Daring to stand against the gay lobby (Freeper-written op ed)

How much of your life willing you part with to make gay activists happy? Let me introduce you to some people who’ve already paid price in personal trouble or lost civil liberties because they dared express politically incorrect views on the subject.

Let’s start with the most recent victim. Leo “Skip” Childs is a dedicated volunteer firefighter in the town of North Truro, Massachusetts. He is known for spending every spare hour assisting his neighbors. He’s the department’s mechanic, and until recently was on the local Board of Fire Engineers and was about to be appointed to another term.

But then a local selectman decided to publicly humiliate Childs because he had signed a petition in favor of a gay marriage referendum. Paul Asher-Best said that if Childs opposes gay marriage he must believe that “less than fully human,” and he is said to have “gone ballistic” when Childs responded by saying he was just opposing undue influence by “special interests” and would have no problem if the people approved gay marriage with their votes. After a decade of exemplary service, Childs was booted from the board under the absurd assumption that wanting to protect marriage made him an unrepentant hater of homosexuals.

Ask Ake Green. He’s a Swedish pastor who was jailed for preaching against homosexuality in 2003. He was later released on appeal, and his preaching was industrial strength (the words “cancer” and “perverts” were used) but the case boils down to this: He was arrested because prosecutors believed that saying homosexuality is a sin is the same as advocating the killing or beating of gays. Sure guys, let me know the next time a preacher says “Stop looking at porn, it’s a cancer on our society” and the congregation marches off to lynch the guy running the local adult bookstore.

Then there’s Scott Brockie. He’s a printer who was dragged into court by the Ontario Human Rights Commission because he declined a request to print stationery for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Surely, Brockie was a major league homophobe, right? Actually, he had plenty of gay customers, he simply drew the line—for religious reasons—at work that would help an organization promote homosexual activity. As of 2004, he was liable not only for his original $5,000 fine, but for about $35,000 in court costs. He was also ordered to print the materials. Yes, in enlightened Canada, the government can force you to do business with someone who hates everything you stand for, so they avoid the ordeal of going down the block to another printer.

How about Ene Kiildi (pronounced Ay-nay Killdee) of Portland, Maine? Kiildi ran indirectly afoul of Portland’s law preventing discrimination against gays. A lesbian co-worker (apparently hunting for thoughtcrimes) initiated a conversation with her about Christianity, asking whether Kiildi’s faith has “a problem” with homosexuality. Kiildi replied “I don't have any problem as long as you do your work,” but yes, homosexuality is a sin under Christian doctrine. The co-worker reported her for creating a “hostile work environment” and Kiildi nearly lost her job because her employer was worried about being prosecuted by the city. Kiildi told M.D. Harmon of the Portland Press Herald that she might be fired for talking to him. She said she had probably been singled out as a potential homphobe because—brace yourself—she had a “Jesus Loves You” bumper sticker on her car and had occasionally been seen reading the Bible on her lunch hour. Whoa, what a monster.

Ready for the final irony? Kiildi emigrated to Portland from Estonia in 1990 to escape religious persecution.

Another Portlander literally had the book thrown at him for his traditional views. Steve Whiting was forced out of his law firm (where he was a full partner) because he provided legal assistance to outgunned-but-innocent pro-family activists petitioning to put the human rights law to a referendum. The trouble started before that, when he gave the other partners Bibles, and one of them hurled the gift back at him.

Oh, and let’s not forget the eleven Christian activists from who were arrested in Philadelphia for serving up Bible verses during “Outfest.” For this “hate crime,” they faced up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines. Fortunately a sane federal judge intervened and they were released. At the top of their web page, these terrible people have the following words: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Yep, that’s definitely the kind of stuff you hear right before the lynch mob gets out the rope.

The more the gay lobby gets the upper hand in government, the more we’ll see of their versions of “equality” and “tolerance.”

It's good to report real stories of gay militancy, but not so good if stories are taken out of context or completely changed.

Two such stories are those of Ene Kiilde, and Leo Childs.

Some of the Kiilde story is verbatim from the Portland Press Herald, but omitted some pretty significant information:

Your version:

A lesbian co-worker (apparently hunting for thoughtcrimes) initiated a conversation with her about Christianity, asking whether Kiildi’s faith has “a problem” with homosexuality. Kiildi replied “I don't have any problem as long as you do your work,” but yes, homosexuality is a sin under Christian doctrine. The co-worker reported her for creating a “hostile work environment” and Kiildi nearly lost her job because her employer was worried about being prosecuted by the city.

According to the paper you quoted from however:

Kiildi said a female coworker recently approached her, asking Kiildi if she knew she was a lesbian. Then the coworker asked Kiildi if she had a problem with that, in the context of the upcoming gay rights vote.

Kiildi said she replied, ''I don't have any problem as long as you do your work. But you know the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and you are in danger of going to hell unless you repent.''
Kiildi said the coworker then reported her comments to management, claiming Kiildi was creating a ''hostile work environment'' in the context of Portland's ordinance.

Kiildi said she was counseled not to repeat her words, which left her in a bind: ''The Bible tells me to be a witness to what I believe if someone asks me. She asked, and I replied, and I got in trouble.''
Later, she said, she was asked a similar question, to which she responded in a similar vein. Another complaint ensued, and this time, she said, she was threatened with dismissal.

I called Peter Bickford, the company's personnel director, who initially told me that he would have ''No comment'' on Kiildi's claims. Later, called by a reporter for these papers, he said Kiildi was ''counseled'' twice for ''disruptive behavior'' for ''yelling at her coworkers.''

If this version is the truth, then yours is not, and the conclusions are incorrect. If yours is true, then it would help to see a link.

The second issue concerns Skip Childs. According to your version:

However, according to townonline, a far different story is told:

The controversy began months ago when Childs came before the board of selectmen to express concern over the bid process for the purchase of a new fire truck in town. His moves angered the board of fire engineers as it was seen as a departure from the chain of command. Tempers flared in a verbal altercation between Childs and some members of the board in the hallway following the discussion at the selectmen's meeting last April.

However, town counsel examined the bid process and determined that it was legal under state law.
When Childs' term expired and he applied to be re-appointed, selectmen questioned him on his actions regarding the bid process, his concerns and his relationship to the rest of the board. But just before a vote, Selectman Paul Asher-Best questioned whether Childs could serve all of the town, including its gay and lesbian residents, since Childs signed a petition to ban gay marriage. Asher-Best married his male partner soon after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2004. The petition, which is a public document, is online with the names and addresses of all who signed at the pro-gay marriage website www.knowthyneighbor.org.

The board then voted unanimously to appoint Dan Silva to the board instead. Childs, and his wife Marjorie, believed the outcome was, and is, a case of "reverse discrimination" as they are practicing Catholics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And they still believe that after he was not reappointed the second time, even though the board of selectmen no longer includes Asher-Best. In addition, selectmen expressed in writing that his personal views on marriage have nothing to do with their vote not to reappoint him.
"I have nothing but respect and admiration for Skip," said Worthington, after the vote was taken.
Worthington said she wanted everyone to understand that Childs was still the chief of rescue operations for the town.
"Nothing was taken away from Skip," said Worthington. "We've always been behind Skip as the EMS chief, always."

Once again, your version could be correct, and the newspaper's completely made up, but I doubt it.

Just as with the false stories about David Parker and his son's "beating", if these stories are not true, they do more harm to the anti gay lobby than help.

For some real stories of the harm gay activism can do in our schools, I recommend The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce. It is quite detailed, graphic and true.

The text you pulled from Portland Press Herald agrees that Kiildi was confronted - not once but TWICE. If she wasn't being set up the first time, she was obviously being set up the second time.

As for the additional details the Op-Ed included about the Childs' story, I don't know. But, the text you pulled from the news source agrees that he was confronted by one of the selectman about the issue.

As for the Kiildi story, the way I see it, don't ask if you don't want to hear an answer. I was away from the Church for a very long time, yet I worked and was around many Christians. If I walked up to a Christian coworker and asked, "Did you know that I'm an atheist?" I would expect the answer to be: "I don't have any problem as long as you do your work. But you know the Bible says the nonbeliever is in danger of going to hell." And, as a matter of fact, the topic did come up in conversation once or twice, and I did hear that kind of answer. I didn't go running to Human Resources about it. It didn't bother me at all.

People cannot talk openly anymore without going ballistic. A few months ago, I came across the same attitude from a group of women I've know for a long time. We're no longer on speaking terms because, when I took a position on this very issue (same-sex "marriage") - without using derogatory terms or pointing to anyone specifically - they made a personal attack on me and MY family, and THEY used derogatory terms. Too many people are incapable of having a civil discussion today.

I know there's got to be relevent Biblical passage out there somewhere.

TADA!!!

Genesis 13:13
Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psa. 12:8 8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.
More?
Isaiah 3:9
The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape.....

The text you pulled from Portland Press Herald agrees that Kiildi was confronted - not once but TWICE. If she wasn't being set up the first time, she was obviously being set up the second time.

Well, obviously! And you know this how? If one of my employees was going around telling folks they're going to hell unless they repent, they would be fired after the first such episode.

As for the additional details the Op-Ed included about the Childs' story, I don't know. But, the text you pulled from the news source agrees that he was confronted by one of the selectman about the issue.

And also the little additional piece that showed it pretty unlikely that this had anything to do with his stance on homosexuality. But those little details seem to get overlooked at times.

As for the Kiildi story, the way I see it, don't ask if you don't want to hear an answer.

I have a feeling there's a bit more to it than that. And anyway, adding the bit about going to hell unless you repent is going overboard. Unless Kiilde is God, I'm not sure how she knows that, and in any case, I as a manager would not want her running around the office telling everyone that.

If I walked up to a Christian coworker and asked, "Did you know that I'm an atheist?" I would expect the answer to be: "I don't have any problem as long as you do your work. But you know the Bible says the nonbeliever is in danger of going to hell."

The distinction being that you would have asked a religious question not a work related question.

People cannot talk openly anymore without going ballistic. A few months ago, I came across the same attitude from a group of women I've know for a long time. We're no longer on speaking terms because, when I took a position on this very issue (same-sex "marriage") - without using derogatory terms or pointing to anyone specifically - they made a personal attack on me and MY family, and THEY used derogatory terms. Too many people are incapable of having a civil discussion today.

True, and as a conservative, I first try and determine the truth of a story. When the truth is this far apart, I generally shy away from the story. But lately, some of us here seem not to care whether or not the story has any validity, just whether or not it will serve our agenda. Just like the left.

Here are the bullet points I use with gays:

1) Sexual orientation is an inappropriate basis for deciding the distribution of power in society. It causes a devolution of functional society which history shows causes the downfall of civilization. Rome and Greece are both prime examples. (Modern day examples include Iraq Lebanon, Syria,Afghanistan and Iran where inter-male sex is expected as a coming of age fact, with a consequent sequestration and disempowerment of women)

2) People need privacy in relation to sexuality. It is no bodies business and you cannot make yours my business.

3) Homosexual lifestyles are mentally and physically unhealthy.

4) Consenting adults are freee to conduct themselves in any way they wish privately in our society, but should not be taxpayer supported or subsidized because homosexuals cannot create a proper spiritual connection with each other dedicated to the creation of life and a secure home for children.( Many gay parents want to bail on their adoptive or artificially created children should the going get rough.)

5) No legal benefits between homosexuals need be conferred by homosexual marriage. Such provisions for such couples can be provided by contract and trust law arrangements.

as a conservative, I first try and determine the truth of a story.

You're talking to an all-around skeptic here. Remember, the news sources you quoted may not be entirely accurate either. But let's assume that the news sources are portraying those situations accurately... The Op-Ed on this thread still holds up:

And you know this [that the woman was being set up] how?

From the stories you posted. Why are two coworkers approaching the woman and asking her those questions?

If one of my employees was going around telling folks they're going to hell unless they repent, they would be fired after the first such episode.

Again, your own posted quotes from news sources indicates that the woman is being approached and put on the spot. That doesn't sound like someone walking from cubicle to cubicle harrassing people. She's the one being harrassed.

And also the little additional piece that showed it pretty unlikely that this had anything to do with his stance on homosexuality. But those little details seem to get overlooked at times.

How is it so unlikely? The news source you quoted said: "But just before a vote, Selectman Paul Asher-Best questioned whether Childs could serve all of the town, including its gay and lesbian residents, since Childs signed a petition to ban gay marriage.... The board then voted unanimously to appoint Dan Silva to the board instead."

There were other issues raised, too, but, according to your own source, this particular issue was indeed brought up.

And anyway, adding the bit about going to hell unless you repent is going overboard. Unless Kiilde is God, I'm not sure how she knows that, and in any case, I as a manager would not want her running around the office telling everyone that.

If your own source is correct, then the woman herself is being targeted. She's not running around the office. "Going to hell unless you repent" is a part of Christian doctrine. If they didn't want the woman to answer honestly about her beliefs, they shouldn't have approached her and asked the question.

The distinction being that you would have asked a religious question not a work related question.

How is asking someone's opinion on same-sex marriage a work-related question?

But lately, some of us here seem not to care whether or not the story has any validity, just whether or not it will serve our agenda. Just like the left.

I would argue against a story, too, if that were the case. But, so far, this Op-Ed passes the test.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.