Homogaydom is a Judicial Blitzkrieg on Christianity!


Few are more rabidly intolerant than the homosexuals.  They are already vile sinners, so being disingenuous by demanding tolerance from everyone else while tolerating no opposing views themselves, is no surprise.  Why should anyone be shocked that people who practice evil would also be dishonest?  They are not happy practicing their sinful ways in private.  Homosexuals seek the approval of everyone else for their sick activities.  Perhaps they know their actions are sinful, so they are trying to obtain justification or vindication from others.

It is not mere acceptance of their lifestyle that they want from the rest of us.  Obtaining tolerance isn’t enough.  They want full endorsement, participation and a total cultural immersion into their debauchery.  You can hardly find a television show anymore that doesn’t push the homosexual agenda in our faces.  Even shows that should be completely politically neutral, such as The Walking Dead, have forced us to watch gays in action.  It’s sickening and the people are growing weary of it.

Homosexuality is a sin, which by it’s very nature, should not affect anyone else outside of the bedroom.  Almost no one would care what gays did if they kept it to themselves.  That isn’t good enough for them.  Gays want others, especially Christians, to be forced to participate and be effected by their homosexual sins.  Whether it be forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding or pushing the legality of that wedding on us and forcing us to subsidize it with our taxes in various ways.  Our religious rights do not exist if we are forced to abandon our beliefs with a government boot on our throat.

When it comes to gay marriage, it should be noted that if the federal government had not unconstitutionally involved itself with marriage in the first place, the entire argument would be moot.  No one would care what gays do, because it wouldn’t effect anyone else.  It isn’t marriage that gays are truly after, it’s the entitlements, tax breaks, and other benefits that come along with marriage, thanks to the unconstitutional meddling of government in marriage that created these things.

Marriage is primarily a religious institution for the creation of a nuclear family unit.  A large majority of homosexuals are atheist, so it belies credibility that they want to take part in a religious ceremony, because the faith is so important to them.  If the faith were really that important, they would cease their sinful ways and repent.  Marriage has a definition.  Homosexuals have never been barred from marriage.  Like everyone else, they have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  Again, it isn’t marriage that they really want.  They want to destroy religious institutions and traditions and do so at the expense of the tax payer.

All levels of government already have their tentacles wrapped in the institution of marriage.  Ideally we’d remove government from the equation altogether, but that isn’t very likely.  In the mean time, it falls within the jurisdiction of the states to decide how to handle marriage and gay marriage.  No federally enumerated power exists to legislate on the matter, so it is a 10th Amendment issue.

All across the United States, the people have put gay marriage to a vote.  The people have spoken loudly and clearly to be firmly against the legalization of gay marriage.  Even in the fervently liberal State of California, the people voted in Proposition 8, to outlaw gay marriage.  Every step of the way, homosexuals have taken it to courts to have the laws and state constitutional amendments which ban gay marriage, thrown out.  Never mind the fact that courts have no authority to legislate or throw out law.  We have been dumbed down so thoroughly that the vast majority of people don’t know the limits of courts, so we allow them to get away with it.  All it takes now is a single, biased and activist judge to throw out a majority vote.  There is no shortage of liberal activist judges, so eventually every case will find its way in front of one.  Our government is not designed to be thwarted just by finding a judge who has a bias.

The homosexual community, including the White House, celebrated when the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.  There is only one problem.  Gay marriage wasn’t legalized!  Few Americans are constitutionally educated enough to understand this.  The Supreme Court can’t legislate.  Article 3 of the Constitution does not allow them to unlegislate, either.  No authority is granted to any court to legalize anything or prohibit any laws.  All they can do is determine if a law is broken, not whether or not the law is legitimate.  There is no constitutionally grounded argument that can refute this.  The power that the Supreme Court wields on a daily basis, is done so without constitutional authority.  It has been usurped.

The Supreme Court decision is both illegitimate and illegal.  States can and should nullify it by simply ignoring it.  Colorado has shown us how easily it is to nullify unconstitutional federal drug laws.  The Supreme Court has no power to enforce their decision on others.  Americans have a serious and urgent need to educate ourselves on the Constitution.  We have been lead astray by those in power, so that they may remain in power.  Our ignorance is vital for that power to me retained.  The power that rightfully belongs to the people and the states, must be revoked from those in the federal government who have usurped it.

Illegally using the courts is the only way that homosexuals, who make up 2.5% of the U.S. population can impel their will on the rest of us.  There is no law that says any business has to provide a service or product that they do not offer.  If a baker does not have gay wedding cakes on the menu, they can not be forced to bake one.  That is, unless the homosexuals can find a judge to make an illegal decision.  Gays also like to cite the Civil Rights Act, which is both unconstitutional and doesn’t mention anything about sexual deviancy being a protected class.  That’s right, Congress had no enumerated authority to pass the Civil Rights Act.  If it were really so fantastic, a constitutional amendment would have been the legitimate way to make it law.  That is beside the point though, because The Civil Rights Act does nothing to protect homosexuals from bakers who refuse to violate their Christian faith by taking part in a gay wedding.

If a baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, can a photographer also be forced to film a gay porn film?  Can a Jewish tailor be forced to sew NAZI uniforms?  Can black carpenters be forced to build crosses for the KKK to burn?  Can a Walmart be forced to bake a Dixie Flag cake?  Apparently not, because Walmart will no longer bake a cake with a Dixie Flag on it and there are far more southerners and Sons of Confederates who hold their southern heritage dear than there are homosexuals.  Southerners don’t force others to fly their flags or take part in their celebrations.  Only gays want to force everyone else to embrace their beliefs at the expense of their own.


