Virginia Governor Signs Order Only Allowing Govt Contracts With Pro-Homosexual Entities

Photo Credit: Steve Bott

RICHMOND, Va. — The Democratic governor of Virginia has signed an executive order requiring the state to only enter into government contracts with businesses and organizations that have anti-discrimination policies in place protecting homosexual and transgenders in “its employment practices, subcontracting practices, and delivery of goods or services.”

Some believe the order effectively bans Christian entities and faith-based charities from working with the state, since they do not enact such policies out of their conviction that they retain the religious right to decline orders for “gay weddings” and similar celebrations, as well as to hire and fire in accordance with the religious values of the company or non-profit organization.

“It is hereby ordered as the policy of the Executive Branch that it will only contract with those who abide by the non-discrimination policies set forward in Executive Order 1 (2014), namely that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political affiliation, disability, or veteran status is prohibited,” Executive Order 61, signed by Terry McAuliffe on Jan. 5, reads in part.

The introduction to the order outlines that McAuliffe’s intent is to build a “new Virginia economy—an economy that embraces the diverse world in which we live.”

“Companies with whom Virginia does business, including those critical for building a new Virginia economy with high-paying jobs, have increasingly implemented their own policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The global economy in which Virginia must compete demands a dynamic workforce that is competitive, diverse, and educated,” it reads, also noting that federal policies use similar language.

Read the order in full here.

McAuliffe said in a statement upon the issuance of the order that he believes the move will “take divisive social issue battles off the table and help build an open and welcoming economy.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Starting today, the Commonwealth of Virginia will not do business with entities that discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” he outlined. “Virginia is home to the best state workforce in the country and this policy will ensure there is no question that all Virginians are to receive the full benefits of their citizenship, without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

But others found McAuliffe’s order discriminatory in itself, that it discriminates against people of faith because their religion affects how they operate their business or non-profit organization—whether it be in employment decisions or refusal to participate in same-sex events.

Faith-based charities and religious business owners do not commonly enact the policies required by McAuliffe as they reserve the right to accept or refuse orders as per their convictions, and hire and fire in accordance with their organization’s values.

“Virginia has historically been a leader in the fight for religious liberty. Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom that served as the basis for the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights,” House Speaker William Howell, R-Spotsylvania, outlined.

“That is why it is unfortunate that Governor McAuliffe wants to harm religious liberty by discriminating against individuals, businesses, and faith-based charities that provide critical services to the Commonwealth and its citizens,” he said. “Instead of focusing on improving Virginia’s declining economic climate, the governor is choosing to focus on divisive issues that play to his base.”

The Family Foundation of Virginia issued similar remarks.

“Virginians should be appalled by this act of blatant religious bigotry,” said President Victoria Cobb. “As Virginia continues to slide further down on the list of states in which it’s best to do business, the Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General have no real solutions other than pandering to their base.”

“This unconstitutional act of intimidation and bullying of businesses and charities that are operated by people of faith, from Christians to Jews to Muslims, is not only unnecessary but dangerous,” she stated. “It is also in direct violation of the Virginia Constitution that states, ‘… the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction … shall not be abridged.’”

Marshall

Lawmakers are already considering passing a bill that would annul McAuliffe’s order. Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, has filed H.B. 1667, which prohibits the state from making an entity’s policies on sexuality a condition for a contractual agreement.

Marshall said in a statement that the bill is meant to “to prevent McAuliffe from imposing his new and unauthorized sexual conditions for state contracts.” He noted that a number of businesses throughout the nation have been punished because their policies do not allow them to participate in same-sex celebrations by providing goods or services for those events.

“Make no mistake: Neither Governor McAuliffe nor the LGBTQ advocates who want to destroy the livelihood of photographers, caterers, bakers, florists, musicians and others who refuse to ‘celebrate’ same-sex ‘marriage’ will be satisfied with merely symbolic victories,” Marshall opined.

As previously reported, bakeries in Oregon and Colorado, a photographer in New Mexico, a bed and breakfast in Illinois and a farm in New York have all been fined for declining to participate in same-sex events due to their religious beliefs and corresponding policies.

Marshall also said that McAuliffe’s order, which he noted “requir[es] every company that contracts over $10,000 in business with Virginia to include special protections for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals,” raises a number of questions.

“Since sexual orientation and gender identity are internalized subjective perceptions, how can a business possibly know these facets of a prospective employee’s life without asking?” he inquired. “Will Virginia’s government and businesses now be required to determine and disclose every employee’s sexual identity and behavior?”

“The governor should refrain from imposing new categories for special employment protections based on sexual behaviors and get back to promoting all businesses, period,” Marshall stated. “A business owner or state contractor should be free to hire and fire employees based on their performance, not their sexual behavior or orientation, without fearing denial or loss of a state contract.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • MarkT.

    Sounds like the VA govt is the true Fascist/Nazi’s types.

  • Michael C

    The very first sentence of this article is patently false.

    The Virginia State government does not discriminate in employment or services on the basis of a person’s race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc. This EO simply states that the businesses that do official work for the government cannot discriminate on the basis of those characteristics either.

    Let’s put this into context. Let’s say that a Christian owns a uniform laundering business. If this private company wants to get hired by the state to wash their uniforms, they cannot also refuse service and employment on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation (or race or religion or…). This does not mean that they’re required to “favor” homosexuality, it just means that they can’t fire an employee just because she’s gay or they can’t refuse service to a customer just because he’s gay.

    Is that really so horrible?

    Do all Christians really want to discriminate against gay people this badly?

