Monday, April 25, 2016



Australia: Now normality is wrong

Skyler Kennedy, from REACH kids, took to her company’s Facebook page and posted two text messages she received this week from a potential client. The mother was requesting someone to babysit her three children, aged three to 11.

“The babysitter will need to be from a Christian background as we are a faith-driven household. We also request that the babysitter supports our teaching of anti-gay marriage and lack of support for the gay/rainbow flag community,” the first text read.

“I’m sorry,” began the second text. “We are just asking for a normal person, not one with coloured hair or supporting radical gender theories. We want to raise our kids to be normal, so if there is anyone else we can get for the night that would be great.”

Ms Kennedy says she initially agreed to help find the woman a Christian babysitter, but later refused her request after receiving the second text message.

“I can understand someone wanting a Christian babysitter, or someone whose religious beliefs align with your own, if you have a very faith-driven household,” she told news.com.au

“But when they went on to say they wanted someone who was ‘anti gay and rainbow flag’ [the colours representing the LGBT community], I thought ‘This is really strange’.

“After they sent that text, I said ‘OK, this is ridiculous. I am going to publicise this, because it seems not right’. I want to make it clear that my organisation supports diversity and people’s freedom who be who they are,” she said.

SOURCE 

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

If I wanted a clown to show up, I'd have thrown a party.

Bird of Paradise said...

In a nation populated by normal people and run by idiots common sense is as scarce and hens teeth

alancookie said...

Source "not found"?

Dean said...

Same here - Source not found.

Anonymous said...

It has been taken down probably for political reasons, if you consider transgender issues politics. Why I don't know but I saw the original post on news.com.au and thought it odd that parents don't have the right to specify what they expect out of a baby sitter which they are probably paying a lot of money for. If it what a free service you might have a valid argument about rights but not when it is hard currency.

Anonymous said...

Why is it relevant for a babysitter to have views that would never be expressed one way or the other to the young children. Is this another fake or false-flag case? Or are such young children being exposed to "gender politics" by the parents at such a young age?

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they didn't want a 300 lb., purple haired, tutu wearing, cigar chomping, self identifying "female" showing up at their door. Of course in the freakazoid world of liberalism tolerance is measured by one's willingness to set aside all notions of normalcy, safety and rationality in order to elevate nonsense to a superior position.

Anonymous said...

Well 4:08 - did such a "300lb., purple haired, tutu wearing, cigar chomping, self identifying 'female'" ever show up at their door? And were they ever expecting one to (even in some paranoid fantasy)? So why advertize with such idiotic prospects unless they were themselves somewhat less than "normal"?!

Anonymous said...

4:37 Ever consider that they may have had pervious experience with unwanted babysitters that made them specify the type of baby sitter required? Perhaps the sitter company manager is to far gone on equality issue be able to supply a normal baby sir? It may be possible normal babysitters are intimidated.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:37 Buy a clue already. Bottom line, they should be able to specify whatever type of person they want to hire, for this or an other purpose. Libs refuse to understand, or willfully deride, that simple concept.

My employee wants to wear a hijab, my employee wants to wear a beard, my employee wants to have a tattoo on his forehead, my employee wants studs in his lips. If I don't want to hire that type of employee, well then Mr. Employer, "you're a bigot." Advocating for the destruction of anything and everything remotely normal under the banner of "rights" is getting tiresome to say the least. In the liberal world "the man" has no rights.

Don't even try to argue these sorts things have not occurred. If you do you're either a fool or a liar.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:27 - Because people who promote those "lifestyles" are the ones who WILL express such to the children. Not a False-Flag at all which is why they want someone who is normal.

There are really only two things I think they did wrong, they expressed their desires in a way that was poorly stated and that they trusted Skyler Kennedy to honor their request.

Dean said...

2:37 AM Thanks for the information. It's sad that parents are not allowed to choose who will care for their children.

Anonymous said...

Socialism. The state will decide who looks after your kids. Be thankful that you get to see them at all. Any dissent will make you an unfit parent and you will lose all rights. Starting to sound familiar? First they came for the fathers, next they will come for the mothers.

Anonymous said...

The post asks for a person who will SUPPORT their anti gay position when with their children. The person does not have to be anti gay to do that. Kennedy courted controversy either through stupidity or to make a point.


MDH

Spurwing Plover the Fighting Shorebird said...

SEND IN THE ASSCLOWNS THBERE'S GOT TO BE ASSCLOWNS

Anonymous said...

I Saw this story on news.com.au too when it came out.
Two thoughts:
1. The baby-sitting company originally agreed to accommodate the request. The second text seems to come out of nowhere and seems a bit non-sequitor ish.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a non-published phone call or discussion in between.
2. There was absolutely no reason to publicise this exchange - except perhaps to glorify the babysitting service. I think it highly unprofessional for them to do so.

Anonymous said...

Children are just the lumps of clay that their parents think they are entitled to mould into a pathetic image of their egotistical selves - just as their own parents tried to do (with varying success). Thankfully, a percentage of children grow up to modify this mould (with varying success), or else we'd still be in the Dark Ages (unless you're Muslim of course). [Indoctrinating small children about adult hang-ups about sex is virtual child-abuse - as in this case of so-called parenting.]

Use the Name, Luke said...

[Indoctrinating small children about adult hang-ups about sex is virtual child-abuse - as in this case of so-called parenting.]

Quite the contrary.

American College of Pediatricians:

8. Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Anonymous said...

Luke - your reference to the so-called "American College of Pediatricians" is redundant as it's an organization well-known for ultra-conservative views on social issues, so it's not surprising it would say what you have quoted.

Anonymous said...

... and Luke, why in any case is 3:33's sentence that you decided to focus on, at odds with your other quote, as both are saying in effect that it's child abuse to confuse small children about adult sex and gender issues.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Leftist Dictionary entry:

Ultra Conservative: Someone who states obvious facts I'm trying desperately to ignore.

Anonymous said...

Lukeist Dictionary entry:

Ultra Conservative: Someone who states "facts" I'm trying desperately to believe.