A 26-year-old Mennonite missionary was violently stabbed in the back on Friday by a pro-LGBTQ woman who became aggressive after he shared with her his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality.
“The confrontation was about the idea of homosexuality…if that’s OK, if that’s acceptable, and whether God loves somebody who is in that state. And we assured her that he does,” said Eric Brubacher, a member of the Mennonite community who was present during the attack, to CTV.
The unnamed victim was rushed to the hospital where he was treated for non-life threatening injuries and then released. The attacker fled the scene of the crime.
The stabbing occurred in the Byward Market area three days prior to the opening of Ottawa’s “Pride Week” where homosexuality is celebrated and promoted openly with parties and a parade.
The Maranatha Conservative Mennonite Church had traveled to Ottawa from Drayton, Ontario for three days of evangelization through singing and handing out Gospel literature. Friday was the community’s first day.
[…]Ottawa Police are looking for the attacker, who is described as white, 22 years of age, of slim build, and sporting blond hair with pink highlights.
An Ottawa Police spokesperson told LifeSiteNews that as of Monday morning the attacker had not yet been apprehended. The investigation is still ongoing.
Ottawa is the capital of Canada, and it is in the very liberal province of Ontario.
Now I know that most people on the left like to talk a lot about tolerance, critical thinking, and diversity. Might I suggest that they go back to the drawing board and re-think what those words mean. I am seeing more and more stories come out every day where gay activists are going after the livelihood of people who disagree with them or even just refuse to celebrate what they are doing. It may have started non-violently, but now I am seeing it escalate into violence. I would like to see the leaders of the gay rights movement step forward and take responsibility for their inflammatory rhetoric, and dial down their persecution and violence against those who disagree with them. I don’t see any coercion, vandalism and violence coming from the traditional moral values side. Maybe the other side needs to take a lesson in civility and tolerance from us. Disagreement – yes. Violence – no way.
A custom cake baker in suburban Denver can’t cite his religious convictions in declining to make a wedding cake for two men, a Colorado appeals court ruled today.
“Cake artist” Jack Phillips said he gladly serves gays and lesbians in his family business. But, Phillips said, he could not in good conscience design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple when, as a Christian, he believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
A three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that not doing so amounts to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation, Associated Press reported.
You’ll recall that Colorado is one of the states that does not recognize religious liberty as a human right:
If you live in one of the non-gray states, you’re at risk.
What’s troubling to me about this is that Phillips was defended by Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defending Freedom. He is a very capable religious liberty lawyer.
The baker’s lawyer, Jeremy Tedesco, told The Daily Signal that the three judges “got it wrong on all counts” in a unanimous, 65-page opinion.
“He objects to the message, not to their protected status,” Tedesco said of the business owner’s attitude toward Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the two men who wanted him to design a wedding cake. “That’s not discrimination under the law.”
Tedesco, senior legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, added:
Business owners have a right–especially when they’re engaged in expression, as our client is–to run their business in accordance with their beliefs. …When they’re engaged in expression, [they may] decline to create an expression that violates their convictions.
What’s interesting is that after being denied the cake, the gay couple easily went to another shop and got a cake. There was no harm done.
But that was not good enough for them, hence their decision to involve the state, and punish the Christian for choosing not to celebrate something he disagreed with.
Tedesco says that the baker should not be forced to say something that he violates his conscience:
As The Daily Signal reported, Tedesco argued that compelling Phillips to create a cake for the wedding of two men would violate his First Amendment rights not only to freedom of religion but also free speech or expression.
“The other side of the case thinks there are no First Amendment rights in the commercial context and once you open a business, you cede all First Amendment protections,” Tedesco told The Daily Signal after the hearing in Denver.
The ADF intends to appeal the case to the Colorado Supreme Court, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately, since Obama won in 2008 and 2012, the Supreme Court is likely to rule against religious liberty. We’ll find out, I guess.
This article from the radically leftist Washington Post unapologetically praises public school teachers for pushing their vision of sex and marriage onto children as young as four years old.
As young children develop their understanding of the world, they tend to rely heavily on binaries. If we understand the binaries a child is working within, we can encourage that child to think of counterexamples or introduce counterexamples ourselves into the conversation. These provide useful stumbling blocks that encourage them to expand their thinking.
[…]As the year unfolded, my students continued to play at themes of love and marriage. The conversations expanded and both kids and I were able to introduce new and different stumbling blocks: One can be in love and not get married, not all married people are moms or dads, and not all moms and dads are married. The conversations shifted based on what information the kids had internalized.
The author relays an example conversation about same-sex marriage and incest marriage, which she participates in, trying to undermine the traditional views expressed by the children.
As this deeply layered conversation moved on, many points of view were stated, more questions were posed, and the children were able to articulate what they thought. I made a mental note to myself about topics to revisit, including finding a way to talk about inherited traits and Jane’s ideas about the dangers of incest. There’s always a new challenge!
[…]It’s easy to feel vulnerable or overwhelmed when children ask questions about identity, but when we don’t engage the issues involved, we are sending a message that the subjects are taboo. In terms of gender and sexuality, avoidance and silence can be particularly harmful for students who are or will later identify as LGBTQ (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer) or who come from families with LGBTQ family members. Silence is not a neutral response.
Is this a conversation that you want a secular public school teacher having with your kids?
Regardless of what you do with your own kids, your tax dollars are going to be paying for these kinds of conversations. They are, in fact, undermining the natural desire of most parents under the parents’ noses. Although leftist educators tend to have fewer children than conservatives, or even no children, they can push their ideas into the next generation by running the public schools.
Public schools tend to do a woeful job of teaching the useful skills that parents really want, but they do a great job of pushing leftist values onto children, and the earlier the better. In fact, they are not being paid on the basis of whether your child learns math and science and engineering and is able to get a job. Public school teachers are paid regardless of student performance, because public schools are a monopoly. This is not a free market which service providers compete to give customers more quality for less money. Public schools are totally insulated from the demands of consumers, that’s why public school teachers are free to push whatever values they want on kids.
If you want to see how far the gay left intends to go with this, take a look at the province of Ontario, Canada, where the sex education curriculum was designed by an education minister who was convicted for child pornography. The Ontario premier is a lesbian, and she is a strong defender of that sex education curriculum, over and against the protests of traditional-minded parents. But somehow, she got elected, and somehow, the child-pornographer became the minister of education. Somebody decided that he was the right person for the job, and somebody decided that public school teachers have a right to push his curriculum on children. And the taxpayers are paying for this indoctrination of young, impressionable kids.
In rural, small-town Iowa, a group of parents and community leaders is seeking to prevent students from the local taxpayer-funded middle school and high school from attending future versions of an anti–bullying conference for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens.
The last one — in April — left many of the denizens of Humboldt, Iowa up in arms, reports Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV.
Iowa Safe Schools, an activist group out of Des Moines, hosted the conference.
[…]Among the nearly two dozen speakers, “only two” addressed bullying, one attendee estimated, according to EAGnews.org.
The rest of the sessions involved issues such as “how to pleasure their gay partners.”
Middle school girls from Humboldt (pop.: 4,690) had the opportunity to learn “how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”
One speaker wore a dress made out of condoms to which could be “used as needed.” . . .
Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, said parents who worry about middle school kids hearing about anal sex with strap-ons and analingus are “disgusting.”
“It’s incredibly frustrating that adults are being the problem and being the bully,” Monson told the Des Moines NBC affiliate. “
The mission statement of “Iowa Safe Schools” makes it clear that this is about pushing early sexual activity and the broader gay agenda onto children in the public schools:
The mission of Iowa Safe Schools is to: a) improve school climate in order to increase the personal safety, mental health, and student learning of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and allied (LGBTA) and all other students; b) increase awareness and understanding among current and future educators, school administrators, and key community agents of inequities regarding the safety of LGBTA students and their family member(s) in schools and communities throughout Iowa. Iowa Safe Schools also seeks to empower these key actors with effective, research-based tools and strategies to combat intolerance and safety inequities.
That’s what’s happening in public schools. Should we be voting to send more money to these public schools? Will more money result in kids having better math, science and engineering skills? It seems to me that public schools have nothing to do with teaching math, science and engineering, and everything to do with normalizing the gay lifestyle, against the wishes of most traditional parents. Make sure that when you are voting, you vote for school choice, not a government-run public school monopoly. Let parents get the money, and let the parents decide where to send their kids based on what the kids need to learn valuable skills and get real jobs.
Breitbart Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro and transgender reporter for Inside Edition and helicopter pilot Zoey Tur engaged in a heated debate over Caitlyn Jenner and transgenderism during which Tur threatened to send Shapiro home in an ambulance on Thursday’s “Dr. Drew On Call.”
[…]Pinsky then argued that ABC did a good job getting viewers, which is the point of an awards ceremony. Pinsky continued, “In terms of the science behind gender disphoria, you’re very familiar with that, Zoey. It’s not about the…chromosomes within our nuclei.” Tur responded, “We both know chromosomes don’t necessarily mean you’re male or female.” And “you have a thing like Klinefelter’s syndrome. So, [turning to Shapiro and touching his shoulder] you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re not educated on genetics –.” Shapiro asked if the discussion was supposed to be on genetics and asked, “What are your genetics, sir?” Pinsky said to Tur, “I’d stay away from the genetics and back to the brain scans.”
Tur then said to Shapiro, “You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.” Shapiro responded, “That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.” Oduolowu said that, to be fair, Shapiro was being rude, to which Shapiro answered, “I’m sorry, it’s not rude to say that someone who’s biologically a male is a male.” Tur stated, “You just called me a ‘sir.’”
If you watch the video, Tur grabs the back of Shapiro’s head in a rather menacing manner.
As if that wasn’t enough, there’s this threat to “curb-stomp” Shapiro on Twitter:
One thing for sure – he certainly didn’t appear to be very feminine or ladylike, grabbing the back of Ben Shapiro’s head and threatening to beat him up.
In case you are wondering what curb-stomping is, Breitbart News explains:
Curb-stomping is a heinously violent street practice where the victim is forced to bite the corner of a cement street curb before the assailant stomps on the victims head.
[…]Curb-stomping is a practice made infamous by American Nazi skinheads.
Ben Shapiro is Jewish.
That’s a serious threat. And yet people on the panel all talked about tolerance, and none of them thought anything of what Tur said to Shapiro.
If you listen to hour 1 of the Friday show, Shapiro says twice that he intends to press charges against Tur. The video was already turned over to the police by the time he was on air. He has to press charges because it’s wrong to say things like that to people just because you disagree with them. I really recommend listening to that hour of the radio show, to hear Ben’s full thoughts on the whole transgender issue. It’s sometimes helpful to hear someone speak about these issues with common sense, and that seems to be in short supply on the politically correct left these days. They talk about tolerance and diversity but there isn’t any tolerance and diversity unless you agree with them, and even celebrate them.
The first openly gay Episcopal bishop, who became a symbol for gay rights far beyond the church while deeply dividing the world’s Anglicans, plans to divorce his husband.
[…]Robinson, 66, had been married to a woman and had two children before he and his wife divorced. He and Andrew had been partners for more than a decade when Robinson was elected to lead the New Hampshire Diocese. The two men were joined in a 2008 civil union in New Hampshire, which became a legal marriage when the state recognized gay marriage two years later.
[…]Robinson was… widely celebrated as a pioneer for gay rights, became an advocate for gay marriage and was the subject of several books and a documentary about Christianity, the Bible and same-sex relationships. He delivered the benediction at the opening 2009 inaugural event for President Barack Obama and, after retirement, became a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank with close ties to the White House.
The interesting thing about this is that although Americans have been fed a steady diet of propaganda from Hollywood to make us think that gay relationships are stable, the reality is that they are NOT stable.
Let’s take a look at the data
Consider this post from The Public Discourse which explains that there are few stable, long-lived gay relationships – even the ones with children.
The [NFSS] study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.
This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples. A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages” such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that there is more instability among lesbian parents.
Therefore, while critics of the NFSS have faulted it for lacking comparisons between children of IBFs and the children of committed and intact gay or lesbian couples, this was attempted, but was not feasible. Despite drawing from a large, representative sample of the U.S. population, and despite using screening tactics designed to boost the number of respondents who reported having had a parent in a same-sex relationship, a very small segment reported having been parented by the same two women or two men for a minimum of three years. Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true, and the above-cited studies of different nations show that on average, same-sex couple relationships are more short-lived than those of opposite-sex couples.
I think this is an important point to make – and it’s consistent with the research from previous studies. The bottom line is that gay marriage is another step on the path towards making marriage about the needs and feelings of adults. In natural marriage, parents are concerned about how breaking up will affect their children – so thy have a reason to stay together and work conflicts out. The needs of the adults are secondary to the needs of the children. But in gay marriage, there is no such constraint. The children are not related biologically to both partners, and so that protection is not in place. Now that gay marriage is legalized, we should understand that children will be getting a lot less stability, and that’s in addition to being deprived of their biological mother and father.