Bob Eschliman was editor-in-chief for the Newton Daily News in Newton, Iowa, and is now taking his complaint against his former employer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ... Eschliman's attorney is Liberty Institute-allied lawyer and former federal prosecutor Mat Whitaker, who tells OneNewsNow the journalist was an "exemplary" employee. "He had won many awards as a journalist and by all accounts he had outstanding performance as an employee," says the attorney. Eschliman ran into a problem, though, after he wrote about his personal religious beliefs on his blog and expressed his belief in traditional marriage.
Eschliman's formal complaint to the EEOC includes this response to his firing:
"There is no question that I was fired for holding and talking about my sincerely held religious beliefs on my personal blog during my off-duty time from the comfort of my own home. There is no dispute that it was my personal blog and not connected to the newspaper. ... Shaw Media directly discriminated against me because of my religious beliefs and my identity as an evangelical Christian who believes in Holy Scripture and the Biblical view of marriage. Moreover, Shaw Media announced that not only were they firing me based upon my religious beliefs, but that they would not hire or allow anyone to work at Shaw Media who holds religious beliefs similar to mine, which would include an automatic denial of any accommodation of those who share my sincerely held religious beliefs."
What will you hear from the homosexualists? They'll say that Bob Eschliman doesn't have a right to be editor-in-chief. They made the same claim concerning all the other people they've gone after. So-and-so has a right to his or her religious beliefs but not a right to this-or-that job/position.
The problem with that illogic is that it has no end. There is no line between one job or another where the right suddenly starts or stops. Bob Eschliman was editor-in-chief; but by the non-logic of the homosexualists, he could be hired as dog catcher or garbage collector and be fired for the same reason because he doesn't have a right to be dog catcher or garbage collector. Let them attempt to come up with a line that will work in all cases. It can't be done.
Regardless, the homosexualists are banging their heads against the free-exercise clause of the US Constitution. A person can't be free to exercise if he isn't also free to make a living on an equal footing with non-Christians or with homosexuals and their supporters.
The homosexualists will call "bigot," but they need to look in the mirror.
This is public policy versus public policy.
Bob Eschliman didn't write that all homosexuals should be rounded up and put to death. He wrote that he holds with traditional marriage, and he does so because he thinks that, that marriage is what's best for the whole of humanity and should be the only form of marriage.
Unless he has the right to that view, unless he has the right to air it, unless people are free to discuss such things and to hold differing opinions without being fired left and right from whatever positions, be it considered high or low, how is the democracy upon which the US Constitution was founded and is ostensibly designed to further to survive and thrive?
In this case and for secular positions, either you have a litmus test for being pro-homosexual or a litmus test for being Christian or no such litmus test at all. Under my reading of the US Constitution (which reading differs from that of a number of Supreme Court justices), neither the church of homosexuality nor any of its exclusive non-profit auxiliaries (hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc.) must hire or retain traditional-marriage Christians.
None of this is to say that I agree with the US Constitution. Frankly, I think it's pathetic; but most people in positions of power aren't having that argument yet. They will. Until then, I have said above what should hold for Bob Eschliman right now under the current US Constitution.