Page 2 of 2

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:54 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:27 am
There is a movement here within the medical establishment to classify pedophiles as "mentally ill" which would lead to them being designated as a "protected class" as mental illness is a disability. Would bakers then be forced to bake a cake depicting an abused child? Will schools, churches, daycare centers be forced to hire pedophiles? I know, it sounds ludicrous, but 30, 40 years ago it would have been thought ludicrous that sodomites, who were considered criminals, would be an accepted and protected class today.
Do you know that a "Christian" is also a "protected class"? If I for example want to oppose the mandatory "health care insurance" in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I need to give a "religious" reason...

The reason why I think it's a "difficult" question is that I think that if 2 homosexuals (or more) have sex in the privacy of a bedroom they don't bother anybody. So I can't be offended.
Now if they insist that a baker makes them a cake, I could argue that now they are bothering somebody. When the baker makes a principle out of not making the cake, it becomes a question of contradicting principles.
You have your mind made up, and I'm not sure.

While I don't believe that "gays" are worse than "heterosexuals" in general, I think that repressed homosexual feelings cause a lot of problem. In men that try to hide their sexual preference, this becomes a matter of overtly acting "macho". Nobody would think that a "macho" in uniform could be gay!

Lately I've seen some stories on transgender "women", which makes me think that there is a policy to keep on pushing "freedoms" to mess the minds of kids (and adults) up.
Can we expect the future to bring humans claiming that they're really "transanimal" sheep?!?

If I turn woman, maybe I could become heavyweight champion boxing… Is it only men who claim that they are really another gender?
The following shows 10 transgender "celebrities" that we should “admire“…

On August 20, openly LGBTQ boy, Disney star Josie Totah, came out of the closet as a transgender female:
My pronouns are she, her and hers. I identify as female, specifically as a transgender female. And my name is Josie Totah.

I plan to play roles I haven’t had the opportunity to play. And I can only imagine how much more fun it’s going to be to play someone who shares my identity, rather than having to contort myself to play a boy. I’m going to gun for those roles, be it a transgender female or a cisgender female. Because it’s a clean slate — and a new world.

I’m afraid I’m having some troubles with the he/she (it) description…
Josie said it has always thought of itself as a girl, even as 5 years old. At 14, it learned from seeing transgender boy/girl Jazz Jennings on TV how to identify as such: ... ransgender

Josie Totah has been on hormone blockers since 14 and says it's now “ready to be free”.
The following story includes Josie Totah’s, 17, first photo since coming out as transgender: ... ender.html

In the following video, a woman argues that men that change “gender” aren’t “women” and threaten feminism. She is attacked for these political incorrect views.
The woman was harassed by the cops for posting that it’s wrong that 16-year-old boys get sent to Thailand to get castrated.

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:09 pm
by notmartha
Firestarter wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:54 pm
Do you know that a "Christian" is also a "protected class"? If I for example want to oppose the mandatory "health care insurance" in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I need to give a "religious" reason...
Well, I guess some classes are more protected than others...

House Dem: Religious rights must bow to LGBT

Thursday, April 4, 2019 ... ow-to-lgbt

Michael F. Haverluck (
As Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.-Dist. 10) championed the so-called “Equality Act” in a House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, he stressed that the bill would make sure religious beliefs cannot be used to “discriminate” against the LGBT community. [emphasis mine]

As the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Nadler impressed that under the Equality Act, everyone must fall subject to the LGBT agenda – with churches and religious employers, organizations and colleges being afforded no exemptions whatsoever.

“Religion is no excuse for discrimination when it comes to sexual orientation or gender identity,” Nadler asserted Tuesday in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, according to Liberty Counsel.

LGBT trumps all?

Giving testimony against the pro-LGBT bill – also known as HR 5 – was Julia Beck, who is a self-described radical lesbian feminist and the former law and policy co-chair for Baltimore’s LGBTQ Commission. She alerted the Christian community and other faith-based groups about what to expect when or if the proposed legislation passes and becomes enforced.

