Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Allstate employees, please use this forum to offer suggestions about issues you feel might help the company in dealing with claims, or that might help us as insureds to deal with Allstate.

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:22 pm

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Defau ... id=736438#

Fraudulent reviews precede book's release
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 10/26/2009 7:20:00 AM
Reviewers are being highly critical of a book on the culture war -- a book they couldn't possibly have read yet.

The book entitled The Right Hook - From the Ring to the Culture War is authored by Matt Barber, who is well known for his analysis of the homosexual agenda. Although the book is on Amazon.com, it will not be available until November. Even so, activists are already ripping it in the comments section.

"The homosexual activist blog has turned people loose doing fraudulent reviews, negative one-star reviews of my book, ostensibly to try to discourage people from buying the book and reading it," reports Barber.

According to the author, this is taking place even though the book is one they could not have read in advance. Considering this, Barber says, "This just illustrates that the left, liberals, secular leftists, socialists, and homosexual activists...don't want to argue the debate because they know they lose on the merits -- so they have to employ these Orwellian propaganda tactics to keep the message from getting out."

Numerous pro-homosexual bloggers have already lodged negative comments about the book they have not seen, much less read. Barber is suggesting that people who support traditional values go to the comments section and take the homosexual activists to task.
Last edited by RatPak11 on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:24 pm

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch= ... &id=98174#

Homosexual ’Truth’ Group Blast Protesters for ’Insensitivity’
by Kilian Melloy
Monday Oct 26, 2009

Protesters assembled across the street from a benefit dinner for the anti-gay blog "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality" were lambasted for being so insensitive as to chant their message while a blind man was trying to cross the street and attend the event.

An article about the dinner posted at the anti-gay blog asserted that, "The only ’hate’ to be found [at the dinner] was outside the building at the (Marxist) Gay Liberation Network’s ineffective protest."

The blog posted a write-up of the event originally published at the Web site for Republicans For Fair Media, which dismissed the protest as having "fizzled," whereas, it said, the anti-gay group’s fundraising dinner was "a huge success" that attracted "over 100 pro-family leaders" to the even,t which took place in Illinois.

The keynote speaker was Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber, who was on hand to sign copies of his forthcoming book The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War.

Another speaker was an "ex-gay" individual named Pete Lines, who claims to have once been gay but now to be heterosexual.

The article quoted the executive director of Republicans For Fair Media, Dan Zanoza, who said, "I expected to be meet by a huge phalanx of pro-homosexual demonstrators."

The article said that only about 15 protesters turned out.

Even so, they evidently presented a formidable presence. Said Zanoza, "The pro-homosexual group blocked our access to the crosswalk leading to the banquet hall. As a blind individual, I was struck by the insensitivity of a group which calls for tolerance and recognition of what they claim are special rights homosexuals should receive under the U.S. Constitution."

Zanoza went on, "As I attempted to enter the crosswalk leading to the Academy itself, the pro-homosexual group proceeded to loudly chant their message which greatly increased the danger for myself and others, including the elderly, who depend not only on sight and sound to cross a street. The insensitivity demonstrated by the group was ironic."

The presentation made by Lines was commented upon by an attendee, who was quoted in the article as saying, "I learned a great deal about the negative impact the homosexual lifestyle has upon our culture and individuals who find themselves trapped in this lifestyle.... It is a sad story, but Mr. Lines is proof that there is hope for all who are living their lives contrary to Biblical teachings. However, it is also a message of hope for those with other addictions because I believe, as one of the speakers noted tonight, homosexuality is a form of sexual addiction that one can overcome."

The protest group was organized by Illinois LGBT equality grout the Gay Liberation Network, which posted a message about the event in advance, and noted on its We site, that AFTAH head Peter LaBarbera had mounted a "decades-long campaign against equal rights," and sketched out LaBarbera’s professional history, from his days as a reporter for The Washington times, his affiliation with the anti-gay group Concerned Women for America, and his stint as executive director of the Illinois Family Institute.

Read text at the site, "With his breathless ’undercover’ reports about Chicago’s International Mr. Leather and other events, LaBarbera’s obsession about gay sex has become legendary in political circles. His ’activism’ would be laughable if it wasn’t also dangerous--LaBarbera was the principal proponent of the two failed attempts to get anti-gay initiatives on the Illinois ballot."

Moreover, noted the site, "Appearing last year on the far-right Matt Barber program with lunatic legislator Rep. Sally ’homosexuals are worse than terrorism’ Kern of Oklahoma, he said that the gay lobby ’threatens America and threatens children.’"

An Oct. 26 press release from the Gay Liberation Network offered another view of the protest. Read the release, "We felt it was important to label LaBarbera and his guest speaker Matt Barber as ’bigots,’ because they not only oppose different sexual orientations and gender identities per se, they also oppose our equal housing rights, job opportunities and access to public accommodations. They are bigots, full stop, and the more that the public sees them as such, the less likely LaBarbera, et al are going to get the mass public hearing that they crave.

"It’s also important to note that ’Americans for Truth’s’ bigotry is confined not simply to LGBT people," the release continued. "Peter LaBarbera, for example, was a prime supporter of the many failed campaigns by Peter Oberweis, a man widely condemned for his anti-immigrant anti-Latino biases."

Conservative Web publication the Illinois Review reported on proceedings at the fundraiser, including LaBarbera’s warnings that if federal hate crimes legislation is signed by President Obama, "We can expect now a move towards legislating speech and thought."

LaBarbera also repeated the claims that extremist Christians have circulated of late to the effect that by simply standing up for "Biblical principles" they risk jail time. "Unlike the prolife battle, there aren’t a lot of warm and fuzzies in fighting the homosexual agenda," the article quoted LaBarbera as saying. "But we’re committed to the truth, even if that means going to jail. And these days, Christian activists are serious when they talk of possibly going to jail for standing for Biblical principles."

Of the protesters who showed up that evening, LaBarbera said, ""The people across the street are wrong. In Scripture, God places homosexuality between child sacrifice and bestiality."

While the protesters were slammed for their "insensitivity," the article noted that AFTAH itself was planning an protest to take place outside the Illinois state capitol, to agitate for an amendment to the state constitution that would legally exclude gay and lesbian families from legal recognition and protections.

Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.
Last edited by RatPak11 on Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:32 pm


Law-Breaker-in Chief: Obama Violates Federal Law to Indoctrinate Your Children

by J. Matt Barber

Washington, DC – In what many analysts believe is both an unprecedented and wildly inappropriate partisan move, President Obama has announced that on Tuesday, September 8, he will do an end run around parents and directly target children in what is widely perceived as an effort to implement his extreme leftist political agenda. As millions of parents across the country learn more about his scheme, they have become justifiably outraged. The backlash has been tremendous.

But Obama’s extreme overreach goes well beyond political tastelessness. It’s actually a violation of federal law.

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan recently sent a letter to school principals encouraging them to cease academic instruction and have classes tune in to a live speech Obama will give to children during school hours on Tuesday at noon. The DOE even provided lesson plans, sample activities and questions that teachers can use to promote the event. The letter encourages teachers to “build background knowledge about the president by reading books about Barack Obama.”

Secretary Duncan is a left-wing Chicagoland politician who chose Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Jennings is founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), an extremist group that promotes forced acceptance of homosexuality and transexuality in schools to children as young as five.

Although, due to the backlash, some of the most offensive language has been softened, students as young as kindergarten will, nonetheless, be asked: “Why is it important that we listen to the president? What is the president asking me to do? What specific job is he asking me to do?” Children’s writings would later be used “to make students accountable to their goals.”

However, Federal law specifically forbids Obama, Duncan or any officer from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” 20 U.S.C. § 3403.

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, has notified his children’s school to either opt them out of the President’s illegal indoctrination activities on Tuesday, or they will be homeschooled for the day and “taught a lesson in the Bill of Rights.”

Said Barber: “Not only is this a violation of federal law, it’s just plain creepy. It’s surreal. Obama’s actions here are right out of the playbooks of Saul Alinsky and Chairman Mao. Soviet Russia? Sure. America? No way. I’m furious. Hands of my children, Mr. President!

“We are a nation of laws,” continued Barber, “not a federal cult of personality. Obama and the DOE had better pull the plug on this or outraged parents across the country may just insist that members of Congress dust of their ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ cheat sheets from the 1990s.”

Liberty Counsel is urging parents to “demand that schools not participate. If the school allows Obama and the DOE to indoctrinate school children, parents ought to opt their children out of this illegal program.”

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.
Last edited by RatPak11 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:37 pm


Obama Lied, His Credibility Died

By J. Matt Barber

On Wednesday night President Obama threw a universal healthcare Hail Mary. The call? Incomplete pass.

His much anticipated address to a joint session of Congress promised to finally – for real, this time – provide details about his “healthcare reform plan” (the government takeover of about 20 percent of America’s once free market). Instead, the President regurgitated the same worn-out talking points, tired platitudes and baseless rhetoric he’s been spouting for months, generating more confusion than clarity. As his approval ratings sink faster than an Olds off the bridge Chappaquiddick, the speech-giver-in-chief’s latest lecture was a transparently desperate attempt to salvage his signature issue and, by extension, the very presidency he’s wagered on it. He even went so far as to breathlessly suggest this time that a failure to implement his governmental healthcare scheme means that “more Americans will die.” It was embarrassing.

This was Obama’s umpteenth healthcare homily amid an average of more than one speech per day since he’s taken office. True, it’s better he should run his mouth than actually attempt to govern, but, nonetheless, it’s become annoying that he continues to stubbornly refuse America’s, “Not only no but h--- no,” answer to his persistent “pretty please.”

“I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last,” he proclaimed. To that end he may succeed. Indeed, in light of America’s boisterous rejection of his socialist vision, future presidents may avoid – like Harry Reid avoids Nevada – the polarizing issue altogether. As for the speech: I’ll leave it to other pundits to tackle the President’s arrogantly partisan, condescending and less-than-convincing Windy City tough-guy tone. Instead, I want to address – at the risk of being “called out” by chief thug, Rahm Emanuel (scary, I know) – the fact that Obama, with a straight face, repeatedly lied to the American people (the teleprompter made him do it). I was reminded of my eight year-old, standing before me with chocolaty crumb covered cheeks, saying, “Cookie? What cookie?”

The presidential untruths were plentiful, ranging from “death panel” denials to promises of illegal immigrant exclusions. But, for now, let’s focus on one POTUS’ double whopper:

During his speech the President assured us: “Under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” So, naturally, Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL and all the other lefty pro-abort wactivist groups are up in arms today, decrying the President for discriminating against women and setting back “reproductive rights” by decades.

Yeah, right. Not a peep. And the silence is deafening. Obama – in a clear attempt to placate the vast majority of Americans who refuse to allow their hard earned money to go toward dismembering the smallest of their fellow citizens – made the disingenuous claim with the standard winky-winky-noddy-nod to his pro-abort, man-hating feminist toadies. However, as Cybercast News has pointed out: “The House bill mandates that government-run insurance exchanges where people would buy insurance with government subsidies include at least one plan that covers abortion. Also, committees in both the House and Senate rejected amendments that would have explicitly forbid (sic) federal money from going to pay for abortion under the plan.”

The Capps Amendment even affirmatively permits taxpayer funded insurers to cover abortions, requiring “that at least one insurer in the federal insurance exchange” does so. Furthermore, the Secretary of Health and Human Services – pro-abortion radical Kathleen Sebelius – gets “to decide if the public option itself would provide abortion coverage.” (Wonder how that’ll work out for the unborn?)

Then there’s Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). She successfully lobbied the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to adopt an Amendment that would require insurers accepting federal tax dollars to cover services provided by groups such as Planned Parenthood. (Last time I checked, they weren’t performing skin exfoliations.)

In fact, when specifically asked by Utah Sen. Orin Hatch whether the plan will require taxpayer funded abortions, Mikulski was forced to admit that “it would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.”

When additionally asked to include language that would expressly prohibit abortion coverage, Mikulski responded: “No. I would not be willing to do that at this time.”

The abortion mandate alone is a deal breaker for the majority of Americans and Obama knows that. So he had to lie. It’s just too bad for him that the American people aren’t nearly as stupid as he gives them credit for.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.
Last edited by RatPak11 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:43 pm

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/? ... aid=116284

Orbitz, Bertolli Big Winners For Gay/Lesbian Ads
by Sarah Mahoney, Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 5:00 PM

While many mainstream marketers still shy away from ads directed at gays and lesbians, a leading advocacy group found plenty of companies to honor this year, including Orbitz, Bertolli, Subaru and Allstate.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, monitors all forms of advertising, and bestows its annual awards to "recognize and honor individuals and projects in the advertising and marketing industries for their fair, accurate and inclusive representations of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community and the issues that affect their lives," the New York-based group says.

Bertolli Oven Baked Meals was the big TV winner for ads running primarily in LGBT media outlets; Progressive Insurance won for print and outdoor, and Toyota Scion's "Create-Your-Own-Comic" campaign won for outstanding interactive.

"Golfers," an Orbitz spot that ran on national TV, received the award for outstanding television in mainstream markets. The ad has generated both kudos and criticism for its subtlety: It shows four men on a golf course (a place where plenty of straight men congregate, too), and one is wearing a polo shirt with a tiny emblem -- the Human Rights Campaign logo of a yellow equal sign in a blue square.

One critique of the ad, published back in June, quoted a Twitterer who wrote: "Orbitz ad has 1 of 4 golfers wearing HRC shirt. No other sign of gayness. Cynical marketing to lgbt w/o alienating others or inclusion?"

On queerty.com, another poster defended it: "What do you want them to do? Have a Pride Parade in the middle of the F-ing golf course? Quit bitching about EVERYTHING and take it as a special little nod to the gay community."

A spokesperson for GLAAD says that while the group is pleased with Orbitz's nod to its LBGT customers, "it's sad to note that this was the only TV ad nominated in this category this year. In past years, even last year, we've seen ads from companies like Levi Strauss and Ikea, which referenced gays yet ran on mainstream programming."

He says GLAAD hopes to meet with ad agencies in the coming months, "and advocate for increased inclusion."

Allstate's "Insurance Comes Out" campaign got top honors in the outstanding print/outdoor category for mainstream media. Those ads ran on bus shelters and in health clubs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, in honor of the company's LGBT consumers.

Subaru got the group's Corporate Responsibility Award for its "long-standing and public commitment to the LGBT consumer."

Furniture company Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams received a Public Visibility Award, "for their personal dedication to advocating for LGBT equality, as well as the inclusion of LGBT stories in ads."

The nearly-sold out event event was hosted by actor Alan Cumming, who also received an award from GLAAD. Ogilvy and Southwest Airlines sponsored the awards.

This news story is important. I recommend that everyone read it.

2 people recommend this article.

http://www.tips-q.com/1531309-allstate- ... -comes-out

Allstate "Insurance Comes Out"
Submitted by David Hart on Wed, 10/28/2009

This Allstate print advertisement was one of the GLAAD award winners. In GLBT circles, Allstate will forever be known as the company that canned Matt "Bam Bam" Barber. Check out all of the GLAAD award winners and nominees here. The announcement with more information is here. Click on the image to display the full size version and imagine Barber's face were he still in Allstate's employ.

Allstate "Insurance Comes Out"
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:38 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/gay-power-vs ... s-liberty/

Exclusive: Peter LaBarbera on how homosexual 'rights' is destroying freedom of conscience
Published: 11/29/2013 at 6:17 PM

Editor’s note: This column is part of Whistleblower magazine’s blockbuster issue, “THE NEW SEXUAL REVOLUTION: How the ‘gay rights’ movement has become a Trojan Horse for totalitarianism.”
By Peter LaBarbera

“The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.” – Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folger (Porter), “The Criminalization of Christianity”

There is a war between homosexual “rights” and Americans’ religious and First Amendment freedoms – and the “gay” activists are winning.

The “zero-sum game” is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern “rights” based on homosexual “orientation” (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.

“Gays win, Christians lose,” Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests. She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas.

Following is a summary of cases involving battles between religious and moral freedom and homosexual activism. Some involve legal cases, others involve people who suffered privately for speaking out against the “gay” agenda. Others involve children whose rights (such as girls’ right to privacy) are violated in the name of “LGBT equality.”

In a sense, this could be called a list of the “Victims of Homosexualism” – that is, organized homosexuality. Though not comprehensive, its sheer scope illustrates what pro-family veterans have long known – but which the “gay”-cheerleading media fail to report as a major story: that “rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion (“transgenderism”) cannot coexist with religious liberty.

First, a few observations:

These victims of escalating “Gay Tyranny” in America are not all tied to the question of homosexual “marriage.” Indeed, well before “gay marriage” came on the scene as a “mainstream” issue, pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws and corporate pro-LGBT policies were victimizing and punishing Christians and other moral opponents of homosexuality. And those laws are invariably used to argue for homosexuality-based “marriage.” The homosexualist agenda moves ahead incrementally, but “sexual orientation” laws and policies – and their philosophical presupposition that homosexuality is about innate “identity” (“who you are”) rather than changeable, wrong and aberrant behaviors (“what you do”) – is the foundation for the entire far-reaching LGBT agenda.

