cherokee lead to the infamous “Trail of Tears” and the forced relocation of 15,000 and 4,000 deaths.

          • afchief

            Again, for the umpteenth time, the SCOTUS cannot make, change or remove any laws.

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Bob Johnson

            Slow down. Either you left a word out of your first sentence or you are actually starting to understand US law.

            Yes, it does take time for the government to change. That is not an argument for or against how the legal system works.

          • afchief

            Right! Whenever the SCOTUS rules on a case, it is ONLY an opinion. They may rule that a law is unconstitutional/constitutional. But until the legislative branch makes, changes or removes the law, NOTHING changes. All three branches have to be in agreement. The executive branch has the final stamp of approval with his signature signing a law into existence.

            The SCOTUS is the weakest of the 3 branches with the legislative being the strongest.

          • acontraryview

            “Whenever the SCOTUS rules on a case, it is ONLY an opinion. ”

            No, it is a ruling.

            “But until the legislative branch makes, changes or removes the law, NOTHING changes.”

            That is false. As you pointed out in an example above concerning segregation, it took many years for states to modify their legal codes to be in accordance with the court’s ruling. In the interim what changed was that the laws on the books were no longer enforced. As another example, there is still a law on the books in Florida, where I live, that prohibits two people of the same gender from entering into civil marriage. Yet, since the SCOTUS ruling, two citizens of the same gender are allowed to enter into civil marriage because that law cannot be enforced by the state, So, most certainly, something has changed. Finally, an example you have referenced – laws banning interracial marriage. The court ruled in 1967 that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional. It was not until 2000 that Alabama actually repealed their law regarding bans on interracial marriage. Yet, between 1967 and 2000, interracial marriage was allowed, and did take place, in Alabama, when it hadn’t prior to 1967. So, yes, something did change – the enforceability of the law.

          • afchief

            Go away with your LIES!!!!! You are a LIAR!!! And serve the father of lies…….satan!!!

            There is no Federal Law on the books regarding homo marriage. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            IT IS A LIE!!!

          • acontraryview

            “You are a LIAR!!!”

            That is an accusation you frequently make about me, yet you have been unable to point to anything that i have said that is a lie and provide proof that it is a lie. You simply continue to bear false witness.

            “There is no Federal Law on the books regarding homo marriage. ”

            Agreed. How is that relevant? There is no federal law on the books regarding marriage of any kind.

            “There is a “Supreme” Court opinion that is merely an opinion”

            It’s not an “opinion”. It is a ruling.

            “not a law! ”

            Agreed.

            “They just tell us that it is and we believe them”

            Who is “they” that have said that a SCOTUS ruling is a law?

          • Gabriel A. King

            The initial error was intentional, and massive. So called “Civil rights” somehow being interpreted as the “right” to FORCE private businesses to provide services against their own free will. And it all steadily rolled down hill from there…..

            The SC also committed genocide by placing the burden of proof of Life upon pro-Lifer’s…. instead of upon those committing murder. It should have always been rightfully assumed the baby is alive…. and the burden of proof placed upon those wishing to take actions to end that life.

            As usual… the Satanic SC has made it clear that “Liberals” will be held to absolutely no reason or accountability for their actions…. while conservatives are scrutinized, vilified, and scapegoated.

          • Gabriel A. King

            Segregation in public places is of course a violation of the most basic rudimentary Constitutional principles:
            “All men are created equal”
            “Right to pursuit of Life, Liberty, happiness” etc.

            Those same rights and protections also ensure you cannot FORCE people to “de-segregate” against their free will on either public, or private property. Or force ANYONE to do anything against their own free will.

          • acontraryview

            “Again, for the umpteenth time, the SCOTUS cannot make, change or remove any laws.”

            Again, for the umpteenth time, no one has suggested that the SCOTUS can make, change, or remove laws. The SCOTUS can, however, rule that a law violates the protections provided by the Constitution and is thus unenforceable.

        • Gabriel A. King

          What part of “LIMITED & ENUMERATED POWERS” do you people not understand ?

          Most authority lies with the States and people, not the executives. It would be ludicrous and Un-Constitutional to FORCE Hobby Lobby to provide birth control against their own free will.

          But when did that ever stop a Liberal ? (Leftist fascists)

      • acontraryview

        “the SCOTUS does not make, change or remove laws.”