“This would eliminate women and girls as a coherent legal category worthy of civil rights protections,” Beck revealed, according to Liberty Counsel. “There is no way to tell if someone is lying about being transgender.”

She said that if gender identity becomes recognized under federal law, Americans can expect to see the following scenarios regularly play out:

Male rapists will go to female prisons and will likely assault female inmates – as has already happened in the UK.

Female survivors of rape will be unable to contest male presence in women’s shelters.

Men will dominate women's sports and girls who would have taken first place will be denied scholastic opportunity.

Women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined and banned from social media platforms.

Girls will stay home from schools when they have their periods to avoid harassment by boys in mixed-sex toilets.

Girls and women will no longer have a right to ask for female medical staff or intimate care providers – including elderly or disabled women who are at serious risk of sexual abuse.

Female security officers will no longer have the right to refuse to perform pat-down or intimate searches of males who say they’re female.

Women undergoing security checks will no longer have the right to refuse having those searches performed by men claiming a feminine identity.

And these shocking instances are by no means farfetched …

“It’s already happening,” Beck insisted. “And it's only going to get worse.”

Nip it at the bud …

Legal experts argue that the proposed legislation takes aim at wiping out Americans’ freedom of religion guaranteed by the United States Constitution – giving the LGBT community a free pass to infiltrate virtually every aspect their lives while violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.

“Members of the U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced this bill that threatens the free exercise of religion and free speech,” Liberty Counsel announced in its news release. “HR 5 amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by striking the word ‘sex,’ and inserting ‘sex, sexual orientation, gender identity’ as protected classes throughout the federal code. This amendment applies to employment, housing, rental, public accommodation and more.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver indicated that the bill is nothing less than a Trojan Horse used by the LGBT community to force acceptance and its agenda on society.

“Chairman Nadler and Julia Beck gave surprising testimonies at today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing confirming that the so-called ‘Equality Act’ has nothing to do with equality," Staver argued in the release. “This bill pushes the LGBT agenda on all people and targets Christianity in every area of life – including the church.”

He wared about the repercussions of passing such a dangerous piece of pro-LGBT legislation.

“There also will be an increase of sexual assaults when males ‘identifying as females’ are allowed to use girls and women's bathrooms and locker rooms,” the legal expert added. “And that is just the beginning of unconstitutional chaos in America – and even radicals can see that.”

Dr. James Dobson – who founded Focus on the Family and the James Dobson Family Institute decades later – sent an earlier warning that the Equality Act could spell disaster for Americans – if passed in Congress.

“Make no mistake – the so-called Equality Act is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to finish off religious liberty in America once and for all, which ought to be plainly obvious – based upon a cursory reading of the First Amendment,” Dobson contended, according to WND. “Simply put, by creating a protected class of citizens out of the LGBT community, this bill places Christians who believe in traditional marriage at grave legal and civil jeopardy.”

He saw no reservation by Democratic leaders to steamroll over Christians’ rights to live out their faith in order to forward their ultra-left pro-LGBT agenda.

“I wish I could say I was shocked to see the speed with which Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have brought to committee the sweet-sounding but entirely treacherous Equality Act,” Dobson continued. “This decision demonstrates a frightening willingness by those on the left to advance a radical social agenda at a time when our nation already faces so many other divisive challenges.”

According to another conservative nonprofit group, the Pelosi-backed bill would trample the religious rights of a slew of Americans.

“The Heritage Foundation said employers, workers, medical professionals, parents, children, women and nonprofit organizations all would be harmed by the plan from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.),” WND’s Bob Unruh noted.

The Christian leader pointed out the left’s deception that LGBT rights are equal to the civil rights African Americans fought for decades ago during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960 – even comparing it to slavery.

“While no evangelical Christian would ever support hate or violence of any kind against an LGBT individual – or any other person for that matter – to modify the 1964 Civil Rights Act with this wrong-headed bill would not only be legally fraught – it would also put moral equivalence to the unprecedented, centuries-long struggle of countless millions of African Americans to gain freedom from slavery and the persistent, systematic oppression that followed,” Dobson stressed.

Taking another shot at Christian freedom

Besides trying to pass the Equality Act, Nadler is attacking 1993’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the religious freedoms by which Hobby Lobby and other Christian businesses and organizations able to enjoy protections as a result of its passage.

“Bosses should not be able to make health care decisions about the reproductive choices of their employees,” Nadler said in a press release statement he released on the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Hobby Lobby and RFRA. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was intended to be used as a shield – not a sword. No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit employers – like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood – cannot wield their beliefs as a means of denying employees access to critical preventive health care services [including abortion].”

Attempting to forward the LGBT agenda, he tried to argue that Christians are trying to get more religious freedoms than what have been guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

“When we passed RFRA, we sought to restore – not expand – protection for religion,” Nadler continued.” We kept in place the core principle that religion does not excuse for-profit businesses from complying with our laws. Religious belief did not excuse restaurants or hotels from following our civil rights laws in the 1960s or an Amish employer from paying into the Social Security system in the 1980s. It should not be expanded now to allow for-profit companies to override the health care choices of female employees.”

The ultra-left Democrat then implied that Christians living according to biblical teachings on human sexuality is essentially them pushing religious beliefs on others.

“To hold otherwise allows the owners of for-profit companies to impose their beliefs on others – their employees and patrons – who may not share their beliefs and who will be harmed as result. I am hopeful that the Court will confirm that these sort of discriminatory actions by for-profit companies are neither protected by RFRA nor the First Amendment.”
Reminds me of this quote...

The New Freedom, Woodrow Wilson, 1913

We have come upon a very different age from any that preceded us. We have come upon an age when we do not do business in the way in which we used to do business, — when we do not carry on any of the operations of manufacture, sale, transportation, or communication as men used to carry them on. There is a sense in which in our day the individual has been submerged. In most parts of our country men work, not for themselves, not as partners in the old way in which they used to work, but generally as employees, — in a higher or lower grade, — of great corporations. There was a time when corporations played a very minor part in our business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men are the servants of corporations.
"For profit companies" = corporations, i.e. creations of STATE. If you don't want STATE dictating your morals, don't make them your not so silent partner. This is all about the Employer/Employee i.e. Master/Servant relationship. Choose this day who you will serve...

By the way, HERE is some interesting info about Jerry Nadler and his relationship with Trump.

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:55 pm
by Firestarter
I really try to understand, but how would you call a tranny that calls itself a "feminist"?!?

notmartha wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:09 pm
Women who use male pronouns to talk about men may be arrested, fined and banned from social media platforms.
Are they insane?!?

UK cops arrested the 38-year-old Kate Scottow in front of her 2 children, because she had called a tranny a biological man on Twitter.
Scottow later wrote "I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter" on Mumsnet.

Scottow was arrested after the tranny “Stephanie” Hayden, who calls himself a woman, filed a complaint with the police that Kate Scottow had harassed him by calling him a man.
Hayden reminded Kate that there is no free speech in the UK: "
There is no right to free speech in the UK. We have a right of freedom of expression and that is qualified. We also have criminal laws protecting people from harassment. Now go and jog on.

Sitcom writer Graham Linehan has similarly been accused of verbal harassment by tranny “Stephanie” Hayden for referring to it by his previous names and pronouns on Twitter: ... a-man-nbsp

In June 2017, Canada set an international precedent for protecting transgender people. With a Bill that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression and makes “hate speech” (has anybody heard of George Orwell?) against trannys a criminal offence and makes it possible to make harsher sentences when a “crime” was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression.

The Canadian Senate passed Bill C-16 by a 67-11 vote: ... ns-n773421

Masterpiece Cakeshop - sued by tranny

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:09 pm
Well, I guess some classes are more protected than others...
I still think it's difficult to find a good middle ground between discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexual preference.
In my personal opinion "freedom of gender" or "freedom of having sex with children" are (at least) one step too far but maybe if I had been born and brainwashed some 20 years later, I would think that this is "normal"...

I guess that the homeschooling that you favour hasn't thought your children that a man can become a woman after an operation.
Maybe it's waiting for trannys to take a stand for having the "right" to become pregnant and having babies, just like women? Or would that possibly violate the depopulation agenda?

notmartha wrote:
Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:40 pm
Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., Jack Phillips, is compelled to bake cakes for same sex couples, Colorado Court of Appeals announces on August 13, 2015.
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is being sued yet again...

Attorneys for tranny Autumn Scardina, filed a filed a lawsuit last Wednesday that Phillips had discriminated “it” because he refused to sell a birthday cake to “Ms. Scardina” for no other reasan than that “it” is a transgender...
They further accuse Phillips of “illegal trade practices” because his shop "widely publicized” that they would sell to the “LGBT community".

Scardina has previously filed discrimination complaints against Phillips, including one over that he refused to sell a cake celebrating Scardina's gender transition.
That complaint was dropped last March after Phillips agreed to drop a religious discrimination complaint against the state.

Attorney Greisen for Scardina explained:
I fully believe we will win in the state courts ... and I don't believe there is any First Amendment or religious implications that would allow them to discriminate.
We simply want the law to be enforced. Because if not, you allow a business to send a message: go ahead, refuse service to these people, it's OK, when the citizens of Colorado have said it's not.

Phillips thinks Scardina has intentionally targeted his shop with requests that violate his religious beliefs.
“It” even once requested a cake in celebration of "a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo".

Jim Campbell, of the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, that represents Phillips, commented:
A new lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop that appears to largely rehash old claims. The State of Colorado abandoned similar ones just a few months ago. So this latest attack by Autumn Scardina looks like yet another desperate attempt to harass cake artist Jack Phillips. And it stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes. ... on-lawsuit

Re: "Religious Freedom" Bill

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:14 am
by notmartha
Firestarter wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
I still think it's difficult to find a good middle ground between discrimination, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of sexual preference.
In my personal opinion "freedom of gender" or "freedom of having sex with children" are (at least) one step too far but maybe if I had been born and brainwashed some 20 years later, I would think that this is "normal"...
This goes back to our discussion about normalcy here:

As far as all the so-called "freedoms," my rights stop where yours start and visa versa. I have no right to tell someone what gender one should call themselves, and no tranny has the right to force someone to perform any kind of service. Pretty simple.
Firestarter wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
I guess that the homeschooling that you favour hasn't thought your children that a man can become a woman after an operation.
Maybe it's waiting for trannys to take a stand for having the "right" to become pregnant and having babies, just like women? Or would that possibly violate the depopulation agenda?
Homeschooling has taught my children that our DNA determines our gender regardless of how we "feel." My children have also been taught that not everything is black and white, especially with all the manipulations of genes through food/chemicals/etc. While we do believe that all sex outside of a man - woman marriage is sin (i.e. violation of God's law), we do not try to make others conform to our beliefs and expect that others won't force us to conform to theirs. All these gender confused people are the epitome of hypocrisy as they don't care whose rights they trample in their efforts to gain what they perceive as their own.

Speaking of trannies giving birth...
A pregnant woman living as a transgender male arrived to a hospital with severe abdominal pains and nurses didn’t immediately consider it an emergency because she appeared to be an obese man who stopped taking blood pressure medication.

Healthcare professionals at the hospital didn’t even think this individual may be a pregnant woman because she was listed as a male in her medical records.

Women in their child-bearing years showing up to the hospital with these same symptoms are immediately taken in and examined just in case there are pregnancy-related complications, but since nurses thought this patient was a male, the unborn baby didn’t make it and the patient delivered a stillborn baby.
They can't have it both don't give birth, and doctors shouldn't be expected to treat them as if they do...