|The Heritage Foundation's Emilie Kao's rude comment about gay couples demonstrates her ignorance of history|
If you want to pinpoint just how mean spirited and callous the mindset behind the creation of a "religious liberty task force," look no further than comments by one of the speakers at the so-called "religious liberty summit" on Monday which was held to announce its creation:
From Chris Johnson of The Washington Blade:
. . . other speakers on the panel railed against efforts to uphold LGBT rights as they face compromise in the name of religious freedom, including Emilie Kao, director of the Richard & Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at the anti-LGBT Heritage Foundation.
Kao was critical of litigation filed by the ACLU against the Michigan law enabling Catholic adoption agencies to refuse placement to LGBT families over religious objections.
Asserting same-sex couples seeking to adopt face no problem in access to adoption, Kao said the plaintiff in the lawsuit drove past four other adoption agencies to reach St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities, which she said “still holds the belief that they should put every child with a mother and father.”
“The lesbian couple says they were personally offended by St. Vincent’s not placing a child with them,” Kao said. “I think it’s important for us to recognize that throughout the history of our country and the Supreme Court’s cases, we have always protected the right of people to follow their religious beliefs, and we’ve never protected the right not to have your feelings hurt.”
Kao's callous words was merely another way to evade one of the actual issues of the Michigan case, which is St. Vincent and another adoption agency which discriminates against gay couples, is receiving taxpayer funds. Lots of taxpayer funds:
Documents provided by the ACLU show the state entered into a three-year contract with an option year with Bethany Christian Services for different amounts including up to $6.8 million and with St. Vincent up to for $4.1 million.
Also, I would like to point out just how not only rude, but highly inaccurate Kao's comments were. Perhaps she was attempting to project some false wit or cleverness. What she actually succeeded in doing was to show either her basic or deliberate ignorance of history.