Category Archives: Homosexualist crusade

Rev. Peter Elliott peddles the canard that gay marriage has made Canada more tolerant

Posted on by
30

From here:

Gay marriage has strengthened Canadian society, an Anglican Church leader visiting Dunedin’s St Paul’s Cathedral said yesterday.

The Very Rev Dr Peter Elliott, rector of Christ Church Anglican Cathedral, in Vancouver, preached in St Paul’s Cathedral yesterday.

His visit is part of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) under way in Auckland.

While he did not believe in commenting on a country’s domestic politics, Dr Elliott, who is gay, told the Otago Daily Times legalising gay marriage had increased respect and tolerance in Canada.

In actual fact, the crusade for normalising homosexuality in Canada has resulted in the suppression of free speech, intolerance for any view that deviates from the received dogma that homosexuality is a wholesome lifestyle choice and persecution of those who will not bow before the altar of sexual inversion.

As Michael Coren notes here, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings against critics of same-sex marriage; the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches stating standard Catholic teaching on marriage; marriage commissioners have been threatened with losing their jobs if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages and a Knights of Columbus hall was fined for not allowing a lesbian couple to celebrate their “marriage” in the hall. Schools – even private schools – will, in all probability, be prevented from expressing their disapproval of homosexual behaviour.

Canada allows freedom of conscience on a person’s view of homosexuality, as long as the person is prepared to live with violating his conscience by not acting on it.

Two respectable middle-aged men are shocked and embarrassed

Posted on by
19

What does it take to shock respectable middle-aged men these days? Acts of public lewdness? Teenagers with rings in their noses? 50 Shades of Grey? The price of a haircut?

When the self-styled respectable men are ageing homosexuals – homosexuality being the new yardstick by which we are expected to judge “respectability” – all it takes is to be told they can’t share a bed in someone else’s house.

Michael Black and John Morgan are sensitive souls – you can tell from John’s tattoos – so to soothe their ruffled sensibilities, they sued the Christian B&B owners where they were refused – not rooms, but a double bed – to prevent others from suffering the same emotionally devastating discrimination.

In actual fact, it is quite apparent from this video that the pair has derived considerable satisfaction from the whole episode of being supposedly wronged, vindicated and financially rewarded, not to mention the profound enjoyment of imposing their belief system on a couple of hapless Christians.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, before Christian B&B owners are driven irretrievably out of business, characters like Black and Morgan and Preddy and Hall spend future vacations scouring England for B&Bs owned by Christians in order to demand a room in the hope of being refused. All in the name of banishing any vestigial remnants of what used to be called decency – now renamed inequality – from England’s green and increasingly unpleasant land.

Christian B&B owners have to pay homosexual couple $4,500

Posted on by
39

The B.C. human rights kangaroo tribunal has ordered B&B owners, Les and Susan Molnar, to pay homosexuals Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie $4,500 to assuage the bruised dignity and self-respect they suffered when prevented from indulging in a night of urningtum hanky-panky in one of the Molnar’s beds. Of course, nobody that has any dignity or self-respect would whine to a human rights commission simply because they encountered a Christian couple who had the mettle to stand up for what they believed to be right.

But this was not about “dignity” or “self-respect”: it was about compelling recalcitrant Christians to conform to the Zeitgeist – something that the Bible exhorts them not to do.

One might argue that Christian business owners have to obey the law of the land – in this case to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct” – or not have a business. And that is what has happened in this case: the B&B closed in 2009, an insufficient punishment it seems, hence the $4,500 damages claim.

The question is: does anyone seriously think that we are making a better society for ourselves by driving Christians who will not grovel before the altar of the equality god out of business?

From here:

Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in British Columbia have been ordered to pay around $4,500 in damages after they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple.

Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie had reserved a room at the Riverbend B&B in Grand Forks in June 2009, but owners Les and Susan Molnar cancelled the reservation after realizing they were homosexual.

“To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress,” Lee explained in tribunal documents.

Thomas and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct,” though they closed the B&B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.

Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to “deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation” because of “sexual orientation.”

 

The National Post buckles to homosexual political correctness

Posted on by
2

From here:

Earlier this week the National Post ran an advertisement that has caused some controversy.

[……..]

In an open society, these positions are worthy of being part of a debate on this issue. They are also legitimate arguments to make in a paid advertisement in a media outlet.

Where the ad exceeded the bounds of civil discourse was in its tone and manipulative use of a picture of a young girl; in the suggestion that such teaching “corrupts” children, with everything that such a charge implies; and in its singling out of groups of people with whose sexuality the group disagrees.

The fact that we will not be publishing this ad again represents a recognition on our part that publishing it in the first place was a mistake. The National Post would like to apologize unreservedly to anyone who was offended by it. We will be taking steps to ensure that in future our procedures for vetting the content of advertising will be strictly adhered to.

The Post will also be donating the proceeds from the advertisement to an organization that promotes the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

The advertisement is below. It is no more manipulative than any other advertisement – after all, the advertisements that pay the bills at the NP are all designed to manipulate opinion.

If the Post is so afraid of offending the wrong people (it doesn’t seem to care if  anyone is offended by the ad’s cancellation) that it not only refuses to publish an advertisement questioning a contemporary sacred cow, but grovels at the feet of those it thinks it has offended by throwing cash at them, why bother to read it – why even call something so  blinkered by fads a newspaper?

The American Civil Liberties Union, still working hard to curtail liberty

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced Tuesday that they are suing a Vermont inn on behalf of a lesbian couple, after the inn’s Christian owners refused to host the couple’s ‘wedding’ reception.

The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, owned by Jim and Mary O’Reilly, has a policy against hosting receptions for homosexual ‘weddings’, so when Kate Baker and Ming Linsley of New York City approached them last fall, they were turned away.

The ACLU alleges that the O’Reillys’ policy violates Vermont’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which prohibits the denial of goods and services based on customers’ sexual orientation.  The act contains exceptions for religious organizations and small inns with five or fewer rooms, but not larger establishments.

Nevertheless, the O’Reillys, who are devout Catholics, have stood their ground.  “We do not … feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in,” they wrote in a statement Tuesday.

“We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians,” they continued.  “Many of our guests have been same sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity.”

The ACLU ought to be renamed the ACSLU – the “S”, standing for “selective”. The liberties of Jim and Mary O’Reilly should be no less important than those of the lesbian couple: and the O’Reilly’s liberties are far more threatened. If recent events in the UK are anything to go by, it won’t be worth the bother for the Vermont Inn to stay in business, whereas all the lesbian couple needed to do was find somewhere else to hold their reception.

This is known as Equality in today’s newspeak.