LEGALIZED PERVERSION: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTS SEXUAL DEVIANCES DECRIMINALIZED~PLAN TO ATTACK PASTORS, CHURCHES & BUSINESSES THAT OPPOSE~TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY BE INDICTED BY DOJ

VIDEO:

Tom DeLay: Justice Dept. Secret Memo to Legalize Bestiality, Pedophilia, and Other Perversions

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/tom-delay-justice-dept-wants-legalize-12-perversions/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay claims the Justice Department has drafted a memo that spells out a dozen “perversions,” including bestiality and pedophilia, that it wants legalized.

“We’ve … found a secret memo coming out of the Justice Department. They’re now going to go after 12 new perversions. Things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal,” DeLay said Tuesday on “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“Not only that, but they have a whole list of strategies to go after the churches, the pastors and any businesses that try to assert their religious liberty. This is coming and it’s coming like a tidal wave.”

The Texas Republican’s bombshell claim comes four days after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states — a landmark decision DeLay strongly opposes.

When Steve Malzberg repeated to DeLay his assertions that the Justice Department seeks “to legitimatize or legalize” practices such as bestiality — defined as sex acts between humans and animals — DeLay responded:

“That’s correct, that’s correct. They’re coming down with 12 new perversions … LGBT [short for lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender] is only the beginning. They’re going to start expanding it to the other perversions.”

He did not list the other nine “perversions” he said are mentioned in the Justice Department’s memo and did not share it with Newsmax TV.

DeLay, who represented the Lone Star State’s 22nd District from 1985 to 2006 and was Republican Party House Majority Leader from 2003 to 2005, said that with the high court’s ruling last Friday, “all hell is breaking loose.”

Just right here in Texas our Attorney General Ken Paxton has written an attorney generals’ opinion directing our county clerks that in issuing marriage licenses that they don’t have to issue marriage licenses if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That’s just the beginning,” DeLay said.

“In just the last few days all over this country, [people] letting their elected officials know that they are upset with us, that the Supreme Court is out of control, that we are in a constitutional crisis. We are really in a constitutional crisis.”

“We have a president that totally disregards the Constitution, steps all over it. We have a Supreme Court that … [believes] the Constitution is a living document and whatever they say goes. And we have a Republican Congress that doesn’t even understand the Constitution and the fact that they have the most power and can stand up and stop the other two branches. We’re in serious trouble.”

_______________________________________________________________

DOJ TO LEGALIZE BEASTIALITY AND PEDOPHILIA AMONG 12 NEW PERVERSIONS IN SECRET MEMO

Published on Jul 1, 2015

Tom DeLay appeared on Newsmax TV yesterday, where he told host Steve Malzberg that, just as he had predicted, all Hell is now breaking loose because of the Supreme Court ruling striking down gay marriage bans. Things are now so out of control, DeLay said, that he even knows about a "secret memo" from the Justice Department aimed at legalizing "12 new perversions," including bestiality and pedophilia.

"We've already found a secret memo coming out of the Justice Department," DeLay claimed. "They're now going to go after 12 new perversions, things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal. Not only that, but they have a whole list of strategies to go after the churches, the pastors, and any businesses that tries to assert their religious liberty. This is coming and it's coming like a tidal wave."

Malzberg, who was predictably shocked by the news that Department of Justice was now going to seek to legalize things like pedophilia, asked DeLay to clarify that that was what he had just claimed and DeLay assured him that it was.

"That's correct," he said. "They're coming down with 12 new perversions. LGBT is only the beginning. They are going to start expanding it to the other perversions."

Corrupt DOJ Looks To Indict Texas Attorney General

Published on Jul 5, 2015

A criminal securities fraud investigation of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton found evidence of wrongdoing that may lead to first-degree felony charges, a special prosecutor said Wednesday.
http://www.infowars.com/texas-attorne...
http://www.infowars.com/update-texas-...

PENN LIVE/THE PATRIOT-NEWS OF HARRISBURG PENNSYLVANIA BANS SPEECH CRITICAL OF GAYS & SAME SEX MARRIAGE

UN-AMERICAN TO THE CORE
ANTI-GAY SPEECH NOT ALLOWED HERE!