The most prominent example of the inherently discriminatory nature of pro-”gay” nondiscrimination laws (predating the entire homosexual “marriage” debate) is the Boy Scouts of America, who were initially challenged in 1990 by homosexual James Dale under a then-new “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law in New Jersey. Ultimately, in 2000, the Dale case found its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Scouts narrowly won their right not to have homosexual scoutmasters and members – only to toss away the fruits of their victory 13 years later by changing their rules under corporate pressure to allow openly homosexual Boy Scouts. (The Scouts still ban adult, openly homosexual scoutmasters, but pro-family experts predict that this prohibition will crumble – under continued “gay” activist pressure – now that the Scouts have sacrificed the moral principle that they had fought years to defend.)

It should also be recognized that oppression comes in many forms and from many quarters. Once professional institutions like the American Bar Association, American Association of Pediatrics and American Counseling Association adopt pro-LGBT “sexual orientation” codes, these policies become the basis for discriminating against people of faith.

These cases involve mostly higher-profile “victims.” What does not make the following list are everyday small businesspeople who, under an array of pro-homosexual laws and policies, are forced to effectively subsidize sexual behavior they regard as immoral. Thus, in a “gay marriage” state or in a big city with “sexual orientation” laws, business owners – much like the wedding cake makers below – are forced by the heavy hand of government to treat homosexually “married” or partnered employees as they would their normally married workers.

Also, countless employees and students have been forced to endure “gay tolerance” and pro-LGBT “diversity” programs that promote ideas with which they strongly disagree – a form of “soft tyranny” that most moral-minded employees have come to accept as the price of working in a big corporation. As is shown below, those who rock the politically correct boat invite persecution.

Lastly, note the irony that several of the victims below are black. Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, Wash., (a former NFL player who appears occasionally on the “Rush Limbaugh Show”) says, “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.” (Hutcherson is black.) Yet that is precisely what the expanding web of “sexual orientation” laws, executive orders and rulings from liberal judges is doing. By mandating “gay” (and transgender) tolerance as a basic, modern American value, the law and politically-correct U.S. corporations are rapidly making opposition to homosexuality and gender confusion anathema – even banning it – thus relegating Christians and defenders of historic Judeo-Christian moral truths to second-class, pariah status.

Following are summaries of some modern American “Victims of Homosexualism”:

California law allow boys in girls showers and restrooms: A radical new California law hailed by LGBT activists for “protecting transgender youth” will allow male students to use female restrooms and female locker rooms and shower facilities in California schools. AB 1266 violates the privacy rights of opposite-sex students in the name of transgender “equality.” Asks the pro-family Capitol Resource Institute: “What about the right to privacy of a junior high school girl wanting to go to the bathroom and having some privacy, or after PE showering and having to worry about being in the locker room with a boy?” AB 1266 also allows biologically born boys to play on girls’ sports teams (as long as they perceive their “gender” to be female). The bill is part of the escalating LGBT agenda to erase natural male-female gender differences and to accept the identity claims of gender-confused “trans’ advocates at face value. For example, pro-transgender activist Zach Ford of the liberal Think Progress had this to say in response to the law’s critics: “What many of these groups and individuals refuse to accept is that transgender youth are the same gender as their counterparts; they just happen to be trans.” Opponents plan to go to referendum to reverse the transgender law.

Christian photographers lose in New Mexico Supreme Court: If a unanimous decision against them by the New Mexico Supreme Court is not overturned, Christian photographers Jon and Elaine Huguenin – and countless other small businesses – will be required by the government to use their business to participate in – and thus help celebrate – homosexual “marriages.” In 2006, two lesbians sued the Huguenins under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because they declined to take photos at the lesbians’ “commitment ceremony.” Elaine Huguenin later said, “The message a same-sex ceremony communicates is not one I believe.” In an Aug. 23, 2013, decision upholding a previous decision against the Christian photographers, the New Mexico high court ruled that the Huguenins – indeed any businessperson who interacts with the public – cannot refuse to do business with homosexuals. Interestingly, at least one pro-homosexual-”marriage” group, the libertarian CATO Institute, working with “gay” legal activist Dale Carpenter, submitted an amicus brief defending the Huegenins’ right to their own creative expression.

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (New Jersey): In 2007, two lesbians, Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, decided they wanted to hold their “commitment ceremony” at the boardwalk pavilion of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association – which describes itself as “God’s Square Mile at the Jersey Shore.” The Methodist-run Ocean Grove is overtly Christian and plays host to many Christian ministry gatherings. The New Jersey Department of Civil Rights ruled against Ocean Grove on “discrimination” grounds, but the lesbians sought no punitive damages. Much like the Catholic adoption agencies pushed into closure by pro-homosexual policies (see below), Ocean Grove pulled out of the wedding-hosting business so as not to be forced to become a part of celebrating homosexual unions condemned by the Bible.

Hawaiian B&B forced to “accommodate” lesbians despite owner’s religious objections: As WORLD magazine reported in April 16, 2013: “Two Southern California lesbians have won their legal battle against a Christian bed and breakfast owner in Hawaii. … The Hawaii First Circuit Court judge ruled on April 11 that the owner of Aloha Bed & Breakfast violated state law when she told Taeko Bufford and Diane Cervelli she was not comfortable having them stay together in her home because of her religious beliefs. … According to the ruling, the bed and breakfast violated the state public accommodations law [barring discrimination based on 'sexual orientation'] and is ordered, from now on, to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wishes stay there.”

Illinois Christian B&B owner faces lawsuit after telling “gay” activists, “We will never host same-sex civil unions”: Jim and Beth Walder own a beautiful bed-and-breakfast in Paxton, Ill., just outside Champaign, home to the University of Illinois. But their lives were forever changed when, on Feb. 15, 2011, homosexual activist Todd Wathen – anticipating enactment of Illinois “civil unions” law – sent them an email: “Do you plan on doing same sex civil unions starting June 1st?” Jim Walder wrote back: “No. We only do Weddings.” After more back-and-forth, Walder even sent Wathen an email imploring him to consider what God says about his homosexual lifestyle:

I know you don’t want to hear this, but I thought I would send along a couple of verses in Romans 1 detailing how the Creator of the Universe looks at the gay lifestyle. It’s not [too] late to change your behavior. He is loving and kind and ready to forgive all men their trespasses, including me.

But far from wanting to change his own behavior, Todd Walthen instead was preparing to use the power of the State – specifically Illinois’ “Human Rights Act” – to change Walder’s. The homosexual activist’s ACLU-assisted court filing reads: “As a result of Respondent’s violation of the Act, Complainant has suffered substantial mental and emotional distress as well as the stigmatizing injury and deprivation of personal dignity that accompanies denials of equal access to places of public accommodation.” Walthen seeks monetary damages, attorneys’ fees and “an order directing [the Walders] to cease and desist from any violation” of the homosexual-affirming Human Rights Act.

Wildflower Inn in Vermont pays settlement to lesbians and shuts down wedding reception business: The American Civil Liberties Union teamed up with the Vermont Human Rights Commission to win a settlement in August 2012 by which the Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vt., agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to two lesbians. Ming Linsley and Kate Baker were told (apparently by mistake) that the inn would not host their lesbian “wedding” reception. (They found another venue for their ceremony.) The settlement also requires the inn’s owners to place $20,000 in a charitable trust for the lesbians. The Huffington Post reports “the inn also agreed it would no longer host weddings and their receptions.” In 2005, the inn had agreed it would hold homosexual “wedding” receptions but in doing so would make clear its religious opposition to such celebrations. “All families should feel welcome at any resort that’s open to the public,” Linsley said in a statement.

“Sweet Cakes” Bakery shuts down in Oregon after refusing to bake for “gay wedding”: Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” bakery in Gresham, Ore., became the targets of a state investigation, a “gay” boycott and some vicious attacks after they declined to make a “wedding” cake for two lesbians in January 2013. The Kleins ultimately decided to shut down their storefront operation to evade potential prosecution. Homosexual activists targeted the Kleins’ distributors, sent hateful messages to the couple and sought to portray them as hypocritical, anti-gay bigots. One activist even created a fake Facebook account for Sweet Cakes that portrayed the Kleins as racists. The couple will still sell baked goods, but only from their home.

Following are other cases involving wedding cake makers, florists and banquet halls who refused to allow their businesses to be used for the celebration of homosexual “marriages”:

Just Cookies (Indiana):
In 2012, owners of this cookie stand in the Indianapolis City Market refused to fill a special order by phone for “rainbow cookies” for a Purdue University-Indianapolis “gay” student group. Liberal activists charged “discrimination” under the city’s “sexual orientation” law and sought to pressure the market to drop its lease for Just Cookies. They failed, and the owners ultimately settled with the city (without paying damages) over violating the “gay”-affirming nondiscrimination code.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado): The Colorado attorney general has filed a formal complaint against this bakery for refusing – on religious grounds – to make a “gay” wedding cake.

Victoria’s Cake Cottage (Iowa): Owner Victoria Childress refuses to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple out of “convictions for their lifestyle.”

Fleur Cakes (Oregon): Another Oregon bakery joins Sweet Cakes in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Arlene’s Flowers (Washington): As the liberal Think Progress reports: “Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide the flowers for the wedding of a same-sex couple who had long frequented her shop because of her ‘relationship with Jesus Christ.’ She now faces two lawsuits:one from the couple, and one from the state attorney generalfor violating state law.”

Liberty Ridge Farm (New York): The business refuses to allow its property to be rented out for a lesbian “wedding.”

All Occasion Party Place (Texas): A Fort Worth venue refuses, out of the owners’ loyalty to their religious beliefs, to rent out a banquet hall for a homosexual “wedding” reception.

Craig James fired by Fox Sports Southwest after GOP debate tape shows him expressing Christian beliefs in opposition to homosexual “marriage” (September 2013): In a 2012 Republican primary debate for U.S. senator in Texas, former football star Craig James in answering a question said homosexuality is a choice and that homosexuals will have to answer to the Lord for the sin of homosexual “marriage.” The existence of that debate video apparently was enough to get James fired within weeks of being hired by Fox Sports Southwest as a college football analyst. A Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. … He couldn’t say those things here.” James says he was fired over his religious beliefs, and his case has parallels with Allstate’s 2005 firing of Matt Barber (see below).

Should a Christian T-shirt maker be forced to make “gay pride” apparel? Hands On Originals says no (Kentucky): A Christian-owned T-shirt company (Hands On Originals) ran afoul of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission when it refused to print “gay pride” designs for a local homosexual group, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO). If the case cannot be settled, the next phase is a “public hearing” in which the government commission represents GLSO against Hands On, which is being defended by Alliance Defending Freedom. ADF attorney Jim Campbell says, “Americans in the marketplace should not be subject to legal attacks simply for abiding by their beliefs. … The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing business owners to promote messages they disagree with.” Another local T-shirt company donated 500 T-shirts to GLSO with the “gay pride” message they wanted – showing that the homosexual activist group could easily have sought out and ordered them from a company whose owners are not opposed to celebrating homosexual relationships.

Dr. Angela McCaskill (Gallaudet University, Maryland) learns that “diversity” apparently does not include supporting traditional marriage: In another stunning example of pro-homosexual intolerance, McCaskill – chief diversity officer and the “first deaf African-American female to earn a Ph.D. from Gallaudet University” (as her university bio states) – was suspended and put on paid leave after it was discovered she signed a petition to put same-sex “marriage” up for a statewide referendum in 2012. The case of McCaskill – who had worked 20 years at Gallaudet – gained wide coverage and sympathy even among liberals who support homosexual “marriage.” McCaskill was reinstated at the historic university in January of 2013.

