Tag Archives: Gay Activism

Christian day care workers in Texas fired for refusing to call a girl a boy

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

I have a lot of friends who keep trying to convince me to move to Texas because it’s so conservative, but I have to tell you that stories like this from Houston of all places realky make me think that Oklahoma, Kansas or even Tennessee would be a better bet.

Breitbart News has the story:

Two daycare workers have been fired for refusing to go along with the center’s transgender agenda.Madeline Kirksey, one of the workers who is an author of a Christian book, says her religious liberty rights have been violated. The two were fired after refusing to call a little girl a boy.

The two male parents of a six-year-old little girl told employees at the school to refer to their daughter as a boy, and to call her by a new masculine name. The little girl’s hair had also been cut like a boy’s.

Kirksey told Breitbart Texas in an interview, that the problem was not so much with the transgender issue as it was with telling young children that the little girl was a boy when she was not, and with calling her “John” (not the name given) when that was not her name.

She, and another worker who does not want to be identified, were fired from the Childrens’ Lighthouse Learning Center in Katy, Texas, a city just west of Houston.

The school distributed guidelines to the teachers called “How to Handle Transgender Students.” The printed guidelines were obtained from the internet and can be read at thislink.

The guidelines and the instructions given the teachers included six rules, one of which was “Help defend their dignity.” Another, was to “Educate yourself and your students.” The Christian worker said she did not believe it “was our job,” to thrust the issue on the small children of other parents. She said the school should not force their beliefs on the children, or on her, or upon other parents.

The author of the Christian book, “In Pursuit of the Promise,” said the other children should not be exposed at such an early age to the issue of transgender or “gender identity,” and felt that the two male parents were imposing the issue on their little girl.

“I don’t think we should be talking to other people’s children who are under the age of 18 about being transgender,” Kirksey said in an interview with Fox26 in Houston. Both of the fired workers agreed on this point.

Kirksey said that prior to this happening, she had been commended for the good work that she was doing at the school. After she refused to call the little girl by her new masculine name, and to tell the other children to do so, and to say that the little girl was a little boy, the daycare worker was written-up for alleged infractions that she did not believe were based in reality. She has worked at the school for over a year.

The fired worker notified Child Protective Services that the little girl was being told that she is now a little boy. She believes that it is up to professionals to determine if the little girl is just confused, or if the new gender is being forced upon the little girl.

Kirksey says sometimes the little girl refers to herself as a little boy, and sometimes she tells the other children to not call her a boy or to refer to her by her masculine name.

The Childrens’ Lighthouse in Katy is just one of the school franchise’s that are all over the country. The company is based in Fort Worth and according to its website, there are 37 learning centers in seven states. The school cares for children ages six weeks to twelve years old.

Recall that Houston was the same city that elected a lesbian mayor who subpoena’d the sermons of pastors in order to find out if they were speaking against same-sex marriage in their churches. Apparently, that’s not allowed in Texas any more.

Related posts

Dept. of Education: schools must allow men into women’s bathroom and women’s locker room

Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights
Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights

Here’s the raw story from the radically leftist New York Times.


Federal education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls’ locker room without restrictions.

[…]In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student’s rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls’ facilities, the letter said.

“All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right,” Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.”

Now remember, even if you pull your kids out of these schools, you are still paying for the public school system, and you are still paying the salaries of these left-wing activists.

Does it really help this young man to go along with his delusion. Shouldn’t we be trying to help him by telling him the truth, and getting him counseling? That seems to me to be more reasonable.

Note that Catherine Lhamon was directing appointed by our far-left President, Barack Obama.

And she was also involved in the false rape charge scandal at the University of Virginia, as the Daily Caller reports:

A top-ranking official at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has emerged as a potentially key figure in Rolling Stone’s false article, “A Rape on Campus.”

Catherine Lhamon, who heads the Department’s civil rights wing, was identified in a letter sent last month by University of Virginia Dean of Students Allen Groves to Steve Coll and Sheila Coronel, the two Columbia Journalism School deans who conducted a review of the Nov. 19 article, written by disgraced reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

[…]As the Rolling Stone article fell apart, Lhamon’s involvement has gone virtually unmentioned. But a deeper look reveals her ties to Emily Renda, a University of Virginia employee and activist who put Erdely in touch with Jackie, the student whose claim that she was brutally gang-raped by seven members of a fraternity on Sept. 28, 2012, served as the linchpin for the 9,000-word Rolling Stone article.

These are the kinds of people that Obama appoints – radical leftists. They’re using the power of government to push a left-wing agenda, and if they have to hurt a few people along the way, well, they are willing to do that. We need to be more careful about who we vote for.

Remember when the progressive gunman attacked the Family Research Council?

Goodness Without God: is it possible?
Goodness Without God: is it possible?

Let’s walk down memory lane and remember what happens when “non-religious” people who don’t like “organized religion” get hold of guns and decide to act on their non-religious convictions. In this case, the shooter was a gay activist who was a great admirer of Friedrich Nietzche, the atheist philosopher who proclaimed the death of God.

The Daily Caller reports.


The man accused of opening fire and shooting a security guard at the conservative Family Research Council headquarters last August plead guilty to three charges in a D.C. federal court Wednesday.

Floyd Lee Corkins, II of Herndon, Virginia entered guilty pleas to a federal weapons charge as well as a local terrorism charge and a charge of assault with intent to kill, according to news reports.

The Washington Post reports that, according to the plea agreement Corkins signed, he told FBI agents on the day of the shooting that he “intended to kill as many people as possible” and planned to “smother Chick-fil-A sandwiches in their faces.”

Investigators found additional magazines and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack on the day of the shooting.

Following the guilty plea the FRC issued a statement placing a large portion of the blame for the shooting at the feet of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, which had listed FRC as a hate group. FRC noted that prosecutors discovered Corkins identified his targets on the SPLC’s website.

“The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarter and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a ‘hate group,’” FRC president Tony Perkins said in a statement, which went on to demand that SPLC stop attacking organizations that have a different opinion on gay rights.

The shooting happened shortly after Chick-fil-A made headlines over the company president’s disagreement with gay marriage.

Why does anyone think that people on the secular left are tolerant?

Related posts

Oregon bar owner forced to pay $400,000 for offending transsexuals

Young, unmarried women celebrate gay pride
Young, unmarried women celebrate gay pride

The transsexuals were hurting his business, so he asked them to please stop, or he would go out of business. But instead, they complained to the government.

The Daily Caller has the story.


An Oregon bar has been ordered by a judge to pay $400,000 for telling a group of transgender customers not to come back to the bar because people were starting to think it was a “tranny bar.”

The Oregon Court of Appeals stood by a ruling Wednesday that Chris Penner, owner of the Portland bar Twilight Room Annex, had illegally discriminated against the transgender customers, Oregon Live reports.

The transgender customers were part of a group called the Rose City T-girls who went to the bar regularly on Friday nights. Penner called them and left messages asking them to stop coming.

“People are not coming in because they just don’t want to be there on a Friday night now,” Penner said in a message. “In the beginning sales were doing fine, but they’ve been on a steady decrease so I have to look at what the problem is, what the reason is and take care of it.”

An Oregon judge found that Penner had violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which bans discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.

Now he has to cough up $400,000.

Two points to make about this. First, note that Oregon is one of the liberal states in this map where such things are happening:

States with non-discrimination laws
States with non-discrimination laws

These are the states where all the problems are happening with sexual minorities going to the government to compel celebration from businesses. Business owners are having to pay big fines, and/or go to jail. The judges and human rights commissions in these states are siding with the plaintiffs, and against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and now even freedom of association.

And the Democrats want to push this up to the federal level, so that businesses can be sued in all 50 states. If they had a majority in the House, that’s exactly what they would do.

What’s interesting about this story is that now it’s not just religious people who are going to get impacted by these changes. It’s not just the florists, the bakers, the wedding photographers, the bed-and-breakfast owners. Now it’s bars. And the objection is not religious liberty or conscience. And that’s not surprising… if you looked up north to Canada, it started with the religious people, and then pretty soon bar owners, fitness club owners and other secular business owners were impacted, too.

Should you marry a woman who is pro-choice, pro-divorce or pro-gay-marriage?

Young, unmarried women celebrate gay pride
Young women celebrate gay pride: do they understand marriage? are they safe to marry?

Let’s take a closer look at what these three views mean for you as a future husband.


Let’s start by talking about sex, because you can’t have an abortion without sex. So, the right way to view sex is that it’s something that should be confined to marriage. Sex is so non-trivial that it should only be done after a couple has committed to each other for life. Feelings of being “in love” cannot ground sex, because feelings come and go, but marriage is for life.  The function that sex provides in a married home is that it relieves stress, affirms the unity of the marriage, and communicates love to the man in particular. Sex is not to be used before marriage as a way of getting what you want without having to promise to love the other person for a lifetime, no matter what.

Again, it’s not how you feel about the other person that matters, because feelings change. What matters is whether you are willing to make that commitment to take responsibility for another person’s needs, regardless of how you feel. Sex makes sense in a relationship where both people have promised to do that. And both people should have some kind of track record at doing that in their past, since accepting responsibilities, expectations and obligations is not something that just gets turned on and off by a wedding.

When a woman says that she is pro-choice, what she means is that sex is something completely different than what I just described. A pro-choice woman thinks it should be OK for a woman to have pre-marital sex for recreation – outside of the boundaries of a lifelong, exclusive commitment to marry. Since people don’t usually have pre-marital sex when they are sober, this is probably going to mean drinking a lot to break down her judgment, and to give her a way of getting out of the responsibility and feelings of guilt – “that wasn’t me, it was the alcohol that I freely chose to drink”. Premarital sex is about a woman choosing a man apart from his ability to commit to performing the roles of husband and father for her. She is not giving sex to a man who committed to her, she’s giving sex to a man who is hot and fun and will give her thrills and tingles and will make her friends so envious.

So what happens when this recreational sex results in a pregnancy? A pro-choice woman believes that it’s OK to murder another innocent human being in order to escape the normal, natural consequences of her own choices. Is this view of sex as recreational and commitment-free compatible with the needs and goals of a marriage-minded man?

Not only is this recreational, me-first, fun and thrills view of sex not compatible with marriage, but it’s not compatible with having children either. A woman who thinks that murdering an innocent child is an acceptable way to insulate herself from obligations and responsibilities is not a good woman to marry. A pro-choice woman will not be able to handle the needs of  a child, because she thinks that her happiness comes above self-sacrificial service to others.


The first redefinition of marriage before gay marriage was the enactment of no-fault divorce, which allows one spouse (the woman, 70% of the time) to exit the marriage for any reason, or no reason at all. These no-fault divorce laws were pushed through by two groups on the left: feminists and trial lawyers. They both stood to gain from no-fault divorce. Trial lawyers stood to make a ton of money from the divorce trials. Feminists objected to the traditional marital roles: sole male provider and stay-at-home wife and mother. By making it easier to divorce, they basically encouraged women to not think through who they were choosing to marry, since they could easily get out of it now. A woman who can get out of a marriage easily does not think rationally about whether the man can perform the traditional male roles. It enables her to reject her father’s guidance and just marry based on her feelings – the man’s appearance, peer-approval, cultural standards of what men ought to be, etc. No-fault divorce is like winning the lottery for a woman: she gets alimony AND child support.

If a woman supports no-fault divorce, it means that she does not want to be roped into responsibilities, expectations and obligations that require self-denial, self-control and self-sacrifice. Women who support no-fault divorce typically have the view that life is too unpredictable to logically connect causes and effects. They think that the most reliable way to choose a man is through their feelings, not by measuring his abilities against objective criteria like the traditional set of {provider, protector, moral leader, spiritual leader}. What this means for you is that if their feelings change, then they will divorce you. A woman who thinks that her feelings can predict whether an enterprise like marriage is likely to succeed or fail is a divorce risk. She will rely on her feelings to motivate her to perform in the marriage, and will expect you to make her feel like doing her jobs. You can’t get involved with that. Your job as a man is to protect, provide, and lead on moral and spiritual issues, not to make her do her job by making sure she always feels like doing it.

What if a woman says she opposes divorce – can she still be a divorce risk? Yes. If she has an overriding desire to be happy in other areas of her life that is so strong that it causes her to avoid hard things. If she studies easy subjects, prefers easy jobs, spends more on vacations than investments, etc. Avoid women who prioritize thrill-seeking behavior, like going out, getting drunk, hooking up, or doing pointless, expensive activities like sky-diving, zip-lining or surfing. They are not going to be content with married life, because they don’t value the end result of a good marriage over their own desire to be free of constraints and to have happy feelings. Whatever duties they have in the marriage will never get done, because they are not used to committing to do hard things, and then doing them, regardless of how they feel. Prefer women with a history of doing the right thing, even if they don’t feel like it.


What does it mean to be in favor of removing the requirement for two complementary genders in marriage? Well, what it means is that there is no design to marriage such that the male and female nature need to balance each other out. Same-sex relationships tend to exhibit characteristics that not favorable for the needs of children, e.g. – higher rates of domestic violence, non-monogamy, etc. I don’t think it’s a good idea to redefine marriage in a way that undermines the norms of natural marriage, e.g. – pre-marital chastity, exclusivity, permanence, and focusing on stability for the sake of the children. If your candidate thinks that raising children without a father or without a mother is “marriage”, they don’t understand marriage.

Any children who are raised by a same-sex couple will be automatically deprived of either their biological mother, their biological father, or both. Biological parents are naturally going to have an additional interest in the child, since the child contains their genetic material. And of course children do better when they are raised in a stable home. Anyone one can see that children of divorce do worse without their father. And orphans who go without a mother during their childhood – especially the first 5 years – do much worse than children raised by stay-at-home moms. So, either way, same-sex unions impose a lot of stress and strain on kids.

So should should marry a woman who thinks that it is OK to put the needs of selfish adults over the needs of vulnerable children? The answer is no. Any woman who puts the needs of selfish adults over the needs of innocent, vulnerable children is certainly not going to treat YOU well as a man. You are much less adorable and cute than any child. You’re big and hairy, and most women think you can take care of yourself. So naturally, a woman who thinks that children shouldn’t get their needs met is certainly going to think that you shouldn’t get your needs met, either. You want a woman who is prepared to put aside her own selfishness desires for the sake of the children. She has to believe in adults sacrificing their own desires for the sake of the children. Otherwise, not only will your children suffer, but you will as well.


So we have seen 3 character traits in women that marriage-minded men should avoid. I just want to tell you that I have seen all 3 of these beliefs in women who claimed to be Christians. You cannot take the words “I am pro-life” to be a sign that she is really pro-life. You have to go deeper, and look for an understanding of the logic of the pro-life case, and pro-life activism. You cannot take the words “I oppose divorce” as a sign that she really opposes no-fault divorce. If her life is focused on pursuing pleasure by relying on her emotions, and then breaking promises and dismissing obligations that don’t feel good, then she is a divorce waiting to happen. You cannot take the words “I oppose same-sex marriage” as proof that she opposes same-sex marriage. If her view of relationships is that adults should do what they want, and the kids just have to adjust, then the risk that she will put herself above the children’s needs – and your needs – is there, regardless of what she says.

Watch out for women who say that their emotions are “God speaking to them”. That is a huge red flag, especially if their past shows evidence of poor decision making, e.g. – debt, abortion, unemployment,  drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, etc. You are looking for a past that shows long-term commitment that overrides feelings. This is not something that can be decided by will or emotions, it has to be a habit cultivated over a lifetime.