It’s OK to bully gays, kids, ’cos God says so

We said before that Catholic leaders like to be utterly cruel to gay people.

Now we see that a bunch of the evil bastards in the States are happy that kids should be bullied because of their sexuality.

Oh, these loons dress it up in some highfalutin shite about how recognising sexual orientation as a genuine cause of bullying will lead to gay marriage (oh, wait for the sky to fall in), but it still amounts to condoning bullying on the grounds of being gay.

In Catholic Culture, we read:

Over the repeated objections of Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte and Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh, the North Carolina House, by a 58–57 vote, has passed legislation that would require school employees and students to report “bullying,” “harassing behavior,” or a “hostile environment” that is motivated by a bullying victim’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

Then we get to the pathetic objections of this bunch of snivelling gobshites:

The School Violence Prevention Act (Senate Bill 526) is an attempt to eradicate bullying at public schools. Much of its language and its attempt to make all forms of bullying unacceptable are laudatory and this dimension of the bill has been endorsed by us. However, the inclusion of the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” as specific examples of bullying to be eradicated, creates a potential for legalizing same-sex marriage in NC [North Carolina]. Codifying these terms into an anti-bullying law was used in the construction of “findings of fact” by lawyers to convince judges in California, Connecticut and Iowa to mandate same-sex marriage. We oppose this language because of its future implications for same-sex marriage. Efforts to remove this specific language and simply make all forms of bullying unacceptable have failed so far.

But the remove-it-from-all-forms-of-bullying argument is to say that some forms of violence (mental or physical) are not only to be discouraged (as all bullying should, of course) but that their presence – or the threat of their presence – should not be used as a means of indicating to potential transgressors that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not to be tolerated. It’s about enhancing the message, as well as making it clear to those who think a gay person is a legitimate target that such behaviour will invite greater punishment.

These idiots would no doubt agree that killing a cop should merit a greater punishment, or that the tariff for other crimes ought to reflect motive and intent, as well as the crime itself, pour encourager les autres. But not if the victim is gay, it seems.

Doesn’t it just make you want to puke – right over a bevy of bishops?