Mom Sues School for ‘Victimizing’ Her Son with LGBTQ Views

A British mom is suing her son’s school for indoctrinating students with pro-LGBTQ ideology without parental permission.
 
Izoduwa “Izzy” Montague, 35, accuses Heavers Farm Primary School in London of “the systematic proselytization of its young and vulnerable pupils” after children were forced to participate in the school’s LGBTQ “Proud to Me” event last summer. 

Montague is seeking a “five-figure sum” from the school. She has also filed a formal complaint to Damian Hinds, the Education Secretary for England and Wales. 

According to The Sunday Times, Montague and other parents were treated “dismissively” for opposing the pride celebration.

“We have to make sure parents are back in control of what happens to their children in the school system,” Montague told The Sunday Times. “I don’t think we wave them goodbye at the school gates and say ‘do what you like with them’.”

LGBTQ views being taught in schools

Montague’s legal representation, the UK’s Christian Legal Centre (CLC), informed LifeSiteNews that when she met with Susan Papas, the head teacher, she was confronted by Papas’ own daughter, who also teaches at the school, who was wearing an aggressively pro-LGBTQ t-shirt.

The t-shirt asked, “‘Why be racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic, when you can just be quiet?'”  

Days later, Montague received a letter from the school dismissing her complaint. The letter argued corporate pride events are acceptable so they are acceptable in school as well. 

On the same day, Montague’s five-year-old son was “for the first time in his life” given a detention for three hours, and he was punished again with another hour the following day. 

When Montague came to the school to discuss her son’s treatment, she was barred from the building.

“They (staff) deemed her to be uncooperative and hostile,” CLC’s Robert Kiska told LifeSiteNews.

“After I complained about my young child being forced to take place in an event that goes against our Christian beliefs, the school’s attitude towards me changed completely,” stated Montague. “I know other parents who are afraid to speak up because of how the school has treated me.”

“It was like being bullied,” she continued. “They stopped treating me like any other parent but were antagonistic towards me. I believe that they retaliated against me unreasonably by excluding me from the premises, victimizing my child and not taking my safeguarding concerns seriously.”

“I wasn’t even trying to stop the Pride event. I just wanted my child to receive an education, rather than indoctrination,” she added. 

 Children are read to by a cross dresser in an American library 

CLC states Heavers Farm Primary School is “forcing a very aggressive LGBT agenda onto children under 12 years of age in a manner which abuses parental rights and victimizes parents.”

The organization states many parents are scared to speak out because of the fear their children will be “further victimized and/or expelled.”

Since the incident, Montague and her husband, Shane, have removed their child from the school. 

Gospel Singer James Hall Sued His Gay Lover for Giving Him A STD

Social media has it that  gospel singer James Hall sued Bishop Jeffery Thomas over the Bishop claiming that the two were in a romantic relationship, which ended in the judge throwing out the case! Bishop Thomas is stating that the two men were lovers and that is the reason why he relocated from North Carolina to live with Hall in New York.

Hall unequivocally denies the claims stating that he was only helping the Bishop recover from an unnamed sickness.

Mr. Thomas has never expressed any purpose to his actions other than some imagined relationship he believes he has with me, and is nothing more than a disgruntled fan. – (James Hall)

If Bishop Thomas was only a fan, the question is has Mr. Hall ever allowed another fan to live with him? Stories have the two meeting at a church event in 2015. It was not too long after that Bishop gave up his ministry to be with Hall. Well, we do not want to insinuate anything but it sounds extremely suspicious, to say the least. However, the gospel singer is adamantly denying any type of romantic involvement. 

It is no secret that the gospel music industry has more than their fair share of homosexuals and bisexuals. Although for a myriad of reasons, there are many who hide their sexual orientation but there are just as many who are open. 

There are pictures in circulation on the internet with the two men being a little more affectionate than two heterosexual men would be with each other. There is a picture with the Bishop shirtless together with Mr. Hall in a onesie on a bed. There is another picture with the two having lips really close together puckering up to one another. That one picture reveals that there is something else more going on between the two than a platonic relationship.

However, for some reason, this whole scandal began when the Bishop started to post pictures of him and Hall together. He also alleges that Hall is romantically involved with another man, Pastor Kevin Bond, a former member of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church (Atlanta, Georgia) under Bishop Eddie Long.

Bishop Thomas was threatening to release sex tapes but the court has placed a gag order. By the way, Hall is trying to get a whopping $15 million for damages. 

 

Roman Catholic Priest Receives Standing Ovation After Announcing His Identification as Homosexual

MILWAUKEE, Wisc. — A Roman Catholic priest in Wisconsin received a standing ovation this past Sunday after announcing during the service that he identifies as a homosexual.

“I am Greg. I am a Roman Catholic priest. And, yes, I am gay!”

declared Gregory Greiten of St. Bernadette Catholic Church in Milwaukee, causing those present to rise to their feet, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The National Catholic Reporter also published an article on Monday in which Greiten outlined how he repressed his feelings for years, and later came to embrace them, while also keeping them hidden from others. 

 

“Over the past year, I came to the realization that I could no longer live the lie of masquerading as a straight man in the priesthood,” he wrote.

 Greiten also expressed his view that the Roman Catholic Church should allow priests to be open about their same-sex attraction, while also remaining celibate. He referred to the matter as being “authentic” to one’s true self.

“Today, I stand with these few courageous priests who have taken the risk to come out of the shadows and have chosen to live in truth and authenticity,” Greiten wrote.

“I promise to be my authentically gay self. I will embrace the person that God created me to be,” he stated. “In my priestly life and ministry, I, too, will help you, whether you are gay or straight, bisexual or transgendered, to be your authentic self—to be fully alive living in your image and likeness of God. In reflecting our God-images out into the world, our world will be a brighter, more tolerant place.”

Greiten said that he believed that announcing his homosexual feelings was among the “[f]irst steps in accepting and loving the person God created me to be.”

“I am breaking through the silence and reclaiming my voice—silent words to prophetic words, despairing words to hopeful words, angry words to forgiving words, and sad words to joy-filled words, with the passion of the words attributed to a great woman saint and doctor of the church, St. Catherine of Siena, ‘Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire,’ Greiten said.

Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki has backed Greiten’s decision to come out to his congregation.

“We support Father Greiten in his own, personal journey and telling his story of coming to understand and live with his sexual orientation,” he said in a statement. “As the Church teaches, those with same-sex attraction must be treated with understanding and compassion. As priests who have made a promise to celibacy, we know that every week there are people in our pews who struggle with the question of homosexuality.”

As previously reported, Christians believe that homosexuality, like any other inclination that is contrary to the law of God, is a part of the Adamic sin nature that men are born with, leaving them helpless to change themselves.

The late preacher A.W. Pink once wrote, “Why does the sinner choose a life of sinful indulgence? Because he prefers it. Man chooses that which is according to his nature, and therefore, before he will ever choose or prefer that which is divine or spiritual, a new nature must be imparted to him: in other words, he must be born again.”

Because of this inherent nature, Christ instructed that men must be regenerated by the second birth, outlining in John 3:5-7, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-17 also reads, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. … Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

Evangelist Arrested While Preaching Christ Outside ‘A Drag Queen Christmas: The Naughty Tour’ in Texas

EL PASO, Texas — An evangelist was arrested and jailed on Wednesday after those unhappy with his message called the police as he was preaching outside of a “holiday” event in Texas called “A Drag Queen ChristmasThe Naughty Tour.” Those watching his preaching being shut down broke out into cheers.

“A Drag Queen Christmas: The Naughty Tour is a must-see holiday spectacular with your favorite contestants from RuPaul’s Drag Race (VH1),” the event description reads. “For one night only, your favorite queens #werk the stage with singing, dancing, comedy and more! The holidays were never this naughty!”

Ryan Denton of Christ in the Wild Ministries had been preaching on the sidewalk adjacent to Plaza Theatre during the event, finding the gathering a good opportunity to share the gospel. Denton told Christian News Network that he generally preached about repentance and faith in Christ, and while he did mention concepts such as drag queens a few times, it was not the focus of his message.

 

“The drag event, like any other event, was a place where the lost would be congregating, and hence the need for a gospel witness,” he said. “Christ came to seek and save those who are lost. He came for the unrighteous, not the righteous. The great Physician of souls came for the sick and spiritually dead. This is why the gospel must go beyond the church walls.”

However, those hearing Denton’s speech soon became upset and called the police. Among those who arrived on the scene was Officer Jared Lamb, who told Denton that he had to stop preaching since complaints had been received.

“Just because you get calls does not mean I have to stop,” Denton told Lamb, according to recorded video footage reviewed by Christian News Network.    “I know that,” Lamb replied.

 “Are you sure, because you keep saying that [I do],” Denton said.

Lamb also asserted during the discussion that the sidewalk Denton was standing on was private property and that he should relocate to the plaza. Denton says that he has been instructed by police in the past to stand in that exact location, and has preached there nearly a dozen times without issue. He further notes that the plaza is not near the event, so he would not be able to reach the people.

“I’m going to keep preaching right here because this is not private property,” Denton told the officer.

However, Lamb instead grabbed Denton’s stool that he had been standing on to preach and instructed Denton to follow. Those nearby broke into cheers. Lamb walked Denton into a nearby building where he told him that he didn’t want “debates” outside.

“We don’t need debates going on out there tonight,” Lamb said. “We don’t need it.”

“Sir, it’s not up to you,” Denton replied. “It’s the Constitution of the United States. It’s [my] First Amendment rights.”

“Okay. It’s up to you?” Lamb asked.

“No. The Constitution protects what I was doing, sir,” Denton stated.

Lamb then proceeded to arrest Denton. He was transported to the El Paso Jail where he was charged with Criminal Trespass under Texas Penal Code 30.05.

Denton says that Lamb told him in transport, “I’m writing the police report and I’m going to make it as colorful as [expletive].” During the “tirade,” as Denton described it, the officer repeatedly advised that he is “very active in [his] church.”

“You know who looks like the bad guy now,” he stated. “All you had to do is leave” and go to another spot.

Denton told Christian News Network that as he was later placed behind bars, Lamb said, “Man to man, you shouldn’t be preaching there [at the drag festival]. Just tell them Jesus loves them and move on.”

Denton still recalls the last remarks from Lamb: “I can’t say what we did tonight was wrong, but I can’t say arresting you was right.”

After spending seven hours in jail, Denton was released on $300 bond. Denton says that he was able to share the gospel with others during the time that he was incarcerated, and witnessed a receptivity to his message. One man, a college student, expressed remorse and thanked God for “disciplining” him.

“The gospel is good news for anyone who has ears to hear, whether it’s a drag queen or a self-righteous good citizen,” Denton said. “God saves sinners, among whom every Christian was once chief. There’s hope for the people at the drag event because God is mighty to save and ‘salvation is of the Lord.’”

Officer Lamb could not be reached for comment on the arrest. A trial date has not yet been set.

Federal Judge: Trump Admin Must Allow ‘Transgenders’ to Enlist in Military Beginning Jan. 1

WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton has issued an order clarifying her recent injunction against the Trump administration’s ban on “transgender” enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces, and has outlined that the government must allow the enlistment beginning Jan. 1.

“[The previous] order was to revert to the status quo with regard to accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the presidential memorandum—that is, the retention and accession policies established in the June 30, 2016 directive-type memorandum as modified by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017,” wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

“Those policies allowed for the accession of transgender individuals into the military beginning on January 1, 2018,” she continued. “Any action by any of the defendants that changes this status quo is preliminarily enjoined.” The Trump administration had asked for clarification about Kollar-Kelly’s October injunction, in which she opined that the ban on transgender enlistment was “causing … serious ongoing harms.” The government noted that Gen. Mattis had been granted time by the president to determine whether or not allowing those who identify as the opposite sex could have any negative impact on military readiness. 

Kollar-Kelly ruled that the policy permitting transgender enlistment, as initially issued under the Obama administration and amended by Mattis, must move forward.

As previously reported, Trump announced his decision to reinstate the ban on transgenders in the military in July, advising that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances of the Armed Forces.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” he tweeted. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail. Thank you.” 

Weeks later, five service members filed suit to challenge the ban, with the assistance of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.

“Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on [the government’s] earlier promise [of lifting the ban], Plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service,” the lawsuit read.

Kollar-Kotelly issued an injunction in favor of the complainants in October, writing in part, “On the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

After the government sought clarification on whether or not her order “prohibit[s] the secretary of defense from exercising his discretion to defer the January 1, 2018 effective date,” Kollar-Kotelly advised that there could be no postponement.

On Nov. 21, a second federal judge issued an injunction against the enlistment ban. U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis, appointed to the bench by then-President George H.W. Bush wrote that the “capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy change.”

~ Originally written by Heather Clark

A Gay Couple Just Asked The Supreme Court To Rule Against A Christian Baker

In their first brief to the court on the merits of their case, David Mullins and Charlie Craig warn that creating a loophole for religious business owners to sidestep Colorado’s anti-discrimination law could blow a hole in civil rights protections in general.

From left: Charlie Craig and David Mullins

A gay couple and state officials in Colorado asked the Supreme Court on Monday to uphold a judgment against a Christian baker who refused to sell a custom wedding cake in 2012, warning that creating a loophole for religious people to sidestep Colorado’s anti-discrimination law could have far-reaching consequences that diminish rights of other minorities.

“Whether wedding cakes are artistic expression is not the issue here,” the couple’s lawyers wrote in a brief filed Monday. “The question, rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic product. Under this Court’s precedent, the answer to that question is no.”

It marked the first time David Mullins and Charlie Craig fleshed out the merits of their arguments to the Supreme Court in their case, which began five years ago in a Denver suburb and has snowballed to become the nation’s foremost dispute between same-sex couples and religious objectors.

The couple’s attorneys at the ACLU were responding to claims made by Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who is being represented by lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom with support from the Trump administration’s Justice Department.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, another party in the case, also filed a brief on Monday to defend the state’s civil rights law, warning that granting leeway to “expressive” businesses is a slippery slope.

“For example, a family portrait studio could enforce a ‘No Mexicans’ policy,” the state lawyers write. “A banquet hall could refuse to host events for Jewish people.”

“The First Amendment does not privilege the expressive rights of some businesses above the expressive rights of others when it comes to selling goods and services to the public,” says Colorado’s brief.

Likewise, the couple says that both Phillips and Justice Department’s arguments to protect free expression are “boundless in practice.”

“Bakeries could refuse to provide not just wedding cakes for gay couples, interracial couples, or interfaith couples, but birthday cakes for African-American families, graduation cakes for women, and cupcakes for a Catholic family celebrating a First Communion,” lawyers for the couple write. “Numerous other businesses could claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other regulations of commercial conduct.”

Phillips and his backers have said providing wedding-related services to same-sex couples amounts to participating in the ceremonies, thereby violating First Amendment rights to religious exercise and free speech.

 

“Businesses could claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and other regulations of commercial conduct.”

 

But in their brief on Monday, lawyers for the couple dismiss that line of thinking, saying the Supreme Court has never cut down a civil rights law like that.

“The Anti-Discrimination Act applies to businesses that choose to serve the public at large and requires that once they offer a product, they not refuse service based on enumerated personal characteristics, including race, religion, and sexual orientation,” the brief filed on Monday states.

The case dates back to July 2012, when Craig and Mullins attempted to order a custom wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, but Phillips declined, saying that it would violate his religious beliefs.

“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings,” court records say Phillips told the men.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found in 2014 that Phillips ran afoul of a state law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ordered Phillips to train his staff to follow the law and submit quarterly compliance reports. A Colorado appeals court upheld the ruling, saying the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits a business open to the public “from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”

The court added the law “does not impose burdens on religious conduct not imposed on secular conduct.”

But in Phillips’s brief to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to hear his appeal, he argues Colorado’s nondiscrimination law targets those who oppose same-sex marriage, thereby limiting their First Amendment rights to free exercise and free expression. Given that the law infringes on certain people of faith, the baker’s lawyers argue the state government must have a compelling reason for the law and tailor it narrowly. They say the law fails that test.

Phillips leans heavily on Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, a 1995 Supreme Court decision that found a parade could exclude an LGBT group.

In responding on Monday, lawyers for Mullins and Craig note the parade decision isn’t germane because it “applied not to commercial conduct, but to a private, expressive parade.”

The couple’s lawyers go on to counter the baker’s claim that the nondiscrimination law must meet a higher standard, known as strict scrutiny, by saying the law is applied neutrally — not to any particular expression or type of speech. But even so, they cite a raft of Supreme Court decisions upholding civil rights laws over concerns about free expression or free exercise. Among them, the high court found in 1984 a law firm couldn’t deny a promotion to a woman, even though the firm engaged in expressive conduct, and in 1983 that a religious university couldn’t ban students from interracial relationships.

“The Anti-Discrimination Act furthers the State’s substantial interest in eradicating discrimination, an interest that is ‘unrelated to the suppression of expression’ … and that interest would be achieved less effectively if ‘expressive’ businesses were allowed to discriminate,” lawyers for the couples write. “Indeed, the Anti-Discrimination Act would survive even strict scrutiny, because it is precisely tailored to serve not just an important, but a compelling government interest in ending discrimination by commercial establishments open to the public.”

Written by Dominic Holden