"HOW TO DISCUSS LGBT ISSUES":

SEE: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/03/how_to_discuss_lgbt_issues_on.html; excerpt quoted below:
PROHIBITED SPEECH:
1) Comparing homosexuality to illegal acts.
2) Graphic sexual descriptions.
3) Slurs and personal attacks.
4) Religious damnation.
5) Stating homosexuality is a mental disorder.
"But what about Gender Identity Disorder, the diagnosis given to transgender people? The current medical treatment for GID is to support the transgender people in transitioning their physical body with their psychological gender identity. To call a transgender person "sick" or "crazy" because they are openly transitioning would be out of line." 

PENN LIVE: "THE SUPREMES GOT IT RIGHT":
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/06/gay_marriage_anthony_kennedy_o.html

POLITICALLY CORRECT FASCIST GESTAPO GATEKEEPERS REGULATE SPEECH TO PROTECT GAYS FROM TRUTH COMING FROM "RELIGIOUS TERRORISTS" & OTHER TRUTH TELLERS

NEWSPAPER CENSORSHIP VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

PL/PN EDITOR: "SPACE FOR CIVIL DISCUSSION" MEANS BANNING "INVECTIVE" SPEECH & OPPOSING OPINIONS ABOUT GAYS & SAME SEX MARRIAGE; COMPARED SUCH TO THAT COMING FROM BIGOTS, ANTI-SEMITES & RACISTS

THE SILENCING: 

Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

SEE: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-silencing-paper-will-limit-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

• “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”

• “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”

• And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”

• “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

The board explained the newspaper’s policy to allow limited freedom of speech on the matter. (Bolded emphasis, mine.)

“In the more than four decades since, a union that was viewed as unnatural and even a hideous provocation to violence is now commonplace and celebrated. On Friday, the United States crossed a similar threshold, continuing a long road to acceptance of same-sex unions. And this news organization now crosses another threshold. As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.”

The editorial went on to compare a stance against gay marriage to an intolerance to interracial marriage or women being treated as inferior to men. The board will not be tolerate any of the above.

“These unions are now the law of the land. And we would not entertain such criticisms that these unions are morally wrong or unnatural any more than we would entertain criticisms of interracial marriage or those claiming that women are less equal than men in the eyes of the law. We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds critical of the high court’s decision and its legal merits.“

The Mirror sought comment from Micek. He explained his views in a lengthy response, which I am running in its entirety:

Main points:

*The online comment section will not be shut down.

*He regrets not being clearer in the initial posting.

*“Certain forms of speech do not advance the discussion in a civil society.”

*Some letters critiquing the Supreme Court decision will be accepted.

“No one’s talking about limiting free speech on PennLive,” he wrote by email. “Nor is anyone talking about shutting down our online comments. That would be contrary to our mission as a news organization. And I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea at all.

“As PennLive’s Opinion Editor, I’m fully aware that a healthy debate is vital to a free society. And if the takeaway from our editorial on today’s decision is that we’re somehow trying to stifle free speech, then I regret not being clear enough in our initial posting.

“As you’ve likely noticed, the editorial has been revised to provide further clarity and specificity in response to the concerns voiced by our readers.

“With that in mind, I think we can all recognize that there are certain forms of speech that, while Constitutionally permissible, really do nothing to advance the discussion in a civil society.

“As I noted in the comments section of the editorial, no reasonable person would publish anti-Semitic speech, racist speech or sexist speech. It seems entirely reasonable to me to specifically add homophobic speech to that list.

“While that sort of speech has long been banned under our community guidelines for commenting, the Opinion page had never explicitly stated such a policy. Today’s decision seemed like an opportunity to provide that clarity.

“As the last week as has shown us, hate can have a terribly destructive effect when it is allowed to flourish. I’m trying to combat it by limiting its corrosive effect on our dialog. As I note, PennLive/The Patriot-News will accept letters and op-Eds critical of the Supreme Court’s decision on its merits or legal grounds.

“But we will not accept letters/op-Eds that use the Court’s ruling as a pretext to engage in hate speech.

“As to how long we’ll accept such submissions, I can’t really say. But there comes a point where matters are simply settled — as is the case in Loving v. Virginia. I guess we’ll just recognize that point when we’ve hit it.”

________________________________________________________

PENNLIVE WALKS BACK NO PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE COMMENTS POLICY, PLAYS VICTIM

SEE: http://conservativejunction.com/pennlive-walks-back-no-pro-traditional-marriage-comments-policy-plays-victim/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

On Friday, Curtis Houck at NewsBusters reported that “the Harrisburg, PA newspaper The Patriot News announced that both they and their online site PennLive.com ‘will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.'”

As of three years ago, the newspaper claimed weekly circulation of 476,000. Its current hype to advertisers boasts of “500,000 unique visitors and 22 million page views each month.” Faced with what quickly and obviously became a move with the potential to cause significant losses in readership, the paper abruptly reversed course Saturday morning.

Of course, it wasn’t the clean “We were wrong, we are sorry” the circumstances demanded. Instead, the “apology” from John L. Micek, who is the outfit’s editorial and opinions editor, rubbed the Supreme Court’s same-sex “marriage” ruling in readers’ faces and played the victim card.

Micek opened with a three-paragraph description of how one newsroom “colleague” cried tears of joy over the ruling. Fine, John, as if we didn’t know that the press has almost universally and openly advocated for the cause for several decades.

Micek then went into “woe is me” mode (bolds are mine):

Our letters policy on same-sex marriage – an explanation and an apology: John L. Micek

… And as the comments on our main story about the ruling — many of them openly hostile — began to pile up, I decided I wanted to send the strongest possible message that the Opinion pages of PennLive and The Patriot-News would be space for civil discussion of one of the most important civil rights rulings of our lifetime.

I came up with three sentences, which currently read like this:

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

“These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.

“We will, however, for a limited time, accept letters and op-Eds on the high court’s decision and its legal merits.”

… By day’s end, I’d received dozens of emails and several phone calls — not to mention the hundreds of comments appended to the editorial — accusing me (and this news organization) of being “fascists” opposed to both the First Amendment and the right to freedom of expression.

And those were just the polite ones.

Micek then tried to make three points, all of which dug his hole deeper.

… First: No one at PennLive and The Patriot-News is an opponent of the First Amendment.

This argument seems potentially plausible until one nears the end of Micek’s missive, where he states that “These pages, I remind myself finally, belong to the people of Central Pennsylvania.” Well, my friend, if that’s what you and your organization really believe, then “these pages” are in the public square, and (based on your representation) are fair game for First Amendment suppression charges if comment moderators censor comments whose only “offense” is disagreement with “the law” or not being within someone’s intentionally limiting definition of mainstream.

… Second: And I cannot stress this one enough — that’s in a civil way. More than once yesterday I was referred to as “f****t-lover,” among other slurs. And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement: We will not publish such slurs any more than we would publish racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech.

Immature name-calling is out of bounds, of course. But let’s be clear, John: Your incivility, i.e., telling readers that you would henceforth limit what they can say in the public square (as defined by you) was the equivalent of rudely screaming “Shut up!” to hundreds of thousands of people.

People the paper and PennLive.com told to zip it included clerics of dozens of Christian and other faiths; devout followers of those religions, which based on natural law have taught and always will always teach that the behavior the Supreme Court legalized several years ago is morally wrong; non-religious people whose humanitarian instincts tell them that legitimate marriage as an institution is a one-man, one-woman undertaking; and people of goodwill in general who understand that history has been notoriously unkind to “anything goes” societies.

… Third: I fully recognize that there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday’s high court ruling. They include philosophers and men and women of the cloth whose objections come from deeply held religious and moral convictions that are protected by the very same First Amendment that allowed me to stick my foot in my mouth on Friday.

Micek’s contention is not credible. He certainly had to recognize that his revised comment policy would have prevented the posting of, among many others, a Catholic bishop’s comment reiterating church doctrine, namely that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that same-sex “marriage” defiles a sacred, time-tested foundational institution of civilization.

Finally:

I stand with my gay and lesbian friends who, on Friday, were extended the same protections under the law that the rest of us take for granted.

But for those of you who were offended by what was intended as a very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion, I apologize.

The second-last sentence seems gratuitous and unnecessary, until you realize that his organization must stay in the gay thought police’s good graces, or they’ll be in a heap of trouble.

As to Micek’s final sentence, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air pegged it perfectly:

Ah yes, the standard “sorry if you were offended by my brilliance” non-apology. How exactly is telling people to shut up “fostering a civil discussion”? How does offering a blanket smear of all critics of Obergefell as bigots qualify as “a very genuine attempt” at any kind of discussion? For that matter, how did Micek envision a “discussion” coming from his all-out ban on any opposing view in his newspaper? At the end of all this, Micek then offers an apology — not for his actions, not for all of his mean-spirited and sanctimonious posing, but because we turned out to be not quite as stupid as Micek believed we were.

