Gay advantage opponents have been told, "Don't worry -- cases like those you've proposed are only hypothetical. Civil rights authorities will judge each case on its merits." But what is any law if not a statement about how government will respond to situations that may only possibly occur? The scenarios presented here are in fact highly likely to occur under special gay advantage legislation. Recently, the Catholic Archdiocese of Minneapolis, Minnesota, was assessed $20,000 in damages and $15,000 in fines -- because it refused to allow a homosexual club to hold meetings in Church-owned facilities. In May, 1989, two Madison, Wisconsin, heterosexual women were initially fined a total of $1,500, required to write letters of apology, assigned to attend "sensitivity" classes taught by gays involving graphic depictions of gay sexual behavior, and forbidden to ask further rental applicants about their "sexual orientation." These women's crime? Refusing to share their apartment with a lesbian applicant. Privacy eventually prevailed in this case -- but not until late July, 1992. And this kind of issue is scarcely settled once and for all nationwide. The Wall Street Journal commented:

"The question is: Where do we draw the line? The lesbian roommate case was a painful one... As the definition of discrimination continues to expand, the definition of privacy continues to shrink. Today the fight is apparently over in Madison. But tomorrow in some other city [someone] may find himself in court, defending the very issue of whether he has the right to choose with whom he will live" ("Privacy and the `Lesbian Roommate' Case," July 20, 1992).

Wisconsin's former Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus signed into law that State's bill granting protected class status to "sexual orientation." He was assured that the bill would have no effect on religious institutions like the 40-year-old Rawhide Boys' Ranch, a home for troubled boys. Shortly after Dreyfus left office, two male homosexuals appeared at the Ranch, demanding to be hired as boys' counselors. Dreyfus later wrote the bill's supporters, expressing his sense of betrayal at the homosexual community's breach of promise. Evidence has recently surfaced indicating that not only was the provocative action Dreyfus complained of deliberate, it was planned by the Wisconsin Governor's Council on Lesbian and Gay Issues. In minutes from an October 19, 1985, meeting of that Council, under the heading "RAWHIDE," we read: "Jim Thideman [one of eight members present] has asked some people to apply for a job [at Rawhide] and pursue filing a discrimination report with ERD upon refusal of employment, assuming it will be that clear cut. Kathleen Nichols [another Council member] reported that Char McLaughlan is acquainted with a lesbian with a son at Rawhide who has been refused family counseling sessions if accompanied by her lover. Follow-up is necessary to see if this woman would be willing to file a complaint." According to sources at Rawhide, heading off these conspiratorial plans cost in excess of $30,000. Relief only came through passage of additional legislation that exempted religious institutions like Rawhide. But Rawhide still has outstanding debts remaining from this episode. Under legislation granting special minority status to gays, we can expect a plethora of similar nuisance suits and test cases to clog our legal system and bleed defendants dry financially.