Several families have filed a federal lawsuit against numerous Obama administration officials and the Virginia (Minnesota) School District for permitting a sexually confused boy to confront half-naked girls in their locker rooms. After the girls and their parents complained, the school suggested they use a private room, but the boy follows them there repeatedly and harasses them by raising his dress and otherwise exposing himself.
"No student should be forced to use private facilities at school, like locker rooms and restrooms, with students of the opposite sex. No government agency should hold hostage important education funding to advance an unlawful agenda."
Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF] is fighting a Virginia, Minnesota school district. The conservative group filed a lawsuit on the behalf of 11 families who want to stop the allowance of the opposite sex in their children’s locker rooms, Fox News reports. The lawsuit named Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Virginia School District #706, and Secretary of Education John King Jr. as defendants.
The lawsuit filed said that a transgender student, only identified as Student X, used the female locker rooms and restrooms and participated on girl athletic teams. The ADF said that Student X violated some girls by twerking in their presence, dancing to suggestive songs, and making jokes about a girl’s bra size.
According to the lawsuit, girls who were uncomfortable with Student X were told they could use another locker room. One student, called Plaintiff A, said that she was told she could change in an empty boy’s locker room but Student X followed her in there. Plaintiff A said there was nowhere to go for privacy.
The ADF lawsuit explains that the [federal] DOE and DOJ are unlawfully redefining the terms of Title IX, something that only Congress can alter, and are illegitimately forcing their political will on all public schools across the nation. As the lawsuit points out, no federal law requires schools to allow boys into girls’ locker rooms or girls into boys’ locker rooms, and other courts have rejected the agencies’ interpretation to the contrary. The lawsuit also explains that the DOE did not comply with key provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted its rules.
The complaint explains some of the real concerns of students and parents, such as when a biologically male student who identifies as a female—and who is allowed to enter the girls’ locker room under the district’s policy—went on to dance in the locker room “in a sexually explicit manner—‘twerking,’ ‘grinding’ and dancing like he was on a ‘stripper pole’ to songs with explicit lyrics, including ‘Milkshake’ by Kelis. On another occasion, a female student saw the male student lift his dress to reveal his underwear while ‘grinding’ to the music.”
"What these girls are asking for is something that for all of American history has been the common-sense presumption, that you have facilities for girls, facilities for boys and any student that is uncomfortable with that — including the transgender student at the heart of this case, (who) they're not uncompassionate to — they would think the best thing would be for this student to have the option to use the ... restroom of (the student's) biological sex or to make one of the single-stall restrooms available for (the student) to use," said Matt Sharp, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal advocacy nonprofit group.
The lawsuit seeks to have the district's policy and the federal guidance declared unlawful, and a permanent injunction issued against both. It also seeks "an award of nominal damages in the amount of one dollar, and compensatory damages" for each plaintiff, along with legal fees.
Virginia Superintendent Noel Schmidt declined to comment Thursday, and the school district's attorney, John Colosimo, couldn't be reached for comment.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State plans to sue the Berkeley County School District based in Moncks Corner, South Carolina because the Board has voted to ignore the atheists' threats and continue a years-long practice of opening board meetings with the Lord's Prayer.
“We’re Americans, aren’t we? Looking back at where our nation began we cannot, cannot as a nation forget we have a God and all that we do we must acknowledge that. Let’s continue to do the right thing … there’s nothing wrong with public prayer as long as we do it in accordance with the law.” -- Julius Barnes, board member
The Post and Courier of Charleston reports the school board gave initial approval Tuesday after dropping the use of the prayer earlier this year. The board has been using a moment of silence instead.
State Sen. Larry Grooms sent the board a letter signed by 50 state lawmakers citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right to pray at public meetings. Gov. Nikki Haley last month signed a state law allowing school boards the right to open meetings with prayer.
Despite receiving a letter the day before its meeting saying prayer at school board meetings violates the U.S. Constitution, Berkeley County School District’s school board has unanimously voted for the first of two readings on a policy that would bring prayer back to the beginning of its meetings.
The policy states:
“The public invocation will be non-sectarian and non-denominational, and will not proselytize for or advance any one or disparage any other, faith or belief. The public invocation is for the benefit of the Board, but no member of the Board, or any other person, attending, the meeting, will be required to participate in the public invocation. The public invocation will be offered on a voluntary basis by a member of the Board selected by the Board Chair or his/her designee.”
During the Aug. 9 meeting, the board members lauded the new policy.
In July, state Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Charleston, sent a letter to board members — signed by 50 legislators — citing a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway, which reaffirmed the right to pray at public meetings. Additionally on June 3, Gov. Nikki Haley signed an amendment to the Public Prayer and Invocation Act that includes a school board as being as a “deliberative body” with the right to open meetings with an invocation.
“I appreciate everyone’s hard work on working through this policy in light of the threats we’ve gotten,” said board member Mac McQuillin, a lawyer.
“It took courage for us to do this motion and I’m proud.”
Elmore County School Superintendent, Dr. Andre Harrison, was quick to agree with a lone atheist that it's unconstitutional for the Holtville High School Marching Band in Deatsville, Alabama to play "Amazing Grace," but after his ban on the hymn caused a citizen revolt, Harrison was told by school counsel that it's OK to play Christian music at football games.
"I was reminded that, as a public school, we simply cannot endorse a religious message in our activities. I completely understand the frustration of some of our parents, but we have an obligation to follow the law, even when we don't want to." -- Superintendent Andre Harrison's initial statement
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Dr. Andre' Harrison said that the same person who complained to the district about the song also called the school's central office twice to say that the playing of "Amazing Grace" was unconstitutional.
"After word of my decision circulated, I heard from many concerned parents, and frankly I still had reservations about my initial decision. I asked counsel to do further research on this issue and present me with options that would keep the district in legal compliance, but permit performance of one of the most iconic songs in the history of our nation," Harrison said today.
In a statement to the Elmore & Autauga News, the Elmore County Board of Education said legal counsel recommended that the religious-themed song be pulled from the band's repertoire following the complaint.
"Our Constitution prohibits us from promoting religion in our educational programs and activities," the statement read, in part. "While we understand the feelings of the parents who are unhappy about the decision, we have an obligation to comply with the law."
Superintendent Dr. Andre' Harrison also issued this statement to the website: "When the question was raised about the band playing Amazing Grace, a song we all grew up singing, my first reaction was this is a message that should be celebrated. But, after consulting with legal counsel, I was reminded that, as a public school, we simply cannot endorse a religious message in our activities. I completely understand the frustration of some of our parents, but we have an obligation to follow the law, even when we don't want to."
School officials didn't say who issued the complaint, but it appeared to have come by telephone.
Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, have sued the city of Phoenix in Maricopa County (Arizona) Court over a new "gay rights" ordinance that restricts their freedom of religion to operate their calligraphy business, which includes wedding invitations, according to their Christian conscience (e.g.: marriage is the union of one man and one woman).
“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with jail for disagreeing with the government. The government must allow artists the freedom to make personal decisions about what art they will create and what art they won’t create.” -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
For background, click headlines below to read how "gay rights," including same-sex "marriage," are inherently anti-Christian:
Lawyers for Brush & Nib, a calligraphy studio run by two Christian women who sell hand paintings and calligraphy for weddings and events, filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the Phoenix LGBT non-discrimination ordinance. The city’s ordinance prohibits businesses from refusing service based on sexual orientation. The lawsuit claims this could be used to punish Brush & Nib by forcing them to service a same-sex ceremony, thus violating the owners’ consciences and religious freedoms. The business argues that since calligraphy is art, it should be considered free speech that cannot be censored or compelled by government.
“The Phoenix non-discrimination ordinance protects fundamental civil rights for everyone, and we will defend it aggressively,” Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton [who voted for the ordinance] said in a statement.
The lawsuit could reignite a fiery debate about the intersection of constitutional freedoms and Phoenix's ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Opponents want the city's law overturned to allow business owners to deny service to LGBT people if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Duka and Koski directed a request for comment to their attorneys. Their representatives at the Alliance Defending Freedom said the plaintiffs cannot comment because they worry they could be violating the city's ordinance if they explain their desire not to do work for same-sex weddings.
Duka and Koski's lawsuit asks the court to declare the city's ordinance unconstitutional under the Arizona Constitution's Free Speech Clause and Religious Toleration Clause, among other areas of the law, so they and other artists can create art that "reflects their beliefs, not the government's."
The city ordinance says service cannot be denied due to sexual orientation. Violations are punishable by up to a $2,500 fine, six months in jail and three years probation for each day of violation. It also prevents businesses from displaying information about why they will refuse such service.
"Joanna and Breanna believe Jesus commanded Christians to love their neighbors no matter who they are, what they believe, or what they do," the complaint states. "To love their customers, Joanna and Breanna believe they must be upfront and honest with their customers and respectful toward their customers and their customers' time."
