· In New Mexico, a same-sex couple filed a “human rights” complaint against a photographer who declined to photograph their “commitment” ceremony. The photographer lost and was ordered to cough up more than $6,600 in attorneys’ fees. Before the ruling, the couple hired a different photographer from the myriad of other ones available, but still chose to retaliate against the first photographer for her lack of moral approval.

· In Georgia, a counselor was fired because she referred a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor for relationship advice. The second counselor provided service that the woman herself characterized as “exemplary.” Yet she still demanded—and obtained—the first counselor’s termination for her lack of moral approval.

· In California, a woman in a same-sex relationship sued a doctor who declined to artificially inseminate her, claiming discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” The woman misrepresented her marital status to the doctor, who has a policy not to perform the procedure on unmarried women regardless of their “orientation.” Other doctors successfully performed the procedure, and she has since borne three healthy children, yet the woman continues to demand the first doctor’s moral approval in court.

Note that having other options did not satisfy the people involved in the above same-sex relationships. The point to see: they demand moral approval. And some will go to court, have you fired, or otherwise seek your demise to get it. And they don’t care if you have to act against your conscience, just so long as you can ease theirs.

Corvino accurately states that “moral truth matters.” But there’s no longer any guessing about what truth he and those like him are referring to: it’s the one they have defined, and you’d better accept it. An abundance of “tolerance” will not suffice.