  • I think the title of this article is somewhat misleading as to the true content. It isn’t saying that contracts are only given to pro homosexual entities. It’s saying that they will only enter into government contracts with businesses and organizations that have anti-discrimination policies in place. I believe that is different things altogether.

  • Michael C

    The Virginia State government does not discriminate in employment or services on the basis of a person’s race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, etc. This EO simply states that the businesses that do official work for the government cannot discriminate on the basis of those characteristics either.

    Let’s put this into context. Let’s say that a Christian owns a uniform laundering business. If this private company wants to get hired by the state to wash their uniforms, they cannot also refuse service and employment on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation (or race or religion or…). This does not mean that they’re required to “favor” homosexuality, it just means that they can’t fire an employee just because she’s gay or they can’t refuse service to a customer just because he’s gay.

    Is that really so horrible?

    • SFBruce

      It’s not horrible at all. It’s called basic fairness. Several states and cities have similar policies, and it makes perfect sense. Why should a state of municipality award contacts to companies that don’t observe the same non-discrimination practices that the state or city has put into law?

    • Scott Davenport

      This is the wrong place to be asking that question. It’s answered the the Holy Bible, which is the word of God.

      He’s calls these things you are trying to foist upon us an abomination the is of a probate mind and are to be tossed aside. They are not worth our time unless they want the help they need…..

      Good enough explanation in why we can’t participate in your filth??? Even hear of guilty by association?? If not, google it…. 🙂

      • Michael C

        This is the wrong place to be asking that question. It’s answered the the Holy Bible, which is the word of God.

        Would you be so kind as to reference the passages that instruct followers of Christ who own open-to-the-public businesses to refuse service to sinners?

        • Scott Davenport

          Take your smartass wimpy little butt to church and you’ll learn more than you ever imagined.

          I’m not remembering anywhere in the bible where it tells me to spar with idiots about our father……

          • Michael C

            Not only do you refuse to defend your statements by sharing with me the words of Christ but you also choose to represent Him with hostility and childish name calling.

            I think we can safely file this under the category of “missed opportunities.”

      • tatoo

        He calls eating pork and shellfish an abomination also, yet you have those juicy Easter hams.

        • Croquet Player

          Probably made from some of your relatives.

          • Croquet_Player

            Can’t come up with your own name and avatar? How pathetic.

        • Croquet_Player

          Please note, my account has an underscore between “Croquet” and “Player”. I guess someone is trying to copy me. How very flattering.

    • michael louwe

      Fyi, the US Constitution prohibits the US govt, ie Federal n State govts, n employers from practising discrimination based on color/race, gender/sex, religion n national origin. (= 1st n 14th Amendment) Sexual orientation is not included in the US Constitution, except arbitrarily by some vote-pandering liberal Blue States n by Obama.
      ……. IOW, the Virginia Governor n Obama hv been making up new pro-LGBTQ laws which should be challenged in the courts, right up to the SCOTUS.

      • Michael C

        Protections from discrimination in employment and public accommodations are not derived from the Constitution.

        The Constitution does not prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of any characteristic (including race and religion).

        The only characteristic protected by the Constitution from discrimination in federal employment is religion.

        • michael louwe

          I stand corrected. It’s actually in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was passed mostly be the liberal politicians of the Blue States in the North; …….

          Title II
          Outlawed
          discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in
          hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public
          accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs
          without defining the term “private”.

    • RIMSPOKE

      THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING .
      IN THIS CASE THEY ARE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION .

      THE ARTICLE SAYS THE VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT WILL NOT ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH A COMPANY UNLESS IT FOLLOWS A SPECIFIC BELIEF SYSTEM .

      • Michael C

        THE ARTICLE SAYS THE VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT WILL NOT ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH A COMPANY UNLESS IT FOLLOWS A SPECIFIC BELIEF SYSTEM .

        …and that’s an inaccurate description of the order.

        The government doesn’t care about the “belief system” of business owners. All they care about is whether or not the business denies employment and service on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (and race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, color, political affiliation, veteran status, and age).

        The only thing the Virginia State government is asking of their contractors is that they refrain from treating lgbt citizens unequally.

        If you would like to contradict anything I’ve said, please reference the wording of the order itself, not what someone else has said about it.

      • Tedlick Badkey

        You don tell want discrimination against your ilk, but demand it of others.

        Nice! You’re a good ally to those you dislike.

        • RIMSPOKE

          I WAS REPLYING TO MIKE .
          YOU WILL HAVE TO READ WHAT HE WROTE FIRST .

          THINGS MAKE MORE SENSE
          WHEN YOU READ THEM IN ORDER .

  • Liberal Elitist

    I applaud the Governor for standing up to the bullies.

    • Scott Davenport

      I’ll be glad when we vote this evil ass out of office. Dem’s just love to tie the noose around their own necks…..

    • Vince

      Changed the name, still the same stupid left-wing cliches.

      • William

        Love trumps hate.

        • RIMSPOKE

          HATE SEEMS TO BE RABID WITH THE ANTI TRUMP CROWD .
          NICE BUMPER STICKER , BUT THEY ARE THE WORST OFFENDERS .

  • Joshua 1:9

    Issues such as this and several others continue to happen, and yet, America is still considered (even by the government, for the most part) a “Christian nation.” If it truly is a Christian nation it would not make special cases, special laws, special privileges for large groups of people who make it their life duty to fly in the face of God, making their entire life an abomination to God, based on the sinful lifestyle they choose to live. It is most definitely not a Christian nation.

  • LC

    Calling it the “Anti-Christian Order” would have been honest, but these people are not noted for honesty.

  • Becky

    Christians should have as little to do with secular governments as possible.

    • Bob Johnson

      So why do they keep running for office?