        Agreed. The SCOTUS can, however, rule that a law violates protections provided by the Constitution and thus is not enforceable.

        “Only Congress can do so!!!!”

        That is false. There are many legislative bodies other than Congress that can make, change, or remove laws.

        • afchief

          LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            Please cite what in my post was a lie and your basis for saying that it is a lie.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            The conversation always stops at that point, doesn’t it?

          • acontraryview

            False accusations are all he seems to have.

        • Gabriel A. King

          Sorry, but FORCING people to bake cakes or provide other services against their own free will is NOT “protected” under the Constitution.

          Liberty and freedom are always voluntary. “Public accommodations” is found nowhere in the Constitution. The SC has no authority to “interpret” our rights or freedoms away, or “interpret” anything against the will of the States and people.

          You do not have a “right” to force people to do things against their own free will in a free country.

          • acontraryview

            The decision to open a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business will offer is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

            “”Public accommodations” is found nowhere in the Constitution. ”

            Correct. It is in the Civil Rights Act as well as numerous other civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

            “You do not have a “right” to force people to do things against their own free will in a free country.”

            They aren’t forced. They have a choice.

          • Gabriel A. King

            You just admitted to FORCING people to do things via “Civil rights” which is also not anywhere in the Constitution.

            And as Christians are literally being fined and sued out of business… their lives destroyed…. some even jailed….. you are asserting “they have a choice” ?

            That would be like me FORCING you to attend Christian church…. or otherwise pay hefty fines etc and saying “he had a choice” LOL !

          • acontraryview

            “You just admitted to FORCING people to do things via “Civil rights” ”

            Please cite where I admitted to “FORCING” people to do things.

            “which is also not anywhere in the Constitution.”

            How is that relevant?

            “And as Christians are literally being fined and sued out of business… their lives destroyed…. some even jailed”

            Please cite the Christians who are “literally being fined and sued out of business…their lives destroyed…some even jailed” as a result of Civil Rights legislation.

            “you are asserting “they have a choice” ?”

            Of course they do. As I said before, the decision to operate a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business will offer is a choice. Are you saying that people are “forced” to open a business and “forced” to offer certain products and services? Please cite where that is the case.

            “That would be like me FORCING you to attend Christian church”

            That analogy would only be true if someone where forced to open a business and were forced to offer certain products. Since that his not the case, your analogy is false.

          • Gabriel A. King

            “the Constitution”

            “How is that relevant?” LOL LOLLLLL !

            If you haven’t heard about Christians being fined out of business for refusing to cater homosexual weddings…. then apparently you are incredibly under informed. Or Kim Davis being JAILED (jailed wtf ?) instead of simply terminated from employment ?

            Most of us don’t consider being FINED BY THE STATE INTO BANKRUPTCY much of a “choice”….

            The decision to violate the 1st and 10th Amendments committing treason against America is a “choice”…. one which you have clearly made.

          • acontraryview

            “LOL LOLLLLL !”

            So you can’t explain how it’s relevant that the Civil Rights Act is not part of the Constitution. Got it. Thanks.

            “If you haven’t heard about Christians being fined out of business for refusing to cater homosexual weddings”

            No, I have not heard of any Christian being “fined out of business” for refusing to cater homosexual weddings. What examples do you have of that happening?

            “Or Kim Davis being JAILED (jailed wtf ?) instead of simply terminated from employment ?”

            Kim Davis was put in jail for defying a court order, just as anyone else would be. As an elected official, she can’t simply be terminated from employment.

            “Most of us don’t consider being FINED BY THE STATE INTO BANKRUPTCY much of a “choice”….”

            Again, you have failed to cite any examples of that happening. Further, the choice aspect comes prior to a business violating the law. No person is forced to open a business, no business is forced to offer certain products and services, and no business is forced to refuse to offer those products and services in violation of the law. Those are all choices. Are you suggesting that people should be free to operate their business in a way which violates the law and escape the consequences of doing so?

            “one which you have clearly made.”

            Please cite how I have committed “treason against America”.

          • Gabriel A. King

            As far as “citing examples” i’ll let others read your comments as evidence of how clearly under informed you are.
            (Sweet cakes ring any bells? Never mind…)

            Still looking for “Civil Rights Act” in the Constitution can’t find it. Did the States and people legally vote that in ? LOL

            As far as “Operating my business in a way that violates the Law…” LMAO.
            I’m pretty sure “The Law” under Adolph Hitler would have approved of my business cooking and serving “baked Jew”.

            You are obviously a Libtard obsessed with “The Law” who doesn’t give a damn about Liberty, or the Bill of Rights.

            And you will no doubt agree with “The Law” no matter how evil or oppressive it becomes.

          • acontraryview

            “Sweet cakes ring any bells?”

            Yes it does. They chose to close their retail shop and operate out of their home based upon a lack of business. Their fines were covered by donations, with money to spare. So, no, they were not “fined out of business” nor “sued out of business”, nor their lives “destroyed”. Do you have any examples of where that actually happened? Or are you just “under informed”?

            “Still looking for “Civil Rights Act” in the Constitution can’t find it.”

            Nor will you. The Constitution does not contain laws. Laws are contained out our legal code. The legal code is decided upon by legislative bodies or a vote of the people. So, I’ll ask again, how is it relevant that the Civil Rights Act is not in the Constitution?

            “I’m pretty sure “The Law” under Adolph Hitler would have approved of my business cooking and serving “baked Jew”.”

            And that would be relevant, how?

            “You are obviously a Libtard obsessed with “The Law” who doesn’t give a damn about Liberty, or the Bill of Rights.”

            On the contrary, I strongly support liberty and the Bill of Rights. You, on the other hand, clearly do not support the Civil Rights Act and believe that business owners should be free to discriminate against anyone they care to by simply citing religious belief. It is certainly your right to believe they should be able to do so.

            “And you will no doubt agree with “The Law” no matter how evil or oppressive it becomes.”

            What have I said that would cause you to have no doubt that I would agree with “The Law” no matter how evil or oppressive it becomes?

            Get back to me when you are able to provide some examples of businesses being “fined out of business” and when you are able to explain how I have “committed treason against America”.

            “i’ll let others read your comments as evidence of how clearly under informed you are. ”

            Given that you have been unable to cite any examples of a business being “fined or sued out of business”. “their lives being destroyed”, being jailed for refusing to serve homosexuals, or how I committed “treason against America”, it would seem that of the two of us, you are the one who is “under informed”.

    • T robison

      You know what.. our country is in tatters and could be facing horrible things in the near future and u are complaining about his stance on gays? what the hell. Trump is bringing us all together .. that does include gays by the way.. to bring this nation from its knees back to a standing position. Even Christians see whats happening with the government. They KNOW Trump will get the ball started not the freeloaders that never show up to work.

      • acontraryview

        “You know what.. our country is in tatters”

        How so?

        “u are complaining about his stance on gays?”

        You should reread my post. I was not complaining about Trump’s stance on gays. I said that those who dislike our Constitution and would prefer that the US were a Christian Theocracy would be less likely to vote for Trump based upon his statements.

        “their fellow Christians are being beheaded in nearby countries.”

        In what countries near the US are Christian’s being beheaded?

        “vote for your freedoms back.”

        What freedoms?

      • SFBruce

        If you actually believe Trump is “bringing us all together,” you may want to check out his unfavorable ratings. The latest Real Clear Politics average show him with a 34.4% favorable rating, and 57.8% unfavorable.

    • Gabriel A. King

      It’s a technicality Trump somewhat misunderstands. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant anyone the authority to FORCE another person to enter into an involuntary business agreement against their own free will.

      Under the 10th Amendment the States / people have the authority, as the Federal government was only initially granted a few “LIMITED & ENUMERATED” powers.

      If the majority of the people of any given State did decide however to legalize gay marriage…. then clerks such as Kim Davis would then be obliged to fulfill their employment obligations, or tender resignation citing conscientious objection.

      Trump misunderstands the Law in this case…. however he is open minded and listens to people, and is known to change his opinion on various things from time to time. A very good quality in a “negotiating” President who wants to unite and not divide.

      • acontraryview

        “Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant anyone the authority to FORCE another person to enter into an involuntary business agreement against their own free will.”

        The decision to open a business is a choice. The decision as to what products and services the business offers is a choice. There is no “forcing”.

        “If the majority of the people of any given State did decide however to legalize gay marriage…. then clerks such as Kim Davis would then be obliged to fulfill their employment obligations, or tender resignation citing conscientious objection.”

