It is here: “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval”

As I pointed out to our Sunday School class when doing a few lessons on Refuting Pro-Gay Theology, there is no more fence.  By that I mean that the Left is forcing you to pick a side.  No more mushy middle when you can give lip service to the word of God yet not have it cost you anything.

Here is the clearest example I’ve seen: DOJ on ‘gays’: ‘silence will be interpreted as disapproval’ (text below).  Note that DOJ = Department of Justice.  Let me repeat that: Department of Justice.  You know, the people charged with executing justice in the land.

You can thank the false teachers and theologically Liberal “Christians” for this.  You would think that they would at least pretend to care about religious freedom, but they don’t even offer the mildest rebuke.  And why would they?  When your religion is worshiping the government then you don’t care if they take away real religious freedom.

Read it carefully.  This is where things are going.  You can’t just “tolerate” these behaviors, you must actively affirm them — or else.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT” employees, managers are instructed:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now bullying federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still acknowledge objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe that God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

Here are some more DOs:

DO “Attend LGBT events sponsored by DOJ Pride and/or the Department, and invite (but don’t require) others to join you.”

DO “Display a symbol in your office (DOJ Pride sticker, copy of this brochure, etc.) indicating that it is a ‘safe space.’”

Are you kidding? Does this administration really think it’s legal to induce managers to “attend LGBT events,” or to “display pride stickers” against their will? That’s compulsory expression. That’s viewpoint discrimination.

That’s unconstitutional.

But there’s more:

“DO use inclusive words like ‘partner,’ ‘significant other’ or ‘spouse’ rather than gender-specific terms like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ (for example, in invitations to office parties or when asking a new employee about his/her home life).”

Oh, brother.

Sorry. Oh, gender-neutral sibling.

“DO use a transgender person’s chosen name and the pronoun that is consistent with the person’s self-identified gender.”

In other words, lie. Engage in corporate delusion.

“DO deal with offensive jokes and comments forcefully and swiftly when presented with evidence that they have occurred in the workplace.”

“DO communicate a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate jokes and comments, including those pertaining to a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.”

Who gets to decide what’s an “inappropriate joke [or] comment”? I thought we had a Constitution for that. It sure ain’t Big Brother Barack. Sure, I get it, it’s probably better not to start your work day with: “A lesbian, a tranny and two gays walk into a bath house …” but still, “no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” means no law. No matter how much Obama wishes it so, we don’t leave our constitutional rights at the federal workplace door.

The DOJ edict even addresses cross-dressing man woes:

“As a transgender woman [that's a man in a skirt], I want people to understand that I’m real. I want to be recognized as the gender I really am [again, you're a man in a skirt]. Yes, there was awkwardness with pronouns at first for folks who knew me before the transition. But it hurts when several years later people still use the wrong pronouns. And just imagine if people were constantly debating YOUR bathroom privileges. Imagine how humiliating that would be.”

Tell you what, buddy: I won’t “debate YOUR bathroom privileges” if you return to this planet. You’d better stay the heck out of the ladies room while my wife or two daughters are in there; otherwise, we have a problem. Women have an absolute right not be sexually harassed in the workplace – a right to privacy when using the facilities. To constantly worry whether a gender-confused, cross-dressing man is going to invade her privacy creates a hostile work environment.

LGBTQX lobby admits to aiming at young kids

See Top gay rights leader: kids of religious families are ‘target demographic’ of anti-‘gay bullying’ ad.

Peggy Nance of Concerned Women for America expressed outrage that the Fox network aired an “anti-gay bullying” advertisement, part of the “It Gets Better” campaign, during the extremely popular competition show.

Doubling as an advertisement for Google Chrome, the ad features several Hollywood personalities, and even a character from the popular Disney-Pixar movie series Toy Story, who speak directly to and encourage an audience of young people identifying as homosexual, telling them that “It gets better.”

On her blog, Nance called Fox’s choice of ad placement a betrayal of trust of conservative households everywhere.

“Apparently, American Idol with the help of Woody from Disney’s Toy Story, thinks that my 4th grader needs to be fully aware of the plight of teens who view themselves as ‘gay.’ I am sorry, but he doesn’t even know about heterosexual sex yet. Can you give me some room here?” wrote Nance. “I am ticked because I feel tricked. Fox blew it last night.

“The point is parents felt secure in allowing our entire families watch this show. They lured us into a false sense of security and broke trust with us last night.”

Dan Savage, a homosexual activist and founder of the It Gets Better project, shot back at Nance, saying that promoting their message to those with religious upbringing was precisely the point.

“Nance’s son was always our target demo,” wrote Savage. “Again, we don’t know if he’s gay. But he might be and, if he is, he needs to hear from us.”

As expanded on here, Dan Savage is an extremely vile person.  In a spectacular irony, he infamously led to the coining of the term “Santorum” to describe the disgusting byproducts of a gay sex act (you’ll have to do your own search for the definition).  He was trying to get back at former Senator Santorum for labeling homosexual acts as sinful, but Savage didn’t realize the net result of his name-calling.  After all, it is Savage’s disgusting byproduct that is the problem. Assigning someone else’s name to your filthy output doesn’t demean them, it demeans you.  What self-mockery!

Democrat Dan Savage is just as qualified to preach on tolerance as Democrat Fred Phelps is.

The lesson: The gay lobby is getting more and more aggressive, because too many wimpy and/or fake Christians haven’t spoken up.  Don’t let your kids watch TV unsupervised.  And I’d home school them, as well.