They say in the 86-page lawsuit that they do not object to selling artwork to customers of any background, except for same-sex marriages, because it violates their religious beliefs.
The City Council adopted the anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 to stop discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents by privately owned businesses.
[ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco said,] “Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean she is required to express all viewpoints. It’s unjust, unnecessary, and unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence.”
The lawsuit is known in legal circles as a “pre-enforcement challenge,” a lawsuit that allows citizens to challenge a law—in this case, a law that threatens First Amendment freedoms—before the government enforces it against them. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood routinely file such lawsuits against laws they oppose.
“Phoenix has already investigated another business for declining to promote a same-sex wedding ceremony for religious reasons and issued a formal report saying [the ordinance] requires businesses like Brush & Nib—those that create expression—to promote same-sex wedding ceremonies if they promote opposite-sex wedding ceremonies,” the ADF complaint explains.
“We simply value art too much to let Phoenix invade the artistic process as if Phoenix were regulating widgets…,” the ADF brief contends. “And make no mistake. Phoenix is playing favorites. It allows artists to speak and create in favor of same-sex marriage yet threatens to incarcerate artists if they speak or create only for opposite-sex marriage. We should all be concerned when the government tries to eradicate a particular idea by silencing adherents and forcing dissenters to profess orthodoxy. When the government manipulates the artistic marketplace and commandeers artists’ minds to squelch an idea, no idea is safe. Everyone eventually loses.”
They say they just want to go to the bathroom and take a shower in private!
Parents and students who formed North Carolinians for Privacy have filed a lawsuit in the Raleigh, North Carolina Federal Court to stop President Obama from using billions of taxpayer dollars to hold them hostage to his Gay/Transgender Agenda that demands men be permitted to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms.
"The [U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education] must stop using falsehoods about what federal law requires to threaten student access to educational opportunities and financial assistance." -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
The suit accuses the U.S. Department of Justice and Education of holding federal education money hostage.
The group, North Carolinians for Privacy, argues that federal law does not forbid sex-specific restrooms and that the federal government is bullying North Carolina by threatening to cut federal funding.
The issue of whether transgender people deserve the same federal protections extended to blacks and religious minorities is already before courts in North Carolina.
The Justice Department sued the state on Monday, asking a federal district court to rule that North Carolina was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act [Title IX] and order it to stop enforcing [the state's new HB2 that provides privacy in restrooms].
North Carolina stands to lose $4.8 billion in funds, mainly educational grants, if it does not back down, according to an analysis by lawyers at the University of California, Los Angeles Law School.
As far as the plaintiffs [North Carolinians for Privacy] are concerned, the defendant departments [of education and justice] are making student aid and other educational funding contingent on students sharing restrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite sex.
They claim the DOJ and education department have overstepped their authority in redefining sex and gender under Title IX, and that students' constitutional right to privacy would be violated if the state or the University of North Carolina were to bow to federal demands that transgender students be afforded full access to bathrooms that do not comport with the gender identified on their birth certificates.
The group is represented by Jeremy Tedesco, James Campbell, Kristen Waggoner, Joseph LaRue, and Jonathan Caleb Dalton of the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Arizona, David Cortman and J. Matthew Sharp of the Alliance's Lawrenceville, Georgia chapter, and by Deborah Dewart of the Liberty, Life and Law Foundation of Swansboro, North Carolina.
Attorneys representing 73 parents and 63 students in suburban Chicago filed a lawsuit this week against the Obama Administration and the largest high school district in Illinois for colluding to invade the privacy of students in the girls restrooms and locker rooms using new unlawful "transgender rights" edicts.
“It’s important to recognize that there’s a lagging legal framework in the face of rapidly changing social norms. Our understanding of gender identity is changing, and the law hasn’t kept up.” -- Francisco Negrón, National School Boards Association General Counsel "No school should impose a policy like this against the will of so many parents.” -- Vicki Wilson, Illinois parent and co-founder of Students and Parents for Privacy (lead plaintiff) “Allowing boys into girls’ locker rooms, a setting where girls are often partially or fully unclothed, is a blatant violation of student privacy. The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies, and the court should order the Department of Education to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.” -- Jeremy Tedesco, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom “To impose such a rule on still-developing teenage girls, as they’re already struggling with puberty’s changes on their bodies and social pressures to look a certain way, undermines their dignity and tells them that their rights don’t matter. This isn’t a message our schools should be sending to our girls.” -- Jocelyn Floyd, Attorney, Thomas More Society
Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom and Thomas More Society, two conservative groups, filed the 77-page suit Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of 51 families with links to Palatine-based Township High School District 211. It names the district and the U.S. Department of Education as defendants.
The battle for access to girls' facilities at William Fremd High School by the transgender student — who was born male but identifies as female — helped spark a national debate last year that has since spread to other districts.
The [new transgender] policy, [the lawsuit] says, causes other girls fear and embarrassment. It adds: They are "afraid they will have to see a male in a state of undress," which, for some, is a "distraction throughout the school day." One girl's anxiety led her to wear gym clothes under her street clothes so she can peel just the outer clothes off in the locker.
A group of Illinois students and parents sued the Obama administration Wednesday over its stance on transgender students’ access to school bathrooms and locker rooms, arguing that the U.S. Education Department is illegally forcing local authorities to let children use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.
The complaint alleges that the federal government has violated students’ fundamental right to privacy and parents’ constitutional right to instill moral standards and values in their children.
The lawsuit represents the first legal challenge to the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, a federal anti-discrimination law, as providing transgender students with the right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity instead of their biological sex.
Palatine officials — facing the loss of $6 million in federal funding — ultimately decided to allow a transgender student to change in the girls locker room instead of sending her down the hall to a separate facility.
Students and Parents for Privacy and three female students sued the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education John King, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Cook County, Ill., and the directors of Township High School District 211 in Illinois Federal Court on Wednesday.
"This is a civil rights action to stop the Department of Education and Township High School District 211 from continuing to trample students' privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights by forcing 14- to 17-year-old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males; and to set aside DOE's ultra vires legislative rule redefining 'sex' in Title IX to include gender identity," the 83-page complaint begins.
"This creates an intimidating and hostile environment for the girl members of Students and Parents for Privacy, some of whom are as young as 14, because Student A - who is biologically a male - actively uses their private facilities at the same times as plaintiffs," the complaint states. "As a direct result of defendants' policies and actions, every day these girls go to school, they experience embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation, and loss of dignity because they will have to use the locker room and restroom with a biological male."
The District 211 transgender student, who has not been identified publicly, initially filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights alleging that the district discriminated against [Student A] when it denied [him] access to the girls locker room. The district had previously allowed the student to use the girls restroom.
In an unprecedented decision, federal education authorities found that the district had violated Title IX. The district risked losing millions of federal dollars and a possible lawsuit by the federal government if it failed to reach a resolution. In a controversial decision, the district agreed in December to allow the student locker room access and installed privacy stalls. Proponents of the settlement heralded it as a civil rights victory.
The religious liberty group Thomas More Society also is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks to keep the district from enforcing the locker room agreement and restroom policy and to bar the Department of Education from taking action against the district. The plaintiffs also argue in the suit that the locker room agreement prevents students from practicing the modesty that their faith requires of them.
The lawsuit, Students and Parents for Privacy v. United States Department of Education, seeks an injunction against District 211. Headquartered in Palatine, it serves nearly 12,500 students from Palatine, Hoffman Estates, Inverness, Schaumburg and parts of seven other northwest suburbs in five high schools and two alternative high schools.
It also asks the court to declare the policy and the district’s agreement with the Department of Education unconstitutional and illegal under both federal and Illinois law, and to have the court invalidate the department’s interpretation of Title IX’s sex discrimination provisions.
District 211 Supt. Dan Cates said Wednesday that the district affirms and supports the identity of all its students and will stand by the highly publicized agreement it reached last December with the department’s Office for Civil Rights. . . .
“We have implemented the agreement without any reports of incident or issue,” Cates said. “Our students have shown acceptance, support and respect of each other. Individual changing stalls in our locker rooms are readily available to every student and further accommodations that provide even greater privacy remain available upon request.”
The divisive and politically combustible issue of bathroom access for transgender individuals is about to become further inflamed, as the Obama administration is expected in coming weeks to aggressively reinforce its position that transgender student rights are fully protected under federal law, sources told POLITICO.
With the Justice Department already locking horns with North Carolina over the state’s so-called bathroom bill, the administration plans to reaffirm its view that robust protections for transgender students are within the existing scope of Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities. Multiple agencies are expected to be involved.
New guidance on Title IX represents a natural outgrowth of the administration’s aggressive agenda on gender equity and civil rights. In April 2014, guidance issued by the Education Department on sexual violence explicitly mentioned that transgender students are protected under Title IX. LGBT advocates saw it as an important moment for the transgender community, but have wanted the administration to go even further in clarifying the law.
The Vader City Council in Washington state voted on Thursday to eliminate the invocation at public meetings. As the local newspaper reported, they "voted to ban the practice of performing a Christian prayer." Only Mayor Ken Smith spoke in favor of the invocations, but both he and Councilor Joe Schey, who said he believes public prayer is constitutionally protected, quickly yielded their position.
No one in the community of several hundred people bothered to comment.
Councilor Judi Costello was the first to speak out about the practice of invocation, stating her belief that conducting a prayer at the beginning of city council meetings represented a violation of the necessary separation of church and state.
Councilor Jason Dailey also disapproved of the invocations due to issues arising from the constitutionally prescribed separation of religion and government.
Councilor Andy Wilson noted that he was also against the practice, although he cited time constraints as the lone reason.
There were no comments from the crowd regarding the practice of meeting invocations.
This week, the Marion County Public Schools of Ocala, Florida enacted a policy in a direct challenge to President Obama's Department of Education heavy-handed edict that schools nationwide must allow men to use girl's restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
"My concern is that some pervert looking for the opportunity to dress up as a transgender and [prey on] innocent children and because of their perverted action scars [our] children for life." -- Parent testimony to school board
"There is no legal mandate requiring the district to override the privacy rights of students and concerns of parents, by permitting gender-confused (or attention-seeking) students to inappropriately use restrooms and facilities reserved for the opposite sex. No school district has ever lost federal funding for maintaining gender-appropriate facilities, despite the claims of activists." -- Roger K. Gannam, Liberty Counsel (offered to represent school board)
A north Florida school board has approved a measure to limit restrooms to students based on their birth sex, not their gender identity.
Board member Carol Ely says transgender students shouldn't get to choose which restroom to use, adding it's "reverse discrimination."
The district started allowing transgender students to choose their restroom two months ago. But a parent claimed his son's privacy rights were being violated because he's not comfortable sharing a restroom with a student who was born female but now identifies as male.
Roger Gannam, an attorney for the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, is representing the parent of the student who complained. He argued that there is no legal mandate requiring the district to permit transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.
The new rule takes effect immediately, and the decision brought cheers from the hundreds who gathered at Tuesday night's school board meeting.
The school board resolution says transgender students are not protected by law and that students expect not to see people of the opposite sex in the bathroom.
School board vice chairwoman, Kelly King, said that the alternative [private/uni-sex] bathrooms are a safe place for transgender students. King also said she too expects lawsuits if the board approves the restriction.
"We know either way, we are probably going to have some lawsuits. You know, lawsuits regardless," King said.
In a work session last week, four of the five board members voted to restrict school bathrooms to students based on their birth sex, not based on their gender identity. School Board Chairman Bobby James was the only dissenter and said he wanted to continue to treat transgender issues on a case-by-case basis.
The letter, written by ACLU of Florida LGBT rights staff attorney Daniel Tilley, warns that the policy would not only be harmful to students but would also "violate Title IX sex discrimination requirements, violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and jeopardize federal funding for the school district."
. . . Superintendent George Tomyn said the board should wait if they wanted this to be a rule, or policy, and that they were not following proper protocol. [Board member Nancy] Stacy said this was not a rule, but a resolution as a statement to the community. Stacy called for the vote and it passed 4-1.
The local issue began two months ago after the district started allowing transgender students to choose their bathroom, stating that the Office for Civil Rights has made it clear that transgender students have that right.
Two weeks ago, local veterinarian Hal Phillips appeared at a board work session and said his son's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Phillips said his son – who attends Vanguard High -- was not comfortable sharing a bathroom with a transgender student, who was born female but now identifies as being male.
The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of all students, “including bodily privacy in the context of restrooms and locker rooms,” according to board attorney Steven Lake, who shared a PowerPoint about prior court cases at a recent work session.
[Attorney Roger] Gannam, wrote that “students with gender confusion who truly believes he or she is the opposite sex should be treated with care, compassion, and kindness, but must not be officially affirmed in his or her confusion, no matter how sincerely-held.”
Conservative legal group Liberty Counsel represented the parent, Harrell “Hal” Phillips and his son, who the organization described as “devout Christians who believe strongly in both biblical modesty and constitutional privacy.”
Phillips’s son was “extremely upset” that a transgender student was using the boys’ bathroom, the group wrote. “This was a place where he has a reasonable expectation that he will not encounter the opposite sex. This deeply violated his religious beliefs of personal modesty and his constitutional rights to privacy.”
According to the measure, single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms designated for girls are restricted to people “who are biological females.” The same goes for facilities designated for boys and people “who are biological males.”
Students who want to use alternative facilities “shall always be offered comparable facilities, as required by law,” the measure states.
The measure also states that transgender individuals are “not a protected class” under the school district’s policies.
After 46 public comments, the board passed the resolution with a 4-1 vote. About 250 people cheered, sang Christian songs and waved banners that read, “God Belongs In My City.”
“The safety issue is the biggest,” said Carol Ely, the school board member for district 2. “Although nothing has happened yet, we’re going to see some things happening.”
Transgender students, former Marion County teachers, pastors, and concerned parents filled the meeting room, office, and parking lot of the school board’s building. Some wore Equality Florida stickers while most wore red stickers reading, “We Stand With God.”
“We cannot help that the Department of Education… is now working under an illegal, unadvertised rule,” said Nancy Stacy, school board member for District 1. “The Federal Department of Education doesn’t even have a right to constitutionally exist. I believe this rule is completely illegal.”
Christian students at East Wilkes High School in Ronda, North Carolina walked out to demonstrate God's disapproval of the Gay Agenda "Day of Silence" — when public schools across America indoctrinate students with deviant sexual behavior.
“If they can press up on the young people in our schools to be quiet and be silenced for a whole day of school, surely to God, we as God’s people can lift up our voices to an almighty God.” -- Rev. Curtis Ponder, Maple Springs Baptist Church, Ronda, NC
“We’ve got slammed for hating on homosexuals and that’s not true, God loves everyone. We think homosexuality is wrong, which in our beliefs, it is. But, it’s not the people, it’s the lifestyle.” -- Ben Calloway, freshman
About 100 people joined in, on the outskirts of the East Wilkes High School campus in Ronda, including students from the school.
“A gang of youth that walked out of class, walked out of school, to show their support and to show their love of their God,” said Curtis Ponder, pastor of the Maple Springs Baptist Church in Ronda.
The discussion and prayer continued for about 15 minutes, with Ponder saying that was the amount of time allotted to the students by East Wilkes Principal Jodi Weatherman.
“My heart and my intentions of being here today is not controversial, it’s not a show of anything mean, anything lewd,” Ponder said.
Parents at Windmere Ranch Middle School in San Ramon, California [a suburb of San Francisco], have launched an online petition against the school's LGBT acceptance week, which is scheduled to begin Monday, April 11.
The petition adds that the parents "are not against the LGBTQ" but there are a number of concerns with the acceptance week that have not been addressed.
The petition further explains that the parents want to be assured that the lessons being taught during LGBT acceptance week will not include "condemnation for differing religious values or practices."
The parents fear that the school will use LGBT acceptance week as an outlet to indoctrinate their children.
Despite state-wide and national pressure by threatening homosexualists, the Franklin County (Tennessee) School Board stood firm this week and voted just shy of unanimity to require parental approval of any student admittance to extracurricular clubs, which is likely to terminate the newly-created Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) club.
"For my children, myself and what I truly believe is the majority of residents in Franklin County, I will not be browbeaten, threatened or bullied into compromising my values or belief system." -- Chris Guess, school board member
Critics have called for clubs with religious or sexual intents to not be allowed at public schools, while supporters have said the club provides a safe place for people to be themselves that can only be provided in an extracurricular setting.
The new opt-in policy would likely require major efforts and paperwork to enforce the policy in the county, said Chris Sanders, the executive director of Tennessee Equality Project, which has been following the debate.
State law allows parents to opt their children out of extracurricular activities. The Franklin County rules would require a signed and dated form from a parent or guardian before the student could become a member of the club or organization.
The school board also approved a policy that would allow a school principal to revoke a club's status if the organization failed to "comply with board policy and administrative standards."
The controversy over the club has filled the past several School Board meetings.
[Board Member Chris] Guess said Monday the circumstances had become personally threatening toward him through emails he has received about the issue. He said his job status and livelihood were brought into question over his stance about requiring parents to opt their children into extracurricular clubs.
He said the Gay-Straight Alliance Club was founded over a concern about bullying, yet the tactics being used by supporters against those in opposition were, in essence, bullying.
Dr. Amie Lonas, the school system’s director, said working out the details to implement the change could take several months, but the new policy should be fully in place by July 1 when the school system’s new fiscal year begins.