Let’s also not rule out the idea that Micek had opportunistically embarked on a “testing the limits” exercise. In other words, he may have shut down discussion hoping that the euphoria in the homosexual community and the desire among many readers who want to “live and let live” — part of which involves not seeing icky people challenging their comfortable, oblivious worldview — might outweigh those who objected. That clearly didn’t happen.

Regardless of the motivation, if Micek’s gambit had worked, it could have spread to other papers like wildfire. It didn’t work, but there’s always next time — and given the censorious path this nation is traveling, next time probably isn’t very far off.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

______________________________________________________________

SEE:

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/06/gay_marriage_editorial_reactio.html#comments;

EXCERPT: "John Micek's recent effort to silence those views on gay marriage with which he disagrees tells us a great deal about his own narrow-mindedness."

_________________________________________________

SEE:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/30/newspaper-editor-who-backtracked-after-banning-anti-gay-marriage-op-eds-apologizes-but-theres-something-missing-from-the-text/

EXCERPT:

The opinion editor at a Pennsylvania newspaper says that he “regrets” the initial language he used to announce on Friday that his outlet would ban op-eds that oppose same-sex marriage; he later changed that language to say that his staff would instead “very strictly” limit such content.

“I was way too fast on the draw on that, and sadly for a guy who writes for a living I frankly regret that that happened,” John L. Micek, editorial and opinion editor for PennLive and the Patriot-News, told TheBlaze. “It was never an intent on my part to restrict anyone’s speech.”

Micek said that his original language, which read, ”PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” was “broad and imprecise” and that he could understand peoples’ frustrations.

It was after he hugged his co-worker and then sat down and considered the Supreme Court’s ruling — subsequently noticing some of the negative comments streaming in about the legalization of same-sex unions — that Micek said that he wanted to “send the strongest possible message that the opinion pages of PennLive and The Patriot-News would be space for civil discussion.”

________________________________________________________

Op-Ed Editor Bans Anti-Gay Marriage Views

OBAMA'S JUNE 2015 LGBT PRIDE MONTH FULL SPEECH

White House Pride Event Interrupted
Over LGBTQ Detention
SEE: http://www.people.com/article/obama-heckler-jennicet-gutierrez-interrupts-president-lgbt-transgender-pride

OBAMA'S JUNE 2015 LGBT PRIDE MONTH 

FULL SPEECH

INTERRUPTED BY ILLEGAL TRANSGENDER IMMIGRANT

VIDEO:

Published on Jun 24, 2015

'You're in my house!' President Obama slams, boots White House heckler. President Obama told a White House heckler to either shut up or get out during an LGBT Pride Month celebration Wednesday which drew cheers.
He's not the commander in chief for nothin'.
President Obama shut down a heckler during the White House's LGBT Pride Month celebration Wednesday, telling her to shut up or get out to cheers all around.
"You're in my house. It's not respectful when you get invited to somebody's..." the president informed her before getting cut off.

"Shame on ya. You shouldn't be doing this," he continued before asking that she be removed from the room if she wouldn't quiet down — which she wouldn't.

Once gone, the crowd cheered.

"As a general rule, I am just fine with a couple of hecklers but not when I am up in the house," Obama said to a jovial slap on the back by Vice President Biden.
"If you're eating the hors d'oeuvres and drinking the booze," he said before trailing off with a smile. "Anyway, where was I?"

Immigration group NotOneMoreDeportation later identified the heckler as transgender woman Jennicet Gutiérrez, who they say is an undocumented Mexican immigrant.

"The White House gets to make the decision whether it keeps us safe," she said in a statement on their website Wednesday. "There is no pride in how LGBTQ and transgender immigrants are treated in this country. If the President wants to celebrate with us, he should release the LGBTQ immigrants locked up in detention centers immediately."

JUDGE ROY MOORE CALLS FOR BAN ON GAY "MARRIAGE" BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT~PASTOR RALPH OVADAL: :THE LAWLESS COURT, ANTINOMIAN NEW EVANGELICALS, AND THE FAITHFUL CHURCH"

Judge Roy Moore Renews Call 

for Effort to Amend U.S. Constitution 

to Ban Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2015/06/27/judge-roy-moore-renews-call-for-effort-to-amend-u-s-constitution-to-ban-same-sex-marriage/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, also known as the “Ten Commandments Judge,” says that he plans to keep pressing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution following Friday’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

“There is no such thing as same-sex marriage in the Constitution. The words are not there, we’ve never had it in our history,” he told CNN on Friday. “Five judges on the Supreme Court, or justices, have presumed to find a fundamental right which has no basis in the history or logic or tradition of our country.”

