The Daily Caller published an op-ed blasting gay journalist James Kirchick for condemning Russia's anti-gay crackdown on the Kremlin-funded RT network on August 21, lambasting Kirchick for using his appearance to "throw a fit about gay rights."
In an August 28 op-ed titled "The hysterical Jamie Kirchick," Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute President Austin Ruse mocked Kirchick's "hysterical" criticism of Russia's laws banning the dissemination of "gay propaganda," which encompasses any speech or action that could be construed to depict LGBT people in a favorable light. Ruse doesn't understand why critics of Russia's "reasonable new law" just can't see that it's far better than the western "elite" agenda of tolerance:
Kirchick and his colleagues are hysterical and I think I know why. In the west, they and their elite allies have so cowed and bullied opposition to their agenda that hardly anyone speaks out against them. If you do, you lose your job or get brought before the magistrates of human rights. It is shocking and unnerving to them when they find people who are not so cowed and that they cannot have their way with those in other countries and certainly not with the Russians who overwhelmingly support the reasonable new law.
Next week in Europe a petition will be released from more than 70 mostly European human rights groups supporting the Russian law. They believe there is no human right to advance homosexual propaganda to school children, but there is a prior right for parents to determine how their children are educated. It says so right there in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Washington Times columnist Ken Allard claimed that a proposal to expand San Antonio's non-discrimination ordinance to protect LGBT individuals poses a dire threat to "our basic civil liberties" and repeated the long-debunked myth - peddled previously by the Times - that the ordinance would ban Christians from city office.
In an August 27 column titled "Living the gay life in San Antonio," Allard asserted that the ordinance would pave the path for the arrival of "the new thought police":
Major provisions of the ordinance outlaw discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability" (excluding, of course, the unborn). Gender identities are redefined to protect "appearance, expression or behavior regardless of an individual's assigned sex at birth." (Bradley "Chelsea" Manning would feel right at home). Appointed officials and members of city commissions can be dismissed for malfeasance if they offend the new protected classes by "discrimination or bias, by word or deed." Best of all: The city's new equal-employment division will become the new thought police, enforcing the whole she-bang (is that term still legal?)
Because the Bible contains some tough teachings about sexual transgression, religious leaders were quick to see the ordinance as a divisive and even deliberately anti-religious measure. Once the ordinance is in place, could an avowed Christian even serve on the City Council? Would the "Christian" designation henceforth be limited only to those churches ordaining homosexual ministers? Who knew? [emphasis added]
Fox News host Shannon Bream invited the hate group Family Research Council's (FRC) Peter Sprigg to confirm her baseless belief that a proposed non-discrimination ordinance would ban Christians from holding public office in San Antonio, marking her third failed attempt to smear the measure.
On the August 27 edition of America Live, Bream and Sprigg peddled unfounded right-wing attacks on the proposal - which adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the city's existing non-discrimination ordinance - as an assault on the rights of Christians. Bream opened the segment by echoing critics who claim the ordinance could be "the first step to banning Christian conservatives from holding public office":
BREAM: New developments today with a controversial proposal in San Antonio that critics say could be the first step to banning Christian conservatives from holding public office. The city council proposing an ordinance that disqualifies anyone who has ever, quote, demonstrated a bias against a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. That appears to include people who have spoken out against things like gay marriage and in support of traditional marriage.
National Review Online columnist Dennis Prager declared that he believes tolerance for LGBT Americans could lead to a fascist takeover - a threat he once considered "overwrought" but now sees as a reality.
In an August 27 column for NRO, Prager asserted that "tolerance" is only a mirage for leftist efforts to impose state tyranny on the American people. To support this claim, Prager cited high-profile anti-discrimination cases, as well as a new California law protecting the rights of transgender students:
I have never written that there is a threat of fascism in America. I always considered the idea overwrought. But now I believe there really is such a threat -- and it will come draped not in an American flag, but in the name of tolerance and health.
Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination.
This is what happened to a florist in Washington State who had always sold flowers to gay customers, but refused to be the florist for a gay wedding: sued and fined.
This is what happened to a baker in Oregon who had always sold his goods to gays, but refused to provide his products to a gay wedding: sued and fined.
This is what happened in Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere to Catholic Charities, historically the largest adoption agency in America. Their placing children with married (man-woman) couples, rather than with same-sex couples, was deemed intolerant and a violation of the law. In those and other states, Catholic Charities has left adoption work.
In the name of tolerance -- fighting sexual harassment -- five- and six-year-old boys all over the country are brought to the police for innocently touching a girl.
In the name of tolerance -- girls' high school teams in California and elsewhere must now accept male players who feel female.
In the name of tolerance - businesses cannot fire a man who one day shows up on the sales floor dressed as a woman.
National Review Online editor-at-large Kathryn Jean Lopez joined the right-wing media's outcry over a New Mexico Supreme Court decision affirming that businesses can't discriminate against gay customers, blasting the court's "soft tyranny" and declaring that the decision amounts to the effective death of religious freedom.
In an August 26 post for NRO, Lopez cited the successful lawsuit against Elane Photography, whose owner refused to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, as evidence of the "tyrannical" trend in our nation's "libertine" culture:
The court ruled that it is "the price of citizenship" that, although you can believe whatever you want, you can't act as if you take certain beliefs all that seriously. It would seem the position of the New Mexico Supreme Court is that believing men and women are expressly made for the institution of marriage, for one another -- that their very biology suggests as much, naturally ordered toward the creative gifts that are children -- is somewhat akin to believing in unicorn gods who will come to set us free. That is: utterly absurd. Believe it in private if you wish; but don't ever try to operate in the world outside your active imagination or your codependent church with your crazy beliefs in mind.
But then, this is how the soft tyranny develops. Reporters trip over one another to refer to Bradley Manning as "she" because he asked them to. Loving a brother who is suffering doesn't require lying to him. Increasingly, though, lies are not only expected but mandated. That's not love. That's not freedom. That's where a dictatorship of relativism and cultural delusion lead us. And our very laws are coming to reflect this.
What are we going to do about it? You will recall that Tocqueville liked a lot of what he saw here. What he liked best is the civil society he saw flourishing. Today, that civil society is waning and threatened. When the government says that religious beliefs that conflict with its mandates on health insurance, in the realm of contraception, sterilization, and even abortion, are not fit for the public square, and when it subjects to punitive fines any employer who insists on acting on his beliefs, then it discourages service. It marginalizes a cast of characters a democratic republic needs. As much as some may believe they have found the perfect formula for happiness in the libertine realm, moral and even biological coherence does have its upsides. We would do well to leave some room for that. [emphasis added]
The Associated Press granted anti-gay groups a platform to spread the unfounded claim that churches could soon be forced to perform same-sex weddings.
In an August 24 story, the AP reported that, in response to the Supreme Court's marriage equality rulings in June, many churches are updating their bylaws to clarify that they won't be blessing same-sex unions. Churches are well within their rights to change their bylaws, but the extension of civil marriage rights to same-sex couples has never posed a threat to churches' right not to perform same-sex weddings. Instead of noting the clear and definitive distinction between civil and religious marriage, however, the AP chose to follow a he said/she said model of journalism to promote a false narrative:
Worried they could be sued by gay couples, some churches are changing their bylaws to reflect their view that the Bible allows only marriage between one man and one woman.
Although there have been lawsuits against wedding industry businesses that refuse to serve gay couples, attorneys promoting the bylaw changes say they don't know of any lawsuits against churches.
Critics say the changes are unnecessary, but some churches fear that it's only a matter of time before one of them is sued.
"I thought marriage was always between one man and one woman, but the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision said no," said Gregory S. Erwin, an attorney for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, an association of Southern Baptist churches and one several groups advising churches to change their bylaws. "I think it's better to be prepared because the law is changing. America is changing."
Fox News host Jon Scott described referring to transgender individuals by their chosen gender pronouns as "political correctness gone amok" and falsely suggested that Private Chelsea Manning's gender transition was a "ruse" aimed at winning release from military prison.
On the August 23 edition of Happening Now, Scott and Fox News contributors Judith Miller and Kirsten Powers continued referring to Manning as a male and questioned the "reality" of transgender identities. Powers asked, "[W]hat if ... Judy says, 'I demand that you refer to me only as 'he'? I mean, there should be some correlation between reality and how you're referring to a person." Joking that he'd like to be called "your royal highness," Scott proceeded to question Manning's motives in announcing her gender transition:
SCOTT: You know, there are cynics out there, and maybe I'm one of them, who say maybe this is all part of a plan to get, you know, early release or parole or a new trial or something, by maintaining some kind of a ruse here that isn't necessarily the case.
Fox News contributor Erick Erickson celebrated the extremist Alliance Defending Freedom's (ADF) "brave" - albeit unsuccessful - effort to allow a New Mexico photographer to discriminate against gay clients. Erickson called on readers of his RedState blog to join him in donating money to ADF, which is currently spearheading the effort to criminalize homosexuality in Belize.
In an August 22 post for RedState, Erickson lauded ADF's "lone and brave warriors" combatting the "[e]vil" campaign for LGBT equality:
A small band of gay rights activists will not stop on the one way street of tolerance. My friends, whether you want to believe or not, you will be made to care. New Mexico shows again that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. You will not be allowed to opt out.
There is one organization at the forefront of this. That is the Alliance Defending Freedom. They represented Mrs. Huguenin and are considering appealing to the United States Supreme Court. They need our financial help to keep this going. I've given them a financial contribution and I hope you will to [sic]. They are lone and brave warriors in this fight against the left. They need every penny they can get.
Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then seeks to silence good. We must fund the fight for Truth and Light.
Conservative media outlets denounced the New Mexico Supreme Court's unanimous decision holding that a photography studio violated the state's Human Right Act by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, casting the ruling as "state-sponsored tyranny" and an affront to free speech and religious liberty.
On August 22, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Elane Huguenin - owner of Elane Photography - had violated the state's Human Rights Act when she refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006. According to the Associated Press:
Justice Richard Bosson wrote that the business owners "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different."
"That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us a people," Bosson wrote in an opinion concurring with the court's ruling. "That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship."
A WND video blasting the "left-wing war on children" epitomized the central problem with conservative media's response to a new California law guaranteeing transgender students the right to use school facilities and participate in school programs that correspond to their gender identity. The five-minute video never once uses the word "transgender," instead peddling "bathroom panic" horror stories.
The video, posted on August 20, featured WND's Molotov Mitchell playing the part of the hip, edgy, no-nonsense conservative. Mocking the law as "comprehensive bathroom reform," Mitchell seized on right-wing fears - ginned up by outlets like Fox News - that the law would enable "horny adolescent boys" to sneak into girls' restrooms and locker rooms:
Thanks to this law, it's also legal for horny adolescent boys to join the girls' wrestling team if they so desire, to stand around in their locker rooms while they change, and even shower with them if they want. What a brilliant way to protect children!
Finally, at K through 8 schools, middle school boys can now go into little girls' bathrooms. What could possibly go wrong? I think we all know what can - and will - go wrong.