I read your "An Open Letter Regarding the Current Hate Crimes Amendment " and I have to say that it is, without a doubt, one of the worst pieces of outright deception I have seen in a long time.  I mean really, it is obvious that you are not so ignorant as to actually believe this stuff.  I mean, you have heard of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?  The stuff you suggest, none of which is even remotely a possible result of the law as written, would remotely stand up to review by the courts.  No, obviously, you have very little regard for the intelligence of conservative Christians, and think that they will swallow such drivel without giving it serious thought.  Yes, I know, of course they will.  Sad when you think about it, but it is the reason people like you are able to con them into thinking you actually believe in the Bible.  I mean, come on, just between you and me, you don't really believe that stuff about, oh say, not bearing false witness...or loving your neighbor as yourself....or as Paul says in Ephesians, "...laying aside falsehood, SPEAK TRUTH EACH ONE of you WITH HIS NEIGHBOR," now do you?  Of course not.  If you can get people to oppose a law that would simply make it a bit less likely that people that you think it is acceptable to hate get harmed....well, what's a few lies?

 

Might I suggest sir, that you consider repentance, accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior, and asking that He help you overcome your problems?

 

Jennifer Usher

 

I responded:

 

Dear Jennifer,

 

Have you actually read the three links that I provide? After you read them, get back to me and tell me again how these things can't be done in the United States. Until then, you are just responding out of blind anger.

 

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

http://www.robgagnon.net/HomosexualAgenda.htm

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoBalchFalseWitness.pdf (pp. 10-18)

 

As I wrote, many of these tragic results have already taken place in Canada, Scandinavia and the lowland European countries, and even in parts of the United States.

 

Let's look at your remark about the First Amendment. Do you think that if you spout racist comments in a white-collar job the First Amendment protects your continued employment? If opposition to homosexual practice is equated with racism, as would happen with such an amendment, the same things that would happen to overt racists would happen to those who oppose homosexual practice.

 

As I said, until you actually stop to read the links, all three links, don't correspond again. There is no point in repeating what is already laid out clearly there to someone who won't read these and yet sets out to abuse me.

 

Instead of asking me to repent and receive Jesus, you should consider (1) whether the abusive character of your remarks to me corresponds to Christian rhetoric and (2) whether your own stance on sexual ethics (i.e. affirming homosexual practice) corresponds to Jesus' teaching and thus to a confession of Christ's lordship.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Gagnon

 

 Jennifer then responded:

 

Let's see an article about Canada, which is not the United States, and which has an entirely different form of government, and two articles written by someone I already know is a liar.  Yes, I looked at them.  As I say, two of them are your own writings.  Providing those to prove anything is, at best, circular reasoning.  Oh, and Robert Knight?  ROTFL!  He is about as honest as you are.

 

And your argument about what one can, and cannot, say in a place of employment is a straw argument.  Your article states that such will be a direct result of this law.  Such is not remotely defensible. 

 

Obviously, you think yourself more clever than you really are.  Thanks for a good laugh.  Perhaps I misjudged you, and thought you smarter than you are.  If you really believe this stuff, well, I suppose ignorance is less dangerous than malicious deceit.  But not much.

 

In any case, at least try to base your arguments on facts, not imaginary rhetoric.

 

And as to my last remarks, they are quite sincere.  I believe the Bible.  Including the parts that say that we should be honest, and love our neighbor.  I have not hatred for you, only pity.

 

Jennifer Usher

 

 To which I responded:

 

Don't kid yourself, Jennifer, your last email is another piece of hate mail, not an expression of love. And you obviously don't believe the Bible as regards key sexuality issues.

 

Of course Canada is a different country from the US. But it has similar civil liberties--obviously. And perhaps it escaped your notice that the majority of the Supreme Court that ruled against the Texas sodomy law made appeal for its reasoning to European legal traditions?

 

If you are saying that I am lying about incidents that I report on in these links then you are in an even worse moral state than could be presumed from your previous email. Are you claiming that I am lying about the following five cases in the United States?

 

On Apr. 28, 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a judge not to say anything "homophobic" to her own adopted 8-year-old daughter. Clark had once been in a lesbian relationship, during which time Clark adopted a girl from China. Her lesbian partner, Elsey McLeod, had traveled with her to China but only Dr. Clark had applied for the adoption and paid for it. Her partner had not expressed an interest in acting as a parent. Later in 2000 Dr. Clark returned to her Christian roots, realized that her homosexual lifestyle was incompatible with being a Christian, and broke off the relationship. McLeod sued for joint custody. Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin not only granted joint custody, requiring Dr. Clark to make joint decisions with her ex-girlfriend, but also ordered Dr. Clark to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." McLeod was not required to abstain from remarks critical of Dr. Clark's beliefs, even though she was critical of Clark's church and religion. On July 1, 2004, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the joint custody order but sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether barring anti-homosexual religious instruction violates the woman's First Amendment rights. Dr. Clark is appealing the joint custody aspect of the decision.

 

On Jan. 6, 2004 the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hewlett-Packard's Boise, Idaho, office was justified in firing Richard Peterson for silently protesting homosexual activism in the workplace. Peterson's great "crime" was responding to a "diversity posters" celebrating homosexuality by posting two or three Bible passages implicitly critical of homosexual behavior on the overhead bin in his cubicle. No co-worker had complained about Peterson's postings and Peterson had not accosted any co-worker.

 

In October 2002, Rolf Szabo, a 23-year employee of The Eastman Kodak Co., was fired when he responded to an e-mail requiring supervisors to promote a "Coming Out Day" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees with the following: "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you."

 

In 2000, Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a Bureau of Reclamation job training teacher in Nampa, Idaho, and a Mormon, was ordered by his employer to "observe gay and lesbian pride." Gee e-mailed his supervisor, saying that he believed homosexual behavior was sinful and did not want to celebrate it. Three supervisors told him that his e-mail violated federal policies. He was warned not to express disagreements in the workplace again or face termination. The case is currently under litigation.

           

In 1998 Annie Coffey-Montes, a New York Bell Atlantic employee for 20 years, was fired for attempting to remove herself from the e-mail list of GLOBE (Gay and Lesbians of Bell Atlantic), which advertised "gay pride" parades, "coming out" parties, and homosexual dances. After a year of petitioning her supervisor to have her name removed, she responded to one GLOBE e-mail with: "Please take me off this email. I find it morally offensive. God bless you." She ended by citing Romans 1:27. Coffey-Montes was then fired for "creating a hostile work environment." She appealed to the New York State Department of Health. The Department of Health dropped the case against New York Bell even though New York Bell failed to show for all three hearings. The decision to drop the case was not all that surprising, considering that Coffey-Montes' caseworker had pro-homosex posters on her office wall. Coffey-Montes subsequently sued New York Bell and received an out-of-court settlement. New York Bell has not changed its policy.

 

You determine facts, apparently, on the basis of whether they conform to your ideology rather than reality. If you don't believe me, look up the cases yourself--unless you are afraid to do so.

 

Dr. Gagnon

 

 Ms. Usher's response:

 

 

Alas, it is "hate" when you disagree, but not when you spout it. 

 

No, Canada does not have the same civil liberties as we do.  Nor does England, which allows censorship that would never be allowed in the United States.  And the Supreme Court's ruling against the Texas sodomy law was based on the right to privacy, something I assume you have no desire for.

 

Now, let's consider those cases.  In the case of Dr. Cheryl Clark, you are still distorting the facts concerning that case.  What the court ruled is quite different from what you claim:

 

Here are two quotes from the ACTUAL court decision:

 

We also consider whether the prohibition against homophobic religious teachings impermissibly invades Clark's rights to control the religious upbringing of E.L.M.C. under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its Colorado counterpart.  We vacate the order as to this limitation and remand this aspect of the case to the trial court for findings required by § 14-10-130(1), C.R.S.

 

AND

 

The order is affirmed as to joint parental responsibilities and parenting time.  The order is vacated as to limitations on religious upbringing, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion, under § 14-10-130(1).

 

Simply put, they did not rule anything like what you claim. In fact, they specifically ruled that it was a violation of her First Amendment rights to make such a decision.  The law cited makes an exception where "the child's physical health would be endangered or the child's emotional development significantly impaired."  In another words, they did exactly the opposite of what you claim.  They found that such was a violation of her religious liberties, "Hence, given the important role that religious freedom enjoys in our constitutional scheme of ordered liberty, Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986), and the mandate of § 14-10-130(1), we conclude that remand is necessary."  And I realize you may honestly not understand how the courts work.  This is how these cases are handled.  They are sent back to the appropriate court so it can issue a ruling that is consistent with the law, as interpreted by the higher court.   As to the rest of the cases cited, these involve actions by employers.  Employers are not, in most cases, bound by the First Amendment regarding speech on the job.  They can also restrict how one uses company computers.  In fact, in the absence of a contract, or a specific law, such as a non-discrimination law, they can fire someone for any reason they choose.  Shoot, I knew one guy who had his job threatened because he employer (who was mentally ill) didn't like the color of his car.  His employer, to his credit, did pay for the paint job, and the car went from red, or more specifically, crimson (the color most associated with the University of Alabama) to blue (Auburn University's color).  Had he refused to comply, he would have been fired, and would have had NO recourse.  Silly?  Yes, but such is the law.  The Gee case should prove interesting.  He violated a policy of his employer, in this case the Federal Government.  The only question that is relevant here is whether or not restricting his statement in that context was a violation of free speech.  It will be interesting to see the actual court ruling, as I am sure there are facts that have not been reported in the conservative press.  In fact, one story on the case indicates that the real issue was his demand that he not receive certain emails.  And employer, even the Federal government, has the right to send employees emails concerning workplace issues.  Alas, it appears that this case is being presented in a less than truthful manner. 

 

As to your final remark, well as you can see, I did look up the cases, and I find your arguments lacking, and still more than a little dishonest.

If you wish, you can try again...

 

Jennifer Usher 

Jennifer,

 

You think that with your last email you have somehow demonstrated your case. Of course, you have done nothing of the sort.

 

Canada’s civil liberties are indeed similar to those of the United States; in this you are simply wrong.

 

You still evade the issue that the Supreme Court majority called on legal traditions in other Western nations to substantiate its views. The Court majority ruled:

 

And, to the extent Bowers [the 1986 Supreme Court ruling that declared that homosexual intercourse was not a fundamental right] relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.

 

The European Court of Human Rights is thus brought into the case to buttress the Supreme Court's lack of a case. Yet you say the legal traditions of other Western nations have no bearing on what happens in the United States? That we are a little insulated bubble against trends in other Western nations?

 

As for the so-called absolute “right to privacy” that you pay homage to, I suppose you find problematic any role by the state in regulating bigamy, adult incest, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, child pornography, recreational use of heroin, and the like. Scalia noted this contradiction, quite rightly, and added:

 

We have held repeatedly, in cases the Court today does not overrule, that only fundamental rights qualify for this so-called “heightened scrutiny” protection—that is, rights which are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” “Noting that “[p]roscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots,” id., at 192, that “[s]odomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights,” and that many States had retained their bans on sodomy..., Bowers concluded that a right to engage in homosexual sodomy was not “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’”

 

Indeed, the Supreme Court with this decision has already set the stage for criminalizing any attempts to “discriminate” against homosexual persons. Again, Scalia:

 

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994; Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. §654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).

 

…[A]n earlier passage in the Court’s opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas] . . . notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring”; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution”?

 

Oh no, you say, “The stuff that Gagnon suggests could happen from making 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' a specially protected federal civil right could never happen here in the United States, that it would never stand up to review by the courts.” Yet the Lawrence v. Texas case has already laid the groundwork for just such a transformation, and it has done so, in part, by appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The majority of the Supreme Court—unless Bush changes it—would be only too happy to finish the job, once the federal government has given it the excuse it needs by expressly declaring “sexual orientation” to be a civil rights category deserving special federal protection. The same process occurred in Vermont: sexual orientation “hate crime” legislation furthered so-called “non-employment discrimination” legislation which led the Court to declare that the state had already established homosexual behavior as a special civil right, which enabled the court to demand all the benefits of marriage for homosexual unions. The Vermont Supreme Court simply imposed its will on the state legislature.

 

Let’s take the Boy Scouts as another example. Here we have a private organization. Oh no, you say, their rights as a private organization are protected; they don’t have to admit homosexual scoutmasters. Our American freedoms would not allow a compromise of that. Well, the New Jersey Supreme Court disagrees with you, for they saw the Scouts as in violation of New Jersey’s antidiscrimination law, which included sexual orientation. But maybe they have more imagination than you to see that private organizations like the Scouts are not necessarily protected by the U.S. Constitution. True, the Supreme Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor, but 4 out of 9 justices did not—apparently too they see this coercion of the Scouts as justified by the Constitution. One more left-leaning justice added to the Court would change everything, wouldn’t it?

 

Of course, too, it is quite obvious that granting civil rights status to “sexual orientation” would mean that a seminary that “discriminated” against homosexually active candidates would sacrifice the hundreds of thousands that they receive in federal student loans. Do you contest this?

 

That schools cannot be required to promote “sexual orientation diversity”? You contest this too? Have you heard of California?

 

As for the Clark case, you have not demonstrated that I am “distorting the facts concerning the case.” I guess I have to repeat for you what I said:

 

On Apr. 28, 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a judge not to say anything "homophobic" to her own adopted 8-year-old daughter. Clark had once been in a lesbian relationship, during which time Clark adopted a girl from China. Her lesbian partner, Elsey McLeod, had traveled with her to China but only Dr. Clark had applied for the adoption and paid for it. Her partner had not expressed an interest in acting as a parent. Later in 2000 Dr. Clark returned to her Christian roots, realized that her homosexual lifestyle was incompatible with being a Christian, and broke off the relationship. McLeod sued for joint custody. Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin not only granted joint custody, requiring Dr. Clark to make joint decisions with her ex-girlfriend, but also ordered Dr. Clark to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." McLeod was not required to abstain from remarks critical of Dr. Clark's beliefs, even though she was critical of Clark's church and religion. On July 1, 2004, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the joint custody order but sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether barring anti-homosexual religious instruction violates the woman's First Amendment rights. Dr. Clark is appealing the joint custody aspect of the decision.

 

Now, how does that presentation differ from anything that you have quoted in your prior correspondence? I made quite clear that Dr. Clark was appealing the joint custody aspect of the decision, not the anti-homosexual religious instruction. The Appeals Court did indeed remand the case back to the lower court “for further proceedings” on the latter. And even you note that an exception to the mother’s religious freedoms can be made if "the child's emotional development [would be] significantly impaired" by the parent's religious expression. So if the child grows up and identifies herself as a lesbian, the court can simply rule that anti-homosexual speech on the part of the parent would significantly 'impair the child’s emotional development.' What’s so tough about figuring that out?

 

And you claim, with the Clark case, that, oh no, a parent’s free exercise of religious views to her child could never be abridged in this country. Well, guess what? The Denver County Circuit Judge disagreed with you. He thought that his ruling was quite compatible with the First Amendment. I guess he was not as disbelieving as you that such a thing could happen in this country. If he could make that ruling before any nationwide civil rights standard is established, then certainly judges in the future, thoroughly influenced by a national legal standard that declares anti-homosex views to be bigoted and discriminatory could certainly reach the same decision. That you pretend not even to be able to imagine this is stunning.

 

You completely miss the point on the possibility of being fired from the workplace, on several levels. First, you miss the point that a national legal system that defines “sexual orientation” as a specially protected civil right classification puts employers at risk if they do not demonstrate a “friendly” and supportive workplace, thereby compelling them to stamp out any discriminatory practices or “climate of fear” towards those whose “civil rights” are specially federally protected. For example, any employer that could be charged with creating such a climate toward black persons or women would be subject to federal prosecution and huge damages. Do you not know this? The same would apply to “sexual minorities” once “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are made protected civil rights categories. Secondly, to take the Peterson case as an example, had Peterson been a black man and had he been fired for posting quotations of Martin Luther King on his cubicle, Hewlett-Packard would have been required to restore him to his job and undoubtedly the corporation would have faced huge fines. Why do companies mandate “sensitivity training” regarding civil rights of women and minorities (including my seminary)? They do so to protect themselves against legal action by those who belong to specially protected civil rights categories.

 

In addition, had Szabo been a woman and had responded to a company email that characterized women as inferior to men with the words, “Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you," the company could have been sued for millions and she would have won in a Kodak instant. So the company is limited in whom they can fire and on what grounds, especially when civil rights issues are involved. But, when “sexual orientation” becomes a special civil rights category then the employer not only can get away with firing someone like Szabo but it becomes its civic and legal responsibility to do so. By the way, Szabo wasn’t just fired for not wanting any more company emails on the matter. He was fired for expressing hostility to the company’s corporate values regarding sexual diversity. Coffey-Montes, too, was fired from Bell for “creating a hostile work environment,” not specifically for requesting that the emails not be sent. As it was she got no help from the New York State Dept. of Health. Had NY at the time had a state sexual orientation antidiscrimination law the situation would have been completely untenable for her and she would not even received an out-of-court settlement from Bell, which still has not rescinded its policy.

 

The same goes for the Gee case, which is not about, as you claim, refusing to receive emails. As one news source reports it,

 

In October, the Rutherford Institute filed a federal suit against the Department of the Interior on behalf of Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a Bureau of Reclamation job training teacher in Nampa, Idaho. In 2000, Gee, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, received a directive from his employer to "observe gay and lesbian pride." The e-mail contained a link to a website that said, "Morality is simply the attitude we adopt toward people we personally dislike." In an e-mail to his supervisor, Gee responded that he believed homosexuality is sinful, and he didn't want to celebrate it. Three supervisors subsequently informed Gee that his inappropriate e-mail violated federal policies and embarrassed the Bureau of Reclamation. Gee said he later received a counseling memo about inappropriate use of a government computer. The memo warned him not to express disagreements in the workplace. The Department of Interior is one of 38 federal departments and agencies to have adopted a sexual non-discrimination policy, according to the HRC.

 

The issue for the Bureau was not refusing emails but violating a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy of this federal agency. To quote you, it looks like, alas, you are presenting the case in a less than truthful manner.

 

Of course, there have been some cases in this country where, thankfully, justices have ruled in favor of the civil liberties of those who oppose homosexual practice. But that is because the country hasn’t yet gone all the way with enshrining 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' as specially protected classifications, as civil rights. Once that happens, of course the courts are going to rule in favor of employers who fire workers that create a climate of hostility, so-called, against persons in these specially protected civil rights classifications. The fact that some judges already rule in this direction and that some courts have had significant dissenting minorities even when protecting First Amendment rights indicates that the shift is in the winds.

 

Well, as you can see, it is not I who is, as you put it, "still more than a little dishonest" about the effects of a sexual orientation "hate crimes" bill on curtailing civil liberties.

 

 

Dr. Gagnon