Moore said that he believes the justices followed their personal feelings rather than the rule of law.

“I think the law of the land is plain. It’s the United States Constitution,” he stated. “Not an opinion of the Supreme Court which contradicts that law.”

Moore also advised reporters that the Supreme Court can be petitioned for a re-hearing within 25 days of a ruling. He said that while it is rare for the court to do so, he hoped that the justices would consider the strong dissent in the case.

The judge also said that he would continue to press for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution protecting the institution of marriage.

“I believe that would be what it takes to overcome this errant Supreme Court,” Moore stated. “There’s got to be some way to draw them back to reality.”

As previously reported, last February, Moore unveiled a draft amendment as he mailed letters to each governor, lieutenant governor and legislative body in all 50 states, urging the formation of a convention to add the language to the Constitution.

“Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman, and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” it read.

Moore noted that Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows for Congress to call a convention for proposed amendments that obtain the approval of two-thirds of the states.

But regardless of whether or not a re-hearing is granted or an amendment is passed, he said that he believes that legal battles over the matter are far from over.

“I think it is just the beginning,” Moore stated. “I think it’s the beginning just like when the court in 1857 declared that black people were property. It had no right to do that and there was a long turmoil there after. There was actually the civil war and there was a constitutional amendment.”

He also made clear that he hold no animosity toward homosexuals, but does not believe the government has the right to change the definition of marriage for a select group of people.

“They can celebrate and I’m sure they will, but they’re not celebrating because the Constitution was upheld. They’re celebrating because it was violated, and I think that’s the point. They’re celebrating because they got their way,” Moore told WKRG-TV.

“I have no animosity to people. It’s not about hating homosexual people or hating gay people,” he stated. “It’s about adhering to the Constitution and the traditional definition of marriage and that’s what we should do.”

_______________________________________________________________


"The Lawless Court, Antinomian New Evangelicals, and the Faithful Church"

BY PASTOR RALPH OVADAL

http://www.pccmonroe.org/




AUDIO SERMON:

SEE: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=630151939301

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION LEAPS TO NEW HEIGHTS AFTER SUPREME COURT APPROVES GAY "MARRIAGE"~BRAZIL'S CHRIST MOCKING GAY PARADE~COURT FINALIZES $135,000 PENALTY FOR BAKERS WHO REFUSED LESBIANS~SATANISTS WANT TO ERECT BAPHOMET STATUE NEXT TO TEN COMMANDMENTS IN OKLAHOMA

IF THIS IS WHAT GAYS ARE CAPABLE OF, WHAT WILL THEY DO TO YOU NEXT?

FROM: http://conservativepost.com/gay-pride-participants-mock-jesus-and-the-bible-in-a-disturbing-way/

Homosexual, Transgender Activists Blaspheme Jesus Christ at Brazilian Pride Parade

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2015/06/30/homosexual-transgender-activists-blaspheme-jesus-christ-at-brazilian-pride-parade/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

SAO PAULO, Brazil — Images taken at a recent homosexual pride parade in Brazil are raising concern as they show a number of attendees blaspheming Christ and desecrating religious images during the event.

One of the photographs creating the greatest stir is that of “transgender” actor Viviany Beleboni riding in a two million spectator pride parade in Sao Paulo as he hangs from a cross.

According to BuzzFeed, Beleboni asked an effects artist to simulate Christ’s bloody wounds on his body, and then was affixed to a cross wearing a crown of thorns and only a loin cloth. The sign over Beleboni’s head read “Enough of Homophobia.” He said that the depiction was to parallel Christ’s suffering with that of homosexuals.

Another photograph circulating online shows two topless lesbian woman hanging on the cross together, likewise with a crown of thorns on their heads. As they kiss each other on the lips, above their heads is a sign that reads “LGBT.” Other photos likewise show men depicting Christ crucified while kissing their partner.

Additionally, photographs show nude men smashing religious symbols on the ground and one transgendered person stripped naked in front of a church while dancing in a sexually suggestive manner. One man and woman sat naked atop of a pile of crucifixes and used some to cover their private parts.

