Getting ripped by liberals just comes with the territory when you run a conservative pro-family organization. And the name-calling really doesn’t bother me. But when the hypocrisy gets to this level, I can’t be silent any longer.
Last week, I wrote a blog calling attention to the fact that BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee had decided that it would essentially give special consideration to its potential vendors and suppliers that are owned by those engaged in homosexual conduct and cross-dressing and to the transgendered. In other words, if your business wants to provide landscape services to BlueCross, then you may get a special look if your business is owned by a homosexual. (I did not say, as some person complained, that BlueCross should not sell insurance to those engaged in these sexually-expressive activities—I would have blasted myself had I said that!)
[Fowler] is … now attacking a private business. What’s next? It’s part of an aggressive agenda to dabble in the contracting of local governments and now private industry and before you know it, he’ll be telling you and me what to buy on our grocery list.
To top it all off, the news report closed with the reporter saying this spokesman “maintains that a private business can make its own decisions.” That one took the proverbial cake.
Lest anyone be deceived, let’s get the facts straight.
1. This homosexual rights organization tried to pass a law last spring in Nashville to the effect that if you wanted to do business with the city, your private business had to extend special employment protections to those engaged in homosexual and gender expressive activities. And in 2010, they tried to pass the same law in Memphis.Sure doesn’t sound like letting “a private business … make its own decisions.” Sounds more like using the law to TELL private businesses what decisions they MUST make. But here’s where the criticism gets downright funny.When the state passed a bill preventing local governments from mandating a potential hodge-podge of different employment policies on private businesses, including those of the type Nashville tried to mandate, here’s what happened once the bill headed to the Governor’s desk for him to sign or veto:
2. On May 19,2011 (Thursday), AmericaBlog Gay, a national gay rights news and opinion blog “launched a campaign to pressure the governor to veto the bill and to punish every company involved in making this bigoted legislation happen” (emphasis added). Among those targeted by this effort to “punish” was BlueCross BlueShield (along with others including Nissan, FedEx, AT&T, Comcast, DuPont, Caterpillar, Whirlpool and Alcoa).
3. This blog post went on to say “Nissan, FedEx, … BlueCross BlueShield … and United HealthCare don’t know the meaning of pain. They just ticked off the wrong community” (emphasis added).
4. This blog post went on to list the names of employees of these companies who had given money in support of the marriage battle in California known as Proposition 8. (Could it be that they were hoping these companies might fire these troublesome employees?)
5. On May 23, 2011 (Monday) another post went up saying: “We’ll be targeting specific companies shortly, providing you with contact information. The companies we’re targeting are: Nissan, FedEx, … BlueCross BlueShield … and United HealthCare” (emphasis added).
6. That post encouraged readers to sign a letter to these companies and contained a link to the letter. That letter was addressed “TO: Nissan, FedEx, … BlueCross BlueShield … and United HealthCare” and said: “Your companies’ embrace of this blatant discrimination is un-American…” and “We demand that you issue an immediate statement withdrawing your support for [the bill] and … tell [the Governor] to veto this bill.”
7. That same day the NGLCC (National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce) indicated that it too was involved.
8. That same day, after the Governor signed the bill, each of these companies’ efforts to block the state law was “graded” by AmericaBlog Gay. Here’s what they said about BlueCross BlueShield: “The only reason I don’t give them a ‘totally useless’ is because at least when scared to death by Amanda Terkel they said something” (emphasis added by bold type only). Amanda Terkel, by the way, was writing about this effort to “punish” and inflict “pain” in the Huffington Post, a national liberal political publication.
Now, am I reading all this wrong? Is this not an “aggressive agenda to dabble in the contracting of … private industry,” the very thing that I was accused of?
If you don’t think so, then may you might want to consider how the Huffington Post described what was going on:
The site AMERICAblog and the Human Rights Campaign [largest gay rights organization in the U.S], among others, are now pushing an aggressive campaign to pressure these companies to use their influence and lobby Haslam to veto the measure (emphasis added).
And who in Tennessee was helping promote this national campaign? Why the very same organization that accused FACT of an “aggressive agenda” to interfere with private business decisions.
I told people what BlueCross did. I warned them of what BlueCross might next do if “scared to death” by the homosexual rights groups. But unlike my critics, I didn’t mount some “aggressive campaign” to “threaten,” “punish,” or inflict “pain” on this private business.
Maybe now we have the facts straight. And maybe now we all know who is really bullying private businesses.