The homosexual lobby is not peaceful; it is not amicable. This is a radical movement that seeks to force us all to accept their agenda, even if it means stripping us of our freedom of speech and religious expression. If this undeniable truth has not become painfully obvious to you over the last four weeks, allow me to be the first to welcome you to planet Earth.
Consider this hypothetical: I go into McDonalds and request a taco supreme. The clerk looks at me oddly and then informs me that McDonalds does not offer tacos on their menu. I acknowledge such, but I want one regardless. The clerk encourages me to go down the road a mile to Taco Bell (where it is offered) to satisfy my craving. Outraged, I demand to see the manager and begin threatening McDonalds to make me a taco supreme. The manager calmly tries to inform me that McDonalds does not have the ingredients or expertise in making taco supremes but they’d be happy to offer anything else on the menu. Livid, I leave McDonalds and promptly file a lawsuit against them alleging discrimination.
Consider further that the government sides with me. They inform McDonalds that they must change their entire menu around to meet the desires of any customer that comes through their door. If someone wants sushi…McDonalds must offer sushi. If someone wants cotton candy…McDonalds better whip up a batch. Seem logical?
Now recognize that this isn’t hypothetical at all. It is exactly what just happened to the online Christian-oriented dating website eHarmony.com. The site was sued by a homosexual named Eric McKinley because they wouldn’t set him up with another man, despite the fact that eHarmony was not equipped to make such matches. They didn’t refuse McKinley access to their site…they just said ‘men hooking up with men’ was not on their menu of options.
Stunningly, the Attorney General of New Jersey sided with McKinley and the Division on Civil Rights took action against eHarmony to bully them into a settlement. The site has now been forced to agree to completely alter their business model and cater to the desires of homosexuals. And now that the precedent is set, eHarmony should prepare to start offering a number of new services: married men seeking girlfriends, women seeking multiple partners, men seeking barnyard animals. Who are they to judge someone else’s sexual preferences, after all?
Sadly this is nothing new. Despite the fact that this case is generating more attention, this type of legal bullying is exactly what the homosexual movement has been engaged in for some time.
Ask New Mexico’s Elaine Huguenin how tolerant this movement is. Elaine and her husband are Christians who own a small photography business. A homosexual couple wanted to hire Elaine to photograph their “commitment ceremony.” Elaine graciously declined, stating that the message communicated in the ceremony ran contrary to her consciously held religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued the business, and the state of New Mexico fined the business for violating “non-discriminatory” policies. In other words, at the behest of the homosexual lobby, the state said to the Christian couple: violate your convictions or be fined.
Ask the Catholic Charities of Boston who for over 100 years helped orphans find adoptive, loving homes in Massachusetts. That is until the homosexual lobby sued to force the Christian organization to violate their religious standards and place children in homes of homosexual couples. Catholic Charities shut down their adoption agency. Evidently, it was preferable to the homosexuals that orphans be left in foster care than have their agenda thwarted.
Ask doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of San Diego who were sued for not providing in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian due to their religious convictions. The doctors had referred the lesbian couple to a physician who would be willing to complete the procedure, but that wasn’t good enough. The state of California sided with the lesbians and the doctors were told to perform the procedure or face the consequences.
Gay marriage exists in two states: Vermont and Massachusetts. In both of those states, the decision to allow such came not from the people…it was forced upon the people by a handful of left-leaning radicals on the courts. When the choice has been left up to the people in 30 states, all 30 states have said no to the homosexual agenda.
The only people seeking to “cram their morality” down other people’s throats are those on the radical homosexual left who are shoving their immorality in the face of anyone who dares to stand up for traditional morality. Now is not the time to shrink back from this threat to our religious and civil liberties.
To the contrary, it is time to sound the alarm and rise up to stop these radical religious bigots from achieving their ultimate objective: the trampling of our First Amendment.
Peter W. Heck
