Yes. It should be distributed at the makers cost or not distributed at all. That goes for all sides. If you want free speech fine. Let it be free. But don't make me pay for your nonsense.
You can say it is silly to question this if you like. I just want the facts. Who is making money off of this and exactly how much. I want the answer from all sides of this so-called agreement.
Why don't you email Dr. Throckmorton and ask him?
Are history texts free?
Honestly, you're conflating two issues here. One is whether anyone should make money selling to the education system. I don't think anyone's going to turn out Prentice Hall anytime soon, or forbid McGraw-Hill to do business with the State of Texas because they're for-profit.
Related to the charge of making a profit is your imputation of greed, i.e. of outsize or disproportionate profits, and also of dishonesty of some kind.
You need to separate out the issues when you limn what you're complaining about.
And for what it's worth, I don't think it's profiteering if groups that produce classroom materials try to recover their cost, if the material is accepted as course materials and appropriated for by the school board or its agents.
If someone just brings a PowerPoint show with him, that would be different, but you're in a gray area, and I don't think it helps to jump on someone who basically agrees with you that homosexuality is a Bad Thing per se.
There are gradations of disagreement. A disagreement over the appropriateness of cost recovery isn't as big a deal as disagreement over whether GLSEN's adult homosexuals should be in schools, laying out their laundry for impressionable teenaged students who are not yet equipped to deal with determined, Delphi-trained advocates on these topics.