A few weeks ago, I talked about the comments by the Washington Post outgoing
ombudsman who argued that pro-family groups “have no right to coverage” because
their views on homosexuality are wrong. His argument was that his paper shouldn’t feel
obligated to get a comment from a person who believes in traditional marriage any more
than they should feel obligated to get a comment from a racist.

This argument is not only being put forward in the media but also in legislatures.
John Stonestreet recently wrote about comments from a state senator in Colorado. During
the debate on whether to enact a law permitting “civil unions,” the question arose about
the impact such a law would have on religious freedom.

The state senator said that anyone wanting a religious exemption should “get thee
to a nunnery.” He added, “Go live a monastic life away from modern life . . . away from
the people you can’t see as equals to yourself. Away from the stream of commerce where
you might have to serve them, or employ them, or rent banquet halls to them. Go some
place and be as judgmental as you like. Go inside your church, establish separate water
fountains, if you want. But don’t claim that free exercise of religion requires the state
of Colorado to establish separate water fountains for her citizens.” Another legislator
compared religious freedom advocates to the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and the Taliban.

The reference to separate water fountains is a reference to the racist Jim Crow
laws of the past. It equates moral objections to homosexuality to racist policies and
ignores the pro-family argument that these are different. Civil rights proponents and
African-American pastors who fought for civil rights for minorities reject the argument
that gay rights are the same thing as giving civil rights to blacks.

Unfortunately, some media elites and political elites equate the two and therefore
argue we don’t deserve fair coverage or religious exemptions.