      • Thornton

        Bob…..Now….That is an interesting concept. How about only atheists should run for government, then we would never have those ignorant and intolerant fundamentalists trying to define laws using the ‘BuyBull’ as a reference and influence. Great idea.

        • tatoo

          Sounds good to me.

          • Thornton

            tatoo…..Thank you. I appreciate your support on that. GRIN! I am so sick and tired of hearing these ‘BuyBull Thumpers’, screaming and yelling about those they don’t like or disagree with, telling them they are going to Hell and God hates them, using THAT BOOK as a weapon. Then they want to make laws preventing me from having the same rights as they do because of what is written in THAT BOOK.. They can take their ‘BuyBull’ and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. THAT BOOK was written by MEN…..NOT GOD!

          • Travis Cartee

            Dear Mr. Thornton,

            I am not in support of Christians being unloving to those who are in need of salvation. I hope you do not understand anything I say to mean that.

            Based on what you say about the Bible, however, I gather that your problem is not just with unloving professing Christians, but also with the whole concept of Christianity, taking issue with the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. However, the way you have worded your objection suggests that you may not have spent any significant amount of time studying the doctrine of divine inspiration, since the Biblical doctrine of divine inspiration does not teach the pre-existence of the Scriptures themselves, unlike the Quran, nor were the words of Holy Scripture at any time brought by the will of man, but men spoke from God, being carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:21)

            Have you spent any time studying the doctrine of divine inspiration? If you have, what was it that caused you to doubt the veracity of this doctrine?

            In Christ,
            Travis Cartee

          • Thornton

            Dear Travis……….It is obvious you did not understand the last sentence of my post. How do I make it clearer? And don’t give me a quote from a book and the quote was written by a MAN….did you read that clearly…a MAN…NOT GOD. Your quote was written by Peter…maybe….Peter was a MAN…Peter was NOT GOD. If you believe THAT BOOK is divine and the word of God…. which version of THAT BOOK are you referring to? The original Latin Vulgate version or the King James version, which DOES NOT have all the writings in it that the Latin Vulgate version does. So, which version is the word of God and is divine? I’m waiting! Now….who told you THAT BOOK is the word of God? Did God come down to you and speak to you telling you it was? Well…if He did, I have a feeling you need psychiatric help. If you say that your minister, priest or the church told you, did you ever think just once that…..MEN LIE!!!! And don’t tell me that it says so in THAT BOOK, because that would be just like a murderer standing up and saying he was innocent. So..now…who told you the ‘BuyBull’ is the word of God? I’m waiting! When you can logically explain that to me in a way that is truthful and believable we can talk again. Until then, I continue to believe the BuyBull is a collection of hearsay stories that have no unbiased historical support anywhere. Oh…and why do I call it the BuyBull? Because it is full of unsubstantiated stories, BULL, and people like you BUY into it.

          • Travis Cartee

            Dear Mr. Thornton,

            I would be glad to answer any and all of your questions to the best of my ability, Mr. Thornton, as long as you are willing to answer mine. Otherwise, this will be simply an interrogation rather than a discussion. I will pray for you of course, that your heart be made tender and your ears receptive to the faith that comes by hearing the Word of God. I am not interested in having an abusive interchange, and I do not think it will be fruitful in these circumstances for me to begin meaningfully and comprehensively addressing the significant issues that you have raised in your last comment without the mutual understanding that we are having a serious and respectful conversation between two individuals genuinely interested in understanding how one another’s perspectives relate to the truth of the matter. I addressed you in the hope that you would be willing to have a civil discussion as long as I was civil in addressing you. However, you have not answered my very simple, yes or no question, the answer to which which could save us a lot of time and confusion, since it would help me to know where you are coming from with regard to this issue. Have you spent any time studying the Biblical doctrine of divine inspiration, such as by, for example, reading and seriously considering the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy or the writings of B.B. Warfield or Louis Gaussen, or any other serious contributor on the topic who is in favor of the doctrine of divine inspiration?

          • Thornton

            Dear Travis……For your information I have done much searching and asking questions of those who are supposed to be learned regarding religion and THAT BOOK. I have even read major sections of the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic version), as I believe King James had no right to remove anything from the original writing. Who gave him authority to remove sections of the original? Did God speak to him? Yeah! Believe it. I have also questioned why the works or Mary Magdalene were not included. This BS that she was a prostitute is just that. It was a man’s world back then and they didn’t want any input from a woman, so they labeled her a prostitute so her writings would never be used. And the stories in THAT BOOK. Give me a break. Noah and the flood. How ridiculous. The replica built in Kentucky has shown just how moronic that story is. They used many many men, mechanical cranes to move and lift heavy wooden beams, power tools to do the cutting and building. If they were going to do it like in THAT BOOK, they would have had one old geezer to play Noah and a few guys to play his sons, using hand saws, axes and hammers and built that boat, which is by the way more than half the length of the Titanic and 5 stories high, just as the original was constructed. Using mechanical equipment and power tools just proved how imbecilic the story is. And for it to have held two of every creature and food enough for all of them, it would have had to have been the size of New York State. And that is just one example. I also asked that if THAT BOOK truly is the word of God, how is it the church used the verse…’go to the four corners of the earth and preach the gospel’…to tell everyone during the Middle ages that the earth was flat. If God had inspired the verse, it would have said ..’go encircle the globe and preach the gospel’…and we would have known centuries earlier the earth was ROUND. And those who think the earth is only 6000 years old are totally ignorant. So…yes…I have done a lot of reading, asking questions and listening to answers. And NONE of the answers have been satisfactory. I have several other questions I have asked the church that they have NEVER answered….which tells me they are either hiding something or lying….and MEN LIE!

          • Travis Cartee

            Dear Mr. Thornton,

            There are good answers to the questions you have raised, but the way in which you are raising them makes it difficult to have an actual conversation with you. Though I can easily reference you to such works as “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” by John Woodmorappe when it comes to your questions about feasibility issues, this doesn’t really get at the heart of the matter, which is your incredulity with regard to the Biblical doctrine of divine inspiration. If you believed that God has spoken to His people and that His Word has been preserved and passed down to them in the Bible, then your entire outlook on feasibility would no longer be resting entirely on your imagination. If you regarded every artifact of knowledge with this kind of relentless skepticism, and held to your skepticism with genuine conviction and consistency, then you would be rendered unable to function or converse with anyone fruitfully. Of course, very few people take their skepticism to such lengths because human beings are usually more interested in using their skepticism as a sleek and efficient tool to preserve their own moral autonomy and resist submission to any kind of moral authority than they are in using it as a humble instrument to be used in pursuit of the truth.

            You are not demonstrating any kind of genuine interest in learning about the issues you are raising. Instead you are using what is referred to in debate as a “scattergun” technique, often used as a debate draws to a close, staying on the offensive as much as possible and throwing out many different objections in different categories, leaving your presuppositions hidden and your arguments disjointed from one another in order to obfuscate the dialogue and confuse any attempt to meaningfully interact as the disagreements become increasingly unrelated to the central issue of disagreement from which all the others spring.

            There are a couple of presuppositions evident in your most recent response that need pointing out. The one that leaps to mind first is your statement that there are “several other questions” you have asked “the church” that they have never answered. You assume that I know who you are talking about when you say “the church.” What church are we talking about here? Since you don’t believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God, then I don’t see how you can be consistently referring to the True Church, God’s regenerate elect, the body of Christ, the exact identity of whom is not fully known this side of eternity. So the question is then, who did you ask these questions to? And did you do any serious searching and studying on this issue by investigating the contributions by serious thinkers who believe that God has inspired and preserved His Word to His people in the texts translated as the Bible, thinkers such as B.B. Warfield and Louis Gaussen, or did you just ask questions to some people you happened to know and decide that since they couldn’t answer your questions in a way that satisfied you that the matter was therefore settled for all eternity?

            Another presupposition that leaps out at me is your reference to the Latin Vulgate as “the original version,” when in fact the Latin Vulgate is not “the original version” of the texts on which the Bible is based, nor is it a copy of the original version. Rather, it is a translation, a new and controversial translation during the time of the early Christian church. What reason do you have for giving Jerome (the compiler and translator of the Latin Vulgate) full authority as curator of the canon of Holy Scripture? Though you imply that Jerome has such authority, you immediately contradict yourself by appealing to the inclusion of books attributed to Mary Magdelene. First of all, I’m not sure which works you are referring to, other than the so-called “Gospel of Mary,” which may or may not have even existed at the time of the creation of the original Latin Vulgate. Your conspiracy theory against the New Testament church with regard to the “works of Mary Magdelene” is unfounded. Do you have any reliable basis for such an accusation?

            And it is this question which brings me to the crux of this matter: the thing you said that I think has the most potential for us to increase in our understanding of one another, if you will directly answer a question pertaining to it, is your claim that none of the answers you have received to your questions have been satisfactory. I think it would be most helpful to know, in the clearest and most comprehensive terms feasible, your method of determining a satisfactory answer to the question, “Is this book inspired by God?” for any given book, because it seems that though you do not believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, yet you have taken it upon yourself to decide what should and shouldn’t be included in the Bible. The selection of the books included in the Bible was made based on the belief that they are divinely inspired and authoritative as Holy Scripture. On what basis do you choose what to include and what to exclude from the canon of Holy Scripture?

    • Scott Davenport

      We wouldn’t have a Gov’t or anything for this matter, and you wouldn’t be breathing, if it wasn’t for GOD… 🙂

      Ahhhhh…to go thru life clueless and miserable inside…sad…..

      • Thornton

        Scott……..the founding fathers did NOT want religion to influence governmental issues. Were you not listening in your US Government class in high school the day they discussed separation of church and state, or were you throwing erasers and not paying attention? If you want religion in your government, move to the Middle East where it exists. I’m sure your wife will love wearing a .burka.

        • Scott Davenport

          Yes, dipshit…I learned about this clause in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.

          And now I’ve educated yet another liberal democrap moron on what that fantastic document really stated. You will see, moron, if you clear that log out of your eye that “separation of chruch and state” is only in the minds of the sheep, but no where to be found in our founding document….

          Now, kindly GFY and let the adults bring this country back to greatness… 🙂

          • Thornton

            Excuse me, Scott….but you didn’t understand what I wrote, proving you do not listen and you obviously cannot understand the written word. I said nothing about establishing a religion, I said that religion cannot influence the making of governmental laws. THAT is what Separation of Church and State means. Now go back to your US Government class and listen and learn something this time instead of throwing erasers.

    • Tedlick Badkey

      R’amen!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    So sad immorality reigns in USA. A Nazi bullying for not-confirming to immorality in the land of USA. White people should stop treating skin colors and sexual sins together. This is real racism.

    • Hugh1

      Both skin color (defined as race) and sexual orientation are immutable characteristics and it is baffling why you as a Christian are claiming otherwise.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You are wrong. You Westerners are mocking colored peoples again by putting us together with sexually immoral people. The West’s racism and bullying never ceased. We won’t be enslaved by the filthy West again because the Western missionaries had given us the copies of the Holy Bible before the Western nations became Sodomic. Secular Western culture got a mental illness this century by going nude everywhere all the time, suffering from boredom severely. Poor your Christian ancestors. Stop hurting mankind. Everyone has rights to live out God’s truth with a clear conscience. You guys need Christianity for sanity and morality and freedom, not just for salvation. Read John chapter 3.

