A church (United Church of Christ) creates an ad promoting its tolerance policy to try to build up membership. The major networks, though not FOX, rejected the ad as too controversial (ABC has a policy against accepting religious advertising), though various local affiliates might and cable outlets like ABC Family will air it. The ad does not explicitly deal with homosexuality, but among the people portrayed, are same sex couples holding hands and such.
The meaning of "controversial" is somewhat arbitrary. Political advertising does not apply. Advertising that some groups might very well disagree with, including anti-drug (smoking) advertisements (either their methods or very message), are not covered. And, of course, ads for sex aids, beer, prescription medicines, or feminine products (including for herpes) do not count. In fact, ads with people that are homosexuals are allowed as well, though this sends a certain (controversial) message that homosexuality is acceptable.
But, the promotion of a church (selling if you like) is not acceptable because homosexuality is implied, and the church calls to mind the whole same sex marriage debate. Thus, the rules allow controversial advertisements as well as those that sell not only a product but a certain point of view, which many groups might find quite distasteful. Except when they do not.
"All ads are advocacy; what else is an advertisement if not an opportunity to advocate for your toothpaste or your cause?" said the Rev. Nancy S. Taylor, president of the Massachusetts conference of the United Church of Christ, the largest Protestant denomination in the state. "The ads are about hospitality and a wide welcome. And how that is controversial -- I find that extraordinary. We are stunned."
The movie Kinsey denounces "morality disguised as fact," while being concerned with a scientist that attempts to study the latter. As discussed here, when it comes to abstinence and related education (funded with our tax dollars), Kinsey's concern again raises its ugly head. In fact, as shown by the article and report linked at the end of the piece, the anti-science mentality is much wider than this small example. Rep. Henry Waxman again does yeoman work attacking the problem.
The networks' decision here is not quite the same thing, but it's arbitrary silencing of a point of view much more worthy of an audience than much of the truly controversial b.s. currently allowed [I am plain sick of the advertising shown during Sunday football games ... but no problemo; they do not involve a Desperate Housewife or Janet Jackson.] is not quite that far off.