I’ve been saying for some time that the excesses taking place in Canada and other foreign environs could eventually reach to within America’s borders. I just didn’t expect it to come so soon.

Is there no longer a right for employees to engage in Constitutionally protected speech about their religious beliefs on their own time? Doesn’t firing them for such activity constitute discrimination based upon such speech constitute employment discrimination based upon religion, which is banned by the statute by the federal government and all fifty states? Or does the judicially-discovered right to sodomy override those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

An employee of the Allstate insurance company has been fired from his job for comments that appeared in a men’s journal denouncing same-sex “marriage,” even though the statement was penned in the employee’s own spare time and from home.

“I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published,” J. Matt Barber told WorldNetDaily news. “I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate's name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage.”

Allstate made no attempt to hide its bigotry. According to its report, “The claimant was discharged from Allstate Insurance Company because an outside organization had complained about an article he had written while on his own time.” The company even tried to have Barber denied unemployment insurance, which can be withheld if a person was fired for a violation of company policy or rules.

Now what awful things had Barber written in the article to which the online publication appended a biography identifying his employer without his knowledge? What evil, hateful, discriminatory words had he caused to be published? How had he engaged in misconduct so grave that Allstate sought to have him denied unemployment benefits mere weeks after the birth of a child following a difficult high-risk pregnancy? Well, take a look.

“Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society,” Barber’s article began. “Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones – many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression ‘same-sex marriage’ has been forced into popular lexicon.”

The article says some things I agree with, some things I question, and some things with which I take exception. But none of what was written constitutes notions that are “outside the mainstream” of American public opinion, as demonstrated by the results of every election that has dealt with the issue. Certainly his position does not constitute “hate speech”, unless you want to argue that any criticism of the homosexual rights and homosexual marriage movements constitutes hate.

So where are the outraged screams of civil libertarians and free speech activists?