Bill Donohue comments on a new poll about religious liberty:

In January, an AP-GfK poll found that 57 percent agreed that “wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples.” Today, a Reuters/Ipsos poll was released that tapped the following questions:

“Businesses should not be allowed to discriminate (by refusing services or a job) because of their religious beliefs.” 59 percent agreed and 24 percent disagreed.

“Businesses should have the right not to hire certain people or groups based on the employer’s religious beliefs.” 56 percent disagreed and 26 percent agreed.

“Businesses should have the right to refuse services to certain people or groups based on religious beliefs.” 54 percent disagreed and 28 percent agreed.

In its news story, Reuters said, “Most Americans Side with Gays in Religious Freedom Disputes.” This is dishonest.

The AP poll was itself biased: it only asked if businesses could refuse to service a gay wedding. Had it also asked if the government should force business owners who have religious objections to gay marriage to service a gay wedding, the majority siding with business owners would have been even higher than 57 percent.

The Reuters poll is much worse: not only are the questions similarly front-loaded against business owners, they do not mention gay marriage, never mind servicing a gay wedding. Moreover, questions about hiring are entirely different; they only muddy the real issue even further.

There are three different issues here, not one: serving a gay person; hiring a gay person; and servicing a gay wedding. The latter is not identical to the other two, and it alone is being contested by people of faith. The distortion by Reuters is deliberate and detestable.

Bill Donohue comments on a news release he issued earlier today:

Approximately two hours ago, we issued a news release taking jewishbusinessnews.com to task for making an anti-Catholic comment in a story about alleged anti-Catholicism (click here). We recently heard from Sima Ella, the CEO of the media outlet; I personally contacted her before going public. Here is how she responded:

Dear Friends,

I am so sorry. I was not aware of this unbelievable issue, until you brought it to my attention and I read it with my own eyes. I fully understand your feelings; I would feel the same as you. I took the article down immediately. Please, please accept my sincere and heartfelt apologies—we are a lot better than that.

Sincerely,

Sima Ella

Rarely have I seen a quicker and more sincere apology than this. All is forgiven. It is important that Catholic-Jewish relations remain good, especially these days. Case closed.

Steven Rosen, co-founder of Rainmaker Associates, a financial recruiting firm, has been sued by one of his employees, Joseph Modica, for allegedly mocking his Catholicism.

According to Modica, Rosen said, “You don’t really believe Jesus was born to a Virgin Mother, or are you that big of a moron?” He is also accused of saying, “Is it that stupid Ash Wednesday again? You better not come to work with ashes on your head.” Rosen is being sued for $5 million for harassment that led to a hospitalized panic attack.

Bill Donohue comments on this story today:

The New York Daily News and the New York Post covered this story, but not the New York Times. Worse, the story by jewishbusinessnews.com was itself bigoted. It is not unusual for the New York Times to ignore anti-Catholicism, but it is unusual to see a responsible media outlet write disparagingly about Catholicism in an article about alleged anti-Catholicism.

Jewishbusinessnews.com has a piece today on this story that exhibits both ignorance and bigotry. The ignorance is displayed in the headline: “Easter Special: Steven Rosen Sued for Making Fun of Immaculate Conception.” In fact, that is not why he was sued: the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth are not identical. Worse is what the reporter said about the Virgin Mary comment that is attributed to Rosen.

“To be fair,” says S.M. Lightening, “generations of Jews have found that story hard to swallow, but, hey, if old man Joseph the carpenter took her word for it, who are we to argue. Still, to us Jews it always sounded like a good recovery line when you start showing. Certainly better than the classic, ‘I fell for it’ folks use in emergency rooms. ‘God put it there’ is much classier.”

We are asking for an apology. So should you.

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made today by President Barack Obama at the White House Easter breakfast:

“On Easter,” the president said, “I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less than loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”

Well, Mr. President, I get more than concerned when I hear you denigrate Christians—no one can forget your swipe about them clinging to their guns or religion—I get nauseous.

The president had a grand opportunity to say something timely and urgent, such as the following: “I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love. This is not always easy, especially when Muslim barbarians single out Christians for execution in Kenya.”

Last week, Obama could not muster the courage to mention by name the religious affiliation of those who were chosen for execution—they are called Christians—but he has no problem letting the name Christian roll off his lips when it comes to disparaging them.

The reason why Obama did not mention Christians by name last week is because he does not want to offend Muslims. The reason he mentioned Christians by name today is because he does not mind offending Christians. It’s just that simple, and just that sick.

Bill Donohue comments on how the Easter season was marked by anti-Christianity:

• Yesterday, Chris Hardwick used his Easter Monday Comedy Central show, “@Midnight,” to make a joke about Jesus’ resurrection: “Jesus woke up from a nap and now all sins have been wiped clean to make room for even more heinous ones.  Whatever you did doesn’t matter so you can go out and be a d*** for another 365 days.”

• On Easter Sunday, the anti-Christian organization, Freedom From Religion Foundation, placed an ad in the New York Times arguing that religious liberty laws promote “hate.”

• On Holy Saturday, the Washington Post re-ran a Sally Quinn interview with James Carroll wherein he branded the Church anti-Semitic; she became an atheist at age 13 and then evolved into a  “non-religious” person, and he is a Catholic-bashing ex-priest.

• On Good Friday, David Letterman joked about the pope’s physical, saying his weight gain may be a function of “a little too many Communion wafers.”

• On Holy Thursday, Letterman made ten jokes about the pope’s physical; all the comments were attributed to the attending physician. The joke listed as #1 was: “I know you don’t use it, but I still have to take a look at it.”

The animus against Christianity that is routinely expressed by the entertainment industry and the media is not without serious effect. How else to explain why we did not celebrate religious liberty during Holy Week? Instead, the discussion centered on how religious liberty is the enemy.

A free society that turns against its religious moorings is in deep trouble.

Bill Donohue comments on Rolling Stone’s retraction of its bogus story about a gang rape at the University of Virginia:

The report by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism demolishes the many falsehoods presented by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in her infamous Rolling Stone article. Any reputable publication would have fired her and the editors associated with this story, but Rolling Stone is not that kind of magazine: it is keeping all the rogues on its payroll. That is their business. It is my business to correct the record.

According to the New York Times, which conducted interviews on this story, publisher Jann W. Wenner insists that Erdely’s dishonesty “represented an isolated and unusual episode.” Similarly, top editor Will Dana, whose responsibility it was to fact-check her article, said this “was not the result of patterns in the work of these people.” (Nice to know he exculpates himself.) Both are wrong.

On September 20, 2011, I exposed Erdely as an irresponsible journalist who smeared the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (click here to read my account). The sensationalistic title of her piece, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Sex-Crime Files,” which appeared in the September 15 edition of Rolling Stone, was not only inaccurate and dishonest, it fed every negative stereotype there is about the Catholic Church.

Erdely’s article is replete with omissions: if the reader actually knew what she failed to report, it would have seriously undercut her narrative. She also made several factual errors, misrepresented the timeline of important events, and made comments so patently stupid that no sentient Catholic would ever make.

It is therefore wrong to maintain that Erdely’s piece was “isolated,” “unusual,” and “not the result of patterns.” Rolling Stone had a chance to come clean and start anew. But it blew it. Its credibility is shot.

Bill Donohue comments on the meaning of sexual orientation:

The conventional wisdom says that there is no difference between sexual orientation and other demographic characteristics. The conventional wisdom is wrong.

Sexual orientation is profoundly unlike such categories as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, and religion. Why? Because unlike the traditional social classifications, sexual orientation has a teleology, or end point.

Race, for example, is not oriented toward anything; it has no object. But sexual orientation has a teleological trajectory: it is defined by the object of the orientation, which is either heterosexuality or homosexuality. Importantly, from time immemorial, sexuality has been seen in value-laden terms, and not just in the West.  For example, incest has been declared taboo in every society in the history of the world. Moreover, all the world’s religions either find homosexuality to be morally objectionable or do not pass judgment on it. None accept it.

It is therefore inappropriate to maintain that sexual orientation is analogous to race.  Does this mean that gays should not be protected in law from being discriminated against in public accommodations? No. Indeed, they should be protected, as individuals. That is why it should be illegal not to serve a gay person in a restaurant. However, when a restaurant owner who has religious objections to gay marriage refuses to service a gay wedding (assuming he has no problem serving gay individuals), he is not objecting to the individuals, but to the meaning of the wedding. His rights should be protected.

In other words, sexual orientation ineluctably carries behavioral significance. To be exact, we are talking about conduct, and as such it is subject to moral evaluation. That is why it is bogus to compare sexual orientation to race; it’s apples and oranges. For this reason, the conventional wisdom needs to be revised.

Bill Donohue comments on the hostile reaction to the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana not to service gay weddings:

Memories Pizza is closed, at least temporarily, because of threatening phone calls. Anti-Christian comments and pictures of nude men have been sent to the owners. We need to call this for what it is—cultural fascism. It should be condemned by everyone, most especially by those who have voiced their objections to the store owners. There are serious issues at stake, and no one should be demonized for his position.

Refusing to serve a gay person in a public accommodation is morally and legally indefensible, but it is equally indefensible to mandate that the owners of a private business must violate their sincerely held religious convictions by acceding to a request to service a gay wedding. Individuals have rights, and this includes the right not to be coerced into affirming causes, as opposed to servicing individuals, that they find morally objectionable.

The American people can split the difference, even if our elites cannot. In an AP-GfK poll released in January, respondents were asked the following: “In states where same-sex couples can be married legally, do you think that wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples, or not?” The result: 57 percent said, “Yes, they should be allowed to refuse service”; 39 percent disagreed, and 4 percent refused to answer.

Notice how the question was worded: it asked if it was acceptable “to refuse service.” Here is another way to get at this issue: “In states where same-sex couples can be married legally, do you think that wedding-related businesses with religious objections should be forced to service same-sex couples, or not?” Worded this way, it is a sure bet that even more respondents would take the side of the businesses.

The owners of Memories Pizza deserve our support, but even those who disagree with them deserve to treat them with respect.

Bill Donohue comments on pizza store owners in Indiana who agree with the Indiana religious liberty law and will not service a gay wedding:

The O’Connor family has owned Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana for nine years, and it says it will not provide pizzas for a gay wedding. “We’re not discriminating against anyone,” explains Crystal O’Connor, “that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything.”

Ms. O’Connor would have no ground to stand on, either morally or legally, were she to say that her store will not serve gays. But she has not said that. In fact, she has explicitly said she would never refuse gays. What she has said is that if her family were to service a gay wedding, it would have to violate its sincerely held religious convictions.

The O’Connor case brings into stark relief the difference between discriminating against a person and servicing an event. The difference is even more acute when the event carries religious significance.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to put a swastika on a birthday cake?  Should an African American baker be forced to put the “N-word” on a cake? Should a gay baker be forced to put “Gays Are Sick” on a cake? If not, why should a pizza owner, who has a religious objection to gay marriage, be forced to service a gay wedding?

The root of this problem is almost always overlooked, either out of ignorance or volition. To wit: It is a monumental mistake to associate sexual orientation with race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, or religion. The latter characteristics tell us nothing about behavior. The same is not true of sexual orientation—unlike the other categories it has a teleology. To be specific, sexual orientation is meaningless without referencing the object of the orientation, which is sexuality. This is not a value-neutral characteristic. Indeed, every society in history has, rightly, made value judgments about sexuality, typically on the basis of its religious precepts.

Gay activists and their elite supporters need to practice more tolerance for the diversity that people of faith have to offer. They also need to reread the First Amendment.

Bill Donohue has advice for Trevor Noah, the comedian chosen by Comedy Central to replace Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show”:

Noah has gotten himself into some lukewarm water by trashing women and Jews. The only reason he is not in hot water is because he is Comedy Central’s new hire, the favorite network of liberal elites. If Noah were a conservative, and was slated to air on Fox News, he’d be toast.

Noah is not from the U.S. and has yet to learn the ropes of political correctness. If he wants to keep his job, he needs to heed my advice.

Rule 1:

Never call women “chicks,” never mind “fat chicks,” and refrain from cracking jokes about Jews controlling Rap artists.

Rule 2:

Play it safe by labeling all priests as pedophiles, but never even suggest that most of the predators have been homosexuals.

Rule 3:

If you slip up and offend any of the protected classes—Jews, Muslims, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, women, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, as well as those who are transgendered, questioning, or queer—then apply for a job at HBO. Just promise that you agree to tell only Bill Maher-type jokes, the kind that libel priests, bishops, and the pope. They’ll never can you.