“[The] history of donor harassment on the marriage issue overwhelmingly shows that it is only the donors to traditional marriage who are harassed. People contributing to or supporting pro-marriage campaigns have been shot … fired, had their businesses attacked [and] been subjected to protests and boycotts.” That was what Chuck Darrell, spokesman for Minnesota for Marriage, told the Star Tribune on Friday after Minnesota’s campaign finance board told a donor, known as John Doe, that his name could be withheld from campaign finance reports because he could be fired for his stance on marriage.

Except the donor wasn’t donating to Minnesota for Marriage or the National Organization for Marriage or even in support of the amendment. He is a Catholic employee who gave to Minnesotans United for All Families, and fears that if the donation became public, he could be fired. Darrell and Minnesota for Marriage said it was just “politics.”

The Minnesota Family Council, where Darrell serves as communications director, fought to keep donors from being listed on campaign finance reports for the exact same reason that the board exempted John Doe.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Tom Prichard, president of MFC, told the board in June of 2011. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

Prichard said he had knowledge of violence against donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose,” he said. “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

It appears that John Doe and the campaign finance board had reason to worry.

From the board’s decision:

As evidence of the likelihood of this harm, Mr. Doe includes in his affidavits information about an individual named Trish Cameron who was a teacher at a Catholic school in Moorhead, Minnesota. Mr. Doe spoke with Ms. Cameron to verify that her employment was terminated because of her position regarding gay marriage.

Ms. Cameron verified that the story of her firing, as reported by Minnesota Public Radio on its website on June 27, 2012, was accurate. According to Ms. Cameron, she expressed to her supervisors in the private context of an annual self-evaluation that she did not agree with all of the Church’s teachings on a personal level, but that she did not bring her own opinions into the classroom. Her comment on the self-evaluation led to a meeting with the school principal and superintendent where she explained that her comment related to her disagreement with the Church’s position on the subject of gay marriage.

A week later, Ms. Cameron was asked to resign. In her letter to parents, Ms. Cameron elaborates that she was told that she would not be offered a contract for the upcoming school year based on her response to the self-evaluation question and the further discussion in which she explained her disagreement with the Church’s position on gay marriage.

Mr. Doe believes that Ms. Cameron’s situation provides evidence in support of his position. Mr. Doe points out that Ms. Cameron acknowledged her opposition to the marriage amendment only in private, yet her employment was terminated as a result. On the other hand, Mr. Doe, who sometimes represents a Catholic organization regarding policy, made a $600 contribution to an association diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church’s position on the same issue. Mr. Doe believes that the Catholic Church’s actions with respect to Ms. Cameron provide clear and convincing evidence that public disclosure of his opposition to the marriage amendment would expose him to the loss of his employment.