Did the 7th Circuit Just Rule That Christians Are Bigots?

Judges simply rewrote the Civil Rights Act to include gays.

By Maggie Gallagher Published on April 11, 2017

Justice Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed. Breathe a sigh of relief. The fight against him confirms the importance of President Trump to religious freedom for Christians (and other traditional believers). For the latest news from the courts is not good for religious liberty.

Last week, the 7th Circuit Court rewrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The majority ruled in Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s ban on sex discrimination now includes gay and lesbian discrimination.

It’s a breathtaking power grab.

Here’s a good summary of all the various opinions by David Lat. Reagan-appointee Judge Posner gave the most jaw-dropping anti-democratic justification:

“We now understand that homosexual men and women … are normal in the ways that count, and beyond that have made many outstanding intellectual and cultural contributions to society” Posner says. He therefore concluded. “The compelling social interest in protecting homosexuals (male and female) from discrimination justifies an admittedly loose ‘interpretation’ of the word ‘sex’ in Title VII to embrace homosexuality: … in light of (to quote Holmes) ‘what this country has become.’”

If you asked Ms. Hiveley what her sex was, Judge Posner admits it: She would say she’s a woman, not a lesbian. The meaning of the word “sex” hasn’t really changed.

Congress Shouldn’t Bother Its Pretty Little Head About Changing Laws

More Posner: “I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we” judges are “imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of ‘sex discrimination’ that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted.” No big deal, he says. Judges do this in part “to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch.”

Thus Judge Posner concludes, “We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.”

“What Judge Posner is taking advantage of is life tenure,” shot back Josh Blackman.

The power of the courts is almost always used in one direction: to advance the moral views of the Left.

Debates about judicial interpretation take place among tenured judges and tenured academics. These are among the most protected classes from the realities the rest of the country faces. Judges like Posner seem incapable of seeing the damage they do to our democracy. 

Judges Making Up Rights Demeans Voting Citizens

“Majorities can’t take rights from minorities — is that so hard to understand?” one of my Twitter critics asked me. But democracy is a process. It’s not just a matter of fixed majorities and minorities. Kicking us out of that process prevents minorities from making their case to the majority and vice versa. Every pro-life citizen had his citizenship discounted by Roe v. Wade. Every person who fought for the traditional understanding of marriage had his right to participate thrown out by Obergefell. Beyond that, the power of the courts is almost always used in one direction: to advance the moral views of the Left.

Glenn Reynolds says that Judge Posner convinced him of one thing: federal judges should be elected, not appointed. Is it a judge’s job to “update” the clear legal meaning of statutes? Fine, then he should have to find out once every four years where the country really is. Like any other legislator.

Judge Posner’s arrogance is the more striking because he grounds it in false expertise. At the oral arguments Posner focused on one question. “Why do you think there are lesbians?” he asked.

Judge Posner’s Private Theory of Lesbianism

In his decision, without citation or any real argument, Judge Posner returns to his personal view: that sexual orientation is immutable and unchosen:

The position of a woman discriminated against on account of being a lesbian is thus analogous to a woman’s being discriminated against on account of being a woman. That woman didn’t choose to be a woman; the lesbian didn’t choose to be a lesbian.

No Judge Posner. Sexual orientation is a complex phenomenon.

It can’t be reduced to genetics. Some women do in fact choose to be lesbians. They will tell you there is nothing wrong with that. (An opinion to which they are entitled as Americans, even if we disagree).

But wait. To say that sexual relationships between two men are just the same as relationships between a man and woman is a denial of basic sexual reality. We are asked to submit to Big Lies in the service of kindness. America no longer has any consensus on how or why sex matters. Judge Posner’s answer is to put his thumb on the scale and favor one side of the argument. Because he can.

Christian schools and charities could well be punished for refusing to hire gay employees.

Judge Posner’s buried assumption is that Title VII was enacted to give everyone a right to behave sexually as they please.

The First Amendment is Gradually Being Repealed

Why is this a problem for Christians and other traditional faith communities?

First, because Title VII’s protection of religious employers is narrow: It permits you to hire only Catholics (for instance) if you choose. It’s not clear it permits you to hire “Catholics and others who share Catholic morality.”

What more, for a centralized church like Roman Catholicism, the mere threat of expensive lawsuits will create heavy legal, financial pressures on traditional Christian schools and charities: To accept Judge Posner’s values and mute Jesus Christ’s. That pressure becomes intense because of the way the law treats a centralized church.

What if Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego says one thing about employing gay “married” teachers. Then Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia says another. The courts are likely to tell Archbishop Chaput: that’s not Catholicism, that’s just your personal opinion. San Diego wins, Philadelphia loses.

Worst still, inserting sexual orientation into the 1964 Civil Rights Act throws the meaning of the religious exemptions in that act into deep new uncertainty.

Your Church Will Hire Whom We Tell it to Hire

As a Skadden Arps brief puts it: “Finally, the exemption covers only religion-based discrimination and does not allow qualifying organizations to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin or age.” Translation: Sex discrimination now means sexual orientation discrimination. Your religious exemption probably won’t permit you to hire only those who agree with classic Christian teachings on sex and marriage.

Catholic priests may still be allowed to be male, because that is covered under a separate Constitutional doctrine. A court upheld the “ministerial exception” by 9 to 0 in Hosanna v. Tabor. But if Posner’s doctrine is allowed to stand, Christian schools and charities could well be punished for refusing to hire gay and straight employees on an equal basis. Whether they believe in Christian views of sex and marriage may not be allowed to matter.

Judge Posner hasn’t got much respect for democracy. If he did, he would hesitate to remove such grave questions from the give-and-take of the democratic process. Judges would understand that democracy requires us to engage each other as citizens. Often we have to compromise to get what we want. This is why updating statutes is often hard. There are competing interests at stake.

No imaginable Congress would pass new sexual orientation protection without some provision for religious dissenters. As Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson has pointed out, no state has passed a gay marriage bill without including at least some level of protection for marriage dissenters. It’s practically an instinct to give at least a few crumbs to the other side in the process of winning legislation.

Why the Courts are now the Whole Kahuna

But Judge Posner can do what he wants. He can outpace or flout public opinion. Clearly he knows he’s doing that. Otherwise “updating” the law would be no burden on Congress.

Democracy becomes ever more dysfunctional when it is routinely bypassed on controversial issues.

And control of the Court becomes the only game in town that matters.

Welcome to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

 

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • David MacKenzie

    This decision closely parallels the constitutional assumptions in Canada in the 1980s. Canadian legislators made the ASSUMPTION that, with the new Constitution, the word “sex” would be synonymous with “sexual orientation”. It was NEVER made explicit. Hence, we now have legal discussions on both sides of the border where we are debating invisible NUANCE in law, and not the explicit legal wording itself. In a sense, this is tantamount to abuse of power. When Judges are ruling in the realm of nuance and NOT text, they CANNOT help but become eisegetes, not exegetes, of the law. Scalia is already spinning in his grave.