According to reports, a number of banners carried in the parade decried Christianity, such as “Christians are homophobes” and “Jesus was gay.”

Outcry has arisen online with the release of the photographs, including from local pastor Mark Feliciano, who took to Facebook to express his concerns about the matter.

“Is it right to mock faith at the door of a church? Is it right to have Jesus do a gay kiss? Is it right to insert a crucifix in my [rear end]?” he wrote. “But I can’t say I’m against it. That makes me intolerant, right?”

“I notice they’re not targeting Buddha or Mohammed,” also wrote American Power blogger Donald Douglas. “Why? Because this movement is an anti-Christ movement and no Christian can support it in any way.”

Brazilian Federal Deputy Marco Feliciano, an evangelical pastor, says that his website was hacked and taken down by homosexual activists the day of the Sao Paolo Pride Parade. He likewise decried the images that surfaced from the event.

“I’m indignant at what happened in the gay parade in Sao Paulo, because they used symbols of, my faith—which is the Christian faith—exposed publicly in an act of complete lack of respect,” Feliciano stated. “I’m talking about people who think that their rights are greater than my rights, who think that they can take my Christ, the cross of my Christ, or everything that has to do with my Christ, and expose it in the street, in the middle of the filth.”

Now, some lawmakers are considering legislation that would ban “obscene and degrading acts which show prejudice against Catholics and Evangelicals.”

“There is a general revulsion with this nefarious, unscrupulous and abominable attitude,” said Senator Magno Malta. “You have passed the limit.”

_____________________________________________________________

Christian Bakers Who Declined to Make Cake for ‘Gay Wedding’ Ordered to Pay 

$135,000 to Lesbians

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-who-declined-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding-ordered-to-pay-135000-to-lesbians/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

GRESHAM, Ore. — The owners of a Christian bakery in Oregon have officially been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to two lesbians who claimed that they suffered emotionally after they were told that the bakery could not make a cake for their ceremony because of their convictions not to participate in others’ sins.

As previously reported, Aaron and Melissa Klein operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, which is now operated from the couple’s home after the Kleins’ shut their doors due to harassment. In January 2013, Aaron was approached by a mother and her daughter as the two were interested in a cake for the daughter’s upcoming wedding—to her lesbian partner.

“My first question was what’s the wedding date,” Klein told television station KTW in Portland. “My next question was [the] bride and groom’s name. … The girl giggled a little bit and said, ‘It’s two brides.’”

He then informed the women that the bakery does not make cakes for homosexual events.

“I apologized for wasting their time and said that, unfortunately, we do not do same-sex marriages,” Klein explained.

The women left Sweet Cakes upset about the incident, and later, one of them filed a complaint with the state. The Oregon attorney general’s office soon launched an investigation against the Klein’s as the state’s non-discrimination laws prevent public accommodations from being denied to any individual on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex [or] sexual orientation.”

But Klein states that he regularly serves homosexuals. He believes that there is a difference between serving homosexuals in general and having to personally facilitate same-sex ceremonies, which is an act of participation.

“I have customers come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual,” he said. “They can buy my stuff. I sell stuff. I talk with them. That’s fine. … This was not the first time we’ve served these girls.”

“We were being asked to participate in something that we could not participate in,” Klein’s wife, Melissa, noted.

Some Christians believe that being a part of a same-sex event violates the biblical command in 1 Timothy 5:22 not to be “partakers in other men’s sins,” as well as the command in Ephesians 5:7, “Be not ye therefore partakers with them.”

In February, a judge with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled that the Christian bakers are guilty of discrimination for declining to make the cake, thus moving the matter into the sentencing phase. The Kleins had expressed concern prior to the ruling that if they were forced to pay a fine for declining the cake over their Christian convictions, the penalty would “definitely” bankrupt the family.

In April, Alan McCullough, an administrative judge with the bureau, recommended a fine of $135,000, with one of the women receiving $75,000 and the other $60,000. Prosecutors had sought damages of $75,000 each.

The two women, who have been identified as Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, submitted individual lists of just under 100 aspects of suffering in order to receive the damages. They included “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “distrust of men,” “distrust of former friends,” “excessive sleep,” “discomfort,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “loss of pride,” “mental rape,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”

But the Kleins told the court that they too had suffered because of the attacks that they received over their desire to live out their Christian faith in the workplace. They stated that they endured “mafia tactics” as their car was vandalized and broken into on two occasions, their vendors were harassed by homosexual advocates resulting in some businesses breaking ties with them, and they received threatening emails wishing rape, death and Hell upon the family. As a result, they had to close their business and move it into their private home.

This week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries accepted McCollough’s recommendation and fined the Kleins $135,000.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order, written by Commissioner Brad Avakian, read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

The Kleins told commentator Todd Starnes that they are disappointed by the order and plan to appeal.

“We were just running our business the best we could—following the Lord’s example,” Melissa Kelin stated. “I’m just blown away by the ruling. They are punishing us for not participating in the wedding.”

Aaron Klein vowed to fight Avakian in court.

“This man has no power over me,” he said. “He seems to think he can tell me to be quiet. That doesn’t sit well with me and I refuse to comply.”

Sweet Cakes by Melissa had served Cryer and Bowman for all other orders at their bakery, and even considered the women to be their friends.

COURT DENIES THEM RIGHT TO TALK OPENLY ABOUT THE JUDGMENT:

Published on Jul 6, 2015

You’d think being found liable for “mental rape” for declining to cater a gay wedding and being fined $135,000 would be enough undue punishment

Donate here: https://www.continuetogive.com/4811392

PART 2:

122 PAGE OREGON BUREAU OF LABOR 

ORDER IN FULL: 

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

After a Christian couple said they refused to bake a gay wedding cake because they have “faith in the Lord,” an Oregon state agency ordered them to “cease and desist” talking about their faith.

SEE: 
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/
AND:
http://www.infowars.com/gay-marriage-state-agency-orders-christians-to-stop-talking-about-their-faith/
EXCERPT:

Claiming the Kleins violated Oregon’s anti-discriminatory laws, Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered them to “cease and desist” discussing their Christian beliefs because they made the following statements on the Christian Broadcasting Network:

1. Aaron Klein: “I didn’t want to be a part of her marriage, which I think is wrong.”
2. Melissa Klein: “I am who I am and I want to live my life the way I want to live my life and, you know, I choose to serve God.”
3. Aaron Klein: “It’s one of those things where you never want to see something you’ve put so much work into go belly up, but on the other hand, I have faith in the Lord and he’s taken care of us up to this point and I’m sure he will in the future.”

_____________________________________________________________

Proposed ‘Homage to Satan’ Near Ten Commandments Monument to Be Unveiled

BY HEATHER CLARK

SEE: http://christiannews.net/2015/06/27/proposed-homage-to-satan-near-ten-commandments-monument-to-be-unveiled/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

DETROIT, Mich. — A New York-based Satanist group has announced the unveiling of its sculpted ‘homage to Satan,’ which it seeks to place next to a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma state capitol building.

As previously reported, the Satanic Temple issued a news release about its intentions in 2013 following the filing of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which asserted that the presence of the Ten Commandments display on government property violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Satanic Temple said that it offered to to donate a statue of Baphomet to be placed near the Ten Commandments display in order to “appease the ACLU’s concerns.”

“The statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures,” spokesperson Lucien Greaves explained in his application to the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission. “The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation.”

The organization proceeded to launch an indiegogo fundraising campaign, which raised over $28,000 for the creation of the monument.

“A Satanic monument erected in contrast to a Ten Commandments monument will send a clear and distinct message to the world that pluralism is alive and well in the United States,” it asserted.

Last May, it was announced that the statue was nearing completion, which features the goat-headed figure Baphomet making the sign for the occult as he sits upon a throne with a pentagram overhead. Children fixate their eyes upon him on both sides.

In September, Seventh District Court Judge Thomas Prince concluded that the Ten Commandments monument serves a historical purpose and is not solely the presentment of a religious message as it sits on a plot of land that contains 51 other expressive monuments.

However, despite the monument being upheld as constitutional, the Satanic Temple forged ahead with its plans to place the Baphomet statue on the capitol grounds. Now, the organization has announced that it will be hosting an official unveiling ceremony next month in Detroit.

“As a ‘homage’ to Satan, the incredible statue is intended to complement and contrast the Ten Commandments monument that already resides on Oklahoma State Capitol grounds,” it recently wrote on its website. “The event will serve as a call-to-arms from which The Satanic Temple will kick off our largest fight to date in the name of individual rights to free exercise against self-serving theocrats.”

The group invited supporters to “dress to impress the Devil” and “come dance with [him] and experience history in the making.”

It is not clear whether the Satanic Temple has obtained permission to place the monument on the capitol grounds as it wishes. Some have expressed that the proposed “homage to Satan” is offensive to Oklahoma residents.

“I think you’ve got to remember where you are. This is Oklahoma, the middle of the heartland,” Representative Don Armes told the Associated Press. “I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that’s not going to fly here.”
____________________________________________________________

Sodomite "marriage" ruling means 

dark days ahead for USA

SEE: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miller/150710; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Gina Miller

Since the last round of twisted, egregious Supreme Court dictates, it has been easy to sit by in numb grief for our nation, because many of us have been warning, like a broken record, that these lawless things were on the way. Even so, strongly expecting the Court to do the wrong thing and finally seeing it happen are two different things. The reality of it is a body blow. We have seen plenty of bad Supreme Court decisions, and it's hard to top Roe v. Wade for badness, but the outrageous ruling on sodomy-based "marriage" is pretty much the final nail in the coffin of the formerly-free Republic of the United States of America, because it will result in the destruction of our God-given, First Amendment-protected freedoms, if there is not massive push-back by the American people. Do you see that push-back happening? Me, neither.

There have been many excellent commentaries roundly refuting the legitimacy of the Court's hellish decision to destroy the meaning of marriage, something the justices of the Court do not have the power nor the authority to do. In their profound arrogance and utter disregard for the Constitution, they made the ruling anyway, and although they handed down this evil edict, they did not change what marriage is, because they can't. Marriage is one thing only, the union of a man and a woman. It will never be anything else, no matter how many rulings and laws born in the pit of Hell say otherwise.

The persecution of Christians in the United States will now begin in earnest, as we have not seen thus far in our nation. While many associate murder with persecution, we're not quite there – yet (but, give it time). Persecution does not necessarily involve outright killing. In addition to slander, defamation, intimidation and other personal attacks, it can mean "legal" assaults on people that cause them to lose their jobs, their money, their private property, their businesses and their freedom. These things have already been happening in cases across the nation, from bakers and photographers to bed and breakfast owners to company CEOs.

With the Supreme Court imposing the abomination of sodomite "marriage" on the United States, we will now see Christian groups and organizations, schools and churches come under lawfare waged by homosexualist foot soldiers, who are the tools of the Marxist cultural revolution that ramped up in the 1960s and has been thrown into warp speed under Barack Obama (or whatever his name is). The goal of this demonic campaign, of which the militant homosexual movement is a central part, has always been the destruction of Christian freedom and expression and the moral and societal foundations of our once-great nation.

The endgame is tyranny over the people, because that is the devil's desire, and the people of this movement do his dark will. Whether it's the homofascist movement, the illegal alien invasion, the war on our energy sector, the heavy-handed federal commandeering of natural resources, even the bolstering of our Muslim enemies abroad and more, we face tyrannical evil on a number of fronts emanating from the communists in the malicious Obama regime and their fellow travelers who now run our nation and its major institutions.

It took them about a hundred years, but the communists, led by the forces of Hell, have finally just about sealed the deal in taking down the United States of America. Don't bother telling me it isn't so, or that I'm a "quitter" for observing the obvious, or that after we elect some more "Republicans" (again) all will be well. It will not be well, because what's wrong with America is something no election can fix. What's wrong with America is a deep corruption of the soul, and the devilish success of the radical homosexual/"transgender" movement is a testament to that deep corruption.

This movement is evil. The Supreme Court ruling destroying marriage is evil. The highest court in the United States has, by the largest, lawless edict yet, given "legitimacy" to abominable sexual behavior and imposed a grotesquery of "marriage" on the nation. Dark days of tyranny are ahead. Our freedoms are hanging by a thread, because God is not mocked. No nation can spit in His holy face, as this nation is doing, and imagine it will come away unscathed. No king in his White House castle can, in haughty pride, illuminate the castle with the hijacked colors of God's rainbow and not pay a dear price for his belligerent affront to the God of all creation. The rainbow belongs to God, and one day every person will admit he knew it all along. Satan has been in heaven, and that means he has seen God's rainbow around His throne (Revelation 4), and as the dirtiest stroke of insolence he can conjure against the Lord, he has inspired the reprobate minds of his homosexualist pawns to hijack that rainbow as a symbol of their degenerate wickedness. This does not end well for our nation.