        If the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, and thus unenforceable, the act the law banned becomes legal. If two citizens of the same gender are legally allowed to marry, County Clerk offices that issue marriage licenses are required to issue them. Ms. Davis took an oath that includes “will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality”. She failed to do so. She violated her oath.

    • Rachel

      You’re right. This is not a Christian Theocracy and the fathers of the US Constitution did not envision such a thing for this country (or world). Actually, a “Christian Theocracy” doesn’t even make sense as by virtue of the word ”Christian”, being true followers of Christ, we don’t understand the practicality of maturing in our faith walk without being in a perverse, corrupt, sinful, ungodly, unfaithful environment full of proud, self-righteous, and deceived leaders. Christianity only exists and functions in its authentic purpose if it is not culturally or politically dominant. Which means, we can expect the Church to be treated like Christ was treated and we can expect to see sinners enjoying their deceitful sin (as we are witnesses of our former selves). We don’t prefer to legislate or enforce our religion on society’s government. Real Christians are weak according to the standards of this world because the truth they carry is warring against virtually invisible things, not physical. What we know as Catholicism is a poor example , according to its historical and political history, of this understanding. Christianity’s perspective is prophetic and is strictly geared towards salvation not control or self-exaltation. People are being disillusioned by this ”Christianity” which is merely a cultural conservatism.

      • acontraryview

        “We don’t prefer to legislate or enforce our religion on society’s government”

        There are many Christians who would disagree with you on that. Are they not true Christians?

        “Actually, a “Christian Theocracy” doesn’t even make sense as by virtue of the word ”Christian”, being true followers of Christ, we don’t understand the practicality of maturing in our faith walk without being in a perverse, corrupt, sinful, ungodly, unfaithful environment full of proud, self-righteous, and deceived people and leaders.”

        That has nothing to do with a Christian Theocracy. A Christian Theocracy simply means that the laws of the nation are based solely upon the Christian religion, which many Christians in the US would prefer.

        • Rachel

          ”Are they not true Christians?”

          Correct. Or either they’ve yet to grasp the authentic Christian perspective about this world and how we are to interact with it. Partakers of some sort of ”Christian” tradition often hinder their own conversion. But they can still be converted.

          ”That has nothing to do with a Christian Theocracy. A Christian Theocracy simply means that the laws of the nation are based solely upon the Christian religion”

          The Christian religion is not made up legislative principles that are complex enough to govern a society. The religion is based on the testimony of salvation and faith; anyone who believes that such concepts can be legislated or enforced have a misconception about Christianity and also must believe that they can prevent prophecy. Mosaic laws, however can be legislated and are believed by both Jews and Christians to have governed a ”Jewish” theocracy. But in Christ, Jews and Gentiles are everywhere preaching and living the truth, in love, without striving to control governments in some kind of way. If they are doing so they are carnal,without faith , and need to see how their efforts render them willfully ignorant of the reality which prophecy already prepares them for: a perverse generation.

          ”…For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” -Revelation 19:10

          What it means to be Christian absolutely does not vary. However a Christian’s expectations for government can vary- and that doesn’t mean we are to be contentious about our preferences. We don’t have carnal ways,views, and understanding, but spiritual understanding. No EARTHLY government, can actually be ”Christian” because it isn’t in heaven or the church. And even one Christian is ”the church” because the kingdom of heaven, right now in the earth, is within US who are individuals being governed by God’s Spirit. The Church is not our buildings, traditions,or values- but Christians. A Christian-based government I don’t ”prefer” because it means nothing to the purpose and cause of Christianity and isn’t even practical.

          ”And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!”- Matthew 10:14-15

          • acontraryview

            “Correct”

            Ahhhh. So you have the hubris to state that your interpretation of Biblical teachings is the only “true” one. Yet, every person who claims to be a follower of the Christian faith also maintains that their interpretation of the Bible is the “true” one and all others are not. So tell me, Rachael, how is it you are certain that yours is the ‘true” one and all others are false?

            “But in Christ, Jews and Gentiles are everywhere preaching and living the truth, in love, without striving to control governments in some kind of way.”

            Many Jews and Gentiles are in fact striving to control governments in some kind of way. Of course, according to you, they are “true” Christians, even though they disagree with you. I’ll ask again, how is it you are certain you are correct and they are not? Wouldn’t they say the same about you?

            “What it means to be Christian absolutely does not vary.”

