Monday, December 19, 2022

Those fake ass 'religious' litigants (Ava and C.I.)

Color us confused.

So many are claiming religious exemptions these days.  Now if you have a religious objection to a vaccine?  We understand that.  We think it should be respected.  If, like August Aguayo, you are a religious person in the US military and your religious beliefs grow and become stronger and you cite them as a reason not to deploy to Iraq, we understand that.  We understand many reasons you might opt out of certain things.

We don't understand this:

Two of Vivian Geraghty's students at Jackson Memorial Middle School in Massillon, Ohio, were undergoing transition-related care and wanted people, including their teachers, to use their proper pronouns.

But Geraghty, a third-year English teacher, went to school administrators in August to report a problem. Her Christian beliefs prohibited her from using the transgender students’ pronouns or their new names, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

Again, we're confused.  Crackpots tend to confuse us.

Vivian Geraghty is stating that she can't use pronouns (that she doesn't agree with) or names (that she doesn't agree with) due to her religion?

What's her next excuse?  The dog ate her homework?

We ask because of Matthew 22: 15 - 22.

For those unfamiliar, it's a book, chapter and verse in THE BIBLE.

We'll assume Viv Geraghty is among those unfamiliar with it.

It's where Jesus talks about "render unto Caesar."

Remember that, Viv?

Seems to us this is a render unto Caeser moment if this is any kind of 'religious' moment at all.

The government is telling her to use pronouns the students prefer, she's being told to call them by their preferred names.  And Viv's pissing her panties and screaming like a mad woman.  Where, in the Bible, is she finding her religious belief?

More to the point, where is her common sense?  

If DANCING WITH THE STARS' Mark Ballas were in her class, what would Viv call him?  

Would she call him "Mark"?  Or would she insist upon calling him "Mark Jr."?  Because he is Mark Jr.  He doesn't go by it, but that is his name.  If Will Smith were in Viv's class, what would she call Will? His name isn't Will.  It's Willard Carroll Smith Jr.  Would she insist upon calling him "Willard"?  "Willard Jr."?  If Robert Redford were in Viv's class, what would she call him?  "Robert Jr."?  Or "Charles"?  Charles is his first name (full name Charles Robert Redford, Jr.).  And if Beau Biden had been in her class, would she have refused to call him Beau?  Joseph Robinette Biden III was Beau's legal name.


Our point here is that children are called preferred names every day in every US school and it's nothing new.

Has Viv stuck to their legal first names with her students?  If not, why is this suddenly a problem?

It's a problem, let's be honest, because Viv hates a certain group of people and wants to be a test case for the law.  Oh, Viv, you're so embarrassing.  We picture your God of choice, up in heaven, clucking his head and determining that this sort of behavior is exactly the reason he will banish you to hell.  You're trying to justify hate in His name but His son Jesus was very clear that you should ''Render unto Caeser the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Jesus' words are pretty clear, Viv.  Do we need to send you a copy of THE BIBLE?  We feel like we need to start a list for Viv and all the others -- like Lorie Smith -- who seem to think that Jesus' edict doesn't exist.  It's right there on the printed page, Viv.  You do know how to read, right?

Viv insists that she detailed her religious objection (she didn't and still hasn't, render unto Caeser nullifies any religious objection she might have thought she had) and then was "forced to resign."  At gunpoint, Viv?

We can't wait for Candice Cameron Bure to portray Viv in GREAT AMERICAN MEDIA's made-for-TV movie THEY FORCED ME TO CALL HER ALEX AND HIM DREW!!!  WHAT WAS I TO DO!!! THE STORY OF CRAZY VIV.

Viv also claims that she was ejected from the school "within two hours" of detailing her objection.

Which was it, Viv, forced to resign or tossed out on your ass?  As a Christian, Viv, you are aware that you're not supposed to lie, right?  It's in The Ten Commandments: "Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor."

Viv, do you struggle with comprehension issues?

Her attorneys maintain that the school insisted "she would be required to put her beliefs aside as a public servant."  But her religion dictates that: Render unto Caeser.

In the legal paperwork, Viv's cracked in the head attorneys cite the Constitution (wrongly) but we looked through the paperwork in vain to find her religious argument.

That's because there actually isn't one.  There's nothing in THE BIBLE that backs Viv up.  She climbed out on a limb and, in a sane world, we'd all hear it cracking at this point.  

The Constitution, Viv's attorneys insist, guarantees "a freedom to differ."  Not really.  They're extrapolating.  That's a fancy term for lying and lawyers do it all the time when they can't actually build on precedent.  

They insist of the people Viv is suing:

Defendants have abandoned this guiding light [Ava and C.I. note: "the right to differ" -- apparently a new amendment to The Constitution] and adopted one particular view on this subject, that a person's subjective identity determines whether a person is male or female, not a person's sex.  Compounding their unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plantiff Vivian Geraghty, to mount her own support of Defendant's views by forcing her, as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to participate in the "social transition" of children in her class.  
Ms. Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by her scientific understanding and her Christian faith.  

So which is it?  She citing religious reasons or "her scientific understanding" -- because we're willing to be she's even weaker on science than she is on religion.
And, to be really honest, Viv never knows the gender of her students.  She knows what she's told.  But she's not groping their crotches so she's really got no idea who is male, who is female, who is non-binary, etc.  
She really needs to get a grip.
And the courts need to stop taking these claims of I disagree for "religious reasons" when there are no religious reasons to disagree.  But there is Freedom of Religion which is why the nutjobs resort to lying about "religious reasons" -- it gives them something to pretend they're standing for and usually it intimidates courts.
From now on, the courts need to be demanding that those claiming "religious reasons" state what those reasons are and that those reasons are then examined to find out whether or not they really exist.  If Jesus told you that the government decides what the government decides and you do in the church what you do in the church, there's no 'religious objection' for the Christian faith in Viv's case.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }