The Los Angeles Times, a bastion of liberal ideology and a longtime supporter of redefining marriage, ended 2015 with an editorial that shows how badly skewed the mainstream media has become on marriage and the homosexual agenda.
The Times writes about a disturbing court case out of Massachusetts where a judge ruled that a Catholic high school (Fontbonne Academy) acted illegally when it withdrew an employment offer to a man who was in a homosexual 'marriage' because he could not properly represent Catholic identity and teaching. Prior to offering the man a position as a food director, the high school explained to the applicant that it expected all employees to be "ministers of the mission" and the man assured the school officials he agreed. After receiving the job offer, later that day he completed an employment form disclosing for the first time that he had entered a homosexual 'marriage.' Upon learning of this, the school promptly withdrew the offer because his 'marriage' was incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The man sued and shortly before Christmas, Judge Douglas Wilkins ruled that the school must comply with "sexual orientation discrimination" laws notwithstanding its religious mission.
The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts rightly condemned this court decision as a "full frontal assault on religious liberty," one that would "compel Catholic institutions to hire those who reject and despise Catholic teaching, fatally impairing the constitutionally protected right of those institutions to carry on their mission."
How did the LA Times react to the ruling? They said it was "balanced" and a "model for the nation." In the Times' skewed vision of the new world order, church-run schools should be able to hire clergy and religion teachers that uphold their religious beliefs - but that's it. Other staff, presumably including administrators and teachers, should not be required to model the church's religious beliefs. They went on to call on Congress to enact employment protections for homosexuals that embodied this "balanced approach."
The extreme position taken by Judge Wilkins and praised by the LA Times is representative of the endemic efforts of the media and elite to force an embrace of same-sex 'marriage' on every individual and group in the nation regardless of their deeply-held, often religious, views. In this new orthodoxy, it's not enough that same-sex couples can get 'married.' Every single person and group is expected to salute and endorse the act. Every baker, florist, photographer and similar professional must participate if asked. And every religion must accept it except in very narrow circumstances.
Of course, this new orthodoxy does not comport with the constitution, nor is it representative of the views of the American people.
This case serves as an important reminder why it is essential that states and Congress pass the First Amendment Defense Act to protect individuals, organizations and churches from discrimination for living out their views of marriage in the public square.