California Bill Stirs Concerns That Christian Schools Could Be Banned From Living Out Convictions

Biola School of Theology-compressedSACRAMENTO, Calif. — Concerns are being expressed over a California bill that some believe could ban Christian universities from living out their faith in regard to homosexuality and transgenderism, and potentially other issues as well.

S.B. 1146 was introduced in February by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, to close what Lara called a “loophole” in current federal and state law, including the religious exemption allowed under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance,” Title IX reads in part.

Although the law has been most known as being applied to discrimination against women and in situations related to girls who desire to participate in sports programs, the Department of Education recently told various schools that it interprets Title IX to also apply to transgender students. Faith-based schools are allowed to request an exemption if the “application of the law would conflict with specific tenets of the religion.”

Christian identifying schools have increasingly requested the exemption because of the Obama administration’s view of the meaning of Title IX, and last month, the U.S. Department of Education released a list of colleges and universities that have requested exemptions. Six of those schools are in California.

California law also contains a provision in its non-discrimination law that exempts “an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”

Now, Sen. Lara wants to close what he views as a “loophole” in federal and state law by requiring all faith-based schools that request an exemption to provide prospective students and staff notification on the school’s policies on homosexuality and transgenderism.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Each postsecondary educational institution in this state that claims an exemption pursuant to Section 901(a)(3) of the federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 … shall disclose to current and prospective students, faculty members, and employees the basis for claiming the exemption,” his proposed bill reads in part.

The only exemption would be in relation to programs that “prepare students to become ministers of the religion … to enter upon some other vocation of the religion … or to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion.”

“California has established strong protections for the LGBTQ community and private universities should not be able to use faith as an excuse to discriminate and avoid complying with state laws. No university should have a license to discriminate,” Lara said in a statement.

But the bill has also drawn concerns from those who believe that the bill’s intention is to force faith-based schools to violate their convictions on homosexuality and transgenderism, and that only schools that train pastors will be left with any protections.

“The effect of the amendment would be to redefine religious liberty so as to make a clear distinction between institutions that integrate religious faith and public vocation and those that focus only on parochial training,” explained Samuel James of the Southern Baptist Convention in a recent post on the matter.

“Conceivably, supporters of the bill are fine with the idea of students receiving a religious education that teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that sexual expressions outside this category are morally problematic—as long as this education is clearly not intended to go beyond the walls of a church service or a seminary lecture hall,” he stated. “Pastors and polemicists, yes. Business managers and brain surgeons, not so much.”

James opined that the concept could carry over into other sins as well.

“[T]his isn’t just about sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s about the right to take seriously a narrative of human nature that disagrees with the progressive consensus,” he said. “Forget same-sex marriage. Why should the California legislature suffer any school that forbids premarital and extramarital sex to exist? Why should any school be allowed to tell an adulterous husband that he is morally disqualified from ministry? Why should any institution of higher learning be allowed to lecture on the permanence and indissolubility of marriage to a student who has fallen in love with someone else?”

“Thus, Christian education itself unravels,” James stated. “Conservatives have warned for some time now of a serious attempt by sexual revolutionaries to make religious belief synonymous with religious worship; ergo, the private ritual of religion is what’s protected by ‘free exercise,’ not the living out of such beliefs in the public square.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    No American must be ordered around by a Sodomic state. Slavery will never get abolished if USA starts persecuting moral people for not-supporting sexual depravity. The world does not have human rights or equality or liberty apart from the Holy Bible.

    • TheBottomline4This

      Good point about slavery.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Thank you. American Christians must retain religious liberty, so that the world would not be pitch dark. So many nations depend on you.

    • james blue

      You do know that the religious schools are still allowed to discriminate and not accept people who do not live by the tenets of the schools religious foundation? The only change is they have to state that they do. They could forego taxpayer funding and not have to state any policy they wish.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Religious schools have rights to hold correct doctrines. It is so unfair secular governments only uphold atheism over all religions and beliefs. US government should pay for religious schools entirely like they do for atheistic public schools. The Western nations should acknowledge the Christians like they do the First Nations. Atheists always corrupt what the Christians made excellently and then persecute the Christians; it’s the pattern since the time of Cain.

        • james blue

          And those rights to hold those doctrines are not being changed, the only thing this bill would change is that the school has to openly declare them to receive government funding.

          Why should private religious schools be fully funded by the US government? Do you apply this all private schools? Do you apply this to all religious schools? Should the US government fully fund an Islamic school?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, ALL private schools. It is downright unfair that the government only supports the atheists and Sodomites fully.

          • james blue

            Should government be able to set standards for this funding?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christian parents should pay for Christian education only the same amount any parents pay for public school education. Otherwise, it is unfair.

          • james blue

            There is nothing stopping Christian parents sending their kids to public school. If they want to send their kid to a private school, sans scholarship they pay for it themselves.

            Should people without kids still have to pay for schools?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Public schools indoctrinate children with blasphemy and immorality. The price should be the same for all schools. Yes, everyone must pay for schools like tax because all children are the treasure and future of the nation.

          • Guest

            Grace, just so you know – james blue is gizmo23’s new identity. Same guy, same trolling methods.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you. It’s been so sad to see any Westerners disrespecting the religion of Christianity. As the result of the disrespect, they even hate sane morality. It seems Americans are repeating the folly of the Germans of the first half of last century. The Western civilization is so meaningless apart from Christianity.

  • TheBottomline4This

    The Trans and Homosexual Agendas march on.

    • Theodore Fenton

      Yes, the struggle for freedom and equality continues.

      • TheBottomline4This

        There is no struggle other than the one of their own making.

  • bowie1

    Naturally the state can discriminate against Christian Schools so it seems.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Actually, it’s kinda discriminating FOR them. See, Title IX is a law and, as such, should ostensibly be followed by all citizens of the United States.

      And here, the government is saying “Okay, you get to be exempt from the law”; an exemption option granted not to all people but a specific class of people. Religious conscience here is elevated over secular conscience; people cannot simply say “No, I don’t want to do this” and opt out; they must have a religious reason.

      Furthermore, tax money drawn from citizens of the United States will still actively go towards these schools, regardless of exemptions. Meaning that people who are actively discriminated against by these schools, and who will never be able to either access their services or their employment, are forced to fund them anyway.

      So, really… Nah. The United States government is strongly funding discriminating BY Christian schools, rather than working against it. It’s carved out exemptions so they can discriminate under the law while actively funding that discrimination.

  • Slidellman4life

    Well, Lara is an anti-Christian moron. Simple as that.

    By now everyone knows the Obama DOE cannot unilaterally alter US Code with the threat of withholding funds. It’s why Obama and Co. are being sued by several states.

    If this bill is passed I would hope someone in Cali would have the courage to sue the State of California for such an anti-Christian, unconstitutional bleep move.

  • Theodore Fenton

    “… live out their faith …”

    Religiouspeak for “legally discriminate.”

    • TheBottomline4This

      Truth is not discrimination. Can it not be shared in the best way, sure, but that can happen no matter the topic.

    • Slidellman4life

      Excuse me, but if one wishes to attend a Christian college or university you should be expected to be a Christian. That means LGBTQW members are excluded. If you do not like that, you get over it and try to get into another institute of higher learning.

      • Theodore Fenton

        There’s plenty of gay Christians.

        • TheBottomline4This

          If they’re truly Christians, they will turn away from it, since it is sin and an abomination.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Nothing sinful or abominable about sexual orientation.

          • TheBottomline4This

            God and the Bible say otherwise. If they repent and turn away, then they will be in Heaven, if not, they will end up in Hell sadly.
            “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such WERE some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9

          • Theodore Fenton

            No, the Bible NEVER says all homosexuals will go to hell. That is a myth based primarily on the NIV mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 plus the modern Christian mis-interpretation of Revelation 22:15.

            Those are the most often used verses to teach that homosexuals will go to hell. Fortunately for saved homosexuals and unfortunately for those who use those verses against us, the verses do not teach or imply that homosexuals will go to hell.

            Every homosexual – gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people – will go to heaven IF they trust Jesus Christ as their Savior from sin and hell and the wrath of God.

            I Cor 6:9 and Rev 22:15 describe pagan worshipers of the fertility goddess, not born again gay men or lesbian women or bisexuals or transsexuals.

            Teaching that homosexuals will go to hell based on 1 Corinthians 6:9 occurs because many Christians misunderstand the Greek word, arsenokoitai.

            “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai),” 1 Cor 6:9, KJV

            “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai)” 1 Cor 6:9, NIV

            Because the NIV did such a lousy job and mistranslated the Greek word, arsenokoitai, many people concluded that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

            If the NIV translators had bothered to study instead of just going by what the Greek lexicons say, the gay community could have avoided a lot of pain and heartache.

            Arsenokoitai has never been a reference to a lesbian couple or a gay male couple. Instead, in the first century, arsenokoitai referred to shrine prostitution or rape or having sex with angels. That is the behavior Paul described when he used the Greek word, arsenokoitai.

            — from Gay Christian 101

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are dead wrong gay one. What I said is right. The Truth hurts and the sooner you learn the Truth and accept it, the better off you’ll be. You are living in sin. Repent Theo.

          • Theodore Fenton

            I offer you truth. You reject it.

          • TheBottomline4This

            What I said is right. The Truth hurts and the sooner you learn the Truth and accept it, the better off you’ll be. You are living in sin.

          • Theodore Fenton

            I have a dream.

          • TheBottomline4This

            We know Theo…we know. Keep it out of the bedroom on here Theo. Sheesh.

          • Amos Moses

            No……….. you would have to first know the truth ……. and you constantly demonstrate you do not …………..

          • Slidellman4life

            What a bunch of bull. Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, and the NIV is garbage to begin with.

            The idea the Bible does not speak negatively about homosexuality comes straight out of the pits of hell, signed and sealed by Satan himself. Get wise and get away.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Their sin blinds them.

          • Amos Moses

            Baloney ………….

            New International Version
            Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

            New Living Translation
            Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

            English Standard Version
            Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

            Berean Study Bible
            Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to nor perform homosexual acts,

            Berean Literal Bible
            Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

            New American Standard Bible
            Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

            King James Bible
            Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

            Holman Christian Standard Bible
            Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or anyone practicing homosexuality,

            International Standard Version
            You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

            NET Bible
            Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

            Aramaic Bible in Plain English
            Or do you not know that evil men do not inherit The Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; no fornicators, neither worshipers of idols, neither adulterers, neither sexual molesters, neither males lying down with males,

            GOD’S WORD® Translation
            Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,

            New American Standard 1977
            Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

            Jubilee Bible 2000
            Know ye not that the unjust shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals

            King James 2000 Bible
            Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

          • Amos Moses

            You REALLY should not make assertions so EASILY refuted …….

            G733

            arsenokoite¯s
            ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace
            From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: – abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

          • axelbeingcivil

            That word doesn’t actually have any translation. Its literal translation is “man bed” (arsen, man; koite, bed). It’s found precisely nowhere else in Greek, and it wasn’t the Greek word used for homosexuals. If Paul had intended to mean homosexuals, why not just say it?

            Even in the early Church, you get Patriarchs of Constantinople talking about “any man [performing] arsenokoitia upon [their] wife”.

            Seriously, this is a topic that’s been debated since the very earliest days of the Church. Just as malakos is often translated as effeminate but has a literal meaning of “squishy”. You can’t just carte blanche declare a meaning on these terms. They require interpretation of context.

          • Amos Moses

            “Its literal translation is “man bed” (arsen, man; koite, bed).”

            The root of the word ………… is NOT the word ………….. and it is in the Greek ………. Just as there are numerous new words invented everyday ………… ESPECIALLY by postmodernists … The early church knew very well what was being said ………….. it ALWAYS has …….. and to argue contrary to what church history has taught is denial of that fact …… it is Sophistry and Casuistry ………… nothing more …………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Except the early Church had penances listed for a man committing “arsenkoitai” with his wife, which would be kinda impossible if it was homosexual behaviour…

          • Amos Moses

            Except ……………. there would not be a penance IF IT WAS NOT A SIN ……………. and it makes no difference who commits the sin ……………. it is still sin …………….. married, “married”, or not ……………… and it still does not make it, nor has ever been anything, but homosexuality and depravity ……….. the word now used as slang for a homosexual ……….. the “f” word ….. comes from the church …………… it referred to an heretic ……………. which if you are a homosexual …………. you are ……………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            You’re missing the point: A man can’t be homosexual with his wife. Therefore, arsenkoitai wasn’t taken to refer to homosexuality by many of the early patriarchs.

            Whether they considered whatever it was a sin or not is not the point; the point is that there’s no evidence they were talking about homosexuals.

          • Amos Moses

            “Therefore, arsenkoitai wasn’t taken to refer to homosexuality by many of the early patriarchs.”

            No, you miss the point ………….. SIN IS SIN …………. “orientation” or any other factor is not germane ………….. if it is two men ….. which is the far more common use and understanding ………. or anyone else ………………. it is still sin …………………..

          • axelbeingcivil

            If the Bible never calls it a sin, why assume it’s a sin?

          • Amos Moses

            The bible DOES call it sin …………. thats why ………….

          • Amos Moses

            Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1

            Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”

            1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

            Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

            Jude
            1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
            1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
            1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
            1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
            1:8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Leviticus refers to temple prostitution, as does Deuteronomy. The Hebrew specifically uses the word qadesh, which means temple prostitute. That’s also why the prohibitions supposedly against homosexuality come right smack dab next to religious prohibitions about sacrificing to other gods, rather in the earlier list of sexual prohibitions.

            I just went over why Corinthians isn’t likely talking about it; that arsenkoitai is a portmanteau word and not the one used at the time for homosexuality, and that early Church interpretations clearly suggest a non-homosexual meaning.

            Romans is also most likely talking about temple prostitution, since, again, it comes right after an angry description of forsaking the image of God for the image of animals.

            Jude doesn’t talk about homosexuality either. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were cruelty and injustice; that’s why God came to destroy it. Moreover, Lot recognized God and the angels on sight for what they were, which suggests they weren’t exactly in human form. Unless you’re suggesting God and the angels took the shapes of human males, I don’t think anything they did counts as homosexual…

            Seriously, stop relying on modern English translations and go back to the sources. Read the context surrounding them.

          • Amos Moses

            It says what it says ……….. you can use all the Sophistry and Casuistry that you may choose ……. your argument is with God/Christ ……… not me or any other christian …… good luck with that ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            It’s called actually studying and analyzing the texts in the language and times they were written. Unless you believe the Israelites and first century Greeks spoke flawless modern English?

          • Amos Moses

            No………… it is called twisting the text to a desired end ……….. and it is Sophistry and Casuistry …………………… and your only argument is that everyone through history did not understand the Greek and Hebrew …………….. until now ………….. It is anachronistic arrogance and chronological snobbery …………………… Where we happen to think that we is the smartest generation to ever be since the foundation of the everything and there aint been nobody who has ever been smarter than us ………….. WRONG ………….

          • axelbeingcivil

            Yes, Amos, of course, my pointing out that people who led the Church 1600 years ago disagreed with the interpretations of people today is chronological snobbery. Apparently John the Faster was a time traveller and not a native Greek speaker who understood his own language intimately.

            I mean, certainly, I could point out that Jewish historians have no records of the Israelites ever prosecuting anyone for homosexuality, only idolatry, but what’s a few millennia of history mean? It’s all twisting of texts that only happens today, never in history.

            Good grief, man. I try my very best to avoid sarcasm, but you’re outright ignoring me pointing to foundational patriarchs of the Church itself disagreeing with you. This isn’t me pointing to modern examples: This is me pointing to people alive at the time.

            If you’re going to be that willfully ignorant, I don’t know what hope there is of reasoning with you.

          • Amos Moses

            All but forgotten today, the Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower.

            Mary I was Queen of England and Ireland from 1553 until her death in 1558. Her executions of Protestants caused her opponents to give her the sobriquet “Bloody Mary.” It was her persecution that caused the Marian Exile which drove 800 English scholars to the European continent, where a number of them gathered in Geneva, Switzerland. There a team of scholars led by William Whittingham, and assisted by Miles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, John Knox, and Thomas Sampson, produced The Geneva Bible, based on Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and a revision of William Tyndale’s New Testament, which first appeared in 1526. The Geneva Bible New Testament was published in 1557, with the complete Bible appearing in 1560.

            9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers,

            Lingua Britannica Reformata: Or, A New English Dictionary, by Benjamin Martin, London, 1799: BUGGERY, sodomy, or sin against nature, as one man having copulation with another; or a man or woman with brute beast.

          • Scott Davenport

            Wow….Satan really has his hands wrapped around your brain, I’m afraid. Being a homo is the most unnatural act in nature, and it serves absolutely no positive purpose. It’s actually quite destructive. Now, if you find some good in any of that you seriously have something out of kilter in your noggin’…..

          • Ronald Carter

            “Satan” LOL

          • mwmog

            There are no gay Christians. For you to make comments, twisting scripture to make it sound that homosexuality is okay is blasphemous.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Arsenokoitai has many potential meanings, which no-one actually seems able to agree upon. Even in the early days of the Church, it was basically a big unknown. You get references by Alexandrian Patriarchs about men committing “arsenokoitai” with their wives, which… Kinda hard to do if it’s homosexuality, right?

            You’re doin’ good work sharing this. I don’t know if you’ll convince anyone here, but keep on the good fight.

          • Amos Moses

            It is not a christian that embraces sin ………… and it is sin ……… if you are “oriented” to murder ……… does that make it any less a sin ……… No …..

          • Theodore Fenton

            Murder is against the law. And to save you some time, so is pedophelia.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Do you obey EVERY law???

          • Theodore Fenton

            Yes, I do. My superior court judge would be very disappointed in me if I didn’t.

          • TheBottomline4This

            So going by what you said, you have never went over the speed limit…at all???

          • Theodore Fenton

            Nope. And by your answer, I take it that you have. Shame on you. Not very Christian of you.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Given the other bull you spout, I don’t believe you on the speed limit.

          • Theodore Fenton

            In that case, you obviously lack a built-in moral compass. Maybe it’s a good thing you follow the Bible. It’s probably the only thing keeping you out of prison.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Your gay self is so full of it.

          • Amos Moses

            And so was homosexuality ………….. in EVERY one of the states ………….. and your argument is pointless as it is STILL against Gods law …………..

          • Theodore Fenton

            So was interracial opposite-sex marriage.

          • TheBottomline4This

            All skin colors are beautiful. Nothing wrong with inter-racial marriages.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Yeah, that pesky hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it?

          • TheBottomline4This

            I’ve always thought that silly.

          • Theodore Fenton

            You’re a little slow today, aren’t you?

          • TheBottomline4This

            No, that would be you abominable one.

          • Slidellman4life

            Mason’s Second Law. Try again.

          • Amos Moses

            And again …………… a racist comment …………. as you are trying to equate race with DEPRAVITY …………

          • Bob Johnson

            I lived in the 1960’s, interracial sex was depravity to the South.

          • Amos Moses

            And unbiblical …………. so whatever you want to argue ………… it still does not make homosexuality anything but depravity ………….. and the comment is still RACIST ………

          • Theodore Fenton

            Do you never grow weary of playing the “racist” card?

          • Amos Moses

            You play it all the time ……….. i just point out that you are using it ………. you are called and raised …….. and you hold no cards but the racist card ………… you lose …….

          • Theodore Fenton

            Not surprisingly, you still fail to grasp the difference between race and the behavior of race-mixing.

          • Amos Moses

            Not surprising ……….. you still fail to recognize that race is not a choice and which hole a person chooses to gratify themselves is ………… and the twain DOES NOT meet ……. and while there is NOTHING in scripture to prevent “race-mixing” or that it rises to sin…… there is ABUNDANT scripture for not doing what homosexuals do …………..

        • Amos Moses

          Contradiction in terms ………….. oxymoronic …………

          • Theodore Fenton

            Yeah, and a Christian is never a Christian … after he’s caught.

          • TheBottomline4This

            That’s probably correct. Josh Duggar comes to mind, given his pattern and choices.

          • Theodore Fenton

            He’s “saved,” so he’ll be in heaven with you.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I don’t think he’s saved. Some may disagree with me, but I don’t think he is according to the Bible. He can be saved, but that’s his choice.

          • Theodore Fenton

            You don’t think, period.

          • TheBottomline4This

            In your dreams.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Did I mention I have a dream?

          • Slidellman4life

            Josh Duggar? What the hell does he have to do with anything? Get back on topic, please.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Shut up. I had a reason to bring it up.

          • Theodore Fenton

            You’re awfully rude for a Christian. Wait … what am I saying?

          • TheBottomline4This

            You have another wrong idea…that Christians are perfect, It just goes to show that you really don’t know much about the topic. Only that it rubs your homosexual self wrong.

          • Theodore Fenton

            Christianity is a good thing. Its followers, however, have redefined it to mean something awful.

          • TheBottomline4This

            It just goes to show that you really don’t know much about the topic. Only that it rubs your homosexual self wrong.

          • Theodore Fenton

            “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

            So, be quiet.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I didn’t say I was a woman.

          • Theodore Fenton

            You did just the other day. Should we now add lying to your growing list of sins?

          • Slidellman4life

            I actually agree with that statement.

          • Amos Moses

            So you admit you are not a christian …………… thnx …………

      • Becky

        I agree. Unfortunately, they don’t have any intentions of getting over it. The homosexual activist groups have deliberately planned to infiltrate and saturate any/all opposition…much like terrorists.

    • Becky

      Said the blind who follows the blind. The only discrimination taking place is against Christianity.

  • Michael C

    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    This bill does not prohibit religious schools from discriminating against transgender students, faculty, and staff. Religious schools are still free to apply for, receive, and utilize a federal Title IX exemption. Religious schools are still free to discriminate against transgender men and women.

    This bill just prohibits the school from hiding the fact that they intend on discriminating against transgender students, faculty, and staff.

    Why would a religious school want to hide the fact that they intend on discriminating against transgender students, faculty, and staff?

    • TheBottomline4This

      Truth is not discrimination. Can it not be shared in the best way, sure, but that can happen no matter the topic.

      • Michael C

        Sure, whatever. However you want to say it.

        Religious schools in California would still be free to refuse admittance or expel transgender students if this bill were to pass.

        Religious schools in California would still be free to refuse to hire or even fire transgender faculty and staff if this bill were to pass.

        The only thing that would change is that the school would be required to publicly acknowledge their intent to do these things.

        Why would any religious school object to this?

        • Slidellman4life

          Because adding transgender to Title IX without congressional approval is 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Michael. Don’t you know anything about the Constitution? Schoolhouse Rock explained it in a way children can understand, Michael.

          • Michael C

            That’s an entirely different subject (not the topic of this article) and it is unrelated to this proposed law.

          • Slidellman4life

            That’s flat BS, Michael. You know better than to say that.

          • Ronald Carter

            I think he’s quite correct to say it.

          • james blue

            Doesn’t transgender come under the heading “sex”?

            Regardless are you saying that the objection wouldn’t be there if congress has specifically added TG?

          • Slidellman4life

            Doesn’t transgender come under the heading “sex”?

            No.

          • james blue

            What does it come under then? Race perhaps?

            Regardless are you saying that the objection wouldn’t be there if congress has specifically added TG?

          • Slidellman4life

            It comes under mental illness (i.e. “gender dysphoria” in the DSM).

          • james blue

            Still deals with gender does it not? Whether you accept the gender they identify as or not it’s still gender.

            Regardless are you saying that the objection wouldn’t be there if congress has specifically added TG?

          • Slidellman4life

            Not the point though, is it?

          • james blue

            How so? You claimed TG isn’t covered by title IX because congress didn’t add it.

            “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

            I’ve made a case as to why TG whether you accept the gender they identify as or not still comes under sex/gender. So how is it “not the point”

          • Slidellman4life

            Not the point because the Obama Administration felt it necessary to expand the meaning and coverage of Title IX to include transgendered people.

            How in the world do you keep missing the obvious?

          • james blue

            It shouldn’t have needed expanding to begin with as TG is already encompassed in the term gender/sex, but this bill corrects what you are complaining about does it not?

          • Slidellman4life

            It shouldn’t have needed expanding to begin with as TG is already encompassed in the term gender/sex

            According to whom?

          • james blue

            according to the definition of the words “gender” and “sex”

          • Slidellman4life

            According to your definition. There have never been more than two genders. If one wishes to expand, they need to be specific.

          • Ronald Carter

            It might be time to admit that Michael C has a better understanding of these things than you do, Matthew.

          • Slidellman4life

            It’s time for you to go bye bye, Ronald, or whatever your name is.

          • Ronald Carter

            What a shame you have absolutely no control over that.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Even if that were true, this bill has nothing to do with that. Transgender students aren’t mentioned ANYWHERE in this bill. It exists solely to clarify when and how religious exemptions apply and how they must be reported.

            Moreover, Title IX hasn’t been altered in any way. Determining transgender students are covered by Title IX’s text as-is was done by the Department of Education, something that is actually allowed BY Title IX itself. Section 1682 includes a guarantee that federal departments and agencies may issue orders of general applicability. This section also includes a power by the President to do the same (a power which was devolved by executive order to the various Attorneys General of the United States, but which is still ultimately retained authoritatively by the President).

            If you’re confused about any of this, go and actually read Title IX yourself and the Department of Education’s OCR’s letter on the subject; explaining why they extended the applicability of Title IX to transgender individuals due to the significant occurrence of sexual violence against them within educational institutions. This is something Title IX expressly empowers them to act to prevent, since the sex of transgender individuals (and their unwillingness to conform to the gender associated with that sex) is the reason for the discrimination against them.

    • Theodore Fenton

      Most likely the same reason so-called Christian-owned businesses refrain from posting signage that reads “We Do Not Cater to Same-Sex Weddings.” The more people offended, the less money you take in.

    • Slidellman4life

      The bill says if a religious-affiliated institution of higher learning wants an exemption from Title IX, you have to publicly disclose to any and all (even new hires) this exemption and why they wanted it. Further, this information also needs to be made available to a government entity for publication on a website. If they don’t, they could be subject to losing state funding.

      This is ridiculous and absurd, not to mention the fact it makes such institutions vulnerable to harassment, which is probably the motivation behind this bill anyway.

      Secondly, nobody is being discriminated against. Period.

      • Jeremy

        But if the schools are committed to those values, why not publicize them? If they’re taking a moral stand, they should be proud to do it publicly.

        Also, doesn’t Title IX only apply to institutions that recieve some sort of federal funds (financial aid, etc.)? So if an institution doesn’t want to be subject to Title IX,they can simply refuse all federal funds. It would cost them money, but if the issue is that important to them, money shouldn’t be the deciding factor.

        • Slidellman4life

          But if the schools are committed to those values, why not publicize them? If they’re taking a moral stand, they should be proud to do it publicly.

          You do not seem to be reading the comments before posting. If you had, you would not be asking this question, as it has already been answered.

          Let me break all this down for you:

          A Christian college or university may actually want their students to be a (gasp!) Christian before they can be allowed admission.

          President Barack Obama and the Department of Education decided to make changes to Title IX, a section of the US Code that addresses gender and athletics, to include a still documented mental illness (as per the DSM) under threat of loss of federal funding. However, this was done without the involvement of the United States Congress, and as per the United States Constitution (see: Separation of Powers), such actions are illegal.

          This bill reflects this illegal change to federal law, in that it says if a Christian college or university wants an exemption from it, they have to tell everybody and their brother about the exemption and why, including a governmental entity which will put it on a website, or they could lose their state funding.

          This is, of course, also illegal, but given the current state of politics in California, where people who are not citizens of this country are now allowed to vote, this is likely to be passed and signed anyway.

          Why shouldn’t these schools cooperate? Because, not only is such a bill illegal, once again, but it would also make the schools vulnerable to harassment for committing the unpardonable sin of wanting only Christians in Christian schools. Which is undoubtedly the motivation and intent.

          • james blue

            Then self fund.

          • Slidellman4life

            Or tell the government to go to hell and be prepared to sue if the bill passes.

            Nice to know you are all for illegal acts as long as it benefits your end of the sociopolitical spectrum.

          • james blue

            If the bill passes and becomes law it wouldn’t be illegal. You could challenge the constitutionality of it if you wish.

            What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” is mine?.

          • Slidellman4life

            If the bill passes and becomes law it wouldn’t be illegal.

            Your ignorance of the Constitution is nothing short of astounding.

            What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” is mine?.

            The wrong one, obviously.

          • james blue

            A bill is debated, voted on, then if passed signed into law or vetoed. After that any law can be challenged on constitutional grounds, What part am I missing?

            What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” is the “wrong one?

          • Slidellman4life

            A bill is debated, voted on, then if passed signed into law or vetoed. After that any law can be challenged on constitutional grounds, What part am I missing?

            The part that any law that goes against the US Constitution’s language and intent is unconstitutional and illegal, as per Marbury v. Madison. We do not need to wait around for a man in a black robe to tell us.

            What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” is the “wrong one?

            Yours.

          • james blue

            What if the man in a black robes says it is constitutional?

            Apparently you don’t know What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” I belong to yet seem comfortable to condemn it in joyful ignorance.

          • Slidellman4life

            What if the man in a black robes says it is constitutional?

            Then his ruling is unconstitutional. Marbury v Madison.

            Apparently you don’t know What “end of the sociopolitical spectrum” I belong to yet seem comfortable to condemn it in joyful ignorance.

            Darn, Daniel, you are a super genius!

          • james blue

            So who gets to decide on the constitutionality of laws?

            Are you a socialist?

          • Slidellman4life

            So who gets to decide on the constitutionality of laws?

            It is supposed to be the job of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States), but they have also often usurped the legislative powers of Congress, so their authority has become questionable as they no longer abide by their constitutionally bound duties.

            Are you a socialist?

            Why do you hate socialists?

          • james blue

            But you’ve argued the courts should overturn legislature passed laws.Do you have an example of where the courts usurped legislative power?

            Who said I hate socialists, I simply asked if you are one, so are you?

          • Slidellman4life

            But you’ve argued the courts should overturn legislature passed laws.Do you have an example of where the courts usurped legislative power?

            Everson v. Board of Education.

            Who said I hate socialists, I simply asked if you are one, so are you?

            Why are you placing me in that camp unless you hate it? If that was not your intent you would not have mentioned it.

          • james blue

            Isn’t that a case of overruling an unconstitutional law? Oh right, it’s only unconstitutional if you don’t like it.

            I haven put you in any camp, I asked if you are one. See that’s the difference between finding out before you convict.

          • Slidellman4life

            Everything you have told me so far tells me you know absolutely squat about the Constitution. How about you actually read it, then come back.

          • james blue

            I did read it.

          • Slidellman4life

            Then you are either breathtakingly stupid or an extremely poor liar. Which is it?

          • james blue

            Hmm…. Two options which offer no possible correct answer. Is this a demonstration of the limits to your critical thinking skills?

          • Slidellman4life

            On the contrary: It’s a question that requires you to be honest. Is this an indication of your unwillingness to be?

          • Jeremy

            So the schools want to be stealth Christian, and recruit students and staff without informing them of requirements?

          • Slidellman4life

            I think you just went full retard.

      • Michael C

        This bill would require religious schools to make their enrollment and employment policies known to prospective students and employees before these people shell out tons of money in tuition or accept a job offering?

        Again, why is this a bad thing?

        Why would a religious school object to this?

      • axelbeingcivil

        Discrimination definition drawn from the dictionary:

        “treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit”

        So, yeah. If your hiring policy says “We can’t hire you because of your religion/sexual orientation, regardless of qualification”, you are discriminating.

        • Slidellman4life

          So are you saying Christian schools should abandon their faith and allow LGBTQW students and faculty?

          • axelbeingcivil

            That isn’t what I said at all. I said it’s dictionary definition discrimination. If you feel that makes you uncomfortable enough to ask me tangential questions, maybe take some time to consider why you feel that way?

          • Slidellman4life

            That isn’t what I said at all.

            Considering the subject matter of this article, and your backhanded accusation of Christian schools discriminating against the LGBTQW crowd, I would suggest you are not exactly being honest.

          • axelbeingcivil

            I wasn’t being backhanded. I was forthright. I said it was the dictionary definition of discrimibation. It is an anti-discrimination law that they are trying to circumvent. They are discriminating.

            I made no further judgement and applied no moral accusation. I didn’t say if it was good or bad. I didn’t say what they should or shouldn’t do.

            All I did was point to the dictionary. If pointing out a definition feels like an attack to you, I don’t know what to say.

          • Slidellman4life

            I wasn’t being backhanded. I was forthright. I said it was the dictionary definition of discrimibation. It is an anti-discrimination law that they are trying to circumvent. They are discriminating.

            Then you can answer my question: Are you saying Christian schools should abandon their faith and allow LGBTQW students and faculty?

          • axelbeingcivil

            Was that what I said? I don’t think that’s what I said.

            If you want me to discuss the issue of religious schools and public funds, I certainly can, but I haven’t said word one about it in this thread thus far.

          • Slidellman4life

            Quit playing games. I asked you a straightforward, point blank, yes or no question. Is this what you believe?

          • axelbeingcivil

            You’re not asking one question. You’re asking two. You’re asking whether they should abandon their faith, and whether they should be required to allow LGBTQ students and faculty at their schools.

            On the topic of the former, I personally disagree with them but no law should ever compel anyone to change their conscience. It’s one of the most fundamental rights and necessities that there can ever be. So should they be required to abandon their faith? Absolutely not.

            Should they be required to allow LGBTQ students and faculty? Trickier question. This one is tied into larger questions about separation of church and state, about private ownership, and about where public businesses and public interest intersect.

            If this were a purely private business, receiving no government funds or money, I might be inclined to say that they are a private company serving a specific need. To that end, they can implement whatever hiring codes they see as necessary to fulfill that need. As far as student intake goes, they’re like any business and can reject customers who do not maintain certain standards of behaviour.

            But these aren’t private businesses. They’re receiving state funding. That funding means they have certain obligations to the state. I’d say any government has, by dint of taking taxes, an obligation to be fair and equal in its treatment of all its citizens, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, gender, orientation, or even nation of origin (provided they’re now a naturalized citizen). If a state is providing funding for something, it has to be nominally in the interests of its citizens AND fair to its citizens.

            For this reason, the state should be forbidden from funding groups that actively discriminate against its citizens for reasons not related to the purpose involved. For example, the state should not do business with companies with hiring policies discriminating based on race, regardless of whatever religious beliefs might lead to that discriminatory policy.

            So should these schools have to be neutral towards LGBTQ staff and students? If they want to receive government funding, yes. Personally, I don’t think any institution that exists to promote a specific belief system should receive government funding but… Whole ‘nother kettle of fish, that is.

            That doesn’t mean they can’t have these beliefs, though, or that a purely private institution can’t hold them and discriminate more freely.

          • Slidellman4life

            No. I was asking one. Three times. You have refused to answer because you know that would make you have to defend the indefensible, if you were honest with yourself (though not others).

            I have neither time nor tolerance for this crap.

            I’m done with you. Bye.

          • axelbeingcivil

            So, just ignoring all I said that explores and answers the question, eh?

      • Andi Smith

        Students have been expelled for revealing their sexual identity, for being raped, or have been forced to leave because they are transgender and were not allowed to live in the dorm of their gender identity. How is this not discrimination? What the bill does, is allow any follower of any religion in the LGBTQ community to know if a religious institution will expel them for a part of their identity. Yes, when you go to a religious institution, you have to expect certain aspects of that religion but every institution approaches religion different. I know many LGBTQ community members that go to religious institutions where they are not discriminated against. They got lucky, that is not the case for everyone.

        • Slidellman4life

          We know what the bill does. Lara said what it does, and it’s to force Christian schools to accept LGBTQW students and faculty. And as I said, it is 100% unconstitutional, and should be challenged immediately after Moonbeam signs it.

    • michael louwe

      This is similar to Hitler n the Nazis ordering Jews in the ghettos to wear identifying armbands or yellow stars, in order to be singled out for “special” persecution.
      IOW, Christian schools/colleges r being persecuted by the power-crazy liberal Blue States who hv been pandering for the LGBTQ-vote.

      • Michael C

        So, you’re saying that Christian American religious schools refusing to give an education to transgender students is just like the Holocaust.

        …but it’s actually more like incinerating Christians.

        That’s a really interesting analogy.

        • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

          Vice is not a right and no law that conflicts with God’s Law is valid.

          • Theodore Fenton

            This is certainly true in Muslim-dominated countries, but not in the U.S.

          • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

            The U.S. is wrong, the Puritans were right.

    • meamsane

      You are wrong and I would like to correct the record.

      These schools in California have no problem with the disclosure provisions in this bill. But this bill would specifically restrict the religious exemption that is current under the California Education code to schools that only teach theology and vocational ministry.

      About 50 schools in California teach not only theology and vocational ministry but other subjects not directly related to theology and ministry. This is what the schools object to, and for good reason.

      • axelbeingcivil

        That’s not true at all.

        Section 66271 of the California Education code – the chief element which this bill rewrites – applies (and only applies) to a “program or activity”. It doesn’t apply to entire institutions carte blanche. In other words, if your institution has public prayers, for example, this is an activity that would count as protected under the current law but you’re not exempt from sections not covered by your religion.

        This bill doesn’t change that. It applies the exemption to programs or activities still, and applies to any educational religious organization, regardless of type. The only difference is that it specifies the types of programs or activities that the organization can discriminate in. That is, preparation to become ministers or enter a religious vocation, OR to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion. Public prayers, prayer groups, mission work, whatever; that’s all still very much allowed.

        So, no, it doesn’t restrict what groups this applies to at all.

        • meamsane

          It is true. And I stand by it!

          • axelbeingcivil

            You’re standing on thin air, mate. The bill itself is linked in the actual article.

            Sections 66270 and 66271 as they currently exist in the California Education code:

            66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls students who receive state student financial aid.

            66271. This chapter shall not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

            And from the bill itself:

            SECTION 1. Section 66271 of the Education Code is amended to read:

            66271. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any of the following educational programs or activities offered by an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization:

            (1) Programs or activities to prepare students to become ministers of the religion.

            (2) Programs or activities to enter upon some other vocation of the religion.

            (3) Programs or activities to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion.

            Emphases in all of these, mine.

            The law is exceptionally clear: It applies to any school run by a religious organization, and covers any and all programs or activities to teach kids about that religion.

      • Michael C

        Ah, thank you for pointing this out. You seem to be a little correct. The state exemption would be narrowed to areas of religion based education. For example, a state funded private school would not be able to discriminate against a transgender student who was taking business courses but they would be permitted to discriminate against a transgender student taking religion related classes or seeking some sort of religion related degree.

        So, this means that state funded schools would only be permitted to discriminate against transgender people if it was actually in conflict with their religious beliefs, not just because they don’t like transgender people.

        And none of this affects the federal exemption or federal funding.

        Thank you for the clarification.

  • michael louwe

    In the 1st place, God condemns homosexuals n transgenders as abominations in His Bible. Why r the LGBTQs going to US Christian schools/colleges.? Likely bc they wanna benefit from Christian schools/colleges which r mostly better than public schools/colleges. And now the transgenders wanna impose their sinful lifestyle upon Christian schools thru their political patrons, the vote-pandering liberal Democrats.
    Looks like the LGBTQs r both greedy n selfish.

    This is what happens when Christian schools/colleges condone or approve the intake of LGBTQs n other unrepentant sinners/evildoers/law-breakers, ie a little leaven/yeast will leaven the whole bread of God.
    Now, we even hv a few gay Christian Churches, eg ECUSA, PCUSA, etc..

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    Leave California. Make room for the wrath of God.

  • axelbeingcivil

    I don’t get it. If you’re a religious institution, why is posting that you have a Title IX exemption a bad thing? Seems kinda common sense.

    • Theodore Fenton

      They love their religion, but they love money even more.

      • axelbeingcivil

        But they get both! They still get both! No-one is taking away federal or state funding here!

  • Tony

    FIRST i am a Christian !!! Second i see a lot of Clueless / unEducated HATE. The Transgender Brain development
    How does the M to F Transgender?
    Like the normal male embryo, the Male to female Transgender brain it starts out
    female Then between the 8th and the 24th weeks, the “XY” chromosomes introduce
    testosterone hormonal changes, BUT hormonal washes as faulty. They are either
    insufficient or ill timed. When this happens, the fetus develops a male body.
    However, some of the default (original) female brain processes to remain intact.
    Thus, the brain’s gender Identity remain intact. Thus,the brain gender Identity
    remains Female. This means that Transgender males whose process of a
    masculinization was incomplete, their default female brains still function.
    The degree of arrested development can very. The original brain circuitry that
    was missed in the Masculinizing process provides a continuing Feminine influence.
    this explains why many transgender, biological males know. from as early as the
    age of 3 years old that they are actually members of the opposite gender.
    You are born with this unlike Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual). Though they too have some of the same traits.
    Gender is not sexuality but, it may effect it.*This may help F to M trans people too..
    This may not be Proof but, it is an logical answer..The Trans info may help you understand
    anyone with gender issues.. its not a proven medical or Psychological answer but,
    it is very logical one…
    **I know this in my own life.***
    Ultimately everyone needs and deserves love and be who they are in their Gender or who they love. ***
    ***Trans-gender people are not the
    perverts and pedophiles like 80% of the unintelligent population thinks. There
    are more than 90% of so-called Heterosexual people baby rapist and adult rapist in the world than
    Trans-gender people. Trans-gender people are not all about sexual relationships
    with whom ever like the LGB. Acceptance of Gender NOT whom you have sex with are
    two and completely different things.
    They just want to use the restroom wash their hands
    and walk out.The True trans-gender want only 1 thing and that is to pee , then leave A.S.A.P.
    . The only thing Trans-ladies might to in the ladies room is to urinate and hand up, check
    makeup. and MAYBE look at the ladies shoes , clothing, make up and listen to the way the
    talk. THAT’S IT !! and NOT for rape of ANYONE Child or adult females. …

    __ You bring in the Bible and talk about Homosexuals OK that is a sin . Trans-people are Not
    the same as that. John 14:6King James Version (KJV)
    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
    the Father, but by me.
    *** Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,
    nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.***__
    I AM CREATED BY GOD > I am trans-gender and i am still a Christian.
    Judge not lest ye be judged. The Trans-gender people have been around
    since before Jesus was on earth. John 3:16 i am saved. Your Judgement
    on my is a Sin. Let those without sin cast the first stone ! _
    Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
    7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
    and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,
    but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    __

  • IzTheBiz

    You are all going insane over there in the good ol’ US of A, land of the use to be free! I identify as a goldfish and I feel discriminated against because I have to use public toilets.