        • Hugh1

          Why are you communicating through the western press if you find our people immoral?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            USA belongs to Christians. You guys are parasites. Be thankful to Christians in the land and listen to them so you will live. I’m not talking about the white feminists who are only pretenders.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Wrong as usual, trollop…

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Today’s America is soul-less because the nation lost Christianity. God will punish nations and empires that force immorality unto the world.

          • Spottswoode, the Deplorable

            You might listen to her.

            Over 77 percent of Americans consider themselves Christian, whereas about 2 percent consider themselves homosexuals (or otherwise sexually deviant).

            Homosexuals are responsible for about 70 percent of all new HIV infections and over 80 percent of new HIV in males, having an HIV infection rate 57 TIMES that of Normals.

            This same, tiny, heavily-diseased 2 percent slice of society accounts for over 75 percent of ALL new Syphilis infections and about 69 percent of homosexuals are already HPV infected in their an us, whereas, among HIV-infected homosexuals, the HPV infection rate is nearly universal.

            In 2008 the CDC reported that about one in five homosexuals was already HIV infected, and more recently, the rate has been moving up to one in four, and among trannies, one in three, and worse.

            Homosexuals cost the US taxpayer at least $34 BILLION dollars each year (that amount alone to the NIH), while treatment for each HIV-infected homosexual costs us $600,000 each.

            There is no way that homosexuals are paying their own freight, but they ARE infecting little boys, through forcible sodomy, unsuspecting hetero females, via closeted, HIV-infected bisexuals, and by infecting the public blood supply.

            Grace was spot-on when she indicated that homosexuals are parasites on Normal society.

            Actually, she was being nice. Homosexuals pose a clear and present epidemiological danger to society in general and forcible sodomy danger to any little boys these filthy sodomites can get their hands on.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            Isn’t it neat that we are not a democracy? The mob does not rule.

            Your anger is pleasing. I look forward to more.

          • Spottswoode, the Deplorable

            It’s a Constitutional Republic. Look to the Guarantee Clause in the Constitution.

            Our anger swept Trump into office, and we are now in the process of dismantling Obama’s imposed sexual deviancy.

            Your tears are delicious.

      • Rev Donald Spitz

        being a sodomite is not immutable. The Bible is quite clear on that. It even states “such were some of you.” Showing that homosexual sodomites can be saved by Jesus by turning away from their sins.

        • Hugh1

          Silly, Christ said no such thing. Or did he?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christ condemned immorality. Secular Americans need to be normal first to comprehend the Biblical text and their forefathers’ writings.

          • Hugh1

            Why not leave us to our own devices?

          • He has. Thus the results. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Ro 1:26

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You are accountable to God and not to yourself because you are a mere creature. Man’s own device(autonomy) hurts himself and all those around him especially defenseless ones.

          • Matt Andersen

            You are left to your own devices. You can do that all you want. However, that doesn’t make it right at all. If you choose to practice that behavior, you incur in yourself the consequences of that behavior, but you are also not going to be allowed to have those consequences spill over into the lives of the rest of us just because you choose to be perverted. It is a detriment to society as a whole.

          • Hugh1

            What do you mean the consequences of that behavior? What consequences? Love, family, and Community? Wake up.

          • Matt Andersen

            You mean to tell me that you do not understand the consequences of homosexual behavior? You have never heard of AIDS? Oh come on.

          • Hugh1

            10 times more people dies of smoking and that is another choice. So? Use precaution, don’t engage in risky behavior, and don’t smoke, that ‘s the best advice ever.

          • Matt Andersen

            As if that somehow justifies homosexual behavior? Give me a break. Don’t engage in risky behavior? Homosexuality is the epitome of risky behavior by its history and definition. How can you equate smoking with homosexuality? Are the two the same? I think not. But because you cannot refute the foundational argument you seek out an alternative, now matter how ludicrous.

          • Hugh1

            What justifies it? Birth.

          • Thornton

            Excuse me,,,,The MAJOR portion of people with AIDS…are STRAIGHT!!! Get it? Do your research before you open your ignorant mouth. Your stupidity is showing.

          • Matt Andersen

            Nice try. Do you mean you cannot take a quick look at history and see that homosexuality has had nothing to do with “love, family, and community”? Family? Seriously? By definition, homosexuals cannot reproduce. It is a physical impossibility. Love? Lust is the appropriate word. Community? How can you have community when you cannot procreate to sustain that community in the first place? You can disparage me all you want, but the truth is plain and clear.

          • Hugh1

            What do you mean homosexual’s can’t reproduce, of course they can and about 20% of gays have children. By the way, why are you so down on gays?

          • RIMSPOKE

            THE RED LETTER EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE
            HAVE BLACK PRINT TOO .

          • Hugh1

            I don’t understand that. If Christ said something, what did he say? Please don’t quote someone else.

          • Thornton

            Hugh1……One very important question to ask Matt is….which ‘BuyBull’ is he quoting from? The King James version or the Catholic version? The King James version deleted MANY books from the Catholic version, because he said they were NOT inspired. WHAT???? Who gave him the right? Did God come down and inspire him? Yeah. Believe it! So…now…which version? The Catholic version has more books than the King James version. Which one is right? Which one does God like more? Is anyone seeing how ridiculous this is? BOTH are books written by……MEN…..NOT GOD or JESUS!!!! Get it folks?