    • Casper Crusader

      It is an abuse of power. Anyone that says otherwise is intellectually dishonest. You know that if any of these laws were put before the people, that people would not vote for them.

      • David MacKenzie

        I don’t disagree. It is an abuse.

  • Gary

    Unless the government requires quotas of certain kinds of people to be hired in your business, it really isn’t hard to refuse those you don’t want to hire. It just requires a bit of creative thinking. Discrimination for EVERY reason is not yet illegal. But, I suspect quotas will be something the government will require eventually simply because it is so easy to not comply with the non-discrimination laws, and eventually, the government will figure that out.

    Judges, like Posner, should be impeached. They have violated their oaths and tried to take to themselves the power the Constitution places in Congress alone. There are lots of judges like Posner. The judges who stopped Trump from restricting who can come in to the US are in that category. I don’t expect Congress will do anything about Posner, or the other rogue judges. That means the resistance will have to come from ordinary citizens.

    The greatest threat to the American people is not Russia, or China, or North Korea. The greatest threat to the American people is liberal judges on the federal courts. Including the Supreme Court.

    • stan schmunk

      No, the greatest threat is the judgement of a Holy God.

      • Gary

        I agree. The second greatest threat to the American people are liberal federal judges.

  • Timothy Horton

    The bottom line is science has shown there are zero secular reasons for any discrimination based on sexual orientation in the public arena. Now the laws of the land are catching up to reality.

    Whine, bawl, stomp your feet as much as you like. The religious based prejudices some Christians champion just aren’t acceptable in society anymore.

    • Gary

      There does not need to be secular reasons for discrimination. The reasons for discrimination based on sexual behavior are moral and religious, and they are valid, and protected by the US Constitution. And I don’t care what you, or society, consider acceptable.

      • Timothy Horton

        There does not need to be secular reasons for discrimination.

        There do for laws allowing such discrimination to be ruled Constitutional. Like I said: whine, bawl, stomp your feet as much as you like. The religion-based prejudices some Christians champion just aren’t acceptable in society anymore.

        • Gary

          The US Constitution protects religious freedom, which is not secular.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! It doesn’t protect discrimination based on religious beliefs. But keep whining if it helps you ignore reality.

          • Gary

            Yes, it does. If you disagree, that means you are ignorant.

          • samton909

            You don’t seem to understand the Constitution at all. “Discrimination” is not in the Constitution. There are non discrimination laws passed by Congress, but Congress has repeatedly refused to pass any such law in regards to homosexual activity. Judges cannot invent things that are not in the Constitution. We “discriminate” on various things all the time. “Discrimination” is in the eye of the beholder, therefore every instance of “discrimination” is not illegal, or immoral, or wrong in any way. You seem to discriminate against religious people. You think that is OK. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious belief, protected in the Constitution, Trumps secular laws of general application. You don’t know what you are talking about.

        • samton909

          There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about “discrimination”. You are discriminating right now, by leaving these hate comments. See, anyone can play the discrimination game. The only non discrimination laws we have are passed by Congress, and the courts have no authority to invent such things. In fact, the Congress has repeatedly rejected passing laws on sexual orientation discrimination, so the judges failure on the seventh circuit is even worse. Those judges have abandoned the Constitution, and have attempted to take over powers assigned to the legislature by the Constitution. As such, they should be impeached.

      • stan schmunk

        Hmmmm, so that’s how conservative Christians, especially southern, justified slavery and segregation for 300+ years. Sometimes, Gary, what goes around comes around. It was their actions that led to every minority under the sun coming forward to claim their place in the sun.

        • Gary

          The kind of slavery practiced in the US was not moral. Voluntary segregation is necessary to freedom. Segregation mandated by law is a denial of freedom of association.

    • samton909

      Hilarious. The fact is that science has not shown anything. The simple fact is that much of the supposed science that you think proves things is not really science at all. Much of it is fake science. Note that there is a replicability crisis in the field of psychology, where the results of 65 percent of all studies could not be reproduced. This is because they have taken to misusing statistical techniques to tease out data that just is not there. Furthermore, universiites are so biased now they chase anyone from the field that does not hew to the party line. In short, there really is precious little science that can be relid on these days. Another problem is the faking of data. Often so called scientists now refuse to release their data so others can look at it.

      What you ignore completely is that the law being relied on said nothing about sexual orientation. It merely talked about the sex a person was. As such the court has usurped the power of the legislature, and the judges shoulld be impeached. The judiciary is not supposed to make things up, and here they made things up.

      And, there are many reasons not to believe that gay marriage should not be marraige. Prime among them is the fact that most gay marriages make an agreement that they will have sex with people outside the marriage. It is hardly a marriage anymore if there is no proceation, no monogamy. It is just a legalized orgy. What effect does this have on the poor children who are subjected to this?

      • Timothy Horton

        Prime among them is the fact that most gay marriages make an agreement that they will have sex with people outside the marriage.

        LOL! From what orifice did you pull that ridiculous claim?

        • samton909

          It is well known. Dan Savage, the gay activist, even coined a new word for it. He admits he and his “husband” have an agreement as to when and how they can cheat on each other. He calls it “Monogamish” because they are not monogamous at all, but have sex with many different people throughout the year, apparently because their horniness overcomes everything else. Go to that Google thing, and enter “gay marriage monogamy” and find the article in Slate callled “Gay Marriages dirty little secret”.

          • Timothy Horton

            “It is well known.”

            LOL! In other words it’s 100% bullspit. You found one case of a gay couple with an open marriage and dishonestly extrapolated that to MOST gay marriages are not monogamous.

            Tell me, do any hetero married couples ever have an open marriage? Does that somehow mean that MOST do and we should ban hetero marriage?

    • Charles Burge

      Again, you are completely missing the point of the article. The details of the case really aren’t the main point here. The main point is that we have judges (Posner among them) who brazenly grab power for themselves which is not enumerated in the constitution. You are supporting it now because it produced a result that you like. Do you think that will always be the case in the future?

      • Timothy Horton

        A Judge’s job is to interpret the law. You’re just whining because you don’t like the interpretation. Too bad.

        • Charles Burge

          Did you read any of the actual article, or did you simply come here to troll?

          Note what Judge Posner actually wrote in his opinion:

          The compelling social interest in protecting homosexuals (male and female) from discrimination justifies an admittedly loose ‘interpretation’ of the word ‘sex’ in Title VII

          Whether one agrees or not with his version of “compelling social interest”, he’s quite honest about his flouting of his role of interpreting written law. He went well beyond interpretation, and inserted his own opinion into what the text means. He even admits as much. You are very foolish if you don’t see the danger here to the rule of law.

          • Timothy Horton

            Did you read any of the actual article, or did you simply come here to troll? Laws aren’t interpreted in a vacuum. The judge also can take into account the situation and the environment the law is being applied in. That’s all that happened in this case. You’re still just whining because you didn’t like the interpretation.

          • Charles Burge

            The judge also can take into account the situation and the environment the law is being applied in.

            Yes, I agree that is true to a certain extent. However, I don’t think that includes assigning new meanings to words. If the American people want Title VII to be updated to include sexual orientation, then the proper way to accomplish that is in the halls on congress, not in the courtroom.

            I also admit that I don’t like the outcome of this particular case, but my complaint goes way beyond that. I think I’ve articulated that well enough, but you’re either too dense or too stubborn to see it.

          • Casper Crusader

            Charles the problem isn’t you.

  • JP

    How does one prove they are homosexual in public?

    • Timothy Horton

      Why would they have to?

      • JP

        So you know who the homosexuals are. We can tell by looking at people what their race is or gender but we can’t tell who is homosexual by looking at them. A person needs to prove they are homosexual so we don’t ignore them. Right?

        • Timothy Horton

          That makes no sense. Just treat everyone equally and don’t bother asking about their orientation. Problem solved.

    • Gary

      By behaving like a homosexual.

      • JP

        And how is that?

        • Gary

          If they claim they are homosexual, or if a man holds hands with or kisses another man, those are pretty good indicators.

          • JP

            Not necessarily. A father holds the hands of his son and kisses him but that doesn’t make him a homosexual. How would a single man prove he is homosexual in public?

          • Gary

            It should be obvious that I am not talking about a father with his son.

            Ask the single man if he is homosexual.

          • JP

            Anyone can say anything. How is he going to prove it?

          • Gary

            Is a man going to admit to being homosexual when he isn’t? I doubt it. A homosexual might deny it. But if you are not convinced, you would have to look for other indicators. If you have doubts, the best thing to do would be assume he is homosexual.

          • JP

            No. You don’t assume that.

          • Gary

            Depends on what evidence there is.

        • eddiestardust

          Good question because you can’t tell if a guy is gay or not from looking at him..except of course gays go out of their way to proclaim their “gayness”….

  • Az1seeit

    Why is this an issue? People’s sex are either male or female. No matter what they do with their parts, they are still male or female.

    • eddiestardust

      Except , of course, when you try to say it you get silenced or bullied OR SUED:(

  • Gary

    Article 1 of the US Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”. That means that ONLY Congress can make laws. The Courts are not granted legislative powers. Judges, like Posner, have tried to become legislators, and that is not allowed to judges under the Constitution. Judges who try to make laws have violated the US Constitution and must be impeached.

    • Paul

      Yes they should be impeached, but who has the stones to do it?

      • Gary

        I’m trying to find out if my congressman is even going to verbally object to what the courts are doing. If Congress won’t even say anything, then of course they won’t do anything.

  • Patmos

    It’s stunning how awful some of these rulings are, and just further proof that this nation is in serious decline. There was that woman in the state of Washington who served that gay couple for years, but refused to take part in their wedding and the LGBT movement perverted that (like they do everything else) into being discrimination. Newsflash for the selfish LGBT movement and the judges who have fallen for their ruse: if it was discrimination she wouldn’t have been serving them at all.

    To make matters worse the LGBT movement continues to sweep under the rug the very real issue of abuse and molestation, the result of the unfettered lust that LGBT is. Currently in Seattle multiple allegations were recently revealed against the gay mayor for abusing under age boys, and everyone is near silent on that, and the mayor is just going on as if business were usual. For a litmus test, imagine if the accused wasn’t part of the currently protected LGBT class. There would be outrage, paid leave, etc. Like there has been in similar cases where the accused wasn’t gay.

    The LGBT movement has somehow managed to bully it’s way to enough sympathy so that society now serves it’s perverted ways. It is the dismal tide.

    • Timothy Horton

      This place must advertise for gay-bashing bigots to come out of the woodwork. Now we have allegation against a gay mayor so that means ALL LGBT folks engage in abusing underage children.

      Just like all those documented cases of priests abusing altar boys proves all Christian males are secretly gay pedophiles. Right?

      • Patmos

        Why must LGBT pervert everything? Notice how I never said any of what you mention. I merely stated that the mayor of Seattle’s case was another instance of sweeping abuse under the rug, which it is. Sorry, your oft used tactic to label me a bigot didn’t work. Maybe it’s time for you to face reality.

        • Timothy Horton

          Why must LGBT pervert everything?

          They don’t. Why do gay-bashing homophobes make up lies about LGBT folks perverting everything?

          • Patmos

            You did it again, and have retreated into what is at the heart of the LGBT movement: demonize anything that is against you, while playing the victim, in order to gain sympathy and acceptance. I will give you credit, because it has worked for the most part. It has worked so well that the mayor of Seattle will likely keep on cruising without a hitch, because that backwards city doesn’t have the wherewithal to do anything about it.

          • Timothy Horton

            You did it again and have retreated into what is at the heart of the anti-LGBT movement: demonize anything that is against you, while playing the victim, in order to gain sympathy and acceptance.

            Sorry but in case you haven’t noticed that tactic doesn’t work for you any more. People understand all minorities, even ones your religion teaches you to be intolerant of, deserve equal and fair treatment under law.

          • Casper Crusader

            It must be nice living in never never land. The only people that are demonizing others are the far left. If someone says something that you don’t like, you default to doing exactly what you’ve done here.

            It’s not a tactic, it’s a fact.

          • Timothy Horton

            The fact is the religious Fundies have resorted to claiming they’re the victim when they are forced to follow anti-discrimination laws and not treat minorities like second-class citizens. So far the strategy hasn’t worked.

          • Gary

            People who are denied the right to freedom of association, as you would like to see, are victims. Anti-discrimination laws violate the first and/or thirteenth amendments to the US Constitution.

          • Casper Crusader

            The next buzz words: second class citizens.

            You are following the manual well. When people like you use words such as “hateful” “homophobic” “bigot” etc…. What they are really saying is that they have no argument. The only thing that they can do is repeat the same words,over and over again

          • Timothy Horton

            If the shoe fits, and it does, you intolerant Fundies have to wear it

          • Casper Crusader

            That’s funny. The most intolerant person in the discussion is calling the rest of us intolerant. I haven’t resorted to name calling, insults, or other socially unacceptable forms of behavior. However you have. Once again, you have no HONEST desire to engage in conversation.

          • Timothy Horton

            The most intolerant person in the discussion is calling the rest of us intolerant.

            LOL! Like I tell all the other ones arguing for legalized discrimination and bigotry against a harmless minority – I freely admit I am intolerant of such hateful bigotry. Most honest and moral people are.

        • Gary

          Perverts pervert everything. That is what perverts do.

          • Micha_Elyi

            Perverting the meaning of “Fundies”, that’s for sure.

            Gotta laugh when some overheated anti-religious sort starts calling Catholic Christians “Fundies” or ‘Fundamentalists’. Such displays of ignorance reveal that the name-caller has no argument.

          • Gary

            Catholics are not Fundamentalist Christians. And that is the only kind of Christians there are.

        • Casper Crusader

          Patmos, their tactics are well know. They threw the word hate at the wall, and it stuck. As far as they are concerned, anyone that says anything that they do t like is a bigot, and worse.

          Sadly, they are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. The very moment that their ears hear anything that they disagree with, they throw out words such hate.