If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below!  Thank you!


  1. I totally agree. Anyone who provides a service should be able to serve who they want. I know that sounds unfair to some people, but I don’t really care. How you run your business will reflect on you and people will respond either positive or negative. Don’t like it, start your own business that you think will do better.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Every homosexual couple I know is Christian, authentically so. And they have never once tried to convert me to with some type of homosexual agenda. SO if you got that wrong… I wonder what else you are wrong about.

    Certainly you understand the error of majority rule? Certainly you understand the pitfalls of that way of thinking, that just because you get a majority of the people to vote a proposition into law does not make it a just and proper law. Think of the abuses that can be passed that way. Certainly some type of oversight is required. Or do you think it is proper to force a segment of society to do the will of the majority for no reason except they are they majority. What happened to fair play, justice, life, liberty and happiness? We could pass a law forbidding women to drive, or to wear tank tops, or to show any skin whatsoever.

    I do agree with you, marriage should have never been a state or Federal issue. It is a religious ceremony and should be defined only by the religions who practice it without any type of state or federal compensation or tax breaks. I say hands off my religion Mr. State!


    • Claiming to be Christian and living a Christian life are two different things. The devil believes in Jesus too. Majority rule? I never advocated majority rule. A super majority on the other hand has spoken. Only judges have thrown out the will of that super majority. Want to protect the minority? The individual is the smallest minority. Why are you okay with a baker and his entire family being sued into oblivion over standing up for HIS individual liberty and right to actually practice his Christian beliefs rather than just pretend to and flaunt their sin in the face of the Lord like all of your many homo friends do?


      • I don’t support suing a baker or any other business over ones beliefs, in and of itself. I think that is a very immature and destructive response. But I also believe that if you are going to have a public store front, then you need to be open to all the public. You are not required to have a public store front as a business. And when you make the decision to open that store front you understand that you may from time to time have to suspend your “religious belief” in order to serve the public you are being open to. I do believe there are certain “business” related reasons to exclude service to someone such as if they have a habit of never paying their bill, are destructive to your property, are rude or demeaning to you, your staff and other customers, and other such related things. Turning people away because of their religion, color, dress (except for health codes), sexual preference, etc is not only bad business but a break in trust with the public you have decided to serve by opening a “public” store front. Balancing private (religion) life and public (business) life is never an easy task. There is a town north of me in which the restaurants have decided not to serve coffee because of their religious beliefs. It is not on the menu. They are doing it equal to all the public which comes through their door, which is drastically different from withholding it from just a few of the public which comes through the doors. Personally I think it is a terrible business decision and have made my own decision to never dine in that town. I am not suing them, I am not protesting them, I am just choosing to not participate. As a business they have every right to not serve coffee to everyone. They do not have the right to pick and choose who gets the coffee. And I have the right to choose to dine else where. In the baker verses the couple, I think both parties were in the wrong.


        • Luckily we don’t run our society on what you believe. I suppose that if someone is a photographer, you would mandate that they be forced to shoot gay porn videos too if that’s what a customer wants. No one has to suspend religious belief. That is purely asinine. People can turn customers away for any reason other than the few that are in the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act, only because the power of big government will come down on you if you don’t. What you think is terrible about someone else’s business decision is moot if it is not your business. I simply can not fathom how you people think that what other people do is always up to you.


          • Oh, I thought this whole post was about beliefs. No, I would not mandate any one to film a gay porn video unless they run a business making porn videos and that business is open to the public. If the baker does not want to sell cake, then don’t sell cake. If you are going to sell cake then sell cake and stop trying to put moral conditions on your cakes. If you want to put moral conditions on your cake then don’t run a public store front, be exclusive to just your moral clientele. What other people do is not up to me, but it does affect me so I do have interest in it. Slippery slopes are easy to fall down, just like the NYC law about the size of drinks you can purchase, now that is asinine! If the business does not want to serve that size, that is fine, but the government does not need to tell them that. And if they do want to serve it then they need to serve it equally to everyone who walks in the door. Not only is it good policy to treat all customers as equals but it also makes a good and healthy society without the need for government interference. Governments are reactive, not proactive. They will react to perceived inequalities, but if business did not treat customers with inequality then there would be nothing for the government to react to. But like I said, both parties were at fault. The baker did not have to turn the couple away because they were gay, she could have done it for a million other reasons. The gay couple could have just found a different baker. But both parties had an ax to grind and a moral high ground they wanted to stand on while pointing fingers at the others around them. That attitude makes for a self destructing society and one which the government feels obligated to react to.


          • Why? Just because a film maker doesn’t specialize in gay porn doesn’t mean you shouldn’t force him to do it according to your philosophy. If you’re okay with forcing a baker to bake a gay cake just because they bake cakes, you should be right on board with forcing film makers to film anything requested. They’re open to the public too. There are millions of amateur film makers. By golly, force them to do you bidding! Like you said, treat all customers as equals! Children with birthdays and gay porn stars!


          • That is not at all what I said. You should read my post again, maybe out loud so you can hear it over the voices in your head. Don’t try to make what I write say something it does not say.


  3. I wish I had the optimism to believe that we the people can undo this mess by voting for morally sane candidates. Although I agree wholeheartedly with every word you stated here because you speak truth, I feel that the nation is bound to be judged for these sins, as well as for the holocaust of the innocents.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s