-In Vermont this summer, an innkeeper was forced to pay $30,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two women for refusing to host the couple's wedding reception. The inn no longer hosts weddings or receptions.
I don't understand this statement. Did the women win the lawsuit and thus the inn was compelled to pay or did the inn settle with the women and agree to pay of their own accord?
-In Canada, where same-se marriage has been legalized, Roman Catholic sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired from his job for expressing support for traditional marriage.
Do you support at-will states in the United States?
-Accusations that it is "anti-gay" have been leveled a Bhick-Fil-A because its founder offered a personal statement supporting traditional marriage. Mayors in several major cities denounced the company for its "discriminatory views" (no discrimination was done by the company) and have threatened to prevent the company from operating in their cities.
So what? Just as the founder has a right to speak his mind, those that disagree with what he said get to speak their. Yes, the mayors are wrong. But that is a different issue and I am not aware of any place where they have actually been prevented from opening.
Freedom is a two-way street. One side does not get freedom while the other side does not.
-In August a gunman entered the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. with intent to kill staff members because the organization defends marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Family Research Council has been branded by one same-sex marriage advocacy group as a "hate group" because of its suport for traditional marriage.
You are describing a crime by one person. If I find a member of the Roman Catholic church that shot someone for a reason similar, does that mean that the Church is against that group and threatening their liberty?
How does redefining marriage threaten religious liberty?
-A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost its state tax exemption for refusing to make their facilities available to a same-sex couple for a civil union ceremony.
Similar situation as the other one before. New Jersey has a law that if land is made available to the public, people cannot be discriminated against including for sexual orientation. This was a New Jersey law. I'm sorry that the Methodist organization did not know the law, but ignorance of the law is no defense.
-Forced to choose between their ministries and Catholic teaching, Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington D.C. closed their adoption agencies.
This one I am willing to see as valid.
-In Canada, where same-sex marriage was being debated, Father Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest, was investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a "hate act" after quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals to defend traditional marriage.
This is stupid, but I don't know Canada's free speech laws. A lot of countries differ greatly.
-In Alberta, Canada Bishop Fred Henry was subject to a human rights complaint for stating in a pastoral letter the position of the Catholic Church on same-sex marriage.
Again, Canada. I don't know enough.
How does redefining marriage threaten the good of societ?
-In Brazil, where civil unions are legal, a partnership between three partners was resgistered earlier this year. After review of the law, it was determined that no legal impediments existed to prevent their union--a union for which no word existed in Portuguese.
-The California Legislature has pased a bill to legalize familes of three or more parents.
-In Spain, where same-sex marriage has been legalized, birth certificates substitute the terms "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" for "Mother" and "Father"
Please explain how all of these threaten the "good of society". That is a very vague but ominous term.
