Monday, June 11, 2007

Gay tolerance updates

I could blog about this subject forever. I don't see how any sane human being can any longer deny that the homosex-activist movement is about forcing all of society -- institutions and persons -- to believe, in speech, thought and action that homosexual acts are good. Here are two more examples of what we have done and what we have failed to do.

1. In Britain, the sexual-orientation regulations that I blogged about a couple of months ago and attendant anti-bullying rules are being used to argue for taking away from the Church the right to run schools. This report makes it clear that the preliminary steps in this direction are already happening. (HT: Ed Watch Int'l.)

The status quo (today):
Education Secretary Alan Johnson told gay activists that the government is preparing guidelines for schools to address what was identified in the report as “faith-based” homophobic bullying. At a meeting with Stonewall, the gay lobby group that brought about the notorious Sexual Orientation Regulations passed earlier this year, Johnson told activists that he hopes to make a presentation at the group’s upcoming conference in July. ...
“Whatever the setting,” [Jim Knight, Minister of State for Schools] said, “whatever the ethos, whoever the external partner to a school might be, school might be, if they have got one, be it the Catholic Church or anybody else. We should not tolerate bullying in any from, we should not tolerate people not respecting the difference that people have and I think that applies to homophobic bullying.”
The avant-garde (tomorrow):
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) says, "Such is the level of homophobia in the Catholic Church that its schools should be taken from it and returned to the community sector."
GALHA's secretary George Broadhead said, "We've seen homophobia in Catholic circles rising at a terrifying rate over the past few months. The Pope is almost hysterical on the topic and the British Catholic hierarchy is constantly agitating to retard gay rights. What chance have gay pupils got in schools which are run by an organisation that hates them?"
"For the sake of these children and for the community at large which should be protected from the promotion of bigotry in schools, the Catholic Church should be stripped of its educational establishments."
2. On this side of the pond, a case is being appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge Oakland's discriminatory treatment of gay speech and Christian speech. Oakland gives a gay city employees group access to the city's e-mail, for internal spamming and blitzing.

When some Christians asked whether an announcement of "Coming Out Day" was city business, a city councilman said that was badthought: a "celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement" was part of the city's role to "celebrate diversity." But as Camille Paglia has long pointed out, Diversitymongers pick and choose their diversity as snobbishly as a Proust duchess.

When Christian employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board, a lesbian worker complained to the city attorney's office that the flier made her feel "targeted" and "excluded," according to a deposition. The flier was removed by a supervisor because it violated the city's anti-discrimination rules. What did it say?
"Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day." It said it opposed "all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage," which it defined as "a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."
The Christians were told they could post bulletin boards that did not have "verbiage that could be offensive to gay people." But that's a Catch-22 standard because, as the lesbian co-worker indicated, the homosex practitioners and activists have made it abundantly clear that they consider any criticism of the gay lifestyle or their movement to be offensive and bigoted. It's what's known in First Amendment law as "the heckler's veto," and submitting to it not only denies the "heckled" party's free-speech, but incentivizes "heckling" and thus inevitably produces more "heckling" -- in this case, "offense-taking" by the actively-homosexual, plus the inevitable retaliation, chill and teaching effect on other groups, cf. "Islamophobia."

Hence today's continuous narrowing of free speech and assault on the free exercise of religion.

No comments: