Read the previous post first. Ultimately, for me the issue and/or question deals with Christian mission and witness…
On the other hand, here is another quote from the Focus-on-the-Family (FoF) essay:

Sexual harassment law as an instrument for suppressing religious speech? A few days after I interviewed Stern, an Alliance Defense Fund press release dropped into my mail box: “OSU Librarian Slapped with ‘Sexual Harassment’ Charge for Recommending Conservative Books for Freshmen.” One of the books the Ohio State librarian (a pacifist Quaker who drives a horse and buggy to work) recommended was It Takes a Family by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Three professors alleged that the mere appearance of such a book on a freshman reading list made them feel “unsafe.” The faculty voted to pursue the sexual harassment allegation, and the process quickly resulted in the charge being dropped.
In the end the investigation of the librarian was more of a nuisance—you might call it harassment—than anything else. But the imbalance in terms of free speech remains clear: People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. “Soft” coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone’s conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people. (emphasis mine)

I have to agree with this! I cannot help but believe that those who do have a considered opposition to gay marriage have a right to make their points of view known. This is not an issue, for me, of an attempt to deny someone their right of free speech. I uphold the right of people in their work-place or in the public-arena to advocate for their position. But, this does not mean that their speech will be consequence free. What I appose is the misuse of data or the spinning of information disingenuously or dishonestly to support or promote one’s position. As difficult, frustrating, and repugnant as it may be, I do support the right of even white supremacists, for example, to advocate their position.
The problem I see, and I know this from experience, is that if the culture-war, politicized Religious Right groups like FoF have their way, they will not allow such a wide berth for the freedom of speech. They would ban books from libraries that portrayed positively gay relationships. They’ve already championed this position in libraries across the country, and in some places have won the removal of books. They would not defend the right of gay advocates to present their positions equally alongside anti-gay positions. They would not allow this kind of free speech because they believe that advocating such positions is contrary to the will of God, plain and simply.
In addition, I am in opposition to the way the FoF and like groups are dealing with the issue of homosexuality in our culture because of the impact it has on a predominately post-Christian populace. The data they use to support their positions can fairly easily be disproved. The spin they place on other people’s/groups’ studies to support their positions can be easily repudiated. This type of twisting of information and the bearing of false witness against a whole class of people will only bring reproach and disgrace to all of Christianity and the cause of Christ. Advocate your position, but do it honestly and forthrightly! If we are to love our neighbor, how else can be proceed?