          • Timothy Horton

            What word should we use when we get religious Fundies wanting to deny equal rights to minorities, call them deviants and perverts, place them in jail (according to some)?

            Maybe you think all non-hetero folks should be forced to wear a pink triangle like your fellow haters made them do?

          • Gary

            I am fine with everyone having the exact same rights that I have. But if I listed them, you would disagree with what those rights are.

          • Micha_Elyi

            You appear to be ignorant of what your word “Fundies” (short for Fundamentalists) means, Timothy Horton. Hurling a word that you don’t understand in an attempt to insult others is one mark of a hater.

          • Timothy Horton

            Not at all. I use the term to refer to the small subset of Christians who think every passage of the Bible should be taken literally i.e the Earth is only 6000 years old, Noah’s Flood and Tower of Babel were real, Gay folks choose to be gay and deserve to be punished. They’re not bright enough to realize the men who wrote their book 2000 years ago got much of the science wrong, like “people consciously choose their sexual orientation”.

            Most Christians live in the 21st century and have successfully managed to blend modern scientific knowledge with their scriptural understanding. But not the Fundies. They’re still stuck in the 1800’s.

          • Gary

            Just because you don’t believe the Bible does not mean it is not true.

          • Timothy Horton

            Just because you believe the Bible is true doesn’t mean all parts of it are correct, especially the parts thoroughly disproven by science.

          • Gary

            There is nothing in the Bible that has been disproven.

          • Timothy Horton

            Sorry but the Earth isn’t 6000 years old, all languages did not arise from the Tower of Babel, all extant species didn’t arise from pairs of “kinds” from a big wooden boat in a global covering flood 4500 years ago, and people don’t consciously choose their sexual orientation.

            Ignoring scientific facts won’t make the facts go away.

          • Gary

            Opinions vary. None of what you claim has been proven true.

          • Casper Crusader

            Timothy,

            Can you separate the things that you have mentioned, according to the situation, or the person? I don’t know anyone that thinks that lgbt folks should be punished.

            Science is not perfect. The reason that I sat that is that it’s run by scientists. They are people. They can make mistakes, and alter information to meet their own biases.

          • Timothy Horton

            I don’t know anyone that thinks that lgbt folks should be punished.

            Then you haven’t been reading this site for the last few years.

            They can make mistakes, and alter information to meet their own biases.

            If you have evidence of systematic falsification of data, mistakes, or bias among thousands of professional scientists when it comes to research on human sexuality please present it. Otherwise you’re just rejecting sound science due to your own ignorance-based biases.

          • Casper Crusader

            I only have to name one name, because he is seen as influential to others. I don’t need to name his name, I am quite comfortable in the facts.

            I’d like to challenge you to consider one thing. You said that I “haven’t been reading this site for the last few years.” I don’t look at it everyday, no. But you seem to be doing the same thing that many others are doing, on both sides. You are judging entire groups of people by the actions and the words of the worst of that group. That’s not fair to anyone.

            One more question. If we were sitting in a coffee house or any other public place, would you use the same inflammatory remarks, and grating attitude that you are using on this site?

            I’m more than capable of discussing things in public with people that I disagree with in a calm manner. Are you???

          • Timothy Horton

            I only have to name one name, because he is seen as influential to others. I don’t need to name his name, I am quite comfortable in the facts.

            I’ll take that as a resounding NO, you have no evidence the overwhelming scientific consensus on sexual orientation is biased or wrong. Got it.

            I’m more than capable of discussing things in public with people that I disagree with in a calm manner. Are you???

            Absolutely. I just require the person I’m conversing with be intellectually honest. That doesn’t include the angry bigots who start off with a big lie i.e. “all gays want to recruit and molest children” “gays choose to be gay to disrespect God!” “All gays lead a wild hedonistic gay lifestyle”. Sadly that’s the approach about 95% of the religious posters here take.

          • davidrev17

            But Timothy, your personal (subjective) bias – aka the BRAIN-BASED, “PC”-motivated “Intolerance of Tolerance,” both scientifically & philosophically – simply cuts-both-ways; as you’ve completely ignored the ongoing, decades-long “in-house” rancorous debates between neuroscientists themselves regarding the imperialistic dictates of both “APA’S” – when it concerns that which has exemplified the very “fuzzy-thinking” involved in the compilation of the DSM-4 & DSM-5!

            And this would naturally include the curiously self-refuting, thus non-existent logic found throughout the DSM-5, somewhat recently UNmasked by secular neuro-practitioners themselves! (e.g., see: David Dobbs Review in the prestigious Journal “Nature,” 497 (36-37), “Psychiatry: A Very Sad Story” [2 May, 2013], analyzing Gary Greenberg’s, “The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry.”)

            Translation: This issue of Homo sapiens’ totally “brain-based” expression in our sexual proclivities, is hardly one of black-and-white “settled science” – a truly oxymoronic philosophical designation in “scientific” discourse, if ever there was one; simply because the “new physics” of quantum mechanics – thus the ongoing research in “mind-brain quantum physics” for almost 90-years now – has continued to affirm the scientific reality of “free-will” being exercised by WE “conscious observers” – and the as-of-yet scientifically immovable centrality of human consciousness of which represents an “ultimate reality.”

            “It may be premature to believe that the present philosophy of quantum mechanics will remain a permanent feature of future physical theories; it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the VERY STUDY OF THE EXTERNAL WORLD LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTENT OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN ULTIMATE REALITY.” Emphasis mine, of course.

            — Nobel laureate physicist, Dr. Eugene Wigner, “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question,” (1961).

            And the proverbial “noose” has only grown much tighter about the so-called “scientific” necks of those within the atheistic community of naturalistic/”scientific” ideologues, a priori committed to a strict materialistic and/or reductionist view of nature itself – and Homo sapiens’ place within it; as mind-brain quantum physics continues to confirm the centrality of the “observer” here in the 21st-century, and his/her unfettered, or unhindered exercise of “free-will” throughout their collective lives.

            (See the lifelong work of recently retired, distinguished “Orthodox/von-Neuman” mind-brain quantum physicist, Dr. Henry P. Stapp, whose academic “pedigree” traces-back through training under four [4] Nobel laureates, including considerable time spent with such scientific luminaries as Wolfgang Pauli & Werner Heisenberg.)

            So in case what I’m emphasizing in this post has gone-over your head, or perhaps escaped your notice, please allow me to succinctly summarize this: the cutting-edge scientific reality of “Free-will & consciousness” in Homo sapiens’ as representing THE “central” feature in nature – is virtually consistent with the very worldview revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures! As such, you can’t continue (unless hypocritically of course) to have it both-ways in your “fence-straddling” discourse on these issues; because you’re either with God – or you’re against Him.

            And may the Holy “Spirit of Truth” Himself be given free-reign by you this wonderful Redemption/Resurrection weekend, to perform that critically necessary “act” of Self-disclosure within your heart-of-hearts; thereby enabling you to finally “see” yourself as you really are – before an infinitely loving & Holy Lord Yeshua of Nazareth…Israel’s Redeemer and Messiah.

            Shalom my friend!

