The government in Kentucky is forcing a Christian t-shirt company to make pro-homosexual t-shirts. As one report says:

A Kentucky Human Rights Commission examiner has ordered a Christian screen printing company to print t-shirts that bear pro-homosexual messages and undergo diversity training for declining to make shirts for a "gay pride" celebration two years ago.

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission issued the recommendations of its hearing examiner on Tuesday, declaring that Hands On Originals–a company that identifies as "Christian outfitters" on the home page of its website–violated the Lexington Fairness Ordinance by passing on the requested order because of its religious convictions.

The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization of Lexington (GLSO) had wanted the company to print t-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Gay Pride Festival. When manager Blaine Adamson declined the order due to the company's biblical convictions not to be partaker of another man's sins (1 Timothy 5:22, Ephesians 5:7), GLSO filed a complaint with the HRC.

"I want the truth to come out—it's not that we have a sign on the front door that says, 'No Gays Allowed,'" owner Blaine Adamson said following the filing of the complaint. "We'll work with anybody. But if there's a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I can't promote that."

Why is this happening? It's happening because so many people believe that since Christ came and died for our sins, homosexuality must be tolerated.

When it is mentioned that laws abolishing homosexuality should be enacted, there are always those who will say, "how do you justify that in a New Testament context?" or "We are living in the new covenant, therefore this is not biblical." Or, "We are no longer under the law."

Such objections are truly a product of a society saturated in the drizzling fat of tolerance. Even many conservatives today fall for this way of reasoning.

The Law of Moses says, "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:50), should we then throw out this law because "we are no longer under the law"? Should murderers be let go because "we are in the new covenant"?

The Law of Moses also says that "if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter." (Numbers 22:25-26)

Should we then spare rapists and let them go, because "we are not under the law?"

The modern Christian permits the punishment of murderers and rapists (and rightfully so), and there is no argument over "New Testament context," or no remarks such as, "We're in the New Covenant." But, when someone says homosexuals are to be to death, all of a sudden the Old Testament is thrown out, and the arguments of, "Well it's not in the New Testament," are found all over the place.

The New Testament never says rapists should be put to death, but no one (with sense that is) would use this as an argument to spare rapists.

Why are homosexuals all of a sudden exempt from the Divine Law? The only reason why is modern toleration of evil.

St. Peter said that governors are appointed by God "to punish those who do evil" (1 Peter 2:14) Will the modernly minded Christian then argue that homosexuality is not evil? All Christians agree that homosexuality is evil, and thus I do not see how they can argue that governors should not punish the sodomites.

St. Paul said that "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." (Romans 13:3) Are homosexuals not committing evil when they promote their wickedness, and conduct themselves in their deplorable acts? Or are they doing "good works"? Absolutely not. The state, then, must be a terror to them, for that is what they are appointed to do — to be a terror to evil-doers.

St. Bernard says that the Christian officer who "kills an evil doer, he is not a man-killer, but, if I may so put it, an evil killer." So I do not see how it is all of a sudden ungodly for a state to punish these pernicious sodomites. Let us not forget that the Scriptures has not one line favorable to these malicious homosexuals.

St. Paul described them as "being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:29-31)

Not only does St. Paul describe the sodomites as being utterly sinister, but also as "deserving of death", and I would like to see how the modernly minded "Christians" would argue against Paul, and ask this holy man how he would justify such a strong remark in a "New Testament context," or how they would misconstrue his words through sophism to support their mindless theories.

Christ tells us, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30) When King Josiah "brake down the houses of the sodomites" (2 Kings 23:7), the Scriptures describe him as turning "to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might" (2 Kings 23:25), and thus he was following the first commandment taught by Christ.

A state can therefore suppress and lawfully execute homosexuals in loving "the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength", just as King Josiah did.

I would go so far as to say, that the suppression of homosexuals by a state is an expressing of love for God, and for one's neighbor. For it shows that the nation does not want to tolerate what is hateful to God, and it prevents the homosexuals from influencing children, and tyrannizing Christians, as they are beginning to do now.

But you have those who use the new covenant as a way to argue that laws cannot be applied to homosexuals, as if Christ's sacrifice on the Cross all of a sudden promoted anarchy. The New covenant does not mean no government laws. How a Christian governor loves God as an individual is through prayer and observing virtue. But how a Christian governor loves God though his governmental office is done by enacting laws that suppress and uproot evil and promulgate righteousness. In the words of St. Augustine,

A sovereign serves God one way as man, another way as king; he serves Him as man by living according to faith, he serves Him as king by exerting the necessary strength to sanction laws which command goodness and prohibit its opposite. (Letter 185, ch. 19, trans. Parsons)

They are those who say that homosexuals cannot be punished because "Christ died for them." Since when does the state have anything to do with salvation? The new covenant is being applied as though it saves people from temporal punishment, and such argumentation only makes the state a superintendent of salvation. The state does not dictate salvation; salvation is between man and God, not man and the state. If a person commits wickedness, the state should spare him because "Christ paid for it all," that would not be love but license and anarchy.

Even the ancient Christians understood this. Constantine saw how in Phoenicia they forced women to be temple prostitutes, and how their poor children had no knowledge of who their father was. Scorning such an abusive practice, Constantine hastened to abolish this evil, and he had churches built over the place where these demonic orgies were done, and ordered that a bishop and a sacred clergy be put over them. He saw with contempt the diabolical temple of Venus at Aphaca, on Mount Libanus in Phoenicia, where homosexual rites were done, and orgies were performed. In the words of Eusebius,

Here men underserving of the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct. Here too unlawful commerce of women and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible infamous practices, were perpetuated in this temple as in a place beyond the scope and restraint of law. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.40)

Did Constantine tolerate such a place? Did he say, "live and let live" and went on with it? Did he say the usual opinion of, "well as along as they're not hurting anyone, I don't care"? Absolutely not. He was a defender of Christendom, not a impotent governor who allows his country to decay through indifferentism. He had the entire building demolished, and the depraved rituals observed within it outlawed. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3.40; Socrates, 1.18)

How do you think Constantine or Moses would respond to all of the disgusting sodomite bath houses around the country? They would obliterate them, and rightfully so. So then, let nations that love God arise, and destroy the houses of the sodomites.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.