Friday, July 20, 2007

Bishop Discriminated Against "Gay" Youth Worker

A gay man won a landmark case of unlawful discrimination against the Church of England yesterday after a bishop refused him a job because of his sexuality.

An employment tribunal ruled that John Reaney, 42, had been discriminated against "on grounds of sexual orientation" when he was turned down for the post of youth worker in the diocese of Hereford.
Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, north Wales, said he was "delighted" by the decision, which could have implications for employment policies in the Church.
But the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was "naturally disappointed" and was considering whether to appeal. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement said the bishop should resign.
During the tribunal hearing in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said that he had been asked intrusive questions by Bishop Priddis about his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting in July 2006.
Mr Reaney, who had been told that he was the outstanding candidate for the job, said that the meeting had left him feeling embarrassed, upset and "a total waste of space".
Three days after the meeting, the bishop telephoned Mr Reaney to say his application had not been successful.
During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made it clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a sexual relationship outside marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post. The Bishop said that Mr Reaney's behavior was contrary to official Church teaching and had "the potential to impact on the spiritual, moral and ethical leadership within the diocese".
The tribunal found that Bishop Priddis should have considered only the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should not have speculated about potential future relationships.
Delivering the judgment, the tribunal said the case would be listed for a remedy hearing and Mr Reaney is expected to be awarded substantial damages.
Mr Reaney, who had already worked in two Church of England dioceses where he had been praised for his achievements, was delighted at the outcome. He said the case "demonstrated to many lesbian and gay Christians working for God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful treatment".
Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, which funded Mr Reaney's legal action, said the verdict was "a triumph for 21st century decency over 19th century prejudice".
The Rev Richard Kirker, the chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, whose sympathisers include a number of Church of England bishops, said the bishop should resign.
This is a just outcome," he said. "The Church has brought this humiliation on itself.
"The case need never have been brought if the Church was not institutionally homo-phobic."
But Bishop Priddis said:
"I still think the decision I made was the right one. I regret the polarisation of view that tends to take place when these things happen," he said. "I took the decision after a great deal of thought and prayer and anguish. If there had been a stability of life then I would have taken a different view, but there wasn't. I don't normally ask anybody about their sex lives. Mr Reaney raised the issue, not me."
Under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, it is illegal to discriminate against people as a result of their sexual orientation, but the law does contain an exemption for organised religion.
The bishop said the tribunal had recognised the exemption, but the post of youth worker was among a handful of lay jobs that fell within it.
He said: "It is the duty of every bishop to uphold spiritual, moral and ethical standards and the tribunal agreed.
"However, in the light of the tribunal decision the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance will again look at its recruitment literature to make clear the teaching and requirements of the Church in respect of the lifestyle of those in leadership roles."
If I go into an organized Gay and Lesbian club and become a member and then decide to apply for a chairmen position, but then get turned down because of my heterosexual lifestyle, does that mean I can therefore sue because of discrimination?
This whole England case makes ZERO sense in terms of its application to U.S. law. In the words of Pope Leo:
"In a Christian country, therefore, the Church has a divine right to speak out against any encroachments by a secular state".
Look, the church, in the U.S. at least, is protected under the first amendment to teach Christianity is its purest form. For example, let's take 1 Corinthians 6:9 -
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
DECEIVED: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
As Michael Glatze, a former homosexual activist, said in my previous post:
"God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."
This case has NO leg to stand on in regards to how it pertains to the U.S. Constitution. If England rules in favor of Mr. Reaney, great, but this case would NEVER hold water in America.
"However, in the light of the tribunal decision the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance will again look at its recruitment literature..."
Translation: "In the light of those who apply law, the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance will suck up to our secular progressive countrymen and bow down to them because I, Bishop Priddis, will not stand up for the word of Christ like He stood up for me by suffering greatly on the cross for my sins"
What a gimp!

Thursday, July 12, 2007

How a 'Gay Rights' Leader Became Straight

God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."

This article, by Michael Glatze, a former homosexual activist, appeared on World Net Daily on July 3rd, 2007.
Read full article by clicking HERE.

I found this story, and there are many more like it, very down-to-earth and real. Mr. Glatze's troubling past is something that many young men and women deal with today. Although society turns the other cheek or glorifies a person, for the most part, when a relative or close friend "comes out", there are many resources to help those who are taking part in the homosexual lifestyle to "come out" of such a lustful, dangerous way of life. Many of these resources, with testimonies from those who have left the homosexual lifestyle are linked on my blog such as "Love Won Out".

I do not make fun of or laugh at the homosexual community because I do not want to desensitize a dangerous behavior with humor. This is often done in Hollywood with movies such as Adam Sandler and Kevin James' new release "Chuck and Larry". In this movie, Sandler and James (“King of Queens”) play heterosexual New York City firefighters who pose as a gay couple so they can marry and help James’ character, a widower, provide for his children.
“Through this disarming type of comedy, there is this use of stereotypes and slurs, and it holds the mirror up for people to ask, ‘Where does this come from?” said Damon Romine, entertainment media director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
"Disarming" a dangerous behavior, as homosexuality is, with comedy. This is part of the many tiered homosexual agenda that was devised in part by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two publications: A 1987 article titled "The Overhauling of Straight America" and a 1989 book titled "After the Ball".
What "Chuck and Larry" also does is disenvow the valuble institution of marriage by advocating for a "tossed saled" version of what a marriage can be. If people who are NOT homosexual wish to get "married" just for the sake of helping out a family member, then by all means people should do so. But let's hide this agenda with comedy and then those who disagree with the theme are then asked to "lighten up" or are given the old adage "calm down, it is only a movie".
Whose to say that this will never happen with college graduates who want to get the cheap "family" health insurance plan in a jiffy because health insurance is now a requirement in Massachusetts? Whose to say two male or female best friends at work who have no benefits provided to them from their place of employment get "married" because they need the "bennies" in order to survive?
We as a society can not turn the other cheek and not see what is really happening with marriage. We as a society must embrace our homosexual friends and relatives and help them "come out" of their dangerous lifestyles with open arms. Lets help each other out, not enable each other's dangerous ways of living.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Dangerous Behaviors

As Jim Brown of OneNewsNow.com explains, a group that provides support for families and public awareness regarding the decision to leave homosexuality is accusing a Maryland school board of displaying bigotry and intolerance toward people who believe homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX, is contemplating whether to file another lawsuit in a matter concerning that district's pro-homosexuality sex education program.

Read full story by clicking HERE.
I mean, who would downplay the medical facts of 270 board certified physicians on the dangers of a behavior? Oh, that's right, these MDs are bigots and therefore their medical background is discriminatory????

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

God is in Control

All of the early settlements from Massachusetts to Georgia consisted of Christians of all denominations, and all the early American colonies were established on Christian principles. (Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws (New York: Hafner, 1949, 1962), quoted in John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, The Faith of our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), p. 55.)

The vast majority of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were strong practicing Christians not secular humanists.
  • 52 of 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Trinitarian Christians.
  • Of 55 signers of the Constitution 50 to 52 were orthodox Christians. (David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 25 September 2003), p. 308.)

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

  • Five were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
  • Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
  • Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.
  • Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
  • They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

  • Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
  • Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
  • Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.
  • Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
  • Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.
  • At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
  • Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
  • John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Happy July, 4th to you all and remember: Freedom is NEVER Free!!

Enjoy the movie: Click HERE

  • P.S. I plan on responding to ALL of your comments this Friday night. Thank-you for your patience.
    Scia

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com