I first saw this MassResistance propaganda on anti-equality site Opine Editorials. Strangely, Opine Editorials has a history of promoting dishonest pieces by this Southern Poverty Law Center-identified hate group. For good reason, even professional anti-equality groups have been distancing themselves from the likes of MassResistance and Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality as of late.
The cited MassResistance piece is, coming before Maine's marriage election, one of the more pathetic cases against legalizing same-sex marriage.
Long story short: A Massachusetts man was fired from his retail job after allegedly telling a woman who was marrying her girlfriend that he found homosexuality immoral and after allegedly telling another woman that he hated gays. The facts are in dispute, but more on that in a minute. Citing this case, MassResistance hyperventilates, "This is a chilling example of the ultimate consequences of imposing the concept of same-sex 'marriage' through force of law."
I will limit my response to two items of note:
1. Although the facts are in dispute, MassResistance provides two pieces of evidence. One is a video of the man narrating his version of the story, which coincides with MassResistance's version of the story. Apparently, a female employee mentioned to the man that she was getting married and, when the man made a statement showing that he assumed that the woman was marrying a man, the woman corrected him and said that she was marrying a woman. Then, according to the man, the woman "continued bringing it up" all day, causing the man to remark that "his Christian beliefs did not support same-sex marriage." A few hours later, he claims to have been suspended and then, two days later, he was fired.
The second piece of evidence is the man's termination letter, written by a human resources employee, outlining another version of the story. According to the letter, the man claimed that he "felt compelled to tell [the woman] that her lifestyle was immoral" and "deviant" and that he disagreed strongly with homosexuality. The letter than cites another employee who provided a written statement claiming that the man had said that he "hate[s]" gay people.
Oddly, and insulting the intelligence of any literate, thinking person, someone has scrawled hand-written notes throughout this letter at various points of dispute just in case, I suppose, readers might have forgotten the man's side of the story that they read seconds before. For instance, regarding the claim that the man said he "hate[s]" gay people, someone wrote "This is strongly disputed." (Note: That fact isn't merely disputed, it's strongly disputed! It must therefore be untrue!)
But really, that's the thing about disputes, isn't it? Whether disputing parties are in court, out in the street, or on the internet, everybody knows there are multiple sides to a story. What is not in question is that the man expressed his opinion regarding the immorality of same-sex marriage. What is in question is the degree to which he did so. Was he a man who, fed up with a lesbian flaunting her upcoming nuptials to her deviant lezzzzbian lover, finally snapped and expressed his judgmental opinions? Or, upon first hearing that the woman was going to marry her female partner, did he offer his unsolicited beliefs that homosexuality is "deviant" and say that he "hate[s] people like that"?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Say, I wonder what Mr. Persecuted Christian's lesbian co-worker has to say about all this? Did MassResistance try to get her side of the story? I notice that, unlike the man's, her perspective and video testimony is not offered. That MassResistance did not present any statement of hers and perhaps marked up his termination letter in amateurish scrawl sort of signifies a teensy bias, to say the least. In fact, even though MassResistance wasn't there to ascertain what really happened that day with Mr. Persecuted Christian and Ms. Lezzzbian, we see that MassResistance certainly has a story it wants to tell and that it is using his case as some sort of "example."
Which brings me to two.
2. Ridiculously, MassResistance claims that this case is the result of the imposition of "the concept of same-sex 'marriage' [sic] through force of law." While the termination letter does cite the fact that same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, this man was not fired as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage. Rather, the termination letter was very clear that the man's conduct, telling a fellow employee that she is "deviant and immoral," was "inappropriate and unprofessional" and constituted discrimination and harassment, which was especially heinous coming as it did from a manager.
The legal status of same-sex marriage is of no consequence as Massachusetts, like many states, is an employee-at-will state. This means that, with a few exceptions, an employer may fire an employee for pretty much any reason it wants. Coupled with that, and to keep this general, employers and managers have a legal duty to keep employees free from harassment and free from a hostile work environment. Because of these legal duties, employers often create personnel policies and procedures designed to respond to harassment and larger companies often send managers and employees to training on these issues. Oftentimes these policies, which every diligent employee reads, are explicitly clear about the employer's "zero tolerance" when it comes to harassment.
So, let's be very clear. What many anti-gay employees are actually seeking is the special right to be uncivil in the workplace and to have harassment policies and procedures then not apply to them. Audaciously, they are seeking this special right under their overused, frayed banner of so-called religious freedom.
Of the HoMoSeXuAl AgEnDa, MassResistance writes, "It's about making people accept what they normally would not accept and punishing those who resist." It's not surprising that MassResistance would write that particular narrative. However, in discounting other perspectives and including only those that would support such a story, they have it wrong.
People can accept or not accept whatever they want. Yet, while everyone is entitled to their beliefs, what they are not entitled to do is to make others feel unsafe. What anti-gays are slowly losing, thanks to the gay agenda, is the ability to consistently make others feel unsafe and do so with the approval of their own consciences. What they are losing, thanks to the gay agenda, is the power to decide what is and isn't offensive to All People. What they are losing, finally, is the power to dictate that the mere mention of a fact observable in reality- homosexuality- is more offensive and more harmful than treating those Others poorly.
Anti-gays have made up their minds long ago, way before quantifiable statistics were available, that same-sex marriage would cause all sorts of Great Harms to society. Now that same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, they have been desperate to document tangible proof of these "harms." If this case of a man fired for treating his co-worker poorly, and this, is the best they can offer, their "proof" is pretty damn pathetic. Where is the Earth-shattering, universe-destroying, family-unraveling destruction of society that has been so confidently predicted?
To concede a bit, this case does represent some "harm." Oh yes, it most definitely does. But where anti-gays have it wrong is in assuming it to be a harm for all of society. In reality, the success of the HoMo AgEnDa harms only the anti-gay's own power to narrate reality for everyone.