Monday, November 02, 2009

Another good idea ruined by gay brownshirts

I was going to vote in favor of the Domestic Partnership law, because, frankly, I think it's fair. It ought to be possible to designate another person, be it a beddy-buddy or just a roommate, as a beneficiary for government purposes without having to designate it as a marriage.

But I'm beginning to think I was wrong. Even if this particular law is reasonable, I don't think there's any doubt that the gay lobby wants to use it as leverage to force the rest of us to bend to their will.

Case in point:
As Peter described the incident [video at link], he came to work on August 10 and began his day normally. A female manager from another store was in the store and began talking to Peter about her upcoming marriage. When Peter asked “where is he taking you for the honeymoon,” she corrected him and said she was not getting married to "he" but to another woman.

Peter did not immediately react, but when the manager sensed Peter’s discomfort with the subject of same-sex “marriage”, the woman apparently continued bringing it up to Peter throughout the day, reiterating that she was getting married to another woman. Finally, after the fourth or fifth time she brought it up, Peter remarked that his Christian beliefs did not accept same-sex marriage. At that point the woman became very angry and bluntly told Peter that he needed to “get over it” and said that she would be immediately contacting the Human Resources department.

A few hours later Peter was notified by a Human Resources representative that he was suspended from work without pay, effective immediately. Two days later, on August 12, after some further interaction with the Human Resources department, he was formally notified that he was terminated from the company.

That is the sort of thing that could very easily happen in the People's Republic of Washington. These people don't want tolerance or equality. They want to enforce approval and forbid dissident thought. The Greek Chorus is very clear on that point.

If it's just going to be used as a vehicle to religious discrimination, then I think I'd better vote against it. I'm not giving up my constitutional rights, especially in order to create a new right for the very people who want to take them away.

No comments: