Saturday, December 20, 2008

Compulsory Tolerance

Spero News author James Thunder shows that the tolerance demanded by the gay lobby comes at the expense of everyone else's freedom.
Representations have been consistently made by the gay community that allowing gays to marry will not affect heterosexuals. They note as one example of this that they will not push the government to require religious denominations to conduct gay marriages. Ah, but we now have at least two examples where gay people have persuaded our government to compel the private sector to help gays date, mate and procreate.

Specifically, he notes that the recent bullying of eHarmony amounts to forcing a company to provide a service they don't want to provide.

a company has been compelled by our government to start a new service, and fund it and market it for at least two years, to promote gay dating and mating.

On the next day, November 20, a California trial court issued a ruling allowing a case brought by a lesbian against eHarmony to proceed as a class action. The plaintiff’s attorney stated to the press that the New Jersey settlement did not change his case since eHarmony’s agreement with New Jersey to set up a separate website (with an acknowledgement on the main website that they were affiliated), was separate, not equal. He also decried the two-year minimum requirement for eHarmony’s operation of the gay options since eHarmony could choose to discontinue at any time after two years. Presumably, therefore, the California plaintiff will seek to make eHarmony stay in the gay matchmaking business permanently.

In another area of law, antitrust, companies are required to divest lines of business, never to establish them. Yet here we have the government requiring a company to start a new line of business with the prospect that it may never be able to cease that line of business unless it goes bankrupt.

Governor Corzine or Attorney General Milgram should renounce this settlement and defend eHarmony.

He also writes about the lesbian artificial insemination case, which I have written about extensively.
The Court ruled that the doctors had no right of free speech or freedom of religion under either the California or United States Constitutions to refuse elective medical treatment, including the establishment of a pregnancy, of a homosexual. The doctors and the clinic violated the law even though they had referred the patient to another doctor. The concurring opinion by Judge Baxter expressed concern for sole practitioners who had religious objections, but observed that that issue was not present in the North Coast case.

Thus, under this decision, and under the Unruh Law, as revised in recent years to include sexual orientation and marital status, our government compels medical personnel to help unmarried or gay or lesbian patients establish a pregnancy. Doctors -- and prospective doctors -- are told by our government to leave their consciences at the door or join medical groups that include doctors who have no consciences.

He concludes with a reference to Sir Thomas More and the play, "A Man for All Seasons."

Are we not free to refuse (for business or moral reasons) to help unmarried persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, date, mate and procreate? Are we not free to promote heterosexual marriage without being compelled by our government to promote relationships among homosexuals?

We have seen this scene play out before. Henry VIII was determined to have a male heir. In contemporary parlance, it was his reproductive right. He chose to exercise this right by using a woman who was not his wife and making her his wife. He had a right to marry – whomever he wished. Furthermore, the king was responsible for new legislation by which the law and Parliament recognized this right to marry and this right to reproduce -- and compelled the private sector to recognize this woman as his wife and their children as his heirs. A private subject who had long since resigned his office of Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, conscientiously remained silent, simply silent.

Sir Thomas More's story, told by Robert Bolt in “A Man for All Seasons , ” was revived on Broadway this year (until December 14). I suggest our legislators, prosecutors and judges watch the 1966 movie version. Thomas More declared, “I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith I long not to live.” And Henry executed him.


emissary said...

This is a really good post. However, I think your title is a little off. "Tolerance" is when people agree to disagree, but maintain their differences. What they want is "Endorsement" -- where people are forced to act as though homosexual behavior is both acceptable and desirable for society.

Anonymous said...

This isn't tolerance it is bullying by the government.

Through a false idea of fairness the government has decided to force companies to support the homosexual agenda which includes homosexual sex which is disordered.