http://www.youngcons.com/christian-mlb-player-gives-honest-answer-prospect-gay-teammates/

Christian MLB player gives honest answer about prospect of gay teammates

If you’re an outspoken Christian in the limelight, the one question the world seems to ask you over and over again always deals with homosexuality.

Whether this is out of curiosity or an attempt to trip someone up is anyone’s guess, though I tend to think a good portion of the time it’s the latter.

New York Mets infielder Daniel Murphy, a very vocal Christian, was recently asked by reporters about his thoughts on gay teammates.

His answer is simple, honest, and brilliant.

From TheBlaze:

In his response, Murphy offered what he feels is Christianity’s “actual stance” on homosexuality. He also said he is definitely ready to have a gay teammate.

“Maybe, as a Christian, that we haven’t been as articulate enough in describing what our actual stance is on homosexuality. We love the people. We disagree the lifestyle. That’s the way I would describe it for me,” Murphy told the Star-Ledger.

He continued: “It’s the same way that there are aspects of my life that I’m trying to surrender to Christ in my own life. There’s a great deal of many things, like my pride. I just think that as a believer trying to articulate it in a way that says just because I disagree with the lifestyle doesn’t mean I’m just never going to speak to Billy Bean every time he walks through the door. That’s not love. That’s not love at all.”

When asked about Bean specifically, Murphy said he disagrees with the homosexual “lifestyle,” but that “doesn’t mean I can’t still invest in him and get to know him.”

“I don’t think the fact that someone is a homosexual should completely shut the door on investing in them in a relational aspect. Getting to know him. That, I would say, you can still accept them but I do disagree with the lifestyle, 100 percent,” he said.

And let the slow clapping commence.

This is a great answer and one I think is pretty biblical.

As a believer, I don’t agree or condone homosexuality, but that hardly means I dislike them as individuals or wish any harm to come to them. They are people made in God’s image too, just like a heterosexual, and they should be treated with love and kindness just like any other person.

It’s nice to see someone like Murphy give such an articulate answer without backing down from what he believes in. Our twisted up culture sure could use a few more good dudes like him being role models for young people.

Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. Murphy!

EDITOR’S NOTE UPDATE: Here comes the thought police. Remember when people told Michael Sam to only talk about football? Me neither.

New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy will no longer address his religious beliefs and will stick to baseball, a team spokesman said Wednesday.

On Tuesday, MLB ambassador for inclusion Billy Bean addressed Mets players after general manager Sandy Alderson invited him. Murphy subsequently told media that day that while he would embrace Bean as a teammate, he does not approve of his homosexuality. Bean concealed his sexual orientation during his playing career and later said that he was gay.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.canonandculture.com/christianity-and-tolerance-in-the-public-square/

Christianity and Tolerance in the Public Square

In Washington state, a florist who has employed and served gay people for years, but who declined to arrange flowers for a same-sex ceremony, faces the potential forfeiture of her home and life savings.

In Atlanta, a decorated fire chief lost his job for self-publishing a book that dared to offer an opinion on sexuality that historic Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all affirm.

In Oregon, the owners of a bakery face up to $150,000 in penalties for declining to bake a cake for the wedding of a gay couple.

There are countless other examples that could be shared, but they all follow this pattern: Run your business or institution according to your faith; or publicly express moral or religious convictions that don’t celebrate homosexuality or gay marriage, and you’re liable for very real consequences such as fines, lost employment, and the harassment and intimidation that follows from media exposure.

According to this rigid ideology, indecent views that run contrary to so-called “mainstream” and enlightened opinions on sexuality cannot be tolerated or given quarter in the public square. Though supposedly guided by a blind relativism that denies any ordered purpose to our sexuality, this dictatorship of sexual relativism is very insistent that you comply with its demands as a matter of moral obligation and justice because, as political theorist Matt Franck presciently warns, “there is no good reason for the new legal order to make room for ‘conscientious’ religious dissenters, for clearly their consciences are malformed and unworthy of respect.”

A 2009 paper from the Heritage Foundation explained just how traditional marriage proponents would be pushed out of the public square:

Arguments for same-sex marriage, although often couched in terms of tolerance and inclusion, are based fundamentally on the idea that preserving marriage as unions of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons who want the state to license their relationships. As increasing numbers of individuals and institutions, including public officials and governmental bodies, embrace this ideology, belief in marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman likely will come to be viewed as an unacceptable form of discrimination that should be purged from public life through legal, cultural, and economic pressure.

This prescient quote brings us to our current moment, where we see, increasingly, the targeting and marginalization of religious persons by a community that foretold of a laissez-faire approach to sexuality.

Those of us who believe that marriage is the exclusive, unalterable union of a man and woman were promised that all that the LGBT community wanted was equal treatment like everybody else. They advertised a “live and let live” mentality that would supposedly allow for difference in viewpoint.

We were told a lie, many of which knew was a lie to begin with. As the LGBT activist wing reveals its true intentions, there can apparently be no grand bargain where religious conservatives who disagree, civilly, on important matters of sexuality can co-exist alongside gay persons who desire to live free lives as well.

History reveals that when one group gains cultural favor over another, it typically overreaches, going to extremes to mercilessly subjugate their enemies to whatever table scraps are left over. That’s the phase we’re in now. In these circumstances, détente is discarded. Instead, embattlement and entrenchment passes on to the next generation.

It is the activist wing of the LGBT community that has settled the terms of the current debate, pitting the gay community against religious conservatives, wishing to extract every last pound of flesh they can from who they view as their troglodytic oppressors.

Religious conservatives don’t desire this. We want freedom for all. We desire magnanimity, tolerance, and compromise. That means, under reasonable standards, allowing all persons, religious or not, the freedom to live according to their sincerest convictions. It means instead of filing suit against a Christian florist, allowing for the free market to solve the problems of needing a floral arrangement for a gay wedding.

That also means freedom for gay persons to live meaningful lives, too. It means acknowledging that gay persons are citizens. Though the favor hasn’t been returned to religious conservatives, it means not coercing a baker to bake a cake with a religious belief about marriage that she does not agree with. It means recognizing that hiring or firing on the basis of sexual orientation, rarely, matters as a condition of employment eligibility. Religious conservatives stand ready to live at peace. Yes, we welcome the debate about whose vision of sexuality maximizes human flourishing, but that debate can be persist without punishing those who disagree. Public debate by private citizens is what makes America so unique and exemplary. Let’s not litigate public debate out of existence.

Tragically, all we’ve seen thus far is the vanquishing of those whose beliefs are different, but we will not beg for the constitutional rights that are inalienably ours. We will not assent to the dhimmitude of the Sexual Revolution. The unknown is whether the LGBT community will accept this.

Those who believe in a religious or moral conviction that marriage is conjugal, meaning between a man and woman, should continue to advance the cause of why the conjugal view of marriage is rational, true, and best serves the needs of civil society. They should also pursue every policy mechanism that protects against encroaching, coercive legal strictures that turns ordinary, hard working citizens into litigants and law-breakers.

Pluralism and true tolerance requires magnanimity. The culture wars grow colder as these disputes pit Americans against Americans, not just Christians against the community. As Christians, one of the most loving things we can bring to society is an advocacy for a genuine civic pluralism. But we’ll need the other side to play, too.

Sent from my iPhone

IS GAY OKAY: 10 Things Everyone Needs To Know

Trying to make sense of the controversy?Watch this informative and compelling video that exposes the truth about the myth, with links to articles books and videos as additional resources. 

http://youtu.be/yRNNohjyZew

LGBT MAFIA EXPOSED

Virulent LGBT Mafia being outed "Left" and "Right": Take a tour on the ‘Tolerance Trail’ via #GlennBeck 

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/07/take-a-tour-on-the-tolerance-trail/

Take a tour on the ‘Tolerance Trail’

Yes, that’s a very alliterative headline

You can only hear the doctor diagnose you with a terminal illness so many times before things start to seem really, really dark. That’s why Glenn dedicated tonight’s monologue to recognizing a pretty amazing phenomenon – people of different political viewpoints are starting to come together and unite on common principles. What happens when a CEO is exiled for his personal beliefs on gay marriage? Or a professor is smeared for saying global warming may be a little too alarmist? Well, you start to have some of the biggest liberal voices in the media come out and say what people like Glenn have been saying for a long, long time: progressives aren’t interested in debate, they are interested in controlling the conversation.

WHEN THE LGBT HANDICAP BECOMES THE PLAYGROUND BULLY

When Brendan Eich, co-founder of Mozilla, is forced to resign amidst corporate pressure because he stands up for principles, all of us need to take note that the inmates are running the asylum. 

Read the article:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/04/this-ceo-made-a-political-donation-then-lost-his-job-because-liberals-didnt-like-it.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FbYHz+%28Illinois+Review%29

FRIDAY, APRIL 04, 2014

By Rob Bluey - 

The chief executive of Mozilla resigned yesterday amid protests over his $1,000 donation in support of California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Brendan Eich’s 2008 donation was first revealed two years ago while he was serving in a senior role at Mozilla. But it was after his appointment as CEO last month that half of Mozilla’s board quit and company employees publicly voiced their disapproval. Others launched a public campaign seeking his ouster.

In the wake of yesterday’s news, Andrew Sullivan, a leading advocate for redefining marriage, said the episode “should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society.”

Heritage Foundation scholars weighed in with their reaction.

Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society, warned that “bullies” were poisoning democratic discourse by attacking anyone who doesn’t share their view:

The outrageous treatment of Eich is the result of one private, personal campaign contribution to support marriage as a male-female union, a view affirmed at the time by President Barack Obama, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, and countless other prominent officials. After all, Prop 8 passed with the support of 7 million California voters.

So was President Obama a bigot back when he supported marriage as the union of a man and woman? And is characterizing political disagreement on this issue—no matter how thoughtfully expressed—as hate speech really the way to find common ground and peaceful co-existence?

Sure, the employees of Mozilla—which makes Firefox, the popular Internet browser—have the right to protest a CEO they dislike, for whatever reason. But are they treating their fellow citizens with whom they disagree civilly? Must every political disagreement be a capital case regarding the right to stand in civil society?

When Obama “evolved” on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides.

Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and senior legal fellow, said the episode was an example of how the disclosure of political contributions served as a means to intimidate and harass an individual for his personal views:

Before Eich resigned, he pointed out that he had kept his personal beliefs out of Mozilla and that they were not relevant to his job as CEO. He was exactly right, although that did not prevent him from resigning.

In a startling display of irony that was obviously lost on her, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, who approved of Eich’s resignation, said it was necessary because “preserving Mozilla’s integrity was paramount.” She seems not to recognize that forcing a founder of the company to resign because of his personal beliefs that have nothing to do with his qualifications as a corporate officer is the exact opposite of “integrity.”

Eich is certainly not alone in his predicament. As the Heritage Foundation previously pointed out, other supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, death threats, and anti-religious bigotry. All committed by individuals claiming they are simply trying to gain “acceptance” and who complain about the supposed intolerance of society over their lifestyle.

 

Nearly 200 Cities Pass Laws Discriminating Against Christians

Gay activists are successfully getting laws passed in cities around the country that discriminate against Christians.  The laws are called nondiscrimination laws by the LGBT activists pushing through one city council after another.  So far, over 180 cities have passed these so-called nondiscrimination ordinances.

Read the article:

http://godfatherpolitics.com/12710/nearly-200-cities-pass-laws-discriminating-christians/