          • Aaron Brown

            What rights are “Fundies” trying to deny the LGBT community?

          • Timothy Horton

            The equal rights the Constitution grants all citizens, including

            Marrying the person they love.
            Adopting children.
            Fair unbiased treatment when obtaining service from an open to the public business establishment.
            Fair unbiased treatment in their employment.
            Fair unbiased treatment in their housing.

            Those are just a few.

            The same rights the Fundies enjoy they want to deny to the non-hetero population for no reason other than their religion teaches them to be intolerant.

          • Gary

            The US Constitution does not mention marriage, therefore, it does not grant the right to marry. It does not mention adoption, therefore, it does not grant the right to adopt. It does not address the policies of businesses, or deal with employment rules, or housing rules. Claiming the Constitution says what it does not say is dishonest.

          • Timothy Horton

            The Constitution grants equality to all citizens. If non-hetero people shouldn’t be allowed to do those things then hetero people can’t do them either. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot.

          • Gary

            The only equality of citizens the Constitution addresses is that the laws the government passes should apply to all. Nowhere does the Constitution indicate that same-sex marriage must be legal. Neither does it say that citizens must treat other citizens alike.

          • Aaron Brown

            Timothy, could you maybe draw out the line of reasoning that you using to justify all of these things as constitutional rights? Obviously the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of marriage or adopting children so I would appreciate it if you could explain yourself a little bit more.

          • Timothy Horton

            Easy. If hetero couples are granted those things then non-hetero couples should be granted them too.

            Equality isn’t that hard a concept.

          • Aaron Brown

            What makes you think that all of those things are rights? Where in the constitution does it give the right to “marry the one you love”?

          • Timothy Horton

            What part of “If hetero couples are granted those things then non-hetero couples should be granted them too.” don’t you understand?

            Equality isn’t that hard a concept except for some it seems.

          • Aaron Brown

            Timothy, Obviously rights can’t be anything that a heterosexual couple has so, in light of this, how do you decide what is a right?

          • Timothy Horton

            Read the sentence again, slowly.

            “If hetero couples are granted those things then non-hetero couples should be granted them too.”

            Follow with your finger if it helps.

          • Aaron Brown

            Timothy, I understand equality quite well actually; it’s why I believe endorsing same sex “marriage” is a bad idea. Our pre-Obergefell applied to everyone so that no one was discriminated against. Everybody has the right to marry any qualified member of the opposite sex. The only thing that was discriminate against was homosexual behavior; but all laws discriminate against behaviors so this is not a problem at all.

        • Timothy Horton

          They don’t. Why must homophobes always lie and claim LGBT perverts everything?

      • Casper Crusader

        Take a sedative, would you? No one had suggested that all lgbtxyz folks are pedophiles.

        • Timothy Horton

          Then what did the comment “unfettered lust that LGBT is.” refer to if not condoning sexual abuse and molestation?

          The problem is the blind hatred some Fundies have based on their Biblical beliefs makes their mouth engage well before their brain, if indeed their brains ever engage.

          • Casper Crusader

            That’s nice. Now we are all incapable of thinking before we act.

          • Timothy Horton

            I don’t blame you for ignoring the question. The “unfettered lust that LGBT is” comment was pretty indefensible if you’re trying to convince others you don’t hold a deep rooted and ignorance-based prejudice against all LGBT folks.

          • Casper Crusader

            I can’t answer you as to why someone else meant. I realize that you think that every one of us thinks exactly the same, but that’s where you’d be wrong. Hence my other comments.

            It’s worth pointing out that you have no HONEST desire to engage in dialog, you just want to be a professional turd disturbed.

            Honesty: The complete lack of intent to deceive you, me, or anyone else.

          • Timothy Horton

            I realize that you think that every one of us thinks exactly the same, but that’s where you’d be wrong.

            I only go by the bigotry and intolerance I see posted here every day by the “holier-than-thou” crew. Or in some cases what is not posted, like the question you ignored.

  • BroFrank

    “Democracy becomes ever more dysfunctional when it is routinely bypassed on controversial issues.”

    Dysfunctional indeed: As Paul states in Romans 1:

    “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those
    things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness,
    maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; . . ., haters of God, violent, . . . undiscerning,
    untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who
    practice such things are deserving of [ultimate judgment], not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:28-32)
    {brackets, mine}
    . —Check the context, it is acceptance of the “gay” lifestyle (vss. 25-27): Can this be the spiritual force that now undergirds the violent nature of recent political protests?

    Our world is a changing . . . .

  • Tom Rath

    Ken White has an interesting take on the ruling at his Popehat blog.

  • Kevin Quillen

    everyone please stop responding to Timothy Horton. He is just a queer trying to stir things up. Ignore him.

    • Timothy Horton

      LOL! Thanks for volunteering to show Casper Crusader exactly the kind of hateful homophobic bigot I was describing to him earlier.

    • Timothy Horton

      Thanks for demonstrating the exact intolerant and bigoted behavior I just described to Casper Crusader.

  • Mike Painter

    “Some women do in fact choose to be lesbians.”

    It’s amazing how intentionally misleading that statement really is. I actually followed the link. Bindel says: “I never chose to be attracted to women.” So she didn’t choose to be a lesbian. She seems to be defining “lesbian” in terms of identity. She’s saying women who are attracted to women have a choice as to whether they will live as the lesbians they are or pretend to be heterosexual.

    She goes on, “What I’m suggesting is, there are people who could go one way or the other and happily choose to be lesbian or gay.” What she’s describing is the condition of being bisexual – of being attracted to both sexes. If that were the case with you, you could choose a gay or straight identity, depending on which part of your sexuality you want to downplay. But your sexuality remains bisexual.

    Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, even if sexual identity is. True sexual orientation lies within the person and is unchanging no matter what you call yourself or how you act.

    • Gary

      Only behavior matters. No one but yourself will ever know what your
      “orientation” is unless you reveal it by your behavior. The only thing people can object to is your behavior.

      • Timothy Horton

        You’ve yet to explain how a couple’s behavior in the privacy of their own bedroom is any of your business.

        You’ve yet to explain why what they do in private should subject them to illegal and harmful discrimination in other areas of public life.

        • Gary

          The only kind of discrimination that should be illegal is for the government to treat people differently. For instance, the speed limit should apply to everyone. People who do not represent the government have the right to discriminate however they want. Any law that tries to deny them that right is unconstitutional.

          • Timothy Horton

            Cowardly ignoring of the questions noted.

          • Gary

            I’m not trying to control what people do in private. All I’m trying to control is what I do, which means I have to keep you from controlling what I do.

        • Casper Crusader

          It affects our lives. The passing of gay marriage opened the door for the lunacy that we see today. Let me ask you this:

          Why do you think that it’s okay to place rape victims in a position of greater harm?

          • Timothy Horton

            It affects our lives.

            How did legalizing same-sex marriage negatively affect you at all? I can’t think of a single way except for the trivial it made existing wedding resources (florists, reception halls, limos, etc.) be a little more busy and harder to book.

            Why do you think that it’s okay to place rape victims in a position of greater harm?

            Rape victims??? What in the world does that have to do with same-sex marriage?

      • Mike Painter

        What you say is true. And I find no grounds to object to homosexual behavior anymore than I find grounds to object to heterosexual behavior. No one should be punished for dating/marrying/being affectionate with an adult in accordance with their sexuality.

        • Gary

          Others have different beliefs and opinions.

          • Mike Painter

            I suppose so.

    • Timothy Horton

      Sadly the “Big Lie” is a common tactic among the anti-gay faction here. It’s easier to justify their intolerance and discrimination by attacking the strawman “gays choose their orientation so they bring it on themselves”.

      Here are some of the more common lies floated around here

      People consciously choose to be gay, lesbian, or bi.
      All gays lead a wild hedonistic “gay lifestyle”.
      The gay agenda is to recruit and molest children.
      All gay marriages are “swinging” with multiple sex partners.
      Gays can’t make good parents.
      Gays can change and be straight any time they want.
      Gays don’t want equal rights, they want special rights.
      Gays try to punish Christians with frivolous discrimination lawsuits.

      The list goes on…

      • Mike Painter

        I understand all of that. I’ve been seeing all of your rebuking and refuting and remain amazed that it has no effect. Some people are so deep into their beliefs and prejudices, they just won’t budge, I guess. All of the lies are infuriating. I mean, I’ve never even been drunk and am frankly afraid of wild nightlife, and yet I’m supposed to be hedonistic. I’ve never had sex and yet I’m supposed to be this wild sex freak. I’ve worked at summer camps, and never once did I rub my hands together evilly plotting to molest/”recruit” children. I believe in monogamy and want to be monogamous with a partner, but people shoot down that that would be possible. I’m seen as the one destined to be the bad parent, and yet I’m not the one who wants to teach my kids prejudice and pseudoscience in the name of “God.” And all I want is to be seen as equal to any other person without having to pose as straight, and that somehow amounts to a call for “special rights.” It’s horrible to deal with, but at least someone’s sympathetic.

        • Gary

          The God of the Bible rejects homosexual behavior. No way to change that or get around it. You should expect those who follow God to follow God’s example.

          • Mike Painter

            Don’t like gay relationships and gay sex? Don’t have them. But you don’t have say over everyone else’s life. And you can’t fairly make accusations against people and portray them in a certain way when you don’t know them.

          • Gary

            You admit to being a homosexual, don’t you? That’s all I need to know to want to stay away from you. I’m not trying to control your life, except to try to keep it from intersecting with mine.

          • Mike Painter

            Fair enough. I definitely wouldn’t want to be anywhere near you.

          • Gary

            Its good you think that is fair. Timothy Horton would like to use the law to force you and I to associate with each other.

          • Timothy Horton

            Why do you keep repeating this lie? All I ask is you treat people honestly and fairly if circumstances do have you associate with each other. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

          • Gary

            You just confirmed, again, that you want to force me to associate with those you seek to promote. And I keep telling you that I won’t, and that there is nothing you can do about it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Keep lying. Jesus loves liars.

          • Gary

            I’m not lying. Jesus hates homosexuals and their supporters. And you will soon learn how much He hates you.

          • Timothy Horton

            More lying. You don’t speak for Jesus.

          • Gary

            Its in the Bible. I know you don’t believe the Bible, but that is where I got it from.

          • Timothy Horton

            1 John 4:20

            “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”

            I know you don’t believe the Bible but that is what God says.

          • Gary

            1. You are not my brother or my sister.
            2. I said Jesus(God) hates you, not that I hate you.
            3. But even if I’m wrong and Jesus does not hate you, you’re still going to Hell, so it all works out the same.

            If you want to know what God thinks of you and your fellow sodomites, see Romans chapter one, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

          • Timothy Horton

            You are not my brother or my sister.

            In the eyes of God all people are your brothers and sisters. Jesus(God) doesn’t hate anyone but you apparently hate Him and all that He stands for.

          • Gary

            The Bible does not teach that all people are brothers and sisters. According to Psalm 5:4-5, God does hate some people.

            But, even if God doesn’t hate you, it won’t change your destiny.

          • Timothy Horton

            According to Psalm 5:4-5, God does hate some people.

            (facepalm) Psalm 5:4-5 isn’t God speaking. Why do those who use the Bible to defend their wickedness the most always know the Bible the least?

          • Gary

            The writer of Psalm 5 is communicating a truth about God.

            Since the only time you will ever see God is on Judgment Day when he sentences you to eternity in Hell, why should it matter to you whether God hates you, or not?

          • Timothy Horton

            The writer of Psalm 5 is communicating a truth about God.

            How do you know it’s a truth and not just an opinion? Go ahead, I bet you can get that other foot in your mouth too. 🙂

          • Gary

            How do you know its an opinion and not the truth? Life is short. Time’s running out for you.

          • Timothy Horton

            God also tells you to not judge others, that’s His job, and to follow the Golden Rule. But you conveniently ignore those God directives when it comes to attacking non-hetero citizens.

          • Casper Crusader

            If we are not supposed to judge, why are you judging us?

          • Timothy Horton

            I don’t follow the Christian religion which specifically tells one not to judge. Most of the gay-bashers here claim to be Christian. That makes them rather flagrant hypocrites.

          • Casper Crusader

            I see. Do as I say, not as I do?

          • Timothy Horton

            I’m not on the side arguing for legalized discrimination and shameless intolerance of a harmless minority segment of the population.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            where does it say not to judge in bible

          • glenbo

            >>”where does it say not to judge in bible”<<
            Mathew 7:1

          • glenbo

            I like to ask these so-called “Christians” if they can give me a logical and rational non-religious reason to discriminate against gay people. They never can.

  • Matamoros

    Trump really needs to do an Andy Jackson and state that no federal employees will obey these directives from the bench under penalty of losing their jobs. And then incarcerating the offending judges and filling their positions with real judges. No more fake judges!

  • Shaquille Harvey

    really mike so why does timothy keep yelling bigot in every article

    • Timothy Horton

      I only point it out when I see posters defending bigotry and unfair discrimination against minorities. Like TR noted, it has nothing to do with being Christian and everything to do with being an intolerant butt-head

    • Timothy Horton

      I don’t. I merely point out the bigotry when one of the anti-gay crew goes on another shrill homophobic rant. Sadly that happens far too often around here.

      • Gary

        And then there is your own bigotry.

      • Shaquille Harvey

        By consistently calling others bigots, as they do not share your viewpoint on homosexuality or because of their moral values.

        • Timothy Horton

          As was already pointed out, espousing intolerance and the denial of civil rights for the non-hetero minority as they do makes them bigots. The root cause of their bigotry is not germane. Neither does hiding behind faux “morality” make the actions less bigoted.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            tolerance
            ˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns/Submit
            noun
            1.
            the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.

            intolerance
            ɪnˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns,ɪnˈtɒl(ə)rəns/Submit
            noun
            unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.

            bigot
            ˈbɪɡət/
            noun
            a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

            Timothy, most people in this article (including Gary) have been, by definition, tolerant. As they have been able to accept the existence of the LGBTQ+ even though they may disagree with it or those who live in that lifestyle.
            Yet you consistently call names and is not able to accept the existence of those whos’ views differ from yours.

