I'm sure the school will be happy to dope up your boys on Ritalin so they behave as prim and proper ladies. The 'War on Boys'....
I would be remiss if I did not mention the case of Vicki Knox. Ms. Knox is a NJ high school teacher who made posts to her own Facebook page from her own home computer. Knox, 49, used her Facebook page to criticize a display in her Union Township school marking Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month. She called homosexuality a "perverted spirit" and a "sin" that "breeds like cancer." Homosexual activists, the LGBT crowd which Rush Limbaugh refers to as the Gaystopo, are calling on Ms. Knox to be fired, citing to the new HIB law.
Oh my, I actually found something where I agree with Rush Limbaugh.
However, he gives away the perfectly good word "gay" that means happy. Whereas, I call them homosexual fascists. Homosexual Gestapo works, but it isn't as clever (clever, Rush Limbaugh? -- yikes!).
One can only wonder if the Teachers' Unions will eventually try to use HIB against Governor Christie, whom I'm sure has insulted many a teacher in his public remarks. It is not implausible to imagine the Teachers' Unions claiming the Governor has created a "hostile educational environment", which Democrat appointees to the judicial bench would be all too happy to entertain.
Hey, guess what? Governor Christie actually sided with the anti-Viki Knox crowd. What goes around does come around though.
Anyway, the legal reasoning of the article is fairly sound. As I was reading the law, I thought the same thoughts that the article went on to address with the exception of the few things below.
What about the person who is insulted simply by the existence of homosexuality? What about people who feel/know that homosexuality is harmful and that exposing their children to the concept that it is not harmful is dangerous and disruptive to their family and children's proper upbringing and education, etc.?
Why do the homosexuals' "feelings" count for more than the non-homosexuals' feelings? Are homosexuals really that weak? They seem to be pretty pushy for being people who need to be protected from others who disagree with homosex and say so openly, as I do for instance.
I say homosex is always a choice. I also say that it is always harmful. Most importantly though, I say that the truth should be taught to all the children (who are hearing otherwise now) that penises do not belong in anuses, ever!
Anyone who wants to put his penis in your anus is mentally ill. It screams out "mental illness," misguided, etc. Everyone who has been tempted to or who has engaged in anal sex has erred, has been duped, must repent, and must stand against the homosexual act for the sake of truth and health. Yes, that includes heterosexuals.
(If you wonder why I care or why it's my business, I care because people are damaged by it in many ways on many levels. It's my business for all the reasons it was Jesus's business.)
There was nothing wrong with society being nearly unanimously against homosexuality. It's too bad it wasn't completely unanimously against homosexuality. That would have been a good thing!
It has been a bad thing that the homosexuals have weaseled there way into everything on the sly, twisting minds to perversion, lying that anal sex is not a bad thing or mostly completely ignoring it and hoping everyone else will too, lying that they will stop with the call for "tolerance" to condoning to promoting to celebrating to firing, torturing, and executing (yes, if left unchecked, it will come to that: capital punishment for anti-homosexuality and anti-fascism in that case: capital punishment for those against the downward slide toward greater and greater moral decadence, and on and on). Don't tell me it's not true. I've been threatened firsthand.
This law also completely fails in that it claims that religious free exercise ends where the private school grounds meet the non-private school grounds. In other words, the law fails the First Amendment test by saying that religious free speech is confined to private religious school grounds. That's totally unconstitutional. You can't tell a child that he or she can't say publicly that based upon religion he or she doesn't agree with homosexuality. You can't tell a child that he or she can't say it in public school during free time such, as recess and lunch and between classes and the like.
People fought wars over this right. You better think before you keep pushing. You may be pushed back much harder than you ever dreamed. I'm not calling for it, but I know the wrath is out there waiting.
Some people will believe it's righteous indignation when they fight physically against homosexuality taking over, which more and more people are coming to realize is exactly the homosexual plan and has been all along. Don't count on the children not waking up either. When they get older and look back and realize they were led down the homosexual garden path, there may be a major backlash.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)