A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong does not become right, and evil doesn’t become good because it is accepted by the majority. Right and wrong are not decided by popular vote. Leo Tolstoy said, “Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” The consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, but that is inaccurate, insidious, and insane.

George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit–telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” That is the day in which we live. People are often shocked when truth is revealed. There is general distain for truth and when a person gets to where truth doesn’t matter to him, he becomes a deceitful, despicable, and dangerous person.

Be aware of this fact: there is nothing that is going to make people hate you more, and love you more, than telling the truth. We should tell the truth because it is the truth, not because it will make our lives better.

I seldom quote a Roman Catholic but truth is truth even if spoken from the lips of an animal such as Balaam’s donkey. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote in his 1931 A Plea for Intolerance, “Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth…or principles. About these things we must be intolerant….Right is right if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And, in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesterton tells us, ‘not a church that is right when the world is right, but a church that is right when the world is wrong.’”

Both Sheen and Chesterton were right.

I often think of a story about the fellow who one day went to visit an old musician. He knocked on the musician’s door and said. “What’s the good word for today?” The old musician didn’t say a word. He turned around and went across the room to where a tuning fork was hanging. He took a hammer and struck the tuning fork so that the note resounded through the room.

Then the musician said, “That, my friend, is ‘A’. It was ‘A’ yesterday. It was ‘A’ five thousand years ago and it will be ‘A’ five thousand years from now.” Then he added, “The tenor across the hall sings off-key. The soprano upstairs is flat on her high notes. And the piano in the next room is out of tune.” He struck the tuning fork again and said, “That is ‘A’ and that, my friend, is the good word for today.”

Truth is truth yesterday, today, and forever. Truth does not need the law to prop it up since it stands on its own merits.

Truth is always the same. It never changes. Truth is defined as “that which has no distortion.” Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality. Truth does not require acceptance to be true. Truth is not always beautiful. Truth is truth when I don’t understand it. Ignoring truth does not change it. Wanting and wishing and waffling about something do not make it reality; it is better to hear a cruel truth than a mild delusion.

The concept of truth is discussed, debated and often distorted as seen in philosopher Richard Feynman’s The Character of Physical Law, “We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong.” What a way to live: never knowing the truth but, for sure, knowing one is wrong. No wonder so many philosophers take their own lives.

Erich Fromm (1900–1980) believed “it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth” but that is absolutely not true!

Decades earlier, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) thought untruth was better than truth if it had current life enhancement as a consequence. If a falsehood has positive and constructive effects then it is preferable to truth according to Nietzsche. He also affirmed, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” He, Fromm, and others were wrong. There are facts or truths that are absolute: God created the world including man. Man fell, becoming a sinner. Every person inherits a sin nature. Sin brings death. Christ died as a propitiation for sin then physically rose from the dead. Everyone has an responsibility to receive Christ. Death is sure. Hell is hot. Eternity is long. Heaven is free on God’s terms.

If there is a sovereign God, then obviously, truth matters.

A statement cannot be both true and false and it is usually considered best to believe what is true. Some people think that believing a statement makes it true. We have seen this in our day as people have been brainwashed by secular education and the media. Politicians, preachers, philosophers, professors, psychiatrists, and prissy princes of the press think if they tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, it will become true: a butchered baby was not a live person; homosexuals are born that way; people have a right to determine their gender; same-sex “marriage” is as acceptable as normal marriages, etc.

However, they are wrong. No one group has the authority or ability to decide truth. There is no my truth, your truth, and their truth–just truth. Moreover, how one responds to truth does not change it. Truth cannot become more truth or less truth–just truth.

Something is not true because a man dies for it. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Pagans have died for their faith as did Christians, yet all religions cannot be “true.” Because so many Christians have died for their faith does not make that faith more true. There is no such concept as “more true,” just as you can’t be “more dead.”

Philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard was right when he wrote, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” Today you have “stumbled” over truth, although truth is obvious if one opens his eyes. Truth can’t hide for long because, like the sun and moon, it is obvious to those who look.

Winston Churchill wrote, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” That is easily seen every day. People say they hunger for truth but are often repulsed by the taste of it.

What will you do with truth today? Will you hurry off as if nothing ever happened?

Boys’ new book The World’s Best Jokes! was published last week as an eBook. To get your copy, click here.

Gibbon reported that the proconsul Pliny had published a general edict against unlawful meetings and Christian leaders thought it prudent to suspend their agapae; “but it was impossible for them to omit the exercise of public worship.” Christian leaders were willing to cease their feast but refused to stop their worship services. They were not being rebels, but being faithful Christians.

What would modern pastors do under the same circumstances? They would fold like a cheap suit.

Irenaeus reports that Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, once met the heretic Marcion in the street and Marcion asked, “Do you recognize me?” “Indeed,” replied Polycarp, “I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan!” Evidently, Polycarp was not interested in building bridges.

Once, when the Apostle John walked into a public bath, he heard that Cerinthus, a famed leader of the Gnostics, was already within. John immediately grabbed his belongings and fled from the place, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within!” John was obedient, not obstinate, or obnoxious.

Committed Christians are willing to confront error, challenge it, and contend with it to the point of conflict. They are not mean-spirited or bigoted but are simply obeying the One who converted, called, and commissioned them.

“Judge Not!” is the battle cry of those who use it as a smoke screen to secretly, safely, and surely retreat from the truth. Truth is seen as “unloving” by those who reject it and refuse to repent. It is a fact that right is right, even if nobody believes it and wrong is wrong, even if everybody affirms it. During the time when almost everyone (except knowledgeable Christians) “knew” the world was flat, the fact is it was not flat. Even the experts were wrong. It is better to stand for truth and be alone than stand for error with the crowd.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.” Nietzsche was wrong as usual.

It was common in past years for people of all persuasions to defend their beliefs when challenged by an opponent. But now it is considered to be contentious, confrontational, and crass to contend that you are right and others are wrong. We have been brainwashed into thinking there are many points of view but there is no “right” view or a “wrong” view. Usually, a Bible believing Christian’s view is not considered valuable, viable, or virtuous by the shallow, the stubborn, and the scorner.

The reason for such a novel concept is that if there is a “right” and a “wrong” then someone must make the judgment. But that requires an authority that honorable people can depend on for support. That authority is God, and His Word is absolute–so there is “right” and “wrong.” That concept drives liberal unbelievers up the wall.

Our critics demand tolerance as if it is the highest aspiration; however, as Bishop Sheen said, “Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth…or principles. About these things we must be intolerant….Right is right if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And, in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesterton tells us, ‘not a church that is right when the world is right, but a church that is right when the world is wrong.’”

If the world was ever wrong, it is today and churches are failing.

While tolerance is an admirable attribute, it never trumps truth. The Bible does not teach love and tolerance but love and repentance; however, most people think how they feel is as important as truth. It is not.

They are tolerant of unbelief and are willing to tolerate apostasy; however, it is impossible to be a dedicated Christian and not contend for truth! Most Evangelicals and moderate Fundamentalists would rather be known as gracious gentlemen rather than Defenders of the Faith. They are weaklings who are tolerant of unbelief and are willing to tolerate apostasy.

Moreover, we have been told that a genuine Christian never judges because no idea is any better than another. However, in I Cor. 2:15, Paul declared, “He that is spiritual judgeth all things.” In fact, it is cowardly to refuse to make judgments, but one must do so carefully because he will also be judged.

Do I have to remind you of Paul’s clear instructions to Christians? Christians have an obligation to confront doctrinal error. II Timothy 4:2 commands us to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” If a preacher never reproves, rebukes, or exhorts, he is disobeying a holy God. It would be interesting to hear him justify his (or her!) disobedience?

Titus 1:9 commands us: “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” We are told in Titus 2:15: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” Most preachers only comfort, commend, cajole, console, and compromise!

They have sold out.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

John Bunyan preached without government permission and spent 12 years in Bedford Jail for preaching without a license; yet after his release, he accepted a license!

While John was in jail, he was only a five minute walk to his home. When blind Mary visited, she brought her father a jug of soup. John wrote, “O the thoughts of the hardship I thought my Blind one might go under, would break my poor heart to pieces. … Yet recalling myself, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you. O, I saw in this condition I was as a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his Wife and Children. Yet, thought I, I must do it, I must do it.”

Mary often brought father a jug of soup, feeling her way along the damp wall to his cell where she embraced her father and related news of their home and church. On leaving, she would reach up and feel for her father’s eyes and wipe away the tears. John said that as he considered what he was doing to his family, it was as if someone were pulling the flesh from his bones. Knowing that he could go home with Mary if he simply agreed not to preach, made the matter worse.

Although convicted illegally and without a proper trial, he served in prison 12 years of his life from age 32 to 44. Of course, unlike today’s prisoners, he did not have access to radio, television, or prison library. He didn’t even have a gym! He slept on a flea-infested straw mattress when it was available or on loose straw along with 20 to 30 other prisoners. He was cold in the winter and sweltering hot in the summer as he became well acquainted with rats, lice, and fleas. One can imagine his desire for silence and solitude.

While in prison, John began to write and authored the most-read book of all time other than the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress, one of 60 books he wrote. Next to the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress has been translated into more languages than any other book.

Bunyan had been convicted under the Act Against Puritans 1593, which mandated that every citizen should attend the parish church (Church of England) regularly. The punishment for breaking this law included banishment from England forever. However, the law was to expire at the end of the next session of Parliament so Bunyan was arrested and convicted under an expired law!

When King Charles II issued the Declaration of Religious Indulgence in 1672, he was showing tolerance toward all religious groups but his main interest was giving Roman Catholics a boost from their disfavor. Charles was thought to be a secret Catholic and in fact did become one on his deathbed. His Catholic brother James was heir to the throne, which scared Englishmen.

As a result of this Act, Bunyan was released even though he spent six additional months in prison in 1675. With the Indulgence, it was possible for people to worship God in the way they wanted if they bought a license. Non-conformist sects such as Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, and others could register and get a license. But no preacher should get approval from government to minister–not then, not now.

The dissidents wavered for a while not knowing what to do. If they registered, then the King would have all their names and addresses, “but surely you can trust the word of the King.” Eventually the offer was accepted with a total of 1610 ministers taking licenses: 939 Presbyterians, 458 Congregationalists or Independents, and 210 Baptists. Bunyan was one of the Baptists!

However, the Indulgence was cancelled in 1673, under pressure from an Anglican-controlled Parliament, and the licenses were recalled in 1675. (That is exactly what Bunyan told the judge could happen.) It wasn’t too difficult since the government knew where everyone lived and preached. The nonconformists learned that you can’t always trust your government. However, the results for nonconformity were permanent. The dissidents made enormous advances in only a few months and there was no going back. Freedom does that.

But the mess was getting messier.

A vacillating king, a vicious Parliament, and a vindictive state church had made a mess of life in England. Charles didn’t know what he believed and was only interested in cavorting with his eight mistresses (producing 17 bastards) and everyone “just getting along.” The king’s interest was not in politics but in philandering, partying, and playing. Things haven’t changed much, have they?

The Parliament was displaying its power after being in limbo during the rule of Oliver Cromwell (an independent Puritan). Additionally, the Church of England was getting its pound of flesh from the dissidents after the state church’s humiliation during Cromwell’s Protectorate from 1653 to 1659. (It’s interesting that Cromwell rejected the offer to make him king!)

Bunyan was released from jail and he found that his affairs were “gone to wreck” and that he had to begin life as if he were a young man again. “Before his liberation, a license had been sent to him from the king to preach, and Mr. Gifford [pastor of the Bedford Church] being dead, it had been resolved by the church that he should become their pastor, in case he concurred with their desire.” (William Brock, Life of John Bunyan, Cassell Publishing Company, New York undated, p. xxx.) However, a license “sent to him” was still a license to preach.

No one knows what happened to Bunyan that permitted him to accept permission to preach from the king after his principled reply to the judge: “No man or company of men may grant or deny me leave [permission] to preach.” The fact is, if an official can give permission to preach then he can tell you that you can’t preach.

The Bible principle is, no power on earth has the authority (power yes, authority, no) to tell a preacher he can preach or he cannot preach nor can he be told what to peach or how to preach or when to preach. Nor can any authority sit in judgment as to what a preacher or layman can believe. Modern Christians had better imbibe these convictions as an out-of-control government arrogantly tells them what they will believe about same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, homeschooling, licensure of Christian schools, etc. It seems Charles II is still on the throne!

John Bunyan was a good, great, and godly man who was far more courageous and talented than I; however, he was wrong not to tell King Charles II that while he appreciated the thought, he would continue to preach without a license.

But then that could be dangerous since King Charles beheaded Algernon Sidney for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. It’s dangerous to disagree with any “king.”

No one can know what changed Bunyan’s mind about a license. Maybe he liked being free; or was delighted with his enlarged ministry; or was influenced by his family; or was convinced by his preacher/friends to be “practical”; or felt that he had done enough for the cause; or maybe he became weary in the battle.

Modern Christians must learn to pronounce the most difficult word to speak–no! No, to government control.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Don Boys, Ph.D.

http://donboys.cstnews.com/would-christ-bake-a-cake-for-a-same-sex-wedding

The Bible is the only source for knowing what Christ might do–not civil law, the ranting of preachers of permissiveness, piteous whining of evangelicals desperately looking for acceptance, or the hypocritical palaver of pious politicians. Governor Brewer might bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” but I’m sure He would not. Regardless of the Nazareth Code for Carpenters, Christ would have also refused to build an elaborate and expensive altar to Baal or a statue of Diana. He would go to jail first. In fact, He did go to jail and to the Cross.

Critics ask if Christ would bake a cake for a homosexual “couple” but the premise is wrong: Christ is not a baker; he is the Savor of all who will repent and receive Him by faith. And He would not have honored the “couple” at a wedding as He did for a normal couple in Cana of Galilee; no, He did not bake cakes but He did turn water into “wine.” After all, He was, is, and always will be God!

We are told that Christians would show love and kindness by baking a cake, taking pictures, etc., for a same sex “wedding;” but while love and kindness are required of us, our basic decisions are based on truth: What does the Bible require of me? It requires obedience to truth. It does not admonish me to “show my love” by disobeying revealed truth–even if the law commands me to do so.

Likewise, I might bake homosexuals a cake but no “congratulations” or two “gay” men on top. I might also recommend them to a “gay-friendly” baker as I handed them some gospel literature, probably written by me. I would also refuse to bake a cake for a “divorce celebration.”

Perhaps a better question might be: would the firm of “Joseph, Jesus, and Brothers” in Nazareth qualify every customer for their religious orthodoxy before selling them furniture? No, of course not, but there is a difference in selling a piece of household furniture and selling an altar for worship of a pagan god. Why do unbelievers have such a difficult time understanding that?

Even if same sex marriages were legal in Arizona, it would make little difference in the morality of the issue. In Nevada where prostitution is legal, can a Christian photographer refuse to produce a brochure pitching the bliss of a brothel visit–maybe a “buy one, get one free” promotion?

It is interesting that a business owner can lawfully refuse service to a man legally licensed to carry a gun but not refuse to honor an abnormal lifestyle! I wonder if the hypocrites of the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby would demand that a Jewish or black businessman serve a group of uniformed Nazis or KKK? Of course, the KKK clowns would not be wearing their sheets, only carrying them folded over their arms. Must a hotel rent space to Nazis, KKK, or other haters? Does a Jew or Muslim have the right to force a restaurant to serve them special meals? How far will the left push this warped, wrong, and wicked principle? All the way into leftfield, as always.

On the other hand, will the state force a homosexual baker to bake a cake, stating in red sugar across the top, “God Hates Fags!” for Westboro Baptist nuts?  Or, how about forcing a black baker to bake a cake for the anniversary of the KKK? Can a Muslim baker refuse to bake a cake with a cross on it? How about a Jewish baker forced to bake a cake with a swastika for a Nazi rally? Or a Jew is forced to rent a hall for a Holocaust denier to promote his book, What Final Solution? Just wondering if the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby will be consistent. It is American and Christian to serve a customer but it is unreasonable, unprincipled, and unchristian to promote an offensive, unbiblical message even if refusal means jail time or bankruptcy.

This issue is basically a big government problem: the ever-increasing push for more and more power by prissy, pampered, politicians. If a man uses his savings (or goes into debt) to fund a business, the government, at all levels, has no authority how that business is run. Government has no authority (power yes–since they have the firepower–but no authority) to tell a businessman whom he can hire, how many hours employees can work, when they can work, how much they will be paid, or require health insurance coverage. Now, the market place or a Christian conscience may determine some of that but not government. This is simply an arrogation of authority that is illegitimate, illegal, and insane.

Don’t be mistaken. The progressives will never be satisfied. Homosexuals want acceptance, even respect, and they preach (but don’t practice) tolerance. The fact is, they use intolerance to fight what they perceive as intolerance! They are the biggest haters in the world. They hate Christ and His church. That is their target. Fundamental and Evangelical pastors had better get ready for homosexual weddings. No matter what the law demands, principled preachers will not cave. Many have decided that they will comply since they can “still preach the gospel.”

Shakespeare’s Shylock, the ruthless Jewish usurer in The Merchant of Venice, got it right: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.” To do so was considered a compromise of convictions and a corruption of doctrine. Shylock was right. So am I.

Christ would not bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

I am weary of being tagged as intolerant, ignorant, and insensitive by non-thinkers while the real haters at the LGBT and GLAAD even identify me as “bigot,” “hater,” and “Nazi.” I am also weary of the liberal left wing media (and that’s sure a redundancy) jumping into the battle and singing the same song from the same page as the vile, vicious, and vitriolic dandies at the Perversion Lobby. I plead guilty to being narrow minded, but then it is not illegal to be narrow. It’s even Christian! Christ mentioned that the path to Heaven is a narrow path that Christians travel while the road to Hell is a broad boulevard.

Let’s be clear: God has spoken. There is no argument. Homosexuality, known in the Bible and throughout society as sodomy, was wrong, is wrong, and will be wrong tomorrow no matter what any state, national, or international court decides or what any politician or legislature decides. No one on earth has the authority to make wrong, right. Juan Williams’ assertion that “It is not in the Christian tradition to make judgments about them [homosexuals] and to put them in a box” is wrong, wrong, wrong. But that is normal for him since he is seldom right, right, right. No, the judgment has already been made and recorded, and homosexuals for centuries have been prosecuted. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with hate as is always claimed by permissive leftists. You see, homosexuals hope that accusation will end the discussion but it only proves their capitulation. Permissive leftists are lazy thinkers and bigger stinkers.

A young homosexual at Liberty University correctly said, “Not tolerating someone for his narrow-mindedness is perhaps the epitome of intolerance.” That’s one homosexual I agree with. I can’t get any LGBT proponent to tell me why it is reasonable for them to demand that I be tolerant of their wild, weird, and wacky sexual activities but they can’t be tolerant of my scriptural and common sense pro-family positions. After all, history, as well as the Bible, supports my position, not theirs. However, the media never expects them to defend their positions which only in recent history have been accepted by the herd.

I have become alarmed, angry, and agitated in recent years as I’ve seen various business executives cater to and bow to the Perversion Lobby as their businesses take a public stand against common sense, Christian morals, and business acumen. That unfair, unreasonable, and un-American persecution of Christians and the kowtowing to the Perversion Lobby is usually followed by national outrage from all decent people who favor decency and fairness. After a few days of bad publicity, the business executives see their errors (because their stores are as empty as a mainline church on Sunday evening) and “see the light,” “get the message,” and “have an epiphany.” Then, trying to be real Christians, we forgive the jerks, forget their transgression, and finance their “rehabilitation.” That has to STOP! No more easy forgiveness. I don’t care if they go belly up!

I have asked more than six thousand pastors to take a couple hours when called upon to inform their members and call, email, or go to a business that has taken an anti-family position and to express their plans to no longer patronize them. Hopefully those Christians, as individuals, will not back off and continue to support a superficially repentant business owner. After all, easy forgiveness would nullify our attempts to let business owners know that while they have a right to support homosexual causes they will pay a price if they do. STOP is telling them as of now, we Christians are mad as we can be and will not take it anymore. If a businessman is so insensitive, inept, and incompetent to go on record as supporting the Perversion Lobby he will forever lose our support.

Contrary to most Americans who have been brainwashed by the public school system, television, movies, the social media, and the political system, I believe that a business has the right to sell to whomever they please, pay whatever salaries workers are willing to accept, provide whatever benefits a business can afford, work as many hours as the employer and employees agree to, and hire any young person for any legal task to which parents agree! All that with no contact with the state or feds except to pay appropriate fees and taxes. Few people remember such a free America before the bungling, bossy buffoons took control.

That being said, I believe Cracker Barrel and all other businesses have a legal right to throw themselves into the cultural war on the side of those outrageous sexually permissive dandies, and to enthusiastically jump into bed with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender group. However, those of us who believe that same-sex marriage is not marriage and is in fact a misnomer, mistake, and madness also have certain rights. Christians and pro-family people need to require business leaders to be at least as sensitive to our positions as they are to the Perversion Lobby. Or else. If they choose to support homosexuality, they will not be forgiven. Oh, yes, we will forgive them personally but we will no longer return to their “fold.” Their cash registers will gather dust and lose their jingle until they show they are thoroughly repentant.

I have contacted thousands of pastors and others who will agree to not patronize any business that continues to kick decency and kiss decadency. With the use of the Internet and social media maybe we can put a STOP to this duplicity and the taking of Christians for granted.

We demand a Stop To Oppressive Persecution.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Eight minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota, “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Does a Christian business person have the right to choose whom he will serve? Most sane people will agree that no one has absolute rights. In this matter, both the owner and customer have rights, but which right is superior? If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting. It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available. And it isn’t a life and death matter.

The business owner takes a huge risk putting his own money into the business, working long hours, often without salary and the customer risks nothing. No one will argue that there are some legitimate restrictions: a bar does not have to serve a customer already drunk; nor will a store have to sell a butcher knife to a five-year-old who wanders in with a twenty-dollar bill. Alright, there are exceptions but what about homosexuals who want a Christian photographer to take pictures of their “wedding” or want a baker to make a cake for their wedding reception? That is a sticky wicket! There are similar cases on file of these conflicts; the most famous is the Christian couple in Oregon who got in legal trouble because they refused to bake a cake for two lesbians.

Customers discriminate (make choices) all the time so why not a business owner? The bakery sells to adulterers, homosexuals, tax cheats, etc., but will not bake a cake for a “gay” wedding. Obviously, they don’t hate gays since they sell them birthday cakes but not wedding cakes. The bakery owners do not support same-sex “marriage.” That is their right and responsibility as Christians. What if a pedophile group wants a cake for their annual bash promoting sex with kids? Motto: “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” This is not about a cake but forcing a perverted agenda on others just as the Supreme Court did. I would bake homosexuals a birthday cake but not a wedding cake. I would sell a cake to an abortionist but not to celebrate his 10th anniversary as an abortionist.

What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?

My religious views do not end when they conflict with another person’s religious views. Of course, mine have priority! I can be flexible in some things but unbending in others. Only I can decide the difference. As an American, I can start a business and serve only people with red hair. Dumb but not wrong. Illegal but not immoral.

Homosexuals yell the loudest about freedom, tolerance, respect of others, yet they are the epitome of intolerance and hate when someone opposes them. The homosexual mafia, the attack dog of the LGBT lobby, demands tolerance and practices tyranny so how do you spell hypocrites: H o m o s e x u a l! A Christian couple refused to bake a cake because of religious beliefs and now they are picketed, persecuted, and could be prosecuted for their decision.

This comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required a businessman to serve burgers to anyone. Any businessman whose business was started with any tax dollars is morally obligated to serve anyone; however, absent the tax support, a man could morally (but not legally) start a business and refuse to serve Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, and only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania. He would not be in business long but that should be his right. The U.S. Congress overreached with the Civil Rights Act rightly giving legal rights to Blacks while wrongly removing basic business rights from Whites (maybe even bigoted, hateful, unreasonable rights). That part of the Act was troublesome, tragic and tyrannical.

I don’t support businesses that actively support “gay” rights such as Penny’s and Starbucks. When I think about buying a shirt at Penny’s or stopping at Starbucks, I take a deep breath, count to 10, and then have a sandwich at Chick-fil-A.

That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

I am weary of Christians and Conservatives who are so politically correct that they permit their critics to get away with accusing them of being haters because of their opposition to homosexuality. Only non-thinking fanatics make such obviously untrue, unfair, and unscriptural assertions. After all, critics of perversion have history, the Bible, and most national cultures in their support.

A question should be asked of our critics: Are they actually asserting that someone cannot be critical of any issue simply because of problems with the issue itself, rather than problems with the people who espouse that issue? Or, is that simply a way to not answer us? Is it not possible to be critical of Obama’s radical, socialist agenda without being a racist? Can I not disagree with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, etc., without hating Blacks? So is it not possible, just possible, that I am convinced that homosexuality (perversion, degeneracy, sodomy, etc.) is not commendable for many reasons other than “hating someone who loves a little differently” than the mainstream? After all, I am at least as sincere as my critics so should not tolerance be extended to me? Surely if tolerance is offered to people who climb into bed with the same gender then tolerance should be extended to sincere Christians.

Recently I replied to a homosexual who prefers to be called “gay” and I would also prefer that if I were a pervert but the word gay has been twisted to mean what it does not mean. He characterized my facts as “poison” and said that it almost caused him to vomit. He called my objections to his lifestyle “sick, disturbing, pathological stuff,” like seeing “photographs from Auschwitz.” He claimed that he became physically ill.

Those Lads in Lavender are very sensitive and often present themselves as paragons of virtue. We are told that homosexuality is not evil or an abomination as the Bible teaches but a noble lifestyle reminiscent of the “Golden Age of Greece.” In that “Golden Age,” about half of the population were slaves, women were chattel, and leaders ascertained the future by the entrails of a chicken. Golden Age indeed.

He informed me “Homosexuality is a beautiful, joyous thing. Something that today’s young people celebrate and take pride in.” He encouraged me to get psychological and spiritual help. Now, read the following facts as to homosexual practices and you decide who needs the help. This information along with through documentation can be found in my book, AIDS: Silent Killer!

Research journals and classic studies have revealed:

*Anal intercourse between two men has been the most common activity of homosexual men. All honest, informed people know that it was also the driving force of the AIDS plague.

*Oral sex is another common practice of homosexuals and we now know that it is a dangerous practice.

*About 40% of homosexuals admitted to participating in fisting which is the insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum of a “lover” after greasing the hand with shortening, etc.

*About 20% of homosexuals admitted they participated in “golden showers” or “water sports” where they urinated on a partner.

*25% admitted to sadomasochism or torture. Often one man chains or ties his partner and then whips him in a sexual frenzy. The Sacramento Bee reported that a workshop was offered to San Francisco homosexuals teaching how to be involved in sex-torture without killing each other.

*90% admitted to illegal drug use. They sniffed amyl nitrite which allegedly prolongs sexual ability and excitement. Therefore, they are felons.

*17% admitted to eating and/or rubbing themselves with the feces of partners! Moreover, they are also dumb.

*Hospitals, especially in large cities, reported that it is common to remove bottles, flashlights, carrots, light bulbs and other objects from the rectums of men. So they are super dumb.

Hey, don’t look at me like that. I only report the perversion; I don’t explain it. Such practices are dumb, dirty, deviant, and dangerous, even deadly and go on nightly often between complete strangers. Note “strangers” comes from the word, “strange.”

About 46% of homosexuals have had sex with minors even though it is illegal in all 50 states even if the youngster is a willing participant. Classic studies have revealed that homosexuals always prefer young boys to older men and about half the practicing homosexuals were seduced into perversion before they were 14!

It is my position that homosexuality is not a sickness or a quirk of the genes but an evil abomination as taught in the Bible. While many things contribute to homosexuality, it always results from a choice made by individuals. Frankly, homosexuals don’t really exist; only heterosexuals who choose a perverted lifestyle (deathstyle)!

Fundamental and evangelical churches teach that homosexuals are sinners as are all mankind and are in need of a Savior. We believe that homosexuals must, like everyone else, recognize their sin, repent of sin and receive the Savior. When they experience the New Birth, there will be a transformation in their lives and they can break the bonds of their sins.

Toleration of sexual perversion is the first stage of national decadence. The U.S. has already skipped into Sodom; now we are galloping into Gomorrah. Is judgment shortly coming to this nation?

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.