This School Is Guilty Of Child Abuse

The fad of the day is transgender children. Not only have we sexualized little girls from a very young age, now we are telling children that they can be whatever sex they choose (I guess we have forgotten DNA). This has been carried to an extreme in the early years of school, where children are expected to understand things they are simply not equipped to understand, and then are punished for making an innocent mistake.

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about a little girl in First Grade at a California charter school who was sent to the Principal’s office because she addressed a transgendered classmate by the wrong pronoun. Such events are now being labeled as ‘pronoun mishaps.’ Good grief!

The article reports:

The incident occurred at Rocklin Academy, a school rocked by controversy after a kindergarten teacher led an in-class discussion on transgenderism that included a “gender reveal” for a little boy who was transitioning to a little girl.

…The latest incident occurred during the first week of school when a first grader came across a classmate on the playground. She called the student by his given name – apparently unaware that the boy now identified as a girl.

“This innocent little first grader sees a classmate, calls him by the name she knew him last year and the boy reports it to a teacher,” Capitol Resource Institute’s Karen England told me. “The little girl gets in trouble on the playground and then gets called out of class to the principal’s office.”

Capitol Resource Institute is a California-based public policy group that specializes in strengthening families. And they are working with a number of parents at Rocklin Academy upset about the LGBT agenda being forced on their children.

…England said the first grader was investigated by the principal to determine whether or not she had bullied the transgender child by calling him by his original name. After about an hour it was determined the little girl made an honest mistake and she was not punished or reprimanded.

But she was terribly traumatized by the incident, England said.

This is child abuse. There is a difference between an adult making the decision to become transgender (although the medical profession has differences of opinion on whether this is a mental disorder or a valid activity) and a kindergartner becoming transgender. I am convinced that when a very young child decides to become transgender, it has more to do with the influence of the parents than the desires of the child. We also need to realize that children go through stages of development that may cause them to identify with a different sex at a different time. Tomboys used to be allowed to outgrow the tomboy stage. Now I am not so sure that they won’t be encouraged to make a permanent change in response to a temporary situation. I firmly believe that all transgender activity should be illegal until age 18. At that point, a more rational decision should be possible.

 

Looking Past The Obvious

HB2 is a controversial piece of legislation passed in accordance with the North Carolina Constitution. Efforts to repeal it recently failed. Actually, the Democrats in the North Carolina legislature (yes, I said Democrats) have blocked repealing it four times.

American Lens has the story and reports:

May 2016
The Charlotte Observer reported that a bipartisan group of Charlotte City Council (CLTCC) members went to Raleigh to meet with House Speaker Tim Moore to try to facilitate a deal where the council would repeal their ordinance in exchange for the state making significant changes to HB2.

In response, the Democrat-controlled council, led by Mayor Jennifer Roberts – and after heavy-duty lobbying by liberal LGBT groups – refused to put on the table the possibility of repealing the city’s controversial non-discrimination ordinance, which passed in February. The ordinance included a ban on sex-segregated facilities like showers, locker rooms, fitting rooms, and bathrooms in both public and private businesses.

June/July 2016
Charlotte’s WBTV News reported that a bipartisan deal to broadly amend HB2 was axed after political strong-arming from then-candidate-for-governor Roy Cooper (emphasis added):

September 2016
The NC Restaurant and Lodging Association said in a press release they had “received assurances this week from legislative leadership” that they were ready to move on a repeal of House Bill 2 provided that the Mayor Jennifer Roberts and the CLTCC agreed to repeal their ordinance

…December 2016
In a surprise flip-flop from their September stance, the CLTCC voted on Monday the 19th – over a month after the election- to repeal their February ordinance as part of an alleged deal “brokered” by Gov.-Elect Cooper in an effort to motivate the NCGA for a HB2 repeal.

A special session was called by Gov. McCrory in response and Republican members of the House and Senate began informally caucusing on Tuesday in advance of the Wednesday special session.

One small problem blew everything up, though. As it turns out, Mayor Roberts and the CLTCC did not repeal the February NDO in full as they’d previously announced.

So why did the Democrats vote against repeal? Because that keeps the issue on the table to be used to sway voters who do not truly understand the implications of the Charlotte ordinance.. Do North Carolina parents of high school girls want high school boys in their daughters’ locker rooms? Do North Carolina women using locker rooms at fitness facilities want men in their locker rooms? Keep in mind that the non-exclusive locker room part of the Charlotte ordinance that HB2 eliminated did not distinguish as to what private parts a person actually had. A fully equipped male (if he claimed to be transgender) was allowed to use the women’s locker room and women’s showers. I am not sure that every women in North Carolina would be happy to find a man in her gym locker room.

The purpose of leaving HB2 in place was to continue to bring outside money into the coffers of Democratic candidates in North Carolina. It’s not about rights–it’s about politics.

Why North Carolina Should Not Repeal HB2

HB2 was known as the ‘bathroom bill.’ What wasn’t mentioned was that it also applied to high school locker rooms, health club locker rooms, and other public locker rooms, generally assumed to be segregated according to sex. As long as HB2 was in place, your high school daughter in the high school locker room was not in danger of being walked in on by the high school football team or any member thereof. Now the Governor of North Carolina has decided that since Charlotte says it will repeal the law that made HB2 necessary (the Charlotte bathroom bill was unconstitutional according to the North Carolina Constitution), he wants the legislature to repeal HB2. Well, not so fast. Let’s look at some of the events surrounding the original dust-up.

Yesterday, The Daily Haymaker posted an article about the repeal of HB2.The article reminds us:

Let’s go back to the point about Charlotte’s initial move being unconstitutional. Now, WHO is responsible for dealing with actions that violate the state constitution?  Why, the elected attorney general.  If he refuses to do his job, as he has soooooo often,  the state has to shell out money to go to court itself.

So, Roy Cooper neglects one of the primary responsibilities of his job.  Gets caught lobbying businesses to avoid North Carolina because of HB2.  He spends nearly a whole year lying about HB2 to voters.  Now, the drive by media is ready to coronate him as a HERO.

So, what happens now — after HB2 is repealed — and, say, Carrboro tries something similar?  We have ANOTHER useless bastard in the attorney general’s office who likely ignores it.  And we’re right back into it.

The idea to repeal HB2 is a trap. It is the carrot over the door to the trap that the Republicans are supposed to walk into.

I need to state here that I do not think transgender people pose a threat to anyone. The threat exists in unstable people claiming to be transgender who are no such thing. The threat exists in a dare on the part of high school boys to go into the girls’ locker room. The threat exists in someone claiming to be transgender taking pictures in the dressing room at Target (that has already happened). The transgender population represents less than 1 percent of the American population. Why are endangering women and children for less than 1 percent of the population? Do you really believe that most family men want men or boys in the locker rooms used by their wives and daughters? Do you really believe that high school girls want boys walking into their locker rooms?

Leave the law in place–it represents common sense–men’s bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women’s bathrooms and locker rooms for women. It’s really not that hard.

Letting The 3.4 Percent Rule

There is an attempt being made by 3.4 percent of Americans to control the actions of the other 96.6 percent Americans. No–I am not talking about the wealthy–I am talking about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender) community. I have no objection to members of that community being whoever or whatever they choose to be, but I do object when they try to impose their lifestyle on the majority of Americans. Most Americans are tolerant, but that doesn’t mean we have to condone something we believe is wrong. That battle recently came to a head in North Carolina when the City of Charlotte (in violation of the home rule provisions of the North Carolina Constitution) declared all restrooms (and locker rooms) open to whatever sex the occupant considered themselves. Aside from the problems with the law itself, only the North Carolina legislature has the power to write a law that impacts public buildings in the state. The legislature then passed a law requiring people to use the restroom (or locker room) corresponding to the sex they were at birth. Some companies and organizations have chosen not to do business in North Carolina because of this law, known as HB2. Meanwhile, many of those companies and organizations continue to do business in countries that execute homosexuals in cruel ways.

Breitbart posted a story on the continuing controversy on Wednesday.

The article reminds us:

GOP leaders in North Carolina are pushing back twice as hard against the Democrat-led alliance of business, gay and transgender advocacy groups which is now trying to damage the state’s economy in the run-up to the November gubernatorial election. 

…GOP leaders have been trying to finesse this transgender issue, because voters strongly oppose the transgender push while business leaders are pleading for an end to the Democrat-organized economic war against the state’s business community. But Gov. Pat McCrory and his deputies have now decided to go on the offensive against the far-reaching and unpopular transgender agenda, which would gradually stigmatize and outlaw the public’s recognition that the two sexes — men and women, boys and girls — want a civic society that supports their equal and different preferences. 

The problem here is not the LGBT community itself–it does not represent a danger to anyone. The problem is that there are disturbed people who will take advantage of an all-access law for their own nefarious purposes. I have no doubt that there would be abuses of the all-access law, particularly at the high school level. Do you really want the high school football team in your daughter’s high school locker room? Most Americans think that would be a really bad idea. Separate facilities for transgender students would easily solve the problem.

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association issued a statement by Franklin Graham.

Here are some highlights from that statement:

The ACC website proudly features Toyota as an “Official Corporate Champion,” yet Toyota maintains factories and distribution centers in several of these discriminatory countries, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Egypt. Where is the moral outrage of the presidents of Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, UNC, North Carolina State, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest?

Indeed, the ACC’s member schools compete in 25 sports divided by gender—12 men’s sports and 13 women’s. Though gender issues may be becoming more complicated in higher education and other parts of society, the athletic conference you serve as commissioner doesn’t seem to have any problem distinguishing between the two genders—male and female. Yet, when a state like the one I live in seeks to make the same distinction with regard to use of public bathrooms in an effort to protect its citizens from those who would use the men’s room today and the women’s room tomorrow, the academic elites who comprise your conference fake a moral outrage that is frankly shameful.

Ironically, the NCAA is more discriminatory towards transgender people than the public policy they apparently wish to see as law in America. For example, opponents to legislation like NC House Bill 2 support permitting people to use the bathroom which corresponds to the sex they identify with on a given day—meaning someone might feel like a man today and a woman tomorrow, switching bathrooms at will.

Yet even the NCAA doesn’t allow such casual gender identity for participation in collegiate athletics. The NCAA Policy on Transgender Student-Athlete Participation states, “Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.” This is precisely what supporters of HB 2 have been requesting—that people use public restrooms in accordance with their assigned birth gender.

I think I represent the views of millions who would rather preserve gender-specific public bathrooms—a mainstay for generations—than to attend a football game in my state to determine the champion of a conference governed by politically-correct, morally hypocritical academics.