Eastern Michigan University settles case with Christian Julea Ward, a Christian who was kicked out of counseling program for opposing homosexuality:EMU had informed Julea Ward, who as a Christian did not wish to affirm the homosexual lifestyle in counseling, that she could only stay in the university’s graduate counseling program if she agreed to undergo a pro-homosexual “remediation” program. (Notably, EMU cited pro-homosexual standards set by the American Counseling Association to justify its actions taken against Ward.) When Ward, who is black, refused, she was booted. That did not sit well with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a December 2012 opinion written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated, “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” Rather than appeal the case, EMU settled with Ward and her ADF attorneys, paying her $75,000 – while stubbornly asserting that “the resolution of the lawsuit leaves the University’s policies, programs and curricular requirements intact.”On a positive note, in 2010 Michigan’s House passed the “Julea Ward Freedom of Conscience Act,” which forbids public colleges and universities from discriminating against or disciplining students participating in counseling, social work and psychology programs “because the student refuses to counsel or serve a client as to goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with a sincerely held religious belief of the student, if the student refers the client to a counselor who will provide the counseling or services.”

Jennifer Keeton loses counseling school challenge at Augusta State: In a case similar to Ward’s, a Georgia court has dismissed a lawsuit by a former counseling student who was ordered by Augusta State University to complete remedial training after expressing her anti-gay views.Jennifer Keeton sued ASU in 2010 after faculty members told her she couldn’t complete the degree program if she did not complete a remediation plan, which included attending diversity workshops, reading articles about counseling lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and submitting monthly writing assignments.

Christian Legal Society loses right to disallow homosexual members at UC-Hastings: Can a public university treat a Christian organization unlike other campus groups because it upholds the Bible’s standard against homosexuality? In a 5-4 ruling in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court said yes, upholding U-C Hastings College of Law’s denial of official recognition to the Christian Legal Society. CLS requires all its members to forswear “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” (sex outside marriage). Gregory Baylor, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, which defended CLS, cautioned that the Supreme Court ruling focused only on a narrow portion of UC-Hastings’ policy – that all student groups must adhere to the same nondiscrimination policy. “The court did not adjudicate whether the application of nondiscrimination policies to a religious student group is constitutional,” Baylor said.

Freedom to procure pro-heterosexual change therapy loses in California and New Jersey:In two big hits against liberty and parental rights, California and New Jersey have enacted laws banning the seeking of “reparative therapy” for minors. The California law, SB 1172, survived a court challenge by the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel. It reads: “Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age, regardless of the willingness of a patient, patient’s parent, guardian, conservator, or other person to authorize such efforts.” Critics of both measures are calling them “Jerry Sandusky laws” because they would ban youth (and their parents) from seeking explicitly pro-heterosexual therapy even for minors who have been sexually molested by a homosexual predator. (Many admitted “gay” adults such as CNN anchor Don Lemon testify to having been homosexually molested as children.)In New Jersey, the anti-reparative-therapy law was passed even after an LGBT activist who testified in support of the bill was exposed for telling grotesque lies about the existence of abusive ex-gay conversion camps in Ohio – which never existed. Strangely, those who are adamantly “pro-choice” on abortion are “anti-choice” when it comes to the freedom of people to pursue a life apart from homosexuality. See next item.

SPLC lawyers target JONAH, a Jewish group that helps men and women overcome homosexuality:In addition to legislation, the pro-LGBT left is using lawsuits as part of its campaign to put “ex-gay” and pro-change therapists out of business. The well-funded Southern Poverty Law Center is suing purveyors of “reparative therapy” – pro-heterosexual-change therapy for men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions. The SPLC’s first target is JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality. In announcing its case against JONAH, the SPLC claimed in 2012, “The lawsuit describes how the underlying premise of conversion therapy – that a person can ‘convert’ to heterosexuality – has no basis in scientific fact.” However, JONAH has helped people overcome or manage homosexual desires – and examples of men and women who once considered themselves “gay” or “lesbian” abound. Here are just a few of the public “ex-gays” (and for every one of these there are perhaps thousands who do not advertise their former homosexual identity): Frank Worthen; Greg Quinlan; Stephen Black; Charlene Cothran; Dennis Jernigan; Yvette Cantu Schneider; Linda Jernigan; Christopher Yuan; Rosaria Butterfield; Michael Glatze; Anne Paulk and Andrew Franklin.The war against “ex-gays” and pro-heterosexual change efforts for youth – perhaps more than any other recent action by the homosexual activist lobby – reveals its inherent totalitarianism. The same activists who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that homosexual behavior is unhealthy – e.g., a CDC report on 2011 data found that 94-95 percent of all HIV cases among boys and young men ages 13-24 were linked to homosexual sex – are now crusading to stop young people from pursuing ex-”gay” change.
Chuck Limandri – the pro-family attorney who in 2009 helped San Diego firefighters win a lawsuit against their city after being forced to participate in San Diego’s highly sexualized “gay pride” parade – said regarding the SPLC’s lawsuit:

SPLC is grotesquely misusing consumer fraud laws to try to shut down counseling services to Jews with same-sex attractions, and to intimidate other therapists, ministries and service providers across the country. … Individuals with same-sex attraction have a right to seek counseling to live their lives as they choose. It is a matter of self-determination.

For the record, this is the same SPLC that has smeared numerous pro-family groups – such as Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, Family Research Council and American Family Association – as “hate groups” on a par with racist and anti-Semitic groups like Aryan Nation and the KKK. (See next item).

Family Research Council shooter Floyd Corkins – who relied on SPLC “Hate Map” – gets 25 years for attempted mass-murder: If it weren’t for the heroics of Leo Johnson, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins might have committed mass murder when he stormed the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C., headquarters in 2012. (Corkins found FRC listed on an online “hate map” published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which lists FRC and various other pro-family organizations as “hate groups” because they oppose the homosexual activist agenda.) Corkins had planned to shoot as many FRC staffers as possible and then jam a Chick-fil-A sandwich in the mouths of his victims, but Johnson wrestled his gun away from him, getting shot in the arm in the scuffle. Incredibly, pro-homosexual activists led by the SPLC continue to smear FRC as a “hate group” despite the near-massacre that almost transpired partially as a result of that defamatory “hate group” classification.

SPLC and feds pressure Minnesota school district to affirm homosexuality: The Obama administration’s Department of Justice teamed up with the far-left SPLC and another homosexual activist group to pressure the Anoka-Hennepin School District, outside of Minneapolis, to jettison its “neutrality” policy on homosexuality and replace it with a pro-homosexual policy – ostensibly to combat “anti-gay bullying.” A propaganda campaign was waged against the school district, portraying conservatives as hateful bigots and grossly exaggerating the number of allegedly homosexual students who committed suicide. Anoka-Hennepin buckled in the face of the immense resources stacked against it – both the SPLC and the U.S. Department of Justice. Pro-family advocates fear the DOJ-SPLC campaign against the Minnesota school district will become a blueprint for similar federal actions against school districts that do not wish to affirm homosexuality among students.

Black woman in Chicago drummed out of Roosevelt College’s Master’s Degree Education program for voicing politically incorrect views on homosexuality: Ms. Gillian John-Charles is a single mom, a mathematics teacher and an African American who had been enrolled in Roosevelt University’s EdD program since 2009. In October 2010, in a class discussion led by a liberal professor who apparently had an ideological axe to grind, John-Charles said she does not believe homosexuals are born “gay.” As the professor’s mistreatment against her escalated, she describes in a legal complaint how he bullied her by falsely accusing her of having a “negative and disparaging” view of gay people – though she stated clearly in class that, as a teacher, she treats all her students with the same respect without regard to “sexual orientation.” Within a year of the initial classroom incident, John-Charles was expelled from the doctoral program, citing unsatisfactory academic performance (despite her 3.51 GPA). She is now contemplating formal litigation against Roosevelt University.

California homosexual lawmaker targets nonprofit status of ‘anti-gay’ organizations: Democratic homosexual lawmaker Ricardo Lara is working hard to win passage of landmark legislation, SB 323, that would deny tax-exempt status in California to any nonprofit youth organization that “discriminates” against homosexuals or transgenders. This is an ominous piece of legislation for the pro-family movement because it shows that “gay” activists are unafraid to use the tax code to punish organizations (and people) that disagree with their agenda.

Proposed San Antonio law intended to ban Christians from serving in government if they had ever demonstrated “bias” against homosexuals: A newly enacted “sexual orientation nondiscrimination” law in San Antonio takes the potential oppression arising from pro-LGBT laws to new lows. The law – which was modified several times to appease critics – included in one iteration language that would bar Christians or moral foes of homosexual “marriage” from ever getting a job in San Antonio government: “No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by work or deed, against any person, group, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability.” What is stunning is that such language would even be introduced when less stringent “sexual orientation” laws like New Jersey’s and New Mexico’s have already been used to punish moral-minded youth organizations like the Boy Scouts and private businesses run by Christians.

Portland bar owner fined $400,000 for excluding transsexual men who were using the women’s restroom: Chris Penner, owner of the Twilight Room Annex bar in Portland, was recently fined $400,000 under the Oregon Equality Act for banning several “transgender” (biological) males from his establishment. The men – who would dress as the women they were pretending to be – were alienating other customers by using the women’s restroom. According to the state complaint against Penner, he left a message with one of the “transgenders” saying that: “People think that a) We’re a tranny bar or b) We’re a gay bar. We are neither. People are not coming because they just don’t want to be here on a Friday night now.” The Seattle Times reports that eleven people – who apparently call themselves the “T-girls” – “will get the money, with awards ranging from $20,00 to 50,000.”

Massachusetts judge allows international “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit to proceed against Christian advocate and pastor Scott Lively:In one of the most frightening cases advanced by aggressive homosexualists, U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor has allowed a leftwing harassment lawsuit accusing veteran pro-family advocate Scott Lively of “crimes against humanity” to proceed in his U.S. court. For years, homosexual militants have spread lies about Lively’s work in Uganda, where he and several other Christians spoke against the threat of homosexual activism in that largely Christian nation. He was accused of being the mastermind behind a draconian Ugandan bill whose provisions he did not even ultimately support. Lively rarely bothered to answer the “gay” lies, in part because they were so absurd. A Ugandan homosexual activist group, SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) teamed up with a notorious leftist American group, the Center for Constitutional Rights (which also defends accused Islamic terrorists held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay) to sue Lively under the Alien Tort Statute. The case is preposterous, but could drain resources from Lively and intimidate other Christians from speaking out against homosexuality, here in America and abroad.Says Lively: “I am being judged according to a European legal standard in my own federal court system for speech that is 100 percent protected in both America and Uganda. … This case has enormous implications for First Amendment rights here at home and abroad, for the supremacy of our Constitution over foreign law, for Christian values under international law, and for the future power of homosexual activists to crush anyone who stands in the way of their global agenda.”

Matt Barber, fired by Allstate for opposing ‘gay’ agenda, now a pro-family leader: In 2005, Matt Barber was fired by Allstate Insurance Company for allegedly using a company laptop to write a column against homosexuality (which violated Allstate’s “diversity” standards). Barber sued Allstate and ultimately settled the case. Though not vengeful, Barber did get back at Allstate, in a way: He is now a popular conservative writer and is associate dean of the Liberty University School of Law, as well as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action.

Catholic Church shuts down adoption agencies in Massachusetts and Illinois due to pro-homosexual laws: In Illinois, a tragic casualty of state’s “civil union” law was the closure of the Catholic Church’s adoption program in Chicago. Catholics oppose adoption by homosexuals. This followed a similar story in Massachusetts, in which the Catholic Church shut down a successful adoption agency following the state supreme court’s imposition of “gay marriage” – rather than being forced to place children in homosexual-led households.

Judge dismisses Crystal Dixon case (University of Toledo, Ohio): Dixon was a University of Toledo human resources employee who was fired in 2008 after writing column critical of “homosexual rights.” A black Christian, she argued that those choosing to embrace a homosexual lifestyle are not “civil rights victims.” In December 2012, a federal judge dismissed her lawsuit. Dixon reportedly is appealing to the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Shedds lose a business after a homosexual boycott (Kentucky): Back in 1995, David Shedd was fired from his position as president of a lucrative Miller Beer distributorship in Louisville, Ky. – after homosexual activists launched a successful boycott against the company. Their beef? David’s wife, Donna, was involved with the local affiliate of Eagle Forum, which is headed up by conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly and is strongly pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage.

Whistleblower magazine’s October issue, “THE NEW SEXUAL REVOLUTION: How the ‘gay rights’ movement has become a Trojan Horse for totalitarianism,” further explores how the so-called LGBT movement is snuffing out religious liberty and individual Americans’ freedom.

Peter LaBarbera, formerly a journalist for the Washington Times, is the founder and president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, online at AFTAH.com.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:28 pm

http://www.themonitor.com/opinion/colum ... f6878.html

COMMENTARY: The truth about 'Duck Dynasty' can be too hard for some to take
Posted: Thursday, December 26, 2013 12:02 am
MATT BARBER | Guest columnist

As widely reported, Phil Robertson, the patriarch in A&E’s breakaway hit Duck Dynasty, recently ran a-fowl of homosexual pressure groups, ruffling “progressive” feathers throughout concentrated pockets of deep blue America. He remains suspended “indefinitely” for candidly summarizing, in a recent interview with GQ magazine, the millennia-long “Love the sinner, hate the sin” biblical stance on homosexuality.

“I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!” he bluntly opined. “But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

He also addressed other sins, paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

“I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me,” he later added. “We are all created by the almighty, and like him, I love all of humanity.”

Barring a handful of “progressive” revisionists, Christian theologians have since observed that, while Robertson’s position on sexual sin is 100 percent biblically, morally and biologically correct, it is, nonetheless, precisely 0 percent politically correct.

Furthermore, Robertson seems to have been quoting directly from the rare, though accurate, “Louisiana Revised Standard Living Translation.”

Even so, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) spokesman Francis Twinklebean offered this scathing, though typically insightful, analysis of Robertson’s opinion: “Quack, quack, quack, bigot,” said Twinklebean. “Quack, quack, vile quack, intolerance quack, quack homophobia quack.”

Human Rights Campaign (HRC) spokesman Randy Van Grindr was no less distressed: “The First Amendment? That’s so 1776,” he said. “This is 2013. Speech isn’t free, you know. Intolerance will not be tolerated. Give us our pound of flesh! A&E must fire Phil Robertson.”

A&E, which had already begun censoring the cast’s Christian speech with fake bleeps to cover words like “Jesus” and “Christ,” dutifully complied. “We’re just sick of all this redneck Jesusy stuff,” A&E representative Moe Ronic told reporters. “And besides, making truckloads of money is really overrated,” he added, referencing the show’s No. 1 all-time ranking. “You know, more money means more work — what, with the bookkeeping and all,” he said. “Most of us at A&E are actually quite excited to get back to the utter irrelevance and obscurity from whence we came.”

Meanwhile, the Fox Network and a bevy of cable channels have reportedly lined up with drool bibs to pounce on the show should relations with A&E go deeper south.
Still, questions remained as to who’s got it right on homosexuality; GLAAD, HRC and other “progressives,” or Robertson and Christianity. To get answers, we went straight to the source: God, author of all truth, sovereign creator of the universe and maker of mankind.
God said to relax. The issue has been long settled.
All sexual sin — adultery, fornication, bestiality, incest and homosexuality — is “contrary to sound doctrine,” according to 1 Timothy 1:10. “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable,” reads Leviticus 18:22.

The creator then offered an urgent admonition to GLAAD, HRC and others living under both sexual deception and the unrepentant homosexual lifestyle. He warned that unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences: “Because of this, (I) gave (you) over to shameful lusts. Even (you ladies) exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way (you) also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. (You’ve) committed shameful acts with other men, and (have) received in (yourselves) the due penalty,” says Romans 1:26-27.

Still, being both wholly righteous and merciful beyond measure, God also offered hope for homosexuals, as well as for every other sinner on the planet (that would be all of us). He was quick to point out that no one is better than another, and that he loves us all, not because of our sins but in spite of them. “None is righteous, no, not one,” says Romans 3:10.

Meanwhile, since the Duck flap hit, Jesus has reportedly reached out to Robertson with a word of encouragement and told him to keep fishing for souls and hunting for ducks. He said that Robertson shouldn’t sweat the small stuff — like the ongoing assault for speaking truth in love.
“Oh, and by the way,” Jesus added: “Well done my good and faithful servant.”

Matt Barber is vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and retired professional boxer. This column first appeared in The Blaze. Contact him at jmattbarber@comcast.net.
Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm

Re: Employee Matt Barber Settles With Allstate

Unread postby RatPak11 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:09 am

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarb ... e-n1803031

An Absolute Right to Refuse Service
Matt Barber | Mar 02, 2014

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.

To wit:

Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?
Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?
Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?
Should a progressive environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?
Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as gay?
Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes “marriage equality”?

If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.

To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.

I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.

No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.

It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

Freedom, man.

Because ‘Merica.

While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.

Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, gay or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.

As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph gay weddings, then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.

And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.

See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re "pro-choice,” right?

Starting to get it?

Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.

Poo paper for puppy.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.

I rarely agree with gay activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:

I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.

And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”

Why indeed?

Done That
Done That
Posts: 3082
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:25 pm


Return to Employee Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest