Fear and Fantasy from Massresistance

Ms. Massresistance is now quoting Professor Rob Gagnon, who offers a "Christian" perspective on homosexual issues. She (and he) interject fear and shear fantasy into the discussion of a hate crimes bill which includes sexual orientation and gender identity (and all this is happening because of same sex marriages in Massachusetts?)

A VERY SCARY AND BELIEVABLE LIST

Here goes and I'm just choosing a few to discuss, but they are all ridiculous:

• Large fines and eventually jail time for anyone who publicly speaks out against homosexual activity or transgenderism, even as a minister, if the state determines that one's message arouses people to hate homosexual or transgendered persons. This includes messages that cite Scripture or refer to studies that show higher incidences of promiscuity and disease among homosexually active men.

Okay, it's a good thing that lying isn't a crime because if it was, then Professor Gagnon probably would be getting ready to host his new roommate Scooter Libby. Look, we still have freedom of speech, but if you incite people to commit a crime (hate or otherwise), then you're guilty. Last time I looked the KKK was still in operation, they just can't burn crosses on people's lawns or lynch people. On second thought, lying is a crime in the Bible.

• Corporations having to institute affirmative-hire programs for GLBTs as a necessary precaution against potential federal or civil lawsuits for "sexual orientation" discrimination.

Certain classes are protected in employment via the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Sexual orientation is not one of them nor is it part of the hate crimes bill. It should be included as a protected class, but it is not.

• Even parochial schools being required to accept "gay prom dates" and "gay clubs."

Trust us, Ms. Massresistance --- we in the GLBT community are working very hard to keep Church and State separate so that everyone has the freedom to practice their religion in peace. It's the religious right that threatens religious freedom; not us. The United States doesn't step into religious activities unless that organization is receiving federal money and the Bush Administration has already over stepped that boundary by allowing "faith based initiatives".

• Students and employees required to get counseling for the alleged mental health condition of "homophobia" or risk expulsion.

but, phobias ARE mental conditions.

• Private civic organizations, as well as Christian camps and retreat centers, being fined or shut down if they do not allow their facilities to be used by persons or groups for homosexual activities (e.g., to host a "wedding" by a homosexual couple or for a meeting of a "gay choir").

The Boy Scouts were sued and they won. They can discriminate all they want since they are a private organization. It went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court

• Fines for any persons with rooms for rent in their home (e.g. a bed & breakfast) if they refuse to rent to a homosexual couple intent on having homosexual sex on the premises.

Places of public accommodation cannot discriminate against members of a protected class. This is a good thing. On a side note, what B&B's is the Professor frequenting that inquire into his sexual intentions during his stay. "Yes, sir, breakfast is served between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., oh, and if you intend on having sexual congress tonight, please take notice of the hotel's list of approved positions."

• Loss of charitable status for churches that seek to influence their members to oppose pro-homosexual legislation or that refuse to marry homosexual persons.

Once again, we in the GLBT community are fighting to preserve and protect the Constitution, which separates Church and State. So no one is going to force any Church to marry anyone. That's why they call it civil marriage. As for tax exempt status, the same rule applies. Yikes! You'd think a Professor would have at least a passing familiarity with the Constitution of the United States.

• Adoption and foster agencies forbidden to give any priority to heterosexual married couples over homosexual couples on the grounds that such priority would be discriminatory.

Priority should be given to the couple who has the best interests of the child in mind. Why should a heterosexual couple have special rights?

Her scare tactics just go on and on. There is no validity to any of them. These are the same arguments made whenever a minority group tries to assert its God given rights.