In a WorldNetDaily column yesterday, founder and editor-in-chief Joseph Farah attempted to argue that opposing same-sex marriage can be considered its own form of "sexual orientation" and should therefore be protected under non-discrimination laws.
Citing this month's story of the anti-gay New York wedding venue that was ordered to pay a $13,000 fine after refusing service to a same-sex couple, Farah argues that the owners, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, were simply following their own Biblical-based "sexual orientation"
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn't that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else's sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God's definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?
The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It's just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others.
Farah then proceeds to wrap up his nutty column by logically tying the gay rights movement with Islamic radicals:
When “non-discrimination” becomes victimization of those with different religious and moral convictions, we literally have the establishment of a state religion and, effectively, the repeal of the First Amendment. […]
I only see that kind of coercion demanded among two groups of people today – those who believe in the unlimited power of the state as their “god” and others who believe their god wants them to kill or subjugate all “infidels.”
[via Right Wing Watch]
