From Tolerance to Celebration: How Corporations Impose Sexual Orthodoxy

By Published on June 12, 2018

June is Pride Month for many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, and popular fashion retailer J. Crew has collaborated with the Human Rights Campaign to create a clothing collection to support the “fight for equality.”

The clothing includes adult and children’s socks, T-shirts and a tote bag, and depicts rainbow-printed slogans such as “Love First” and “Love to All” as well as the yellow equal sign logo of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s largest advocates of the LGBT political agenda. The items come in sizes for children as young as 2.

J. Crew says it will donate 50 percent of the purchase price of items in the collection to HRC. In addition, J. Crew stores nationwide reserved June 9 as a day of “LGBTQ pride” celebration on which customers could “share the love” or “get ready for a parade” with free flags and temporary tattoos.

J. Crew is a private company that has the right to partner with any organization. But it is part of a growing trend in corporate America of household brands that promote illiberal legislation to undermine the First Amendment.

Others include Amazon, American Airlines, Apple, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Facebook, General Electric, Google, Hershey, Microsoft, Target, Twitter and Uber.

In the name of promoting “tolerance” for some customers, these corporations erode the freedoms of others.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The Human Rights Campaign, or HRC, spearheads efforts to pass state and federal legislation that would limit the constitutional freedoms of those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman, a belief that has been held by people around the world for millennia.

In Congress, the Human Rights Campaign leads the charge to pass the Equality Act, a bill that would add both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act and several other laws regarding employment with the federal government.

If passed, the Equality Act would impact a broad spectrum of private businesses by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. Although the original purpose of such laws during the civil rights movement was to shield racial minorities from invidious identity-based discrimination, LGBT activists seek to abuse these laws by turning them into swords to punish people whose religious beliefs teach that marriage is between a man and a woman.

This is precisely how the state of Colorado used its law to punish bakery owner Jack Phillips for creating custom cakes only for occasions and messages that align with his traditional Christian beliefs, and not for a same-sex wedding or a divorce celebration.

Tim Gill, who has poured $422 million of his fortune into legislative campaigns to insert sexual orientation and gender identity into antidiscrimination laws, candidly admitted in Rolling Stone magazine that he is doing so to “punish the wicked.” That is, those who disagree with his view of marriage and sexuality.

Gill and the Human Rights Campaign have succeeded in passing such sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”) measures in 21 states and the District of Columbia. HRC also enlisted the support of corporate America to try to limit Phillips’ First Amendment freedoms at the Supreme Court.

J. Crew’s Pride Month collaboration with Human Rights Campaign will fund national legislation to empower LGBT activists to leverage the power of government to punish millions of Americans for living according to their religious beliefs.

And even after its campaign is over, J. Crew’s support of the Equality Act will continue channeling money from customers into legislation that will reduce their freedoms.

Jim Brett, CEO for J. Crew Group Inc., has said that the brand is committed to doing what it can to help bring about “a more inclusive world.” But by supporting Human Rights Campaign and, in turn, the Equality Act, J. Crew is furthering the exclusion of its orthodox Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant customers from public life.

HRC President Chad Griffin has boasted of being able to form coalitions of major businesses, including Walmart Inc., to defeat religious freedom protections for citizens in Indiana and Arkansas.

J. Crew’s Pride Month campaign also helps market homosexuality and animus toward orthodox religious believers. For instance, images of same-sex couples, children and a celebrity are used to market the attire. Each photograph is accompanied by a quote relating to “love” or “pride.”

Actor and producer Evan Jonigkeit responds to the question “What does Love First mean to you?” He says: “It’s about setting aside your preconceived notions about any particular individual and working from a place of empathy.”

Such advertising advances the false notion that anyone opposing Human Rights Campaign and its mission is not only narrow-minded but is also cold-hearted and unfeeling. In reality, many moral and legal reasons exist to oppose HRC’s agenda, none of which involve bigotry or hatred.

It is no coincidence that corporate America prioritizes the LGBT agenda over the freedom to live according to one’s religious beliefs about marriage.

The Human Rights Campaign publishes an annual ranking of that scores corporations according to their public support for “SOGI” legislation, including the Equality Act.

In 2017, J. Crew received a relatively low score of 20 percent. But through its Pride Month collection, the company may be able to boost that score.

Of course, any and all customers may refrain from purchasing the merchandise, or tell J. Crew to focus on its product line rather than on promoting illiberal causes. Customers also may tell the company to stop pressing the new sexual orthodoxy on them and their children.

But, as both children and adults model J. Crew clothing, the Human Rights Campaign’s intolerant message will spread to multiple generations of Americans, no matter how low or high the company’s sales are.

Unfortunately, J. Crew is now only one of many large corporations whose cultural cronyism undermines their customers’ freedoms, and uses their own money to do it.

 

Alexa Secrest is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Follow her on Twitter @EmilieTHF

Copyright 2018 The Daily Signal

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Trilemma

    It’s sad that laws have to be passed to compel Christianss to treat others in a Chistlike manner.

    • Patmos

      Yeah, Jesus was big on supporting abominations and delusions.

      You should probably stop reading the Bible you made up, and try reading the real one.

      • John Connor

        Obviously the opinions of christians vary

        • Patmos

          Trilemma is pretty clearly not a Christian. Christians follow Christ, who abided by the Torah. Christians change when faced with error in their life, they don’t stubbornly hold on to false doctrine like Trilemma.

          • John Connor

            Anyone who claims to be christian on this site and disagrees with you is called a troll. Are you the arbiter of who is and isn’t a christian?

      • Trilemma

        Jesus did not discriminate and he abolished his father’s law.

        • Patmos

          Matthew 5:17. Go away fake Christian troll, you’re not fooling anyone.

          • Trilemma

            Jesus said he did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. By fulfilling it he abolished it.

          • Andy6M

            No – he didn’t abolish it. For those who call upon him as Savior he took away its power to condemn. That does not mean that it has no place within our lives.

          • Ken Abbott

            So…shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

          • Trilemma

            Paul said that he was not under the law of the Old Testament but under the law of Chist.

          • Ken Abbott

            Ah. What do you understand he meant by that? That God’s moral law has no more place in the life of a Christian?

          • Trilemma

            He meant the Old Testament Law did not apply to Christians.

          • Ken Abbott

            As a means of justification before God, yes. Christ fulfilled the demands of the law for righteousness, so that we who believe in him are no longer under law but under grace. And the ceremonial/cultic aspects of the law–those governing the sacrificial system–were completely fulfilled by Christ and done away with, as the book of Hebrews teaches with great force and clarity. The civil aspects of the law applying to the governance of the nation-state of Israel are not binding on Christians because they live in other countries at other times. But the moral law, reflecting as it does the character of God and his requirement for his people to be holy even as he is holy, remains.

          • Trilemma

            Dividing the Old Testament Law into ceremonial, civic and moral is totally arbitrary. Christians do it to justify holding on to the parts of the Law they like.

            Leviticus 19:19 says, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

            Since this has nothing to do with ceremony or governance, it must be part of the moral law. Do you wear clothing woven of two kinds of material?

          • Ken Abbott

            To the contrary–far from being arbitrary, recognition of the threefold division of the law comes from careful consideration of the whole counsel of God, including the more expansive new covenant. We know that Jesus himself declared the end of the kosher laws (of which your cited examples are part) which formed part of the holiness code of Leviticus, intended to separate out the people of Israel from their pagan neighbors. And we know that he fulfilled the sacrificial system with his once-for-all sacrifice and his ongoing ministry of intercession as our great high priest. Finally, obviously we do not live under the nation-state of ancient Israel, so the codes having to do with the governance of the nation don’t apply specifically to us. This leaves us with the moral law, which Jesus and the NT authors affirm as permanent.

            “Holding on to the parts of the Law they like.” T, that’s simply laughable. Do you honestly believe that sinners would hold onto such a high morality if they thought it could be done away with? Who ever wants to set the bar higher rather than lower?

          • Trilemma

            In the threefold division of the law, the holiness code of Leviticus must be part of the moral law and still apply to Christians. Therefore Leviticus 19:19 is part of the moral code and must still apply to Christians. Do you wear clothing woven of two kinds of material?

            Many Christians hold on to the tithing laws. Some Christians hold onto the Sabbath laws. Some Christians hold onto the festival laws.

          • Ken Abbott

            No, you are incorrect. In Christ there is no longer Jew and Gentile. The gospel has gone out to all nations. Holiness no longer consists of external and cultural/lifestyle distinctions; it has been brought within. As Jesus said, righteousness is not a matter of what is put into the body (and by extension what is worn on the body) but what comes out of the heart. Circumcision is no longer a mark on the externals but a matter of the heart.

            To the extent that Christians bind themselves to matters of the law that no longer have any bearing on their lives in Christ, they are legalists and may be in danger of adding to the gospel, especially if they attempt to bind the consciences of others.

          • Trilemma

            You said, “This leaves us with the moral law, which Jesus and the NT authors affirm as permanent.” Is the Leviticus Holiness Code part of the permanent moral law?

    • JP

      Christians already do. Its the homo-fascists that don’t.

      • John Connor

        Not even close. Xtians are the only ones denying services and products to gays.

        • Patmos

          Are you even aware of what a jerk you are? Or do you just not care at this point?

          • John Connor

            Are you talking again?

        • Andrew Mason

          Not even close. Christians are being denied goods and services with the approval of the courts. And in the case of Masterpiece for instance the majority recognised the Christophobia of the court system. A business that will sell goods to any and all customers, but refuses to support homosexual marriage and thus will not create custom pieces, is not guilty of bigotry.

          • John Connor

            Absolutely they are. Your white sheet mentality is showing.

          • Andrew Mason

            White sheet mentality? Is that a reference to the fact courts have approved bigotry against Christians?

          • John Connor

            Histrionics

        • JP

          No. Homosexual bakers have refused to bake cakes that have anti-homosexual messages.

          • John Connor

            Nobody asked a baker to put any messages on the wedding cakes. Too funny

          • Andy6M

            The medium is the message – the Supreme Court has held that a custom made piece of art is considered a form of speech, even if it is devoid of words.

          • John Connor

            You obviously didn’t or won’t read the SCOTUS decision. They found that the govt didn’t act in good faith. Their anti discrimination laws and public accommodation laws remain intact. If he did it again and the go t addressed it differently, he would lose.

          • Andy6M

            My comment had nothing to do with the cake baker in particular. I was referencing a long standing position held by the SCOTUS.

      • Trilemma

        Jesus did not discriminate. Christians do.

        • Andrew Mason

          You might want to reread the Gospels. Jesus was quite blunt about sin.

          • Miss A

            I have read Trilemma posts on religion, he thinks he understand the bible He doesn’t, he certainly doesn’t understand sin. If you embrace you sin you are abominable and alphabet people have haven’t they?

          • Trilemma

            So, Jesus was blunt about sin. What class of people did Jesus discriminate against and refuse to serve.

          • Andy6M

            The Masterpiece cake shop baker did not refuse to serve anyone. That is well established in the agreed upon facts before the court. He offered to sell them any of the pre-made cakes which they could then have customized on their own as they saw fit. He refused to make a custom cake (which is an art form covered under freedom of speech) for an event he did not support. That is a different kettle of fish (or oven of cakes).

          • Trilemma

            Jack Phillips refused the sale of a wedding cake to Charlie Craig and
            Dave Mullins because they are gay. That’s why Phillips was found guilty
            of discrimination.

            If cake is speech, what is it saying?

          • Andy6M

            Jack Phillips refused to be involved in a gay wedding. What does any piece of art say? The fact is that the supreme court has protected works of art as a form of speech and a custom cake qualifies as art. Jack Phillips served the LGBTQ community without issue for years on many different types of occasions, so to say he discriminated because they were gay is not accurate. He refused participation in a particular event. Is anyone allowed to say no to anyone for any reason?

          • Trilemma

            Mr. Phillips may believe he’s refusing to be involved in a gay wedding but I don’t see any indication that the courts would consider that as a defense. I agree that his cakes are artistic expression but that doesn’t mean the court will consider them speech that is protected by the first amendment. Some of the justices clearly don’t consider wedding cakes speech. The only reason he didn’t sell the couple the custom cake was because they are gay.

            Is anyone allowed to say no to anyone for any reason? No. A baker cannot say no to you because you are a Christian.

          • Andrew Mason

            Jesus was a rabbi not a shopkeeper so the direct parallel is impossible. He is also recorded as having limited, or no, contact with individuals practicing particular types of sins which further complicates demands that particular things be supported. Remember, ancient Israel had the death penalty for a great many things modern society tolerates meaning the debate over whether a baker ought to have baked the cake couldn’t exist – those asking would have been dragged out of the city and stoned to death.

          • Trilemma

            Jesus may not have been a shopkeeper but he was a healer. Was there anyone Jesus refused to heal? A few have suggested that the centurion’s servant that Jesus healed was the centurion’s catamite. Regardless if that’s true or not, would Jesus have healed someone’s catamite?

          • Andrew Mason

            You’re the first I know of to suggest Jesus supported paedophilia. As far as I’m aware the centurion’s servant was simply a manservant not a child sex slave. As for Jesus refusing to heal anyone, offhand I’d say that goes in the Scripture doesn’t say basket. Based on His treatment of different groups I’d say yes He would have refused healing to some people.

          • Perrier

            Is the slave responsible for his masters actions? Does he willingly become the slave?

            Blame the victim much?

    • Luminous

      Trying to shut down a Christian business and drive it into bankruptcy isn’t exactly civilized behavior either.

      I don’t know of any Christians trying to drag gays into court and shut down their business.

      So guess which side appears to be the most malicious? Go preach to your own group, they have some anger management issues.

      • John Connor

        Nah, christians are hiding behind their religion to discriminate

        • Luminous

          Sure, Christianity existed for 2000 years in order to discriminate against homosexuals.

          Paranoia is a mental illness. Help is available.

          • John Connor

            I can give you a referral

    • Jim Walker

      Read this a few more times to sink who is more tolerant :
      1995 : We want tolerance
      2005 : We want equality
      2015 : Bake my cake you bigot, homophobe
      2018 : Use my pronouns or go to jail

      • Trilemma

        You should have shown more tolerance. Jesus would have.

        You should have treated them with equality. Jesus would have.

        You should have baked the cake. Jesus would have.

        You should have used the requested pronoun. Jesus would have.

        • Patmos

          I mean, it’s pretty clear at this point you’re just another fake Christian troll. Not sure why you keep pressing forward with your nonsense when you’ve been exposed time and time again.

          • Andrew Mason

            Does Trilemma claim to be Christian?

          • Ken Abbott

            I think so. From my various interactions with T over the past several months, he (she?) appears to espouse Arianism, universalism, and a low doctrine of Scripture (not inspired, certainly not inerrant), but is generally favorable to at least the ethical aspects of Christianity.

        • Chris in NC

          Jesus on tolerance and equality. “Go, and sin no more.”
          You probably like to point Christians to John 3:16. Perhaps you should read verses 17 and 18 sometime.

          • Trilemma

            Did Jesus condemn those to whom he said, “Go and sin no more?”

        • Andrew Mason

          The homofascists don’t want tolerance from Christians they want obeisance.

          And no Jesus wouldn’t have baked the cake. He may even have bluntly told them to repent their sin, though it’d depend on the nature of the encounter as to how He’d phrase it.

          And again no Jesus wouldn’t have used the pronouns demanded by mentally disturbed people. God made us male and female. To use pronouns that deny this truth is to dishonor God.

          • Trilemma

            Jesus said he did not come to be served but to serve. Of those who came to him, who did he refuse to serve? How many people that Jesus healed had to repent first?

          • Andrew Mason

            You overlook several points. Christ didn’t perform miracles in every location, judgedcalled for repentance at times without offering healing, and gave healing to prove His unique right to forgive sins. Yes you are correct that Jesus came to serve not to be served, but what does that mean to you?

          • John Connor

            Nope. They want to be treated equally

          • Andrew Mason

            Except they don’t else we wouldn’t be seeing all the court cases and news articles seeking to oppress Christians.

          • John Connor

            Oppress christians? Perpetually offended. Court cases have been due to discrimination. Try not discriminating.

          • Andrew Mason

            Oh I fully agree that homofascists are perpetually offended and that court cases are due to their discrimination. Problem is when Christians are discriminated against the courts are ruling in favor of the bigots.

          • John Connor

            Oh yes the christofacists are perpetually offended and persecuted here in the US! Were African Americans bigots when they stood up for their rights? Too funny

          • Andrew Mason

            Christofascist? When did you invent that term? People want to live their own lives without being persecuted because they’re Christian. If you think freedom = fascism then you’re beyond reason. No idea what Blacks pointing out equality discrepancies has to do with the debate. Black is primarily a skin color, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

          • John Connor

            The same way you invented homofacist. Homosexuality is no more a choice than your eye color. That definitely shows your lack of understanding

          • Andrew Mason

            Except I’m not the only one using the term homofascist. And while you can change your eye color with contacts I think you’ll agree that doesn’t count as a real change. By contrast homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. So long as you don’t choose to engage in the practice you’re not a sodomite.

          • John Connor

            So ridiculous and fantasy based. Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle.

          • Andrew Mason

            Except it is. If it wasn’t then LGBT activists wouldn’t need to groom and recruit, nor would people be able to say they’ve left the lifestyle behind.

          • John Connor

            They don’t groom or recruit. This just brings your underlying intention to light, lying to get your way.

          • Andrew Mason

            Clearly you won’t allow truth to get in the way of the lies you’re committed to. Why do you think LGBTism is being pushed into schools? Why do you think they teach what they want to teach? Why do you think homosexual activists admit their goals are to recruit into their lifestyle?

          • John Connor

            Do have any gay friends? I doubt it or you wouldn’t perpetuate the lies you’re posting.

        • Miss A

          You presume to know what Jesus would do? Your arrogance astounds me. You who dont even understand the bible.

        • Andy6M

          You should have shown more tolerance. Jesus would have. – No, Jesus would have loved them but not tolerated their sin.

          You should have treated them with equality. Jesus would have. – Yes, Jesus would have treated them as equal, but he would have held them to his Father’s righteous standard.

          You should have baked the cake. Jesus would have. – No, Jesus would not have baked them a cake, nor would he have turned water into wine at their wedding because he wouldn’t attend such a wedding.

          You should have used the requested pronoun. Jesus would have. – No, Jesus would not have done so, or if he did, I imagine it would have been along the lines of the woman at the well experience. He would have confronted the person with the truth about who they really are.

          • Trilemma

            Can you give an example where Jesus didn’t tolerate someone’s sin?

            Bakers aren’t being required to attend any gay weddings.

            Is the pronoun battle really worth fighting? What are you trying to say about the woman at the well? All Jesus did was let her know he knew her situation.

          • Ken Abbott

            It might depend on what you mean by toleration. After healing the invalid at Bethesda, Jesus told the formerly lame man to stop sinning or worse might happen to him (John 5:14). By grace he forgave the man for his sin but did not encourage him in it and warned of the consequences of his persistence in sin. He also told the woman taken in adultery that he would not condemn her but to sin no more. And his harsh words for the sinning scribes and Pharisees are too well known to duplicate here.

          • Trilemma

            Yes, it does depend on what I consider toleration. Jesus tolerated the woman taken in adultery otherwise he would have cast the first stone.

          • Ken Abbott

            He did not tolerate her sin–he forgave her and extended grace. He dealt with her sin in a way only God can do. He then told her to go and sin no more.

          • Trilemma

            According to the Oxford Dictionary site, the definition of tolerate is, “Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.” Did Jesus do anything to interfere with the existence, occurrence or practice of her sin? Is telling her, “Sin no more,” really going to make her stop sinning?

          • Ken Abbott

            It wasn’t a gentle suggestion, T. It was a divine command. Jesus spoke with a unique authority that was widely marveled at by his listeners–the gospel accounts repeatedly remark upon this. There are many instances of people turning their lives around after an encounter with Jesus, so it may very well be that the woman taken in adultery experienced a profound change. But John doesn’t say what happened to her after this encounter, so anything else is speculation.

          • Andy6M

            Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He was pretty tough on the behavior of the Pharisees and Sadducees as well.

          • Trilemma

            If Jesus was intolerant of the sin of the woman caught in adultery, he would have cast the first stone. If he were intolerant of the sins of the man lowered through the roof he would not have forgiven them without the man repenting and asking for forgiveness first.

    • Miss A

      Jesus would taken a cane to whip them… how about that? Is jesus a Bigot? I’ve accepted I’m a bigot. Jesus would surely be your definition of a bigot too.

      • Trilemma

        You presume to know what Jesus would do? Jesus was not a bigot. Jesus never whipped anyone.

        • Miss A

          Like how you presume to know what Jesus would do? I wanted to use that null your argument.

    • Miss A

      Ok so in treating them as you falsely claim, I’m all for fair treatment. But to validate their embraced sin and yeah we are sinners, accepting your a sinner would be christlike. You must call a spade a spade now that it christlike. I’ve you seen adulterers,fornicafors embrace their sin and be proud and loud about it? There is a difference here that you’re blind to see.

      • Trilemma

        Jesus was accused validating the sins of tax collectors and prostitutes because he ate with them.

        • Miss A

          You twist stories to benefit your own conclusion that I see. Ofcourse We should invite homosexuals adulterers fornicators to eat with us that is being christlike as you phrase. But what would Jesus say to the prostitute that prostitution is great and good?

        • Miss A

          Because someone eats with you means they agree with everything you do? How absurd

          • Trilemma

            Because someone sells a cake to you means they agree with everything you do? How absurd.

          • Andy6M

            In some cases it could be construed that way.

          • Miss A

            The intent doesn’t matter right? The purpose is doing nothing to scrape away conviction. I wish believed like you ,sadly no. If Jesus had a role in the prostitution or tax collection then you have a point.

          • Perrier

            False. No one refused the sale of a cake. They refused the sale of their personal talent and creativity creating an item with which to celebrate something they disagreed with.

          • Trilemma

            Jack Phillips refused the sale of a wedding cake to Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins because they are gay. That’s why Phillips was found guilty of discrimination.

          • Perrier

            No, he refused the sale of a custom-designed cake, but he did offer to sell them one off the shelf.

            Get your facts straight. Details matter. Truth matters.

      • John Connor

        Nobody’s asking for your validation.

        • Miss A

          Really? I doubt that. I

    • Andy6M

      Trilemma – what do you consider to be “treating someone in a Christlike manner?”

  • JP

    The homo-fascists have a lot of money to do a lot of destruction.

    • John Connor

      What have they destroyed?

      • Patmos

        Going to court can cost a lot of money. Pretty sure at least one couple lost their business because of activists targeting Christians, and yes they are targeting them.

        Could you be anymore oblivious?

        • John Connor

          Keep spreading those lies. It’s so christian of you. No evidence or proof of anyone being targeted. smh/

          • Miss A

            And what would you know about what is “so christian of someone”? Being Christlike with us Humans is accepting you’re sinful and working towards a goal to meet being christlike. You obviously dont know about that do you?

          • John Connor

            Sorry honey, I spent 18 years in the church. Try again

          • Miss A

            And I have not stepped a foot in a church for 13 years and counting. And yet. Because you went to church does mean anything.

      • JP

        The right to refusal. Many homosexuals are suffering from diseases and death due to homosexual sex.

        • John Connor

          Not due to homosexual sex. Due to not using protection.

          • JP

            If homosexual sex was healthy you would not need protection. The massive amount of homosexuals getting sick and dying is proof that it is not healthy.

          • John Connor

            Do you read at all? It is the fact that they don’t or won’t use protection.

          • JP

            Why should they need to use protection at all if homosexual sex is safe and healthy?

          • John Connor

            The same reason straight folks use protection. To keep from getting stds.

          • JP

            Homosexual sex is especially deadly. Far worse than smoking.

          • John Connor

            How old are you? smh/

  • Nick Stuart

    My company, a major oil company, makes a big thing about Pride Month. A contingent will be marching in the Pride Parades in several cities. The company is very careful to airbrush out the lewd behavior that takes place at these events.

  • Vince

    We are a spiritually sick nation.

Inspiration
Walking in God’s Wisdom: Psalm 5:8
The Stream
More from The Stream
Connect with Us