            Then why are there so many different sects of Christianity?

          • Rachel

            Yet, every person who claims to be a follower of the Christian faith also maintains that their interpretation of the Bible is the “true”

            So what? Their claim better be correct. The truth about Living Truth, unlike subjective truth, is that it can never be false and it can never produce lies.

            ”Many Jews and Gentiles are in fact striving to control governments in some kind of way”

            I stated:

            “BUT IN CHRIST, Jews and Gentiles [Christians] are everywhere preaching and living the truth, in love, without striving to control governments in some kind of way.”

            So no, they’re not. If they’ve tried, they’ve stopped. True Christians right now are realizing how to really prepare and be used in this hour, while those who seek worldly dominance are preparing for defeat and disillusionment so that the glory of true Christians may be revealed.

            ”how is it you are certain you are correct and they are not?”

            Because I have evidence, confirmation, revelation, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, love, and the Holy Spirit guiding me, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore I can discern. You believe I can’t correctly discern because you also don’t believe the truth which I testify of.

            ”Then why are there so many different sects of Christianity?”

            There aren’t different sects of Christianity. What you’re referring to is an issue of people who’ve argued their positions and somehow made them known at a certain period of time. But that hasn’t shaped or reshaped Christianity itself. Christianity doesn’t come from man, but it’s your belief that Christianity is man’s invention. So you can’t know that God isn’t divided against himself.

          • acontraryview

            “Their claim better be correct. ”

            No doubt they would say the same about your claims.

            “True Christians”

            Ahhh…yes….”true” Christians. They ones who share your views. All others being false.

            “Because I have evidence, confirmation, revelation, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, love, and the Holy Spirit guiding me, who is the Spirit of Truth.”

            Others make the same claim.

            “There aren’t different sects of Christianity.”

            Of course there are.

            “Christianity doesn’t come from man, but it’s your belief that Christianity is man’s invention.”

            Of course it does. Just as all religious beliefs come from man. Christianity did not exist before man invented it.

  • Emmanuel

    If carter likes you, you are not fit to be President. Again, Trump has been a long time Dem. the dog returns to it’s vomit.

    • DrewTwoFish

      Yeah. Carter. He’s the worst. He spends all of his energy brokering peace, ridding the earth of guinea worm, and building houses for the poor …into his 90’s.

      He should be home painting pictures of puppies

      • Emmanuel

        He should and not teach in Sunday school either

        • DrewTwoFish

          Hmm. Maybe not. He might end up teaching some about love, service, and sacrifice and ignore the important Christian principles like the right to blow your neighbor’s head off, how Father God wants you to be rich, poor people suck, and oh yeah…obsessing over what everybody else does with their genitals. That’s American Jesus!

          • Emmanuel

            LOL, more like; sin is ok and Jesus came to die for nothing.

          • DrewTwoFish

            Uh sure…because that’s just what Carter says.

          • Emmanuel

            He o not say it but shows it in his politics and party platform. He separates church and state but how?

          • DrewTwoFish

            What?!

          • Emmanuel

            LOL, it was late when I wrote that and half asleep. What I meant to say, Carter was not very Sunday School like when he was a president and when he supports his party. He changes positions to accommodate. So not a christian when in DC and holy in church? Hypocrite?

          • DrewTwoFish

            I don’t pretend to be a Carter expert so perhaps you can educate me. How was he not very “Sunday School” like when he was president and in supporting his party? I don’t know what you mean.

          • Emmanuel

            I’m neither Dem or Rep. I’m indep. Both parties are bad.
            Carter supports sin, his party supports sin and the party was very clear in 2012 to remove, directly or indirectly, God from their platform. How can anyone be a dem and a christian? Why support a party that denies God or removes God? So, he preaches about God on Sunday but then supports Anti-God party Monday-Saturday.
            If carter was Rep, same thing. Reps are not holier by any means.

          • DrewTwoFish

            How did Carter support sin while he was in office? Specifics. I don’t think God should be in either platform. It’s one thing for someone’s belief to inform their values and subsequently their decisions. It’s something else to enshrine it a political party or, worse, the government. Isn’t separation of church and state important?

          • Emmanuel

            How can you separate your beliefs from any part of your life or career? Should you be the same in all areas?
            The Dems support gay marriage, abortion and removing God. They support lifestyles that contradict the Bible.
            Carter is a Dem and was a Dem President. He was and is the face of that party. If you are not a Dem in beliefs, then why is he a Dem? Hypocrite again?
            We can separate church and state but understand that there consequences to it. The same can be said if you join the two even closer.

          • DrewTwoFish

            A state isn’t a person. It’s a collection of people of different religious beliefs. Of course, there must be some agreement on the basics, like certain civil rights or the whole thing would fall apart. Should the US be a theocracy? Like some Muslim states? What’s the difference? As you said yourself the when the church and the state are too close that’s no good either. So what’s the solution?

            If you don’t support gay marriage don’t get gay married. What people do behind closed doors is their business. Why are conservatives so interested in what everyone else does with their naughty bits?

            Can ANY Christian serve in government except as an independent? I could generalize and say that Republicans are all greedy, war loving, women hating bigots who serve no one but themselves but big business…but that ain’t fair either.

          • Emmanuel

            I need to say, talking to you has been great. Two adults with different views van meet up and have a healthy discussion. Your point about church and state being g too close is right on. If its too lax, everything is permissible and nothing is wrong. No order or rule. We need to have both; church and state. I’m good with the gay community and what they do. I have good friends that are gay. My only issue is when the church can or be forced to change their beliefs to accommodate everyone’s belief. I think there needs to be some respect for what a church believes and not bee called bigot or shallow for their biblical beliefs.
            Christians like non Christians can serve but they have to be aware and not sellout their principles for money, power or influence.
            Both parties are dirty and that’s why I can’t be in either.

          • DrewTwoFish

            I like Bernie Sanders.

          • LeftCoast

            I like him too. He’s better than Hilary. But, his plans are too liberal for me. I’m more of a fiscal conservative. I want less taxes, spend less, pay our debt, reform all programs and start getting folks off the freebies.

          • DrewTwoFish

            I think of taxes as an investment and insurance. I’m OK paying higher taxes if the money is used wisely. I think it’s interesting how the conservative government found trillions to spend on a blood bath in the middle east but balks at the idea of investing money in education, health care and infrastructure.

            There will always be people who take advantage of the system but I think the vast majority of people want to be as self sufficient as possible and contribute rather than take. I could be naive about that.

            I ran across this quote from Steinbeck today: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor there see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

          • Emmanuel

            I do too. But, his spending makes me nervous. I’m a fiscal conservative so wasteful spending bothers me.

  • Robert Edwards

    Yes, Trump just nailed the lid on the coffin for conservative Christians like myself. I was considering supporting him, but not now.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Gays are already equal sinners to everyone else on the planet. Like everyone else on the planet they need to be saved from their Sin by Jesus (the) Christ. The government’s laws and court rulings don’t define what is Sin and what is Righteous.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

  • Herb Planter

    Shouldn’t it be legal to just hire and fire whoever ya want? If your a hater and people find out and your company falls, well that should just be on you.

  • Johnny Wyeknot

    Heather, why do you use Quotation marks around the word wedding? Are you saying that they aren’t weddings? Just curious because anti-gay bakers and florists sure think that are. Why else would they refuse to participate?

  • LudicrousSextus

    ‘More forward motion’??? You mean it gets faster than government-powered steamroller?

    All of the ‘forward motion’ for this cause recently has about covered all the bases – including the 135% increase in HIV in 13 to 22 year old boys noted by the CDC – while falling in every other demographic…

    And that – is pretty well attributable to 15+ years of ‘forward motion’ by gay advocates omnipresent in American K-12 education, if correlation still means what it used to. It must – since NY state last year suggested it might be time for a law for mandatory HIV tests for 13 year olds.

    Here’s a thought – how about putting on the brakes? It’s mandated public policy already, and sickening American kids in the name of some bogus ‘tolerance and diversity’ campaign. And a special shout out to SCOTUS – where Kagan and Ginsberg both violated US law to deliver ‘equality’…(28 U.S.C. § 455 : US Code – Section 455)

  • Harry Oh!

    Yup, I think Trump just blew it for Christians who were hoping he’d win. But any candidate who thinks that homosexuality is anything other than a mental illness is out!

  • Gabriel A. King

    Gay garbage…. while Muslims are flooding Europe and soon to be America stealing, raping, and murdering on a red carpet with our non-consented tax dollars ?
    CLOSE THE BORDERS !

    TRUMP 2016