Author’s Note: The following story is sad but true. However, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. In other words, they are just too emotionally volatile to handle reasoned criticism.
I am sure this email comes as a surprise as it has been a few years since we’ve spoken. Nonetheless, I felt an urgent need to contact you concerning your recent “engagement” to your boyfriend Chad. Initially, I had not planned to contact you to express my disagreement over your decision to get “married.” I thought it would be a waste of time. However, your “engagement” has already put the lie to the bland assertion that same-sex “marriage” doesn’t hurt anyone. In point of fact, it has damaged a mutual friend of ours in a significant way. This is despite the fact that the “wedding” has not yet taken place.
When you decided to hire a photographer to take your “engagement” photos you had literally hundreds of options before you. But you chose our mutual friend Chrissie because you know she has religious objections to same-sex “marriage.” You also knew that if she refused to shoot your “engagement” photos you could completely destroy her business and confiscate her life savings. Unfortunately, the law in your home state of New Mexico is on your side. I am sure you know the current state of the law but I will restate it since I will be sharing this correspondence with some of our mutual friends.
In the case of Elane Photography v. Willock, a Christian photographer was forced to shoot a gay “wedding” despite her religious objections. The controversy began in 2006 when Elane Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin received an email from a woman about photographing what she called a “commitment ceremony” between her and her same-sex partner. Specifically, the email asked if Elaine would be open to helping them celebrate their “wedding.” Elaine politely declined to use her artistic ability to denigrate God. She simply did not want to communicate a message that ran contrary to her religious beliefs. The conversation should have ended there.
Once refused, the woman who approached Elaine, Vanessa Willock, could have easily found another photographer for her ceremony. Nevertheless, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one-day administrative trial in 2008, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay attorneys’ fees to Willock. The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system, and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the ruling.
My friend and former attorney Jordan Lorence was one of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys working the case. After losing before the New Mexico Supreme Court, the ADF appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the Court declined to hear the case.
Our mutual friend Chrissie has friends who work at the ADF. Therefore, she is aware of the case. She is also aware of how extreme and militant you have become in your activism. Naturally, she feared that if she declined your offer to hire her for the “engagement” photos you would take her to court. She was so emotionally conflicted over the situation that she got on the phone and asked for advice and counsel on how to handle the situation – often shedding tears as she sought guidance from trusted friends.
In the end, she capitulated and took your “engagement” photos despite her strong moral objections to same-sex “marriage.” And now you want her to shoot your “wedding” ceremony. It reminds me of the time in high school when a female friend of mine accompanied a mutual friend of ours on a date. They were parked alone and in a secluded place. They had known each other for a long time. He made an advance on her for the first time and she pushed him away. He continued to press forward and she became frightened because he was behaving in such an erratic manner that evening. She honestly feared that if she didn’t consent to physical intimacy he would harm her. Finally, she gave in and they had intercourse.
After their date, my female friend asked whether I thought our mutual friend had raped her. But now I will pass the question on to you, Jason. Was the sexual act that occurred on that date more like love or rape? Be careful before you answer because it has implications for your own “marriage” to Chad.
Put simply, you have become so extreme in your LGBT activism that many of your old friends are actually afraid to express their true feelings in front of you. Your Facebook profile picture has been shaded in rainbow colors for nearly fourteen months. Ninety percent of your social media posts are about homosexuality. And, of course, everyone who disagrees with your positions on LGBT issues is either a “bigot” or a “homophobe.” Many people simply nod in agreement with you in the hopes that somehow, someday you will simply grow up and find another purpose for living – one that does not involve seeking constant affirmation of homosexuality.
Of course, that is the LGBT movement in a nutshell. You are no longer using persuasion. You are using coercion. Specifically, you are using activist judges to force people to nod in agreement with the basic tenets of the religion of secular humanism – and its main denomination of militant homosexuality. You are trying to force people to love you. But love simply cannot be coerced.
I know you still call yourself a Christian. But Christ never forced anyone into the sanctuary in the name of “love.” He never told anyone they would lose their possessions if they refused follow to the culture. In fact, everything about the life of Jesus runs contrary to your conduct towards our mutual friend.
You should not be proud of your actions. You should be ashamed of yourself for committing spiritual rape in the name of tolerance and inclusion.