At a school board meeting [in February], resident Robert Widelick took to the microphone and said he doubted the [GSA] agenda that he claims they're trying to impose on people who attend their meetings.
"There's really no place for discussion of sexual orientation in a public high school," Widelick said.
Dozens of supporters stood up, cheered and waved towels and signs after Widelick shared his opinion at the meeting.
Franklin County Schools Director Amie Lonas said the [GSA] organization, which was created to promote tolerance and acceptance, followed the proper procedure to establish the club. Students say it was really largely done in response to bullying. The group was granted approval to form by school officials in December.
. . . On social media, a page was created in mid-January to call for members of the Franklin County School Board to move the club off campus because of its controversial nature.
“Schools are for learning the basics we need to get a job after high school or get a secondary education,” said Chris Ball, a parent with children in Franklin County Schools. “We’re here to teach subjects, not to promote certain ways of life.”
Students had been trying to form a [LGBT advocacy] group for weeks, though it wasn’t until [faculty adviser Jennie] Turrell signed onto the group as a sponsor that the organizations finally gained momentum . . . Turrell said she’s received stacks of letters from supporters from states across the country that she’s been able to show students.
The Middle Tennessee chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network [GLSEN] also plans to have 20 people carpool to Winchester to attend the rally and meeting to support students in the club, said Justin Sweatman-Weaver, the Middle Tennessee chapter’s co-chair.
When a local atheist asked to lead prayer at Greene County (Tennessee) Commission monthly proceedings, Greene County Mayor David Crum declined to allow the farce so the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) began writing threatening letters to the county demanding the opening invocation be eliminated entirely from the government meetings.
"The response I got from the commissioners is they seem to be happy with the way we've been doing it during this process, so I don't plan to change. . . . I figure if somebody doesn't want to listen to somebody pray, they can ignore it." -- Mayor David Crum
Since his tenure as county mayor began in fall 2014, David Crum has asked local pastors from churches located throughout Greene County to provide the opening invocations.
[Greene County Attorney Roger] Woolsey issued a response to the FFRF's complaint. The response, dated Feb. 23, asserts that some of the information in the organization's initial contact is "incorrect." In it, Woolsey wrote that the atheist was "at no point" denied the opportunity to address the county commission, as the panel allots three minutes during the public hearing portion of each meeting for any citizen to "speak, pray or discuss any issue or issues that he/she desires."
"Your assertion 'if Greene County wants to continue hosting prayers it cannot discriminate against any person wishing to give an invocation' is totally incorrect," Woolsey wrote.
The county attorney responded that if one wishes to speak, pray, give an invocation or discuss his or her beliefs on an issue, that person must contact Crum's office 10 days prior to the county commission's meeting to be placed on the agenda.
U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California by ruling that the elected supervisors of Los Angeles County violated the U.S. Constitution by authorizing an accurate depiction of the San Gabriel Mission for the county seal — the historic mission has a cross on top.
"The court failed to see that the board corrected the inaccurate depiction of the San Gabriel Mission on the seal with an architecturally accurate version that featured a small cross - which of course the mission has. As any California fourth-grade student knows, the San Gabriel Mission is an important icon to the region and the birthplace of Los Angeles County." -- Michael Antonovich, County Supervisor
The ACLU alleged a Jan. 7, 2014, decision by the Board to restore the cross was unconstitutional because it “favors the Christian religion over all other religions and divides county residents by religion and by adherence or non-adherence to religious beliefs”, according to the complaint.
The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 in 2014 in favor of a motion introduced by Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe to add a cross to the top of the San Gabriel Mission on the county emblem, which is displayed on buildings, vehicles and official communications.
At the time, Antonovich and Knabe argued that restoring the cross is vital to the historical accuracy of the seal.
In her summary of the history of the case and the seal's controversy over the years, Snyder noted the back-and-forth that took place at several public meetings in 2004 after the ACLU threatened to file suit against the county.
The board voted 3-2 in favor of adopting the revised seal in 2004 [to remove the cross]. Changing the seal cost the county $700,000 to replace the image on county-owned and leased facilities and other property.
Antonovich and Supervisor Don Knabe proposed adding a cross to the 2004 redesign in 2009, when the Roman Catholic Church placed a cross on the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel 11 miles east of downtown LA. The two supervisors introduced a motion to add a cross to the depiction of the mission on the seal in December 2013.
In her order, Snyder found "that an 'informed and reasonable' observer who is 'familiar with the history of the government practice at issue' would perceive the county's addition of the cross to the 2004 seal to constitute approval or endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs."
. . . When the seal was redesigned in 2004, there was no cross on top of the mission, as it had gone missing during earthquake retrofitting. The cross was later restored atop the building.
In a 55-page ruling released Thursday, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder wrote that the addition of the cross ”carries with it an aura of prestige, authority, and approval. By singling out the cross for addition to the seal, the county necessarily lends its prestige and approval to a depiction of one faith’s sectarian imagery.
“The county also provides a platform for broadcasting that imagery on county buildings, vehicles, flags, and stationary.… Permitting such a change and the associated expenditure of public funds places the county’s power, prestige, and purse behind a single religion, Christianity, without making any such benefit available on an equal basis to those with secular objectives or alternative sectarian views."
But the two county supervisors who led the push to reinstate the cross criticized the judge’s decision, pointing out that other California municipalities – including Ventura and San Benito counties and the city of San Luis Obispo -- depict missions with crosses on their seal.
Immediately after Shelby Township Supervisor Rick Stathakis, a metro Detroit, Michigan politician, posted a prayer for the victims of the Brussels terrorist attack on his personal Facebook page, local atheists wrote that an American citizen who holds a public position has no right to pray in public, including online.
"Mighty God, Shine your radiance into every corner of this dark and fallen world. Send your angel armies into Brussels, and heal the land. Hear the prayers of those who call to you, calm them with Your peace, and soothe the souls of those who lost loved ones in this attack. Amen. . . . God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble." -- Rick Stathakis' initial Facebook post
"My position of Township Supervisor does not preclude me from expressing my Christian beliefs just as it would not preclude you from expressing your views if you were elected to office. I am not using my office or standing in the community to make everyone or even anyone Christian. I am simply offering support for the victims. My hope is that this is a conversation between adults, who are presumptively not susceptible to religious indoctrination, who may freely enter and leave the conversation without comment and for any number of reasons. . . . Through two successful campaigns for office I have never made a secret of my Christian faith and my love of prayer. My faith and prayer have helped me through many challenges during public service." -- Rick Stathakis' Facebook post responding to critics
His critics note that his Facebook page makes clear he is a government official, and they want him to keep God and prayer out of politics. Stathakis, who has stirred controversy in the past by having prayer before public meetings, isn’t budging, arguing there’s nothing unlawful or unethical about praying for terrorism victims.
So far, the post has gotten 148 likes, 12 shares and 30 comments -- the longest ones from a handful of critics who pounced on Stathakis for expressing his religious views.
“As a government official, it is unconstitutional for you to use your official position to promote the establishment of faith. It violates the most basic legal principles of the United States of America. In addition to being unconstitutional, it is highly offensive to your constituents. Please remove all religious references from government materials and keep your faith to yourself,” wrote one Facebook user, Rafael Saakyan.
Stathakis vowed to continue expressing his religious beliefs, and called his critics “misguided.”
“It’s my webpage. It’s my personal webpage,” Stathakis told WWJ’s Chrystal Knight. “And what’s really sad is it’s not about me, it’s about the people in Brussels. It was just a simple prayer asking God to be at their side, and all of a sudden now it’s become pointed at me.”
“I really don’t understand the uproar. I mean, it’s not the first prayer that I’ve had on my Facebook, it’s one of many,” he said. “And actually, we’ve been praying here in Shelby Township before all of our board meeting since I’ve been in office, November 2008.”
Despite all the negativity, Stathakis says he’s encouraged by the support he’s received and he feels those who oppose him are in the minority — and he plans to keep on praying.
“The First Amendment makes a very specific point to protect a private citizen’s freedom of speech. I am a private citizen as well,” he said. “My position as Shelby Township supervisor, I believe, does not preclude me from expressing my Christian beliefs.”
“As I state on my page, there is no secret in Shelby Township that I am an ardent Christian with a deep love of Christ and prayer,” Stathakis said. “Whether it is our invocation prior to each Shelby Township Board of Trustees meeting or our community’s role in founding the North Macomb National Day of Prayer observance, I will not shy away from expressing my Christian values, as they are as much a part of me as my love for the United States of America and Shelby Township.”
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law “respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Shelby Township Attorney Rob Huth [argues] that the prayer offered by Stathakis on his personal Facebook page “does not violate any provision of the Constitution.”
“(Stathakis) did not give up his right to pray for others just because he earned the title of supervisor,” Huth wrote in an email. “Frankly, as a Shelby Township resident I’ve enjoyed watching him stand up to those that don’t understand the law on this issue.”