          • Matt Andersen

            Rev. Spitz never said that Christ said such a thing. However, Since Christ is in fact God Himself in the form of the Son, the you can say He did. Homosexuality, as wish many other specific sins, is prohibited in both Old and Testaments explicitly.

          • Hugh1

            You were doing great until the last part. What again did Christ say?

          • Matt Andersen

            Did I stutter? If I can show you the pertinent Scripture would you believe it?

          • Hugh1

            Yes.

          • Matt Andersen

            Genesis 19 – The condemnation of both Sodom and Gormorrah, in part for their perversion of homosexuality
            Leviticus 18:22 – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
            Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
            Romans 1:24-27 – “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
            For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
            1 Corinthians 6:9 – “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality”

            If you will not believe this, then you will believe nothing.

          • Hugh1

            I’m still waiting.

          • Matt Andersen

            Yeah, just as I thought. You have no intention of listening. That is fine.

          • Hugh1

            One more time. I don’t understand that. If Christ said something, what did he say? Please don’t quote someone else.
            I can tell you the answer if you want, or I can give you a hint.

          • Matt Andersen

            You have no idea about what Christianity said nor His intent. I quoted you the proper Scripture. If you do not wish to hear and understand, then I won’t waste my time nor yours. I told you that Christ is God, thus when God spoke, both meant it (John 10:28-30). Again, by your own comments, you really have no desire to hear the truth, so I won’t waste my time.

          • Thornton

            Those are words written by MEN…NOT GOD!!!! OH…God just inspired me to write something. Just a second. Here it is. “When you are dead, you do not know you are dead, but everyone else does. It’s the same when you are a stupid moron.” Well. I was inspired as I wrote those words. Do you believe them? Get it, yet?

          • Matt Andersen

            Wow, you are an amazingly angry and vile person. You have no shame. I pity you. I wish you would see the truth before you no longer have the ability to do so.

          • Thornton

            Matt….Sorry…but I discovered the ‘TRUTH’ years ago…when I started asking those in the church questions…and not getting answers…or..”Oh, that’s not important.” or..”Why do you want to know that?” What a crock. No, Matt…I know the truth. It is you who have not asked questions and are still in the dark. I pity you, because you are too lazy to do the research and ask questions. You would rather believe blindly. Too bad, so sad.

          • Thornton

            Hugh1….Matt will not understand that all the words in THAT BOOK were written by MEN…..Not God or Jesus. Only MEN have condemned homosexuality, not Jesus or God. God nor Jesus ever said the first word on the subject. Even the Ten Commandments, which MIGHT have been directly written by God, has NOTHING about homosexuality, but it sure does condemn adultery. And if they say the men, who wrote THAT BOOK, were inspired, who said that? Themselves? Excuse me. That’s like a murderer saying he is innocent. Matt cannot think outside the box…or in this case….THAT BOOK. It’s sad.

          • Thornton

            Hugh1….Matt just doesn’t get it. I have called him out already at least 3 times here regarding what he said.

          • Thornton

            Matt….AGAIN!!!…EXCUSE ME!!! ALL those verses were written by….MEN!!!! Don’t yo get it? How dense are you? And don’t hand me this that the men were inspired. What a crock! Who said they were inspired? Themselves? Geez….That’s just like a murderer saying he’s innocent. Get it…Yet??? The only information in THAT BOOK that MIGHT have been written directly by God are the Ten Commandments. Show me one of those commandments that condemns homosexuality. There’s one condemning adultery. Yeah. But I’m wanting to see the one against homosexuality. Get it?

          • Thornton

            Matt….excuse me…again….God nor Jesus wrote either the old or new testament They were ALL written by MEN!! Get it? And show me where God or Jesus said ANYTHING about homosexuality! THEY never did. Everything about homosexuality was written by MEN!!! get it?

          • Matt Andersen

            You can argue that all you wish, but it does in fact show your willful ignorance of the truth, and I can do nothing in and of myself to show you the truth. If you refuse to see it, I cannot help you. That is just sad.

          • Thornton

            Matt….No. What is sad is that you sit there and believe blindly. Who told you THAT BOOK is the word of God? Who told you? Did God come down and tell you? Well, if so, I think you need some professional help. If your minister or someone affiliated with the church told you, those are MEN/WOMEN……….PEOPLE LIE!!!!! Get it? And none of this…”Well it is written in it.” What a crock. I just wrote a post to you and told you that God inspired me to write it. I want you to tell me if you believe me. HEY!! Would I lie? Get it?

          • Matt Andersen

            You have no desire to examine the truth for the truth. You do not know me at all – not one bit – yet you feel you can tell me who I am. You have no respect for the natural rights of people, only that you can make yourself feel good by denigrating others with whom you disagree. You do say correctly that people lie. However, you fail to recognize this very fact in yourself. Your self-righteous attitude won’t allow it. I will waste no more wisdom on you.

        • Thornton

          Excuse me, but Jesus nor God said the first word about homosexuality. All words written against it were written by….MEN. Get it? Jesus was not married, lived and slept with 12 men, and told Peter that He loved him….sounds like a homosexual to me. And you can’t prove me wrong either.

      • Amos Moses

        loser argument ………… conflating race and depravity …… and it is racist …………

        • Hugh1

          You are aware of the Justification for slavery in the US south in the pre-Civil War days, aren’t you?

          • Amos Moses

            i am aware that that is a false argument ….. and you are now trying to use that false argument to support another false argument ……. and it is racist ………….

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Westerners were not pervs but very noble and respectable even in those racist years. That’s why the world mimicked the West. Slavery condition of today is worse. Immorality is slavery.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            The US South had no baby-killing sexual pervs like today’s US does. Americans of yesteryears are so much better than today’s Americans in every way.

      • RIMSPOKE

        SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT IMMUTABLE .

        MANY THOUSANDS OF REFORMED HOMOSEXUALS WALKING AROUND
        TO DISPROVE IT , AND YES IT GOES THE OTHER WAY TOO .

        JOHNS HOPKINS JUST PUBLISHED A STUDY THAT WAS UNABLE
        TO FIND EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE BORN HOMOSEXUAL OR TRANSGENDER .

        • Hugh1

          Shouting won’t change sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic. John Hopkins did not publish a study supporting this claim, they condemned the report (not research) by McHugh claiming that his survey of other’s research proved this point. John Hopkins disavows this report. Period.

        • Tedlick Badkey

          Neither is being Christian.

          Why does that get special rights?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christianity is good, and immorality is evil. America is lost because it gives the same rights to both the good and the evil. Mental illness brought by being rich and bored. Typical.

          • Matt Andersen

            Because the freedom to freely exercise one’s religion is a natural law that government cannot take away, regardless of anything. Being a homosexual is not natural and therefore not a part of natural law, so it not unalienable, as the Framers put it. You must remember that the 1st Amendment works both ways. Simply because it does not explicitly say that the areligious have a right to be areligious does not make it necessarily prohibited. The problem throughout history has been that religions have been persecuted, hence the reason the Pilgrims came over in the first place.

          • Spottswoode, the Deplorable

            First Amendment.

            Read it. Learn it. Live it.

            No such protection for sodomites.

          • Tedlick Badkey

            It has limits. Always has.

      • Matt Andersen

        Sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic. That has never been proved out by any science currently known. Even if you have never seen that, answer this: how do you prove someone is a homosexual? There is only one way, but doesn’t prove anyone is a homosexual, just depraved,and that is a behavior, just as much as homosexuality is a behavior. This is also the reason all of these laws that are supposed to protect homosexuals have to have included in them the words “real or perceived” or something to that effect, because since it cannot be scientifically proven to be immutable and a genetic condition, then it has to be based on a wholly subjective context – the person who believes they are that way. This is the truth and is wholly provable. Again, sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic. Not by any semblance of fact.

        • Hugh1

          How do you know if someone is homosexual? You ask them. 7.3% of Millennials identity as LGBT, so you can argue with them.

          In the history of man, no one has ever changed his or her sexual orientation. Not once.

          • Matt Andersen

            Baloney. Do you have to ask a black man if he is black? No. It is demonstrated by the color of his skin. Do you have to ask a woman if she is a woman? No. It can be demonstrated by the chromosomes. As for your last statement, you make an abject lie because it has been proven time and time again. By what evidence do you make the claim this is not so? And citing a poll is not science at all. It is politics. Please.

  • Hugh1

    Christians have a problem with anti-discrimination policies? I don’t get it. If you demand to discriminate against gays, you are not walking in Christ’s footsteps.

    • Amos Moses

      Christianity is EXclusive …. not inclusive ….. and Christ does all the choosing ….. not men ….

      • Hugh1

        Christianity is exclusive in its ‘Believe in me’ tenet of the faithful, a requirement of salvation. Making it illegal to discriminate against gays makes excellent business sense. Why argue the obvious? Is there a conflict?

        • Amos Moses

          there are no requirements for salvation ………..and if there were ….. no one would be saved ……….

          • Hugh1

            Baptism.

          • Amos Moses

            sorry … no ….. that is not part of salvation ….. that comes after salvation ……….

          • ShemSilber

            Omein, Brother Moses. I was taught that we are saved because we are baptized, but you put it right, that we are saved and then baptized, when we understand that is part of the covenant.

            That is also true about circumcision, which is why Timothy was circumcised and Titus was not compelled by those who thought it preceded salvation. (Acts 16:3; Galatians 2:3).

            Shalom.

  • michael louwe

    Isn’t the Virginia Governor discriminating or persecuting religious contractors, eg Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.?

    • Hugh1

      Christians are being discriminated against in Virginia because they are not allowed to discriminate against gays in their secular businesses? Chutzpa.

      • michael louwe

        Fyi, the US Constitution does not prohibit Christians, Jews, Muslims n other religionists from discriminating against the LGBTQs, similar to how banks, businesses n gunshop owners r allowed to discriminate against ex-felons n bankrupts or risky clients.
        ……. The vote-pandering liberal Democrats, Virginia Governor n Obama hv been making up non-constitutional pro-LGBTQ laws.

        • Hugh1

          Our original US Constitution recognized slavery and proportional representation of slaves. The 14th Amendment contains the Equality Clause that prohibited discrimination based on race (ending slavery). This included prohibitions on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia ’67). Today, a minority of Christians and some Muslims demand the right to discriminate against citizens based on sexual orientation, to deny them property rights, public accommodation, services etc. Almost no major corporations, and no Federal government agencies, and most states allow discrimination in the public realm. Most of the States of the Old Confederacy have attempted to maintain their ability to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

          It is a virtual certainty that religions will maintain their right to discriminate in any way that they choose within their organization based on the 1st Amendment. That religion will not be recognized by the government and discrimination based on race or sexual orientation will not be allowed in the public forum. Sometimes common senses isn’t so common and it seems unbelievable that Christians are using Christ as their crutch to justify discrimination against other in the secular realm.

          • RIMSPOKE

            YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT
            HOMOSEXUALS CONSTITUTE A MINORITY .

            MANY OF THEM CAN & DO CHANGE THEIR ORIENTATION
            AND THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO SAY WHY PEOPLE
            CHOSE ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER .

            YOU CAN GIVE SOMEONE A DNA TEST TO CONFIRM THEIR
            ETHNIC HERITAGE . NOT SO FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION .

            PLEASE GET WITH THE TIMES .

          • Hugh1

            Please stop with the caps unless you intend to shout and try to drown out other opinions. In the history of man, no one has changed their sexual orientation. We have no understanding or means to do that. If you claim otherwise, say how it is done.

          • RIMSPOKE

            I ALWAYS TYPE IN CAPS , I EVEN WRITE IN CAPS .
            JUST MY STYLE , NOTHING MORE .

            INTERESTING THAT YOU CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY .

            SCIENCE HAS NO IDEA WHAT CAUSES SEXUAL ORIENTATION
            BUT THERE ARE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHANGED .

            I KNOW SEVERAL OF THEM PERSONALLY . THE GAY LOBBY
            TRIES TO SWEEP THEM UNDER THE RUG , BUT THERE ARE
            TOO MANY EXAMPLES TO PRETEND THAT THEY DON’T EXIST .

            YOU DID SAY THAT YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING ON
            THIS TOPIC SO WHY DO YOU PRETEND THAT YOU DO ?

            THE VERY EXISTENCE OF “BISEXUALS” SAYS THAT YOU
            ARE WRONG .

          • Hugh1

            So, you have an example?

          • RIMSPOKE

            DO I NEED ONE ?
            CLEARLY YOU ARE IGNORING MY LAST STATEMENT .

          • Hugh1

            I didn’t ask for a statement, I asked for an example. Just one will do. And who’s denying LGBT? Not me.

          • RIMSPOKE

            I GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE , MANY THOUSANDS OF THEM .

            ANYONE WHO IS BISEXUAL GOES BACK & FORTH . THAT MEANS THEY CHANGE THEIR ORIENTATION , PRETTY MUCH AT WILL .

            SHOULDN’T BE TOO HARD TO UNDERSTAND FOR SOMEONE
            WHO KNOWS ALL THE HISTORY OF MAN .

            THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO USED TO SWING ONE WAY & NOW SWING THE OTHER . I KNOW A FEW OF THEM WHO HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED THEIR LIFESTYLE OVER TIME .

            YOU WANT NAMES ? THEY ARE EXPLAINED AWAY BY SAYING THEY WERE NEVER REALLY GAY TO BEGIN WITH . CIRCULAR REASONING AT IT’s FINEST .

            PERHAPS YOU DON’T WISH TO UNDERSTAND WHICH
            WOULD EXPLAIN THE LEARNING BLOCK .

          • Tedlick Badkey

            People change religions all the time. It’s just a choice.

            Why the double standard?

          • michael louwe

            At present, the Federal 1964 Civil Rights Act allows businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It is only mostly the vote-pandering liberal Blue States who hv prohibited businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
            ……. The US Federal govt are just recognizing Same-sex marriage, eg for spousal benefits, bc the SCOTUS has legalized SSM in 2015, n not b4. The US Federal govt n businesses discriminating based on sexual orientation is another matter. Obama has issued Executive Orders(= his own laws) to prohibit the Federal govt/schools n contractors from discriminating against the LGBTQs n the Virginia Governor has just followed suit. Trump may dismantle Obama’s pro-LGBTQ policies after 20 Jan 2017 n Obama’s pro-LGBTQ EO r being challenged in courts.

          • Hugh1

            It appears that you desperately to deny equal rights to gays and you want to use Christ to do the dirty work. Big business and virtually all Western Democracies now realize how wrong discrimination against the LGBT community was. They also understand how bad discrimination is for business. If you want to travel down this road, you will feel increasingly isolated, but that’s your choice. Be my guest.

  • Rev Donald Spitz

    one more example why Christians should never be Democrats.

  • Liberal Elitist

    Militant fundamentalist “Christians” are never content with “religious liberty.”

  • Faithwalker

    A nation that identifies itself by its sexual conduct is working towards a decline for all.

    • Michael C

      If my employer fires me from my job on the basis of who I’m in a relationship with, it is they who are defining me by my “sexual conduct,” not me.

      • michael louwe

        Blame it on yrself. It’s similar to most employers refusing to hire ex-felons n bankrupts.

  • Tangent002

    Not discriminating against the LGBT community does not make you ‘pro-homosexual’. It just means you are a human being.

  • Chet

    Wow, guess that make this gov special, no…

  • Not to be overlooked, had the 18th-century founding fathers (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial forbears) established government and society upon Yahweh’s unchanging moral laws (including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), this could have never occurred. There would be no homosexual agenda period because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves to petition government for their “rights.”

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry and scroll down to
    title.

    Find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  • Tony

    WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE!!!! LGBTQAI can be Christians WE all SIN. No Sin is
    greater than another except for Denouncing The lord as God. Does,’t you
    judging a person make you less than a Christian?? That is a Sin as
    well. Ask yourselves are you a real Christian or not. Government has Not place to tell a person they can work because of Race, Gender and sexual Preference. You have Not place to Judge for that is God’s alone.

    • UlaireToldea

      Why are you judging me for judging homosexuality? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you just sin by judging?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Pre-christian = illiteracy and barbarism. Post-christian = mental illness and Sodomism. Christianity = the truth, light, freedom, goodness, forgiveness, salvation and life.

  • RIMSPOKE

    THE INTOLERANT LEFT , UNABLE TO SEE THEIR OWN HYPOCRISY .

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Awesome!

  • cadcoke5

    It is ironic that the same order, specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. But, it will exclude actual Christian business and organizations from doing work for, or in partnership with the government. So, apparently the government cannot do business with itself !