Mr. Graham concludes:

Commissioner Swofford, you maintain your conference’s decision is “one of principle” and that “core values…are of utmost importance.” Well, millions of us who oppose your decision do so as a matter of principle and core values—values of privacy, safety and protection of our sons and daughters in public restrooms, and the principle that God created just two genders and assigned them at birth.

Please don’t make political pawns of student-athletes who just want to play football or basketball in North Carolina, and don’t continue to offend millions of Americans who endorse thousands of years of gender-specific bathrooms while you continue to accept corporate sponsorship money from companies proudly conducting their business in countries that discriminate against homosexuals to the point of death.

We need to be tolerant, but we need to protect our citizens and our children also. It is possible to do both of these.

 

Insanity At One University

The Washington Times posted a story in June 2016 outlining some of the speech guidelines at the University of North Carolina. The inmates have definitely taken over the asylum.

The article reports:

Guidelines issued on the university’s Employee Forum aim to help staff avoid microaggressions in their interactions by cautioning against offensive phrases such as “Christmas vacation,” “husband/boyfriend” and “golf outing.”

The guidebook, first reported by Campus Reform, categorizes examples of potential microaggressions by “social identity group,” including race, gender and sexual orientation.

 Under the “Religion” tab, the guidebook says organizing vacations around Christian holidays further “centers the Christian faith and minimizes non-Christian spiritual rituals and observances.”

With regard to “gender” microaggressions, the guidelines discourage comments such as “I love your shoes!” to female colleagues or otherwise complimenting the appearance of women.

It gets worse:

Microaggressions against “sexual orientation” include using the terms “husband” or “boyfriend” when addressing a female colleague, or “wife” or “girlfriend” when addressing a male colleague, instead of the asexual “partner” or “spouse.”

This, the taxpayer-funded university warns, sets “the expectation that people do not identify as LGBTQ until they say otherwise or disclose their sexual orientation.”

At faculty award ceremonies, be sure not to ask honorees to “stand and be recognized” for their achievements, which assumes “that everyone is able in this way and ignores the diversity of ability in the space.”

To further complicate matters:

An editor’s note later amended to the University of North Carolina guidebook makes clear that it “does not represent University policy.”

“The piece was compiled from research and published scholarly works in response to Forum members’ interest in the topic of microaggressions,” the note says.

If the guidebook does not reflect University policy, why does it even exist? Where in the world did we come up with the concept of microaggressions? People are different–that is because we all have different backgrounds, different talents, different abilities, different taste, etc. When did noticing these things become microaggression? It is time for the rebirth of common sense. I guess I shouldn’t expect that rebirth to occur on college campuses. Meanwhile, how much are parents paying to have their children exposed to this junk?

Every Time I Think President Obama Can’t Further Offend Bible-Believing Christians, He Does

The Bible is pretty clear on homosexuality and gender. God created Adam and Eve. That’s pretty straightforward. There are a lot of voices speaking out right now in support of the concept of transgenderism. There are also voices stating that transgenderism is a mental illness. Suffice it to say that even among people who don’t believe in The Bible, the issue is not totally clear. Many of us do not want high school boys in high school girls’ locker rooms.

Today The Daily Signal is reporting on President Obama’s latest slap in the face to Bible-believing Christians.

The article reports:

President Barack Obama’s appointment of a Christian transgender activist as an adviser on faith issues represents part of a larger agenda, some social conservatives fear.

Last month, Obama named Barbara Satin, a man who identifies as a woman, to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Satin is the assistant faith works director for the LGBTQ Task Force and a member of the United Church of Christ, where she served on the church’s national executive council. The denomination is among the nation’s most open to the LGBT community. Satin has been the chair of GLBT Generations—an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people—since 1999.

“It makes sense the president would appoint a transgender activist as a faith adviser,” said Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, a social conservative advocacy group. “It would be a bigger surprise if he appointed someone with traditional values.”

I don’t care if President Obama puts this man in charge of something within the administration, but to appoint him as an advisor on faith issues is simply an insult to many people of faith.

The article further states:

The council is charged with identifying the best practices for delivering social services, “evaluating the need for improvements in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based and neighborhood organizations,” and making policy recommendations to the president and other administration officials.

The bigger problem is that the council is not representative of America’s faith community, said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council.

“This is more evidence that Obama is attempting a moral revolution pretending the percentages of America is as diverse as his faith council,” Stemberger said. “It’s not a proportional representation of America.”

He added this appointment ties in with the larger debate.

“This is directly related to the bathroom debate,” Stemberger said. “It’s an attempt to push conservative traditional people of faith on this issue. No world religion embraces this moral agenda, at least not in its orthodox form.”

The leadership of America has lost its way. Our leadership no longer represents the Judeo-Christian values our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on. When the foundation is taken out, the house collapses. This is not a good thing.

The Consequences Of Letting Everyone In The Same Bathroom

The bathroom bill (should be locker room bill) passed in North Carolina has caused a lot of controversy. This article is based on two articles, one posted at CBN News today and one posted at Lady Liberty 1885.

The article at Lady Liberty 1885 includes the following video (also posted on YouTube):

As the video points out, women need a safe space to change clothes or go to the bathroom. I can’t imagine thinking parents wanting their teenage daughters to share locker rooms with teenage boys.

There has been another interesting example of the fallout of this law.

CBN News is reporting today:

A former state executive director of the ACLU has resigned because her own daughters were frightened when transgendered men entered the women’s bathroom.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been a champion of transgender bathroom rights. Former director of the Georgia ACLU chapter Maya Dillard Smith says she is resigned after her daughters’ experience in a public bathroom.

“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six-feet tall with deep voices, entered,” Smith wrote in a statement.

“My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer,” she continued.

She also said the incident highlighted the ALCU‘s “hierarchy of rights.”

She wrote in a statement that the ACLU is “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights….based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.”

Transgender people constitute a very small percentage of our population. They deserve to be respected and not bullied, but their desires should not be used to put the safety of other Americans in jeopardy. The transgenders themselves are not the issue–it’s the people who will use the issue for their own nefarious purposes.

 

I Wonder If All The People Being Celebrated Want To Celebrate

Yesterday the White House website posted a proclamation by President Obama.

The proclamation states:

Presidential Proclamation — LGBT Pride Month, 2016

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2016

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Since our founding, America has advanced on an unending path toward becoming a more perfect Union.  This journey, led by forward-thinking individuals who have set their sights on reaching for a brighter tomorrow, has never been easy or smooth.  The fight for dignity and equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people is reflected in the tireless dedication of advocates and allies who strive to forge a more inclusive society.  They have spurred sweeping progress by changing hearts and minds and by demanding equal treatment — under our laws, from our courts, and in our politics.  This month, we recognize all they have done to bring us to this point, and we recommit to bending the arc of our Nation toward justice.

Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality in all 50 States was a historic victory for LGBT Americans, ensuring dignity for same-sex couples and greater equality across State lines.  For every partnership that was not previously recognized under the law and for every American who was denied their basic civil rights, this monumental ruling instilled newfound hope, affirming the belief that we are all more free when we are treated as equals.

LGBT individuals deserve to know their country stands beside them.  That is why my Administration is striving to better understand the needs of LGBT adults and to provide affordable, welcoming, and supportive housing to aging LGBT Americans.  It is also why we oppose subjecting minors to the harmful practice of conversion therapy, and why we are continuing to promote equality and foster safe and supportive learning environments for all students.  We remain committed to addressing health disparities in the LGBT community — gay and bisexual men and transgender women of color are at a particularly high risk for HIV, and we have worked to strengthen our National HIV/AIDS Strategy to reduce new infections, increase access to care, and improve health outcomes for people living with HIV.

Despite the extraordinary progress of the past few years, LGBT Americans still face discrimination simply for being who they are.  I signed an Executive Order in 2014 that prohibits discrimination against Federal employees and contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  I urge the Congress to enact legislation that builds upon the progress we have made, because no one should live in fear of losing their job simply because of who they are or who they love.  And our commitment to combatting discrimination against the LGBT community does not stop at our borders:  Advancing the fair treatment of all people has long been a cornerstone of American diplomacy, and we have made defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT individuals a priority in our engagement across the globe.  In line with America’s commitment to the notion that all people should be treated fairly and with respect, champions of this cause at home and abroad are upholding the simple truth that LGBT rights are human rights.

There remains much work to do to extend the promise of our country to every American, but because of the acts of courage of the millions who came out and spoke out to demand justice and of those who quietly toiled and pushed for progress, our Nation has made great strides in recognizing what these brave individuals long knew to be true in their hearts — that love is love and that no person should be judged by anything but the content of their character.  During Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, as Americans wave their flags of pride high and march boldly forward in parades and demonstrations, let us celebrate how far we have come and reaffirm our steadfast belief in the equal dignity of all Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2016 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon the people of the United States to eliminate prejudice everywhere it exists, and to celebrate the great diversity of the American people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand sixteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fortieth.

BARACK OBAMA

This is an affront to every Bible-believing Christian in America. I have no problem with giving the LGBT community equal rights–I have a major problem with the concept of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. First of all, that is more information than I need. I don’t care what you do in your spare time, just don’t ask me to celebrate it. Second, as a Christian, the gay or lesbian lifestyle is something I cannot condone. I realize that there are some people who will read what I am about to write and declare me a fanatic, but this proclamation will bring judgement on America. We are sticking our finger in God’s eye, and that is eventually going to be a problem.

Losing The Right To Practice Your Faith In America

On May 18, Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III from Massachusetts introduced H.R. 5272 into the U.S. House of Representatives. On May 23, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

On Monday, CNS News posted an article about the bill. The article reports describes the bill:

…would amend the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to specify that religious exceptions should not apply to “protections against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity” and “access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service.”

The legislation is intended to “clarify that no one can seek religious exemption from laws guaranteeing fundamental civil and legal rights.”

The bill emphasizes that RFRA should not be interpreted to “authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes the religious views, habits, or practices of one party upon another” or authorize “an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes meaningful harm, including dignitary harm, on a third party.”

Kennedy claimed in announcing the bill that “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has become a vehicle for those seeking to impose their beliefs on others or claim that the tenants of their faith justify discrimination.”

This suggested bill would undo exactly what the 1993 RFRA did. Christians who believe in the Bible cannot condone homosexual behavior without compromising their beliefs. Homosexual behavior is strongly condemned in the Bible. Notice that the behavior is condemned–not the person. Anything a Christian is asked to do that supports the homosexual agenda is automatically against their beliefs. Normally businessmen have the freedom (and right) to do business with whomever they choose. Shouldn’t that right also be given to Christians? This bill would take away that right. It is interesting that the businesses that have come under attack for refusing services for homosexual weddings have all been Christian. I am waiting for the first case to be brought against a Muslim business owner. Do you think it will be handled the same way?

The thing to watch as this moves forward is the changes in the language.

This is part of the text of the bill (taken from Thomas.gov):

SEC. 2. Sense of Congress.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes the religious views, habits, or practices of one party upon another;

(2) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption from generally applicable law that imposes meaningful harm, including dignitary harm, on a third party; and

(3) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 should not be interpreted to authorize an exemption that permits discrimination against other persons, including persons who do not belong to the religion or adhere to the beliefs of those to whom the exemption is given.

SEC. 3. Exception from application of Act where Federal law prevents harm to others.

Section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–3) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(d) Additional exception from application of Act where Federal law prevents harm to others.—This section does not apply—

“(1) to any provision of law or its implementation that provides for or requires—

“(A) protections against discrimination or the promotion of equal opportunity including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, Executive Order 11246, the Violence Against Women Act, and Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (77 FR 5662);

“(B) employers to provide wages, other compensation, or benefits including leave, or standards protecting collective activity in the workplace;

“(C) protections against child labor, abuse, or exploitation; or

“(D) access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for, any health care item or service;

“(2) to any term requiring goods, services, functions, or activities to be performed or provided to beneficiaries of a government contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other award; or

“(3) to the extent that application would result in denying a person the full and equal enjoyment of a good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, provided by the government.”.

As those who practice deviant lifestyles become politically active and become ‘protected classes’ of people claiming discrimination, we will see this law reach new heights.

The ‘Do No Harm Act’ would also forbid religious objection to ‘any healthcare’ service. Nurses or doctors who believe in the sanctity of life will be required to perform or assist with abortions even if abortion violates their religious beliefs.

Make no mistake. Christianity is under attack in America. Unless Christians begin to pay attention to what is going on in Washington, they will wake up one day and find out that the only place they are free to practice their faith is inside the walls of the church.

 

Bullies Don’t Stop Until You Stand Up To Them

Yesterday The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration will now direct all public school to allow students to use the bathrooms (and locker rooms) that conform to their sexual identity. I doesn’t matter what parts you have, you use the bathroom (or locker room) that corresponds to the way you feel at that particular time.

The article reports:

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.

It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

…“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.

I don’t want to see anyone discriminated against or bullied, but it seems to me that this directive (aside from being unconstitutional) opens the door for bullying and all sorts of other high-jinks. Can the imagine the ‘dare you’ going around various teenage boys about going into the girls’ locker room? This is just plain silly.

The obvious answer to this is a private bathroom and changing area for anyone who feels that they need extra privacy. No questions asked. It is really sad that we are talking about discrimination in this matter rather than talking about protecting women and children from people claiming to be transgender who are not. There are already a number of criminal cases filed in various states where nefarious people have used transgender-sympathetic laws to gain access to women’s restrooms. What happened next was traumatizing for the women involved and has severe legal consequences for the man involved. Men do not belong in ladies’ rooms or in women’s locker rooms.

Purposely Ignoring The Obvious

On Friday, CNS News reported that Chicago Public Schools have announced that all students and teachers will have access to whichever locker rooms and other spaces that were formerly reserved for one sex. This means that any teenage boy who wants to undress in the girls‘ locker room is free to do so. It also means that girls only health classes dealing with feminine issues are a thing of the past in Chicago.

The article reports:

In a weak acknowledgement of the uproar this will cause, the Chicago Public Schools says students that are not gender confused “should” be allowed access to alternative facilities. So, for example, if there are fifty girls who object to a boy undressing in front of them, it is the fifty girls, not the boy, who must go change in “single stall restrooms” elsewhere. Of course, the odds are high that school officials on the lookout for any sign of “bullying” will take careful note of which students leave the locker rooms, presuming they are allowed to leave at all.

To add to the confusion, the definition of gender identity changes about every three months, so the rules we are supposed to live by are constantly moving. But the latest definition, according to the Chicago Public Schools, is that sex is merely “a label a person is assigned at birth” and that the reality lies in one’s internal “psychological knowledge” of their own gender “regardless of the[ir] biological sex.”

At what point does common sense make an appearance?

The article concludes:

And therein lies the biggest affront from these new policies. Not only must government employees play along with a gender confused child’s every subjective wish, so must every other student. In fact, the Chicago Public Schools specify that students must address a gender confused child by whatever pronoun they wish, be it “they, their, ze, he and she.” Failure to do so “will result in appropriate consequences for offending staff and students,” in other words, discipline up to and including expulsion from school.

But many people of good will and faith conviction will simply refuse to put aside their legitimate privacy, modesty, and safety concerns. Many children of good will resist being forced to say “she” when speaking of a boy they have known for years just as they would resist being forced to say “5” when asked “what does 2+2 equal?

The left for years claimed that all they wanted was for LGBT persons to be left alone but this was a lie. It is now clear that liberals and their enablers will not leave anyone alone and will use the full force of courts, lawsuits, and government to ensure any resistance to their new gender ideology “will result in appropriate consequences.”

I think I would continue my school day sweaty and smelly rather than take a chance and dress in the locker room under the new rules. What are we doing to our children?

Sometimes The Media Just Lies

The HB2 bill in North Carolina has stirred up a lot of controversy. I have been called a bigot because I don’t want men in women’s bathrooms or locker rooms. I have repeatedly stated that I am not concerned about the transgender population, I am concerned with the people who will use transgender as a cloak for nefarious activities. It is instructive that the original spokesperson for allowing men in women’s bathrooms is a registered sex offender.

There was a rally in Raleigh yesterday. There were people there who support HB2 and there were people there who oppose HB2. The people who oppose HB2 made a great show of delivering boxes of petitions supporting their stand. But wait—exactly what was in those boxes?

Governor McCrory’s website posted some interesting pictures of the contents of the boxes:

The anonymously-funded, national smear campaign led by the Human Rights Campaign is grossly misrepresenting information about the petitions delivered to State Capitol today. Contrary to the media reports, the activists only delivered enough petitions to fill two boxes and the overwhelming majority of signatures were from out-of-state. The stacks on the right in each photo consists of out-of-state signatures.

HB2

HB2aIn comparison, here’s a photo of the boxes posted online by a reporter at the HRC press conference:

HB2bIf all you watch is the mainstream media, the above picture is what you saw. The truth is in the previous two pictures. There is some serious manipulation going on here. Most parents do not want boys or men in their daughter’s bathrooms or locker rooms. The aim of this picture is to make those parents feel as though they are a minority. Don’t be fooled.

This Isn’t Good For Our Society

Breakpoint posted an article today about the intolerance our culture is currently showing toward those who hold Biblical beliefs.

The article includes a wonderful comment about popular conceptions of open-mindedness:

You’ve seen those ridiculous “Coexist” bumper stickers, right? You know, the ones where the word is spelled out using religious symbols from Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Gay rights, Judaism, and so on?

I call it ridiculous because, as someone once wrote: “The C wants to kill the E, X, T, and the O. The O offers peaceful non-resistance, which will be ineffective if real trouble breaks out. The E feels like it’s been oppressed, making it intolerant of the C, the X, and the T. The I and the S are numerically irrelevant, but are just necessary to spell out the word. And the sticker is mostly directed at the T (or the Christian), who ironically poses no threat whatsoever to any of the others.”

In other words, the “Coexist” bumper sticker slogan assumes that each ideology be emptied of its actual conviction if its to work. And according to Colson Center board member Jennifer Marshall, that’s what big business is currently trying to sell to the American people.

The article points out that those who claim that they are in favor of coexistence are not willing to coexist themselves. A recently-passed Mississippi law allows those who hold Biblical beliefs on homosexuality to refuse to participate in homosexual weddings and to allow their religious convictions determine their rental policies if they are landlords. The law simply prevents discrimination against those who hold Biblical beliefs on matters regarding homosexuality.

The article concludes:

“Mississippi’s policy shows that we can coexist,” Marshall says. “Why would big business oppose that?”

That’s a good question given the number of times large corporate entities have entered these hot debates just in the last few years. Think of all of the corporate-led attacks and blackmail against common-sense religious freedom legislation in Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, North Carolina, and now Mississippi. And then think of the bakers, florists, and photographers in places such as New Mexico, Colorado and Washington State who have been forced to choose between their beliefs and ruinous fines forcing them out of business. They were not allowed to co-exist, at least not without compromising their convictions.

As Jennifer Marshall points out, true advocates of cultural coexistence seek conscience protections for all, not just those who adhere to the vision of the sexual revolution. Citing a poll that says 63 percent of state residents support the law, Jennifer writes, “Citizens in Mississippi and elsewhere are looking for solutions that defuse cultural tension over issues of sexual orientation and gender identity . . .The corporate establishment’s campaign against these common sense policies disregards all that. Citizens would do well to see through the big business marketing blitz against religious liberty. This corporate messaging puts neither the common good nor constitutional principle first.”

The First Amendment states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Living life according to your beliefs is one example of the free exercise of your religion. The group shaming of Christian beliefs is not only damaging to our culture, it is unconstitutional.

There Is No Resemblance Between The Hype And The Truth

The North Carolina legislation passed a bill on March 23 called HB2. The media has gone totally bonkers every since–yelling discrimination, bigotry, and all the other things they traditionally yell. I haven’t heard much in the media about the danger bathrooms open to whatever sex you choose to assume on a given day pose to women and children. I need to mention here that the danger does not come from transgendered people–it comes from nefarious people posing as transgenders. The media also overlooked the fact that the spokesmen for the group sponsoring the legislation that HB2 overturned was a registered sex offender. I am sure that is simply an incredible coincidence. The spokesman was removed after his criminal record was exposed.

On Wednesday, World Net Daily posted an article that clarifies the issues involved.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

Widely known now as House Bill 2, or HB 2, the legislation was approved 82-26 in the North Carolina General Assembly. State senators approved it 32-0, although 11 Democrats decided not to vote and another six lawmakers were absent. Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed the bill on March 25.

Lt. Gov. Forest said the city of Charlotte left lawmakers no choice but to act.

“This isn’t something the General Assembly brought up. The city council in Charlotte brought this up, against legal counsel’s advice and against the advice of a lot of folks. They went beyond their constitutional authority and tried to create a public accommodation law in the city of Charlotte,” Forest told WND and Radio America.

He continued, “That is expressly a responsibility of the state. The city of Charlotte and municipalities don’t have the legal authority, based on our constitution, to establish public accommodation law.”

In addition to overstepping its legal authority, Forest said the Charlotte council pursued a very troubling policy.

“The Charlotte ordinance said that the business community had to to comply with this ordinance,” Forest explained. “They said it was sex discrimination to have men’s room and women’s room labels on your doors.”

When state officials started hearing from sexual assault victims, the effort to reverse the Charlotte ordinance picked up far more steam.

The article further explains:

Forest said the ordinance only required the person to identify as a member of a particular gender, and to have completed or be in the process of gender reassignment.

He said, despite the protests, HB 2 does a few very simple things, starting with determining who can use which bathrooms.

“What HB 2 did was say that men have to use men’s rooms and women have to use women’s rooms in the state of North Carolina,” Forest said.

At the same time, he said people identifying as transgender benefit, too.

“What this bill did is it created accommodation for people that are transgender, for people that view their gender differently than other folks,” Forest said. “It also provides the opportunity for single-stall unisex bathrooms. Anywhere that you want to place them.”

Forest said, unlike Charlotte, the HB 2 only applies to government buildings and schools. Business owners are free to make their own decisions.

If you own a business in North Carolina, you are free to designate bathrooms in any way you see fit. The article notes that Lt. Gov. Forrest mentioned the possible NBA boycott of North Carolina because of the law. He stated that he found the possible boycott odd because the WNBA  does not allow men to play in their league or enter the locker rooms and the NBA does not open its league or its locker rooms to women.

Common sense needs to prevail here. Note that when the original ordinance was passed in Charlotte, state officials started hearing from sexual assault victims. That statement really tells you all you need to know. Our laws need to protect women and children.

Laws That Really Don’t Make Any Sense

Just when you think state legislators couldn’t pass any more weird laws, someone comes up with a new idea. The law I am about to describe is not only unnecessary and useless, it doesn’t even apply where it might matter.

Hot Air is reporting today that California has politically gone off the deep end.

The article reports:

A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban government-funded travel to states with laws that he says discriminate on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

“No one wants to send employees into an environment where they would be uncomfortable,” said Democrat Evan Low, Jon Ortiz, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee, reported this week.

Low said he decided to introduce the bill after Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in March 2015.

Does the law include government-funded travel of women to Saudi Arabia and other countries where they do not have equal rights?

I believe that America is made up of states. The last I heard, each state had the freedom to make laws that applied in that state. California is perfectly within its rights to limit the travel of government officials or employees to places where they will not be uncomfortable. Obviously, being within your rights does not mean that what you are doing can be described as logical or sensible.

It gets worse. The article explains:

Low said he doesn’t know which states his bill would apply to yet. He said it would not cover lawmakers and political trips but would affect administrative travel.

So what, pray tell, is the point of this legislation?

 

Listen To The Words Used

One of the easiest ways to win an argument is to redefine the definitions of the words used. One of the arguments used by the gay community in its search for gay marriage has been that it is a civil right and that to oppose gay marriage is discrimination. Notice that there is no room in that definition for a Bible-based view of marriage or a religious objection. So what is the goal of the militant gay community now that they have achieved the goal of gay marriage? Paul Strand‘s interview of Rea Carey, an American lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) activist, shows us the next step. The interview was shown in the first three minutes of CBN’s the 700 Club on Friday.

Paul Strand describes Ms. Carey as a national gay leader who can help stop the targeting of Christian bakers, florists, wedding photographers and such who don’t want to service gay weddings. He asked her if she’d consider a cease fire after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. He describes her answer as a pretty firm, “No.”

Ms. Carey stated:

“We will continue to do work in the country to make sure that everyone’s right to their own personal beliefs are protected, but that people actually do get to celebrate, that they get to choose who they want around them when they get married, that they get the cake they want, the flower they want, so religion should not be used as a means to discriminate against others, it should be one’s own personal beliefs.”

Take a look at that statement. The LGBT movement will not stop until Christians and others who hold a view supporting traditional marriage are not allowed to practice their beliefs in the public square. Ms. Carey is defining religion as a personal belief that is not permitted in the public square or the business community. Christian beliefs in the public square or the business community are not to be honored. We are losing the free exercise of religion stated in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Is anyone paying attention?

Should You Be Suspended From Your Job For Telling The Truth?

Not everyone believes the Bible and not everyone takes it literally, but some people believe and some people believe literally. That is as much their right as it is anyone’s right to their own beliefs. But should you be suspended from you job for telling in your own words what the Bible says?

Yesterday the Hollywood Reporter headlined their story about Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty‘s remarks:” ‘Duck Dynasty’s’ Phil Robertson on Indefinite Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks.” That was followed by a smaller headline: “he news comes after the reality star compared being gay to bestiality, drawing ire from LGBT groups including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign.” Well, that’s not exactly what he said. He didn’t compare being gay to bestiality, he simply described, in his own words, the downward spiral of sin: His remarks were not anti-gay–they were simply pro-Bible.

According to an article on the subject posted at CBN News:

When asked for his definition of sin, Robertson told GQ, “start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he said. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Why did GQ ask Robertson for his definition of sin? What did they expect to hear?

Later in the GQ article Robertson further explained:

Quoting a passage from Corinthians, he said, “‘Don’t be deceived. Neither adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.  Don’t deceive yourself.  It’s not right.'”

Again, isn’t his right of free speech as good as everyone else’s? The LGBT groups that are screaming about this need to realize that their gripe is not with Phil Robertson–it is with the book he is quoting. However, the LGBT groups will be more successful at their fundraising and political activities if they go after Phil Robertson than the Bible and they are well aware of that.

There are forces of good and evil in the world. Did we really believe that a television show that preaches God and His saving grace every week and prays on television would not be attacked in some way by organizations that choose not to believe in the Bible?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Need To Balance Rights

CBN News posted a story today about a new law passed in San Antonio, Texas, to prevent discrimination against LGBT Texans. Now before I go into exactly what the law does, I want to go on the record as saying that I do not support discrimination against anyone for any reason. However, there are certain situations where common sense needs to dictate decisions regarding people with different views on various issues. For instance, I have no problem with civil unions, but I do not support gay marriage. Why? Because as soon as the state endorses gay marriage, is it obligated to force pastors of churches who believe homosexuality is a sin to perform those marriages? I watched the Catholic adoption agencies leave Massachusetts because the state would not grant them a religious exemption to allow them to deny adoptions to gay couples. Their right to practice their religious beliefs in the adoption process were denied. If you pass a law against discrimination against LGBT people, is a pastor who holds the Biblical view on homosexuality free to state that view from the pulpit?

The article points out:

For San Antonio’s faith community there are several red flags. The ordinance criminalizes those with a biblical view of sexuality as it forbids bias against homosexuality or bi-sexuality.

Those charged and declared guilty by the city will face a Class C misdemeanor on their record and fines of up to $500 a day.

Also, the ordinance forbids appointed officials on city boards from showing any bias. 

Allan Parker, president of The Justice Foundation, a San-Antonio-based Christian legal non-profit, has worked to analyze and explain the ordinance for San Antonio’s churches.

He said the ordinance is vague and unclear but he believes it can and will be used against Christians, especially those in the business world who disagree with unbiblical sexuality.

“The leverage of the city to pressure any business to caving in is enormous under this,” he explained.

Would this law punish a bakery if it chose not to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding because of their religious beliefs? What about the rights of the bakers? Are their religious beliefs as important as the wedding participants? Where does the First Amendment (the government shall not interfere with the free exercise of religion) play into this?

As I said, I don’t support discrimination against anyone, but I do support the right of everyone to practice their religion and state their religious beliefs. This law is not in agreement with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Double Standard

The Daily Caller posted a story today about the LGBT people who are protesting the fact that New York CardinalArchbishop Timothy Dolan will deliver the closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention.

The article relates the objection:

“While Cardinal Dolan has a respected track record in the ministry, his work to undercut the dignity of LGBT people cannot be overlooked. There are many faith leaders who would be an ideal fitto close out the Democratic National Convention — but Cardinal Timothy Dolan is not that leader,” said Michael Cole-Schwartz of the Human Rights Campaign.

It is interesting to me that the LGBT people are not protesting the two hour Muslim prayer meeting that is going on at the beginning of the convention. Has it occurred to them what their human rights would be under Sharia Law?

The article concludes:

While LGBT groups are indignant at the inclusion of Cardinal Dolan, there’s been no quarrel from them on the invitation extended to individuals that share sympathies with hardline Islamist groups. Radical Islamists have a far, far more intolerant attitude toward homosexuals than any Catholic clergyman, to the point that they have recently been stoned and burnedalive in some countries. Why doesn’t the LGBT lobby get as fired up about the organizers of the Jumah as it does about Cardinal Dolan? Partly, adherents to the Judeo-Christian tradition are familiar targets for the LGBT lobby. But this situation is also the product of the unqualified embrace of pluralism that characterizes the left. When moral judgments are subordinated to the mantra of “diversity,” then the truly odious views aren’t diminished. The result is that the LGBT lobby has become another group on the left that fails to see the danger that radical Islam poses to all of us.

The double standard here is amazing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our Moral Perspective

CNSNews reported today on the latest effort of the Obama administration to gain worldwide acceptance of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender) Agenda. This is not a human rights issue–this is a moral issue. Now before you jump to a few wrong conclusions, let me explain. I do not support discrimination against anyone for any reason. I do not support the way that LGBT people are treated in countries with Sharia Law (they are killed). But I think the rights of religious people have to be respected as well as the rights of LGBT people. I also think it is a little ridiculous to be focused on LGBT rights while Syria is gunning down its citizens to protect the current tyrant. It seems as if some of the priorities are a bit upside down.

The article reports:

“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money,” Perry said in a statement, adding that the policy was “just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country.”

“Obviously the administration is promoting their particular agenda in this country, and now they feel its their obligation to promote those values not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars,” CNN quoted Santorum as telling reporters in Iowa.

Again, I don’t support discrimination of LGBT people, but I don’t support special protections for them either. In a truly free society, what someone did in their personal life would not be the basis for any sort of discrimination or any sort of favor.

Like it or not, the two-parent family (husband and wife) is the basis of society. If the family is destroyed or weakened, the basic fabric of society is weakened. LGBT people should not be discriminated against, but they should not be granted special legal status either.

Enhanced by Zemanta