Recent Activity

  • The Ghost of Anita Bryant in Kalamazoo?
    Gary commented on the article | about 3 years ago
    The Ghost of Anita Bryant in Kalamazoo?

    Thanks for the advice, Rex, but I'm already free, and in all the verbiage you expended, you failed to note any instance in which I didn't tell the truth.

    You did, however, confirm that so-called "gay rights" laws have a proven track record of being used to discriminate against and penalize individuals and organizations that take a stand regarding the homosexual agenda diverse from your own.  While rarely -- if ever -- actually being invoked in response to allegations of "discrimination" against individuals on the basis of what kind of sex they engage in.

    As I said, a discriminatory "solution" in search of a problem.

  • The Ghost of Anita Bryant in Kalamazoo?
    Gary commented on the article | about 3 years ago
    The Ghost of Anita Bryant in Kalamazoo?

    "Glenn doesn't give an example of how this is true, of course."

    Hi Michael,

    Actually, I provided the Kalamazoo Gazette reporter multiple examples, which she failed to report.

    Given your location and your Catholic affiliation, you yourself should have been able to post one of the best examples:
     
    Catholic Charities in Boston being given an ultimatum under the Massachusetts "gay rights" law: either refer children to homosexual couples for adoption, which the Vatican describes as doing "moral violence" to children, or be forced to abandon its century-old adoption referral service altogether (which had previously comprised 40 percent of all adoption referrals in the city).  To their credit, Catholic Charities refused to be compelled by law to violate its religious convictions.

    Or the Scout council under Philadelphia's "gay rights" ordinance being evicted from offices they've occupied in a city park for 80 years, because they choose as a matter of policy not to allow adult men involved in homosexual activity to serve as Scoutmasters.

    Or city employees in Ann Arbor being prohibited under that city's "gay rights" ordinance from donating to the United Way through their city payroll deduction plan.  Why?  Because United Way financially supported local Boy Scout troops.

    Or the president of the police officers' union in Ann Arbor being fired for allegedly violating the ordinance.  His offense: asking a candidate for police chief at a public forum if she supported the "gay rights" agenda.

    Or the Salvation Army being prohibited under Cook County, Illinois's "gay rights" ordinance from bidding on contracts to provide services to the poor, because they don't -- as a matter of religious conviction -- allow homosexual clergy.

    Multiple such examples of so-called "gay rights" ordinances being used to discrminate against organizations which don't endorse homosexual activity or the political movement which promotes it.

    In contrast, we've challenged homosexual activist groups in Michigan over the last decade to provide any example -- even one -- of an individual being denied employment, housing, or service in a public accommodation based on what kind of sex they have at home.  To date, they've been unable to provide even one instance anywhere, any time, in a state of 10 million people, over the course of ten years.  Obviously, such ordinances are nothing more than political propaganda statements, "solutions" in search of a non-existent problem.

    For whatever it's worth, the Vatican in 1992 issued an instruction to Catholic bishops opposing such laws, authored by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope): http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM

    And rejecting these ordinances in Michigan is not a relic of the 70's.  Voters in Lansing (1995), Royal Oak (2001), and most recently Hamtramck (2008) have done so, though the Lansing City Council later reimposed that city's law despite the people's vote.

Impact

0 Recruits