“Please tell me how homosexuals instigate the religious. Do they take any rights away from the religious?”

http://catholicexchange.com/christians-persecuted-through-a-tyranny-of-nice/

“Americans are not the only ones facing an election this fall. Their neighbors to the north also head to the polls on October 14 as Canada holds its federal election. Yet one of the biggest issues of the past year ? the right to practice one?s Christian faith unmolested by the state ? remains untouched by Canadian politicians from all parties. And the persecution is spreading to the United States, as seen in several instances noted below. Sound like exaggeration? Think religious persecution is not possible right next door to America? Well think again. Canada?s human rights commissions and tribunals, originally founded to help socially-disadvantaged minorities seek redress against racism in government housing and services, have now turned their sights on Christians and pro-lifers. All this is done in the name of being nice and tolerant. Hence the title of my new book co-authored with Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle in which we document many of these cases: The Tyranny of Nice.

In the name of nice, Canada?s government is silencing Christians and pro-lifers from voicing opinions that others might find offensive. This prohibition applies even when one?s opinion is grounded in Christian truth and charity. Stating that the child in the womb is a human being is one such opinion being floated as potentially hateful. And now that Canadian law has redefined marriage to include same-sex couplings, to state publicly that marriage is between a man and a woman can lead to thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail sentences.

And Americans are not immune from this tyranny of nice. Similar cases are popping up south of the border as well. For instance, Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin was fined $6,500 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for crimes of conscience. Mrs. Huguenin declined, for reasons of faith, to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony between two lesbians. Since photography is an art form that requires a certain photographic eye, the New Mexico government agency was essentially compelling speech in violation of a private citizen?s conscience and First Amendment protections. In so doing the New Mexico Human Rights Commission used language similar to that of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Another case involves Marcia Walden, a licensed associate counselor in Georgia and an African-American Christian. She was fired from a government contract for following her profession?s code of ethics. When she sensed a personal conflict between her religious convictions and an individual seeking same-sex relationship counseling ? a conflict that would prevent Ms. Walden from giving the potential client the best treatment possible ? the counselor politely referred the client to another counselor in her office who did not share her religious convictions, and who could see the client the same day. Despite admitting that the counseling from this second counselor had been superb, Ms. Walden needed to be fired because her religious convictions as a Christian were deemed ?not nice.’

Yet the tyranny of nice is even more entrenched in Canada. Many CE readers have heard of the case against Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a founder of Canada?s pro-life movement and the publisher of Catholic Insight magazine. For the past year Father has been fighting a human rights complaint because he dared uphold the teachings of the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church during Canada?s contentious debate over same-sex marriage. Not content with having won the political war to re-define the world?s oldest and most sacred institution, homosexual activists are now attempting to silence the 76-year-old Basilian priest from the pulpit. What?s more, Father has been forced to pay $20,000 in legal expenses to defend himself, while the costs incurred by the government in its persecution of this priest are picked up by the taxpayer.”

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html

“Chris Kempling delivered this address on March 4, 2005 in New York City to a United Nations Commission on Human Rights Delegate Briefing. He received a standing ovation.”

“Canada is a country which prides itself on religious freedom and religious tolerance. And in many respects that is true. Citizens are free to practice their faiths according to their traditions, generally without interference from the government. And even when someone’s religious beliefs conflicts with a long established Canadian tradition, great tolerance can be shown, as was the case with the first Sikh Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer permitted to wear a turban instead of the regulation hat. That constable started his career in my home town of Quesnel, and he was accepted and appreciated by the community.

Unfortunately, there are two primary areas of conflict between religious freedoms and government policy in Canada: abortion and homosexuality. A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia’s maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime ? he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the ‘bubble zone’ of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it ? Thou shalt not kill.

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.”

“Then there’s the term ‘hate.’ If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is ‘promoting hatred.’ If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is ‘promoting hatred.’ If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people. Apparently Canadians can hold religious beliefs, but if they tell anyone else in a public forum, such as a newspaper, they are ‘promoting hatred.’

How about ‘homophobia.’ It literally means an irrational fear, even terror, of homosexual persons. A phobia is a mental illness, which can be successfully treated. In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are ‘mentally ill’ and require re-education. One homosexual activist, John McKellar, who opposes the Gay Pride movement, calls the use of the word homophobia, ‘a contrived slander’ against religiously conservative people. But activists realize that religious people are unlikely to change, which is why they are focusing a tremendous amount of attention on re-educating children in public schools.”

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

“The commissions and tribunals are ?quasi-judicial bodies? that have the full power of government behind them, but they operate separately from the court system and do not provide their victims even the basic due process protections that rapists and murderers enjoy in the courts. All an activist must do is file a complaint claiming that his feelings have been hurt and that he is offended by something that a Christian has said or done, and the tribunals bring governmental authority to bear against the ‘offender.’ There is no cost to the complainant, but the accused is forced to pay his own legal costs, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If found guilty he must pay ‘damages’ to the offended party, plus he must pay his accuser?s legal fees. There is a presumption of guilt and the accused must labor under adverse circumstances to prove his or her innocence.

An outspoken Christian has no real protection under this system. It is a grossly discriminatory, lose-lose situation from beginning to end.

As Ezra Levant, a lawyer who is defending himself before a human rights tribunal, observes, ‘Even if we win, we lose–the process has become the punishment. It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don?t apply. Rules of court don?t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin.'”

“If anything, the religious are the bullies, pushing their irrational and childish beliefs in non-existent anthropomorphic man-in-the-sky on people who are minding their own business in the privacy of their own home. Keep in mind that it was the religious people who pushed for laws making same-sex marriage illegal.”

This is patently misconstrued logic. There never was same-sex marriage to begin with, so how are Christians to blame for “taking away” something which never existed in the first place (and for good reason)?

While we’re at it, why not allow kids to marry, or for people to have multiple partners (polygamy)? After all, you people are fond of altering the definition of the word ‘marriage’ to suit your phony “pursuit of happiness” at your leisure. Marriage isn’t an ‘absolute right,’ as you’d like to twist it to be. The states may change the law but not without the consent of the people, yet that didn’t stop California from adopting same-sex marriages. Apparently all that’s need to trump the will of the majority is one homosexual activist judge. And you call Christians bullies…