Tag Archives: Gay Activists

1 Comment

Government sanctioned same-sex relationship edition (since I can't bring myself to call it "marriage") - we can shorten it to GSSR

BRUCE:Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming:

To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful:

Some opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and some isn't. Assuming otherwise is itself prejudice rooted in ignorance.

Thwarting the Wedding Cake Fascists Passive Aggressively

Maybe the response for florists, bakers and photographers is to tell gay couples if they hire their services for their weddings that they will be donating 100% of the profits to a sanctity of marriage group.

Drops the bomb right into the laps of those who for whatever reason want to force religious bakers to bake cakes and photographers to take pictures.

Religious Freedom Reframed So Gay Rights Trump Them:

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed,” he said in a statement. “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.”

Business and Conscience:

Yet Christ's call to servanthood is for us to yield our desire to live for ourselves and instead submit to him, in doing so we live for others. But this is not a call for others to demand of us what they desire.

What will be the terms of our surrender?

Douthat is right. What unfolded last week reveals that this latter scenario is the most likely outcome. Gay activists and gay marriage supporters seem to have very little interest in a live-and-let-live diversity of opinion on the issue of marriage. They are making sure that the government imposes coercive sanctions on anyone who fails to affirm the moral goodness of gay unions. As last week revealed, the press has been happily passing along the propaganda of gay marriage supporters without any thoughtful consideration of the other side of the argument. They are backing us into a corner.

1 Comment

It's going to get interesting.  It is my opinion that we will see gay activists targeting Christian businesses with lawsuits in order to change the face of American Christianity.  It is also my opinion that they will mostly succeed - except for that "remnant".


New Mexico
...a New Mexico court decides against a Christian photographer who opted not to photograph a lesbian wedding.

After Huguenin told them she only photographed traditional marriages, the couple filed a complaint for discrimination against their sexual orientation.

The case was taken before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which heard the case in January.

This will end up affecting many Christian small business owners that rub shoulders with the marriage "industry".  Flowers, photographers, seamstresses, caterers, cake bakers.

Gay activists are not above deliberately targeting Christians in order to sue and set precedents in the court system.

In another story, "Legally Speaking: Through a Lens, Darkly" the point is made that there are civil rights at stake:  the rights of the photographer.



...A lesbian couple sues a fertility clinic

This is disputed by Kenneth Pedroza, the attorney for the two doctors. He said they clearly informed Benítez that their religious beliefs applied to unmarried women and treated her no differently than any other single woman seeking treatment at the clinic.

"Freedom of religion absolutely protects all of their conduct in this case," he said. "There are two areas in medical care where freedom of religion is invoked most clearly: in the creation of life and the termination of life." And just as patients have rights, he said, so too do doctors.

Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal who is representing Benítez, said that while the law protects doctors who refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis. In other words, when doctors refuse a treatment, their refusal must apply to all patients -- not to a group, such as unmarried women or lesbians.


San Diego

Employees who refuse to perform gay wedding ceremonies at the San Diego County Clerk's Office are facing reassignment. At least 14 employees who raised religious objections to performing same-sex weddings have been told they cannot pick and choose between marriage applicants. California began gay marriages this week. Clerk Greg Smith had told workers earlier that those who object on religious grounds wouldn't have to perform the ceremonies, but 14 employees balked and that was more than his office could accommodate.


Maggie Gallagher asks:

But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?

She notes in her article:

For example, redefining "infidelity." Back in the '90s, when Andrew Sullivan first suggested gay couples had a thing or two to teach opposite-sex couples about our rigid insistence on sexual fidelity, public reaction was so negative that he recanted (and to this day he gets mad if you even mention he said it!).

But from the new-won confidence of his legally recognized gay marriage in Massachusetts, Eric Erbelding is quite comfortable explaining to The New York Times: "Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical." Eric says most married gay couples he knows are "for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way."

For the most part ... except for the casual three-way?

"faithful" does NOT mean the same thing to gay people as it does to heterosexuals.

What about the next step: "Could churches in time risk their tax-exempt status by refusing to marry gays?"

Here's what the gay newspaper of record thinks: "That remains to be seen and will likely result in a steady stream of court battles."


Gay trumps Christian.And we will see more.