(1) A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job
(2) A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can’t support same-sex marriage
(3) A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay
Problem is, none of them are real; the audition tapes have emerged.
However, as noted on the Human Rights Campaign News Release, the features do come from actual cases (over and over again, these are the cases they cite Not many, eh?)
All three examples involve religious people who enter the public sphere, but don’t want to abide by the general non-discriminatory rules everyone else does. Both (1) and (2) are really about state laws against sexual orientation discrimination, rather than specifically about marriage. And (3) is about two pairs of religious parents trying to impose their beliefs on all children in public schools.This had nothing to do with marriage AT ALL and happened before the recent CA gay marriage kerfuffle. The fact, or otherwise, of gay marriage in California was completely irrelevant. This case was ONLY about discriminating in providing a service to a lesbian couple. The doctor had no problem providing the service to others: it's not that she was forced to do a procedure against her faith. Just that her medical license requires her, once she decides to perform a procedure, to perform it on all citizens seeking her help. Replace "gay" with "black" and you get the picture.
The real facts of each case are:
The California doctor entered a profession that promises to “first, do no harm” and the law requires her to treat a patient in need – gay or straight, Christian or Muslim – regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith – it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.
The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions –concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments— but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization’s beliefs about homosexuality – it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.The church group was receiving PUBLIC FUNDS to provide access to this pavilion. If it were private property, there would be no case. The case is that once they receive public funds, all the public is equally entitled to use. Solution: don't like all the public? Don't accept their money, keep private property private.
The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son’s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family’s religious traditions.Again, gay marriage is really irrelevant. (update: In fact, the parents were given the option to take their kids out of the class teaching tolerance. But this was not acceptable to them as long as the class was offered to ANYONE. ) The gays are present whether they are married or not. They want them back in the closet, and silent. Their issue, though, is no different than a Catholic parent faces when their child meets people on a second (straight) marriage after divorce; or learns about contraceptives. Or a Jewish parent whose child is friends with a kid eating ham sandwiches. Values are taught at home. An essence of our society is that we keep our own values but can intermingle in the public square.
These ar ethe facts. If you see this ad, or hear it discussed, know the facts and fight back.