Kentucky Judge Who Publicly Stood Up For Children Against The LGBT Now Has Suddenly Been Found Guilty Of “Misconduct”

The LGBT is making major advances into the American legal system so that now, even having an opinion different from the LGBT is becoming grounds for harassment. Such recently happened in a court case, where a judge was formally reprimanded for refusing to hear adoption cases for homosexuals:

A Kentucky Family Court judge who refused to hear adoption cases involving gays and lesbians has been found guilty of misconduct by the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission.

The commission issued a public reprimand Tuesday against W. Mitchell Nance, who announced his intention to resign earlier this year amid the ethics and misconduct inquiry. That resignation was set to become final Dec. 16.

The order finds that “due to Respondent’s retirement, a public reprimand is warranted, and is the only public sanction available.”

Nance drew national attention in April when he said he would no longer hear adoption cases involving “homosexual parties” because he believes allowing a gay person to adopt could never be in the child’s best interest.

The Barren and Metcalf county judge announced he would recuse himself from such cases because ethics rules require judges to do so when they have a personal bias or prejudice.

The commission, which investigates complaints of judicial misconduct and wrongdoing, charged Nance in September with multiple violations of judicial ethics rules, including those banning bias or prejudice based on sexual orientation.

The public reprimand released Tuesday notes that the Kentucky code of judicial conduct requires judges to “fairly and impartially decide cases according to the law.”

It cited canons requiring judges to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and prohibiting prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national original, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, among others.

“Judge Nance’s refusal to hear and decide adoption cases involving homosexuals is violative of said Canons,” the order said.

It also noted that Nance and his attorneys did not attend a scheduled hearing Dec. 15, foregoing their opportunity to present evidence in defense of the charges he faced.

In an earlier response to the commission, Nance’s attorneys wrote that same-sex adoptions presented a “unique crisis of conscience for Nance, who has a “sincerely held religious belief that the divinely created order of nature is that each human being has a male parent and a female parent.”

Those attorneys, Bryan Beauman and Scott Miller of Lexington, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.

The order released Tuesday also noted that the district court member of the commission, Judge David Bowles, voted Friday that Judge Nance be removed from office before his resignation became effective Saturday.

“… Since at the time the vote was taken, Judge Nance’s resignation was not yet effective (Bowles) believed that the only appropriate vote was a vote to remove him from office,” it said. (source)

Recall the “gay cakes” non-scandal that started in 2015. In essence, homosexuals decided they were going to start suing Christian bakeries for refusing to deny their faith in practice and support by indirect actions an inherently sinful lifestyle according to sacred scripture and tradition. In response, did the EXACT same actions of the LGBT- to call up pro-homosexual bakeries and ask them to deny their evil beliefs by giving indirect support to Christian teachings through their actions, and the response was swift and violent by the LGBT.

Christians saw what did about the gay cakes scandal. How many Christians attempted to do likewise?

How many Christians attempted to do what the LGBT did, and sue based on the same grounds? The answer is NONE.

So here it is, almost three years later, and the legal wrestling that has ensued from this case is proof that the LGBT has been victorious in this area. The indecision over the case does not matter, because it is a matter of principle that judges of the law acting in their official capacity would fight over whether or not it is discrimination for a business to choose to follow clear religious convictions that are part of a belief system that has existed for thousands of years and were the formative basis of the heart of what people call “western civilization.” It is reflected in the fact that the majority of the people in the USA and most western European nations now believe that homosexuality is normal, good, and must be legally defended to the detriment of Christianity.

The LGBT won because the Christians did NOTHING, and the reason that the Christians did nothing is because for the majority of Christians in America and much of Western Europe, Christianity is a form of identitarianism. It is why one can say that a population is 50, 60 70% or more “Christian” yet church attendance regardless of sect is the highest in the USA at 47%. The next highest is Italy at 37%, followed by the UK at 20% and Spain at 19%. The Nordic nations have the absolute lowest percentages, with Iceland at 10%, Sweden and Finland tying at 5%, Norway and Denmark coming in at 3%. Even Poland, which has the highest level of church attendance in Europe, comes in only at 48%. Russia by comparison is only at 8%.

The ultimate question that surrounds the debate with homosexuality is one of the nature of the act- Is homosexuality something that is a natural order of creation, or it is something disordered? This ties into the elusive search for the “gay gene” and the reason that while much is talked about it so little is actually produced in the way of tangible evidence.

The way to understand modern theories about homosexuality is to look at the LGBT as though it were an actual religious group. All religion, be they legitimate major religions or a group with a few people, are composed of a creed of belief, a body of people, and a code which they adhere to. For the LGBT, the creed they profess changes with its social expediency, but is one of two intrinsically opposed philosophies.

The first is that sexual identity is an extrinsic idea which a man chooses to accept and is not intrinsic to his being, thus making sexuality an absolute choice and saying that natural laws are not relevant because it is the will of the man that determines the righteousness of the act. This is the “might makes right” argument that one often hears.

The second is that sexual identity is intrinsic as it is related to DNA but is not conditional upon the genitive function. That is to say, people are attracted to people of the same sex because it is genetic in nature. This is the argument that science has “finally found the gay gene,” even though it never has and continues to search in vain for it.

The Christian says that sexual identity is intrinsic, and that while a man can choose to engage in sexual relations outside of their intended purpose, such an action is a choice that is not dictated by nature. In this way, sexuality is genetic in terms that men and women are biologically created a certain way, and that such a creation is for a specific purpose, which is the generation of human life that man chooses to engage in through the naturally ordered means of the act. In this way, sexuality is both biological and a choice, for men and women are intrinsically different but they choose of their free will to use their genitals the way and for the purpose which they were made.

The justification of homosexuality, be it the “might makes right” argument or the genetic argument, all are ultimately an extension of darwinian philosophy, for the both argue that their sexual behavior is not something that can be controlled. In the case of those who believe that might makes right, they believe that their “feelings” are the standard of moral behavior, and as such it must be argued that to put up an obstruction to one’s personal feelings is actually an immoral act. This might sound fine, but the fact is that is reduces a man to operate in accordance with his basest feelings.

Say a man wanted to eat human feces, and he said it was because it gave him sexual pleasure, which as we have documented is a very common theme among the LGBT. Based on this argument, there is no reason to say that he is wrong, or to pass laws against his behavior because such a philosophy says that morality is tied to his feelings. Therefore, it is not just immoral, but he has a moral right to fight aggressively against those who would say that his perversions are wrong.

Likewise, consider the genetic viewpoint. Assuming the same argument, the LGBT will says that using this example, a man is driven to eat feces for sexual pleasure because he has a “feces gene.” It does not matter that such a gene cannot or never will be found, because he will continue to search for it in order to create a “biological” argument to give social license to his moral licensiousness.

This is no joke. This is also what the LGBT want. Indeed, as evidenced by this story, such horrors are already happening.

In both cases, the darwinian “law of the jungle” makes itself visible in the arguments of the LGBT. Hence it is the reasons why one sees attempts to the legalization of child murder, pedophilia, the spread of HIV and AIDS, or sexual or social practices of the most disordered nature, because the philosophy itself is one of moral license and not morality.

The good judge in this story stood up to the LGBT and he did so out of principle. However, it did not matter and given that the society has become so inclined towards the LGBT, he is now being subjected to investigation for holding a moral position that the LGBT disagrees with, and this is because the LGBT has no morality because as their philosophy is darwinistic, they view it appropriate to utilized any means to give license to their actions.

This is ultimately the wider reason why homosexuality is condemned as a sin “worthy of death” in the Old and New Testaments and by all of Christians Sacred Tradition, because while the act of Sodom is itself gravely evil, the act is the physical manifestation and translation of the basest, vilest ends of what in the ancient world was Epicureanism and in modern times, Darwinian philosophy, where man is an animal who lives for his basest ends. For regardless of if it is coming for Epicurius or Darwin, all say that man lives for no purpose outside of himself and that the fulfillment of his appetites in the moment is the purpose of his existence.

God begs to differ. As the Creator of man, He endowed man with a purpose to love, serve, and be content with Him in this life and forever happy with Him in the next. True happiness is found in loving submission to God in the religion He has revealed and following His teachings, as He is Love and He desires such love for His creation.

But not so the LGBT, for having chosen a philosophy that is based on living for the self, to accept the LGBT is to accept a lifestyle of self-oriented purpose that naturally generates indulgence, apathy, and disorder of the worst forms in the name of purpose that manfests in its final form through their own bodily and spiritual degradation.

It is disturbing to know that a majority of people in society have adopted this of their free will, and now as this view has reached to such levels of acceptance, we are seeing a legal purge take place where those in the offices of law who oppose the LGBT are being systematically removed and naturally by extension, replaced with pro-LGBT persons who will give legal precedent and support to these abuses of the body and soul. This judge is just one person.

The next step of this, which will come in a few years, will be a serious increase in persecution. But unlike persecutions of the past, where there was essentially a “neutral” legal contest between pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT persons, the courts will be absolutely biased in favor of the LGBT. Given their philosophy, it will become ever less likely and nearly impossible for a Christian to legally help himself as the courts will be against him. Even the smallest of persecution will be dealt with ruthlessly and violently, and men will find themselves stripped of their social standing, finances, and ability to better themselves for merely persisting in following Christian teachings.

The only step that would come from there, which would require more direct hatred against Christianity at large, would be the return of the Coliseums, meaning that Christians could be tortured for entertainment because of their faith.

Don’t think such an idea to be impossible, because it has happened before. Given the rise of paganism in our times in a way not seen since the ancient world, and since times change but human nature does not change, anything is possible.