Laurie Higgins is the propagandist for Illinois Family Institute (a designated anti-gay hate group). Today, Higgins is responsible for a piece on American Family Association’s “news” blog titled: “Homosexual activists work to silence the church.” American Family Association is also designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. But I digress.
According to the post:
Now, a former music director at a Chicago-area Catholic church who was fired after announcing his engagement to his same-gender partner has filed a discrimination lawsuit against the parish and the Archdiocese of Chicago.
It continues (with some quotes from Ms. Higgins):
Higgins says the pressure is going to advance to limiting what people can publicly say, it’s going to come to religious schools and will infiltrate the church as it already has in many cases.
“What they’re really saying is You have to accept our set of subjective assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality or, yes, we will crush you” … .
“You either have to accept them and affirm them or you have to be silent, and they will use the force of the courts to force your silence.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with speech. Nor, for that matter, does it have anything to do with acceptance. This is about employment discrimination. According to precedent, ministers are exempt. I don’t know enough about what a music director does to say whether or not that’s a ministerial function. I tend to doubt it. A gay person suing for job discriminating is a litigant and not an activist. In Higgins-world, the word activist(s) always follows the word homosexual. We are a modern barbarian horde.
The pattern in these cases seems to be that people who work with the employee, including those in charge, know about his sexual orientation. Then some bishop finds out about an engagement or a marriage via the newspapers or social media and suddenly the individual is out of a job that he was performing well.
We don’t really care what an employer thinks about our same-sex relationships. It is irrelevant. Employing someone doesn’t constitute approval of what that person does outside of employment. If they are like the general public, most church employees use contraceptives. Should they be tested and terminated? All that we want is to be judged based upon our job performance. That seems like a fair proposition.