Tag Archives: Sexual Orientation

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.

We knew this was coming, but it is still frightening.

The Speech Code of the Month "Award" goes to Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Richard Stockton's anti-harassment policy not only infringes on protected speech - it explicitly infringes on the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting.

Here is the policy: "All forms of unlawful discrimination based upon race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical herededitary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or disability are prohibited and will not be tolerated."

The policy also prohibits "Displaying or distributing material in the academic setting that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning, based on any of the foregoing classifications." The policy also notes:“harassment or the creation of a hostile work environment can occur even if there was no intent on the part of an individual to harass or demean another” (emphasis added).

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) notes: Since “derogatory” and “demeaning” are not defined, students are left to guess at what a fellow student or professor might find “derogatory” or “demeaning.” This is made worse by the fact that the policy does not require intent on the part of the “harasser,” and explicitly applies to classroom speech. In other words, students who express an opinion in the classroom that someone else interprets as derogatory or demeaning may be punished. One can imagine many legitimate classroom discussions in which this might happen, such as: a student in an American politics class who opposes affirmative action or gay marriage; a student in a women’s studies class who suggests that men are responsible for society’s ills; or a student in a religion class who expresses the opinion that religion is fantasy or escapism. The result of a policy like this is a terrible chilling effect on student speech in the classroom, stifling the free exchange of ideas that is so crucial to a liberal arts education.

This policy "applies to conduct which occurs in the workplace/educational environment and also extends to conduct which occurs at any location that can be reasonably regarded as an extension of the college, such as any field location, any off-site camput-related social function, or any facility where Richard Stockton College of New Jersey business is being conducted or discussed."

Extend this out a couple of years...a young person at a football game who turns down a date (on campus) because the person asking is gay (or straight), or for religious reasons could reasonably have a complaint filed against them...