          • glenbo

            Webster’s definition of bigot:

            one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
            This is Maggie, NOM, ADF, and the FRC.

        • Mike Painter

          I agree with Timothy that the anti-gay movement has everything to do with bigotry and nothing to do with morality. There is nothing moral about wanting to punish someone by making them less than equal under the law just because they are intimate with someone you personally don’t believe they should be intimate with. Gay people cannot help that they are gay, no matter if you “deeply believe” they can. How can you blame someone for wanting a partner that matches their sexuality? It’s insane to want to bring someone down over existing as themselves and/or dating someone appropriate for them. It’s the definition of bigotry.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            mp:There is nothing moral about wanting to punish someone by making them less than equal under the law just because they are intimate with someone you personally don’t believe they should be intimate with.
            my response:one, who are people punishing and how they punishing those said people? two, people in society in the west do very much punish and discriminate against certain intimacies and certain sexual practices, are they wrong ?

          • Mike Painter

            1. Punishers: evil people. The punished (unjustly): everyone who is not heterosexual. There are countless death/prison sentences for being gay which are proscribed in several countries. Not moral to detain and kill anyone for so dumb a reason as they are gay. And you also have the tamer stuff like discrimination in housing and employment and denial of basic service from a public vendor. You can also get, I don’t know, kicked to the streets by your family.Or fired, evicted, rejected in general. All good and moral to do that to someone for being gay, right? I’m sure if two men tried to hold hands in some places, they’d be beaten, perhaps to death. Such a moral thing to do to someone for holding hands, right? 2. Are they wrong for treating gay people as such, you mean? Yes. What is so awesomely abhorrent about being gay that you’d want to punish someone for it and discriminate against them for it? If it were pedophilia, rape, or, you know, something easily recognizable as immoral, it would be different.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            mp:1. Punishers: evil people. The punished (unjustly): everyone who is not heterosexual. There are countless death/prison sentences for being gay which are proscribed in several countries. Not moral to detain and kill anyone for so dumb a reason as they are gay

            my response: possibly my wording but I was referring to people in western society like the US.However most societies live by a very different understanding of the bases of how one is to live, either by religion, cultural or a hetronomous structure upon they, the people, function as a how as a social in group. Their laws are in place as such to guard and keep order regardless whether you or I agree with them, their laws are to keep the people in line, many have lived by these bases for many millennia and through them they have been able to thrive as a whole, many of these peoples would ask you why they should change them, why they should live by your standards and would think you are being immoral allowing homosexuality in your society and for suggesting such a thing. Also who are to tell another society/culture how to live, isn’t that judgemental. Besides I was implying where in western society are gays heavily punished and it is accepted.

            mp: And you also have the tamer stuff like discrimination in housing and employment and denial of basic service from a public vendor.

            my response: “discrimination in housing and employment”, please tell me how long it takes before that housing company or employer gets sued.
            As for “denial of basic service from a public vendor”. If that vendor is private as in a private business then any business of such has a right to deny service to anyone under the capitalistic and free market system, they may loose business from it to someone else but that is their right to do so. However you are probably referring to the latest christian business gay marriage issue. For Christians everywhere and those that own a private businesses they live by first, orthodox christian values before anything else such as faith in Christ and by keeping the frame work of marriage as a holy and sacred godly union between one man and one women, that sex in its pure and intended state is both the complimentary and procreating bond between the sexes, and only for marriage. Anything that differs from this is ungodly, to live by sexual impulses is as a sin and any christian that supports and encourages any this, by allowing others to live in sin, is too in sin. The gay couples who come in are not being denied simply for them “just being gay” but the fact that christians by allowing theses service transactions would also be encouraging and participating in the sin which may don’t wish due to their beliefs, why should anyone be forced to participate in something that goes against the morals and consciences.

            mp: You can also get, I don’t know, kicked to the streets by your family.Or fired, evicted, rejected in general. All good and moral to do that to someone for being gay, right?

            my response:I cannot do anything between personal and family issues of such, even though I may not agree to how it is handled or what they did is right however you seem to forget that this can happen to any child such as a girl who happens to get pregnant with or is with a boy the parents do not like, or a boy who is kicked out by a violent and controlling step dad who has moved in. These situations I also don’t agree to as well.You make out that only those who are in the lgbt community suffer and that every family is doing that to them that you forget they aren’t the only ones to suffer.

            mp:I’m sure if two men tried to hold hands in some places, they’d be beaten, perhaps to death.

            my response: please tell me where that happens in the west ?

            mp:Are they wrong for treating gay people as such, you mean? Yes. What is so awesomely abhorrent about being gay that you’d want to punish someone for it and discriminate against them for it? If it were pedophilia, rape, or, you know, something easily recognizable as immoral, it would be different.

            my response: OK please tell me and answer me this by what moral standard do you live by, that differentiates between paedophilia and rape and says thats immoral and says homosexuality is OK ?

          • Timothy Horton

            that differentiates between paedophilia and rape and says thats immoral and says homosexuality is OK ?

            (facepalm) Seriously? You need that explained to you?

            Pedophilia and rape both cause demonstrable great and lasting physical and mental harm to the victim. An adult non-hetero couple expressing their love for each other physically harms no one or nothing, except maybe your fragile Fundy ego.

          • Timothy Horton

            If that vendor is private as in a private business then any business of such has a right to deny service to anyone under the capitalistic and free market system, they may loose business from it to someone else but that is their right to do so

            Laughably and ignorantly wrong. In the U.S. businesses that serve the public agree to treat all members of the public eligible for the services equally and to obey all anti-discrimination laws. It’s been that way legally for over 50 years.

            Where do the bigots come up with this stupidity?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            tolerance
            ˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns/Submit
            noun
            1.
            the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.

            intolerance
            ɪnˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns,ɪnˈtɒl(ə)rəns/Submit
            noun
            unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.

            bigot
            ˈbɪɡət/
            noun
            a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

            Timothy, most people in this article (including Gary) have been, by definition, tolerant. As they have been able to accept the existence of the LGBTQ+ even though they may disagree with it or those who live in that lifestyle.
            Yet you consistently call names and is not able to accept the existence of those whos’ views differ from yours.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            You should also know under those same U.S. laws that are supposedly to stop discrimination they also protect both the rights of the business and someones religious liberty.

          • Mike Painter

            I don’t think you realize that your average gay couple is just like your average straight couple. Two people of the same gender can fall in love. You probably have a long list of reasons as to why homosexuality is “nothing but lust,” but if you do not take a long, hard, honest look at a gay couple, all you are really going by is what you’ve always assumed, not the actual nature of their relationships.

            The reason I think it is fair to condemn non-Western cultures who kill gay people or else severely punish them is because their laws are simply evil. They exist not to “keep people in line” for the purpose of “morality,” they exist to exterminate those they hate for no good reason. It is not a choice to be gay (I know, I know, you probably think otherwise). And seeking an adult partner appropriate for you should not be a punishable offense. In places where they execute/jail gays, yes, it is only moral that they change their laws. If a law is unjust, it is no law at all.

            As for Western society, perhaps I fell into using hyperbole on some counts because of emotion. But I do think it is plausible you might get beaten in the streets for gay displays of affection in very conservative areas in the U.S. We can’t ignore that things like that can happen and still do happen.

            I expected your defense of the Christian wedding vendors, but I still regard their decisions to not participate in gay weddings as misguided at best, and failing to see another’s humanity at worst. You mention “living by sexual impulse,” and both you and the vendors simply can’t understand that that is not what a gay relationship is all about. It’s rather sad. Furthermore, the vendors are hypocrites, because I know they’d cater to any heterosexual who does not fit their alleged “standards” (those who forego having kids, who have been divorced, who commit “sodomy” with each other, etc.). And yes, if the vendors really cared THAT much about who was getting cake, they’d ask all their clients questions about their sexual habits and history. But they don’t do that. Which tells me it’s all about gays, not sin. The vendors don’t want to see a gay marriage recognized because they think it threatens their own marriages because they are insecure. This was never really about sin to them, though that might be their cover. It’s really about being mad that gays could have the same thing that they have because they regard gays as inferior.

            I know that others beside LGBT face hardship, but does that mean LGBT family issues should be downplayed, especially when they could easily be fixed? It is not the gay child’s fault that they have family problems. It is the fault of the religion/culture that the rejecting parents were spoon fed their whole lives and stubbornly believe. How do you propose parents deal with having a gay child? Send them off to “pray the gay away” camp? “Conversion therapy”? None of that works and is often harmful. Being gay is a part of a person. The solution to the conflict is to accept that and accept your child.

            The moral standard that I live by is that adults who are in love should be together and should be monogamous, and I do not care about the details of their sex lives, unlike far too many religious folks. Pedophilia is child rape. Raping children is wrong. Rape in general is wrong. Why it is wrong is obvious. It does not compare even remotely to consensual homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            mike you did not fully understand and answer my last question you repeat much of your statements over and over again and ignoring how other culture systems work.

            mp:The reason I think it is fair to condemn non-Western cultures who kill gay people or else severely punish them is because their laws are simply evil. They exist not to “keep people in line” for the purpose of “morality,” they exist to exterminate those they hate for no good reason. It is not a choice to be gay (I know, I know, you probably think otherwise). And seeking an adult partner appropriate for you should not be a punishable offense. In places where they execute/jail gays, yes, it is only moral that they change their laws. If a law is unjust, it is no law at all.

            my response: and, so what?
            you are you to judge their culture? who are you to dictate how their culture is to operate by what absolute moral standard are yo judging this by to say their culture is wrong and you are right and how did you arrive at your conclusions? where did you get too, to find this standard and how do you know that this standard is to be applied by all?

            (they and their culture could easily turn round and say you ar immoral to accept and approve of homosexual acts)

            mp:I don’t think you realize that your average gay couple is just like your average straight couple. Two people of the same gender can fall in love. You probably have a long list of reasons as to why homosexuality is “nothing but lust,” but if you do not take a long, hard, honest look at a gay couple, all you are really going by is what you’ve always assumed, not the actual nature of their relationships.

            my response:so what? one can make that argument for those in an incestuous relationship or a polygamous one or Ike. why do you judge this to be wrong and gay relationships to fine.

            “You probably have a long list of reasons as to why homosexuality is “nothing but lust,” but if you do not take a long, hard, honest look at a gay couple, all you are really going by is what you’ve always assumed, not the actual nature of their relationships.” well one can say the same if they are in an incestuous relationship, they can say it is based on mutual love.

            mp: I expected your defense of the Christian wedding vendors, but I still regard their decisions to not participate in gay weddings as misguided at best, and failing to see another’s humanity at worst. You mention “living by sexual impulse,” and both you and the vendors simply can’t understand that that is not what a gay relationship is all about. It’s rather sad. Furthermore, the vendors are hypocrites, because I know they’d cater to any heterosexual who does not fit their alleged “standards” (those who forego having kids, who have been divorced, who commit “sodomy” with each other, etc.). And yes, if the vendors really cared THAT much about who was getting cake, they’d ask all their clients questions about their sexual habits and history. But they don’t do that. Which tells me it’s all about gays, not sin. The vendors don’t want to see a gay marriage recognized because they think it threatens their own marriages because they are insecure. This was never really about sin to them, though that might be their cover. It’s really about being mad that gays could have the same thing that they have because they regard gays as inferior.

            my response: so , why is it wrong for a christian to exercise his or her faith especially when it comes to other orthodox principals? “but I still regard their decisions to not participate in gay weddings as misguided at best, and failing to see another’s humanity at worst. ” why is it misguided? and how is it failing to see another’s humanity at worst ?
            “. Furthermore, the vendors are hypocrites, because I know they’d cater to any heterosexual who does not fit their alleged “standards” (those who forego having kids, who have been divorced, who commit “sodomy” with each other, etc.). And yes, if the vendors really cared THAT much about who was getting cake, they’d ask all their clients questions about their sexual habits and history.” how are the vendors hypocrites? actually if you follow the accounts you will know that the christians have serviced gays and possible gay couples in their business dealings before the incidents arose, they have serviced them just like anyone else.
            You fail in your argument and analysis by drawing to the conclusion that christian can control both their surroundings and what people do and being able to draw the moral question when should that christian know when and who serve and to serve in general and when to stop because of partaking in what they would consider a sin. In short they can serve gays just like they can serve others they would consider are doing sinful behaviours, where they stop is when it infringes on them. Something like partaking in homosexual marriage entails this infringement. the reason for this is christians view marriage as sacred bond between man, women and God. It is a holy ceremony, between those getting married and those initiation, arranging and partaking in this service. the christians and generally those offering service to the ceremony would be apart of this that is why a christian cant partake in this for gay weddings as it is a controlled event, something like divorce, while not holy subject to a christian is not a controlled event or something business is necessarily inclined to partake or bless with their skills.

            “The vendors don’t want to see a gay marriage recognized because they think it threatens their own marriages because they are insecure. This was never really about sin to them, though that might be their cover. It’s really about being mad that gays could have the same thing that they have because they regard gays as inferior.”

            makes them insecure? regarding gays as inferior? who is making false claims here?
            The only person here who is being prejudiced and making offensive statements is you with your anti christian dialogue

            mp:I know that others beside LGBT face hardship, but does that mean LGBT family issues should be downplayed, especially when they could easily be fixed? It is not the gay child’s fault that they have family problems. It is the fault of the religion/culture that the rejecting parents were spoon fed their whole lives and stubbornly believe. How do you propose parents deal with having a gay child? Send them off to “pray the gay away” camp? “Conversion therapy”? None of that works and is often harmful. Being gay is a part of a person. The solution to the conflict is to accept that and accept your child.

            my response: When did I write that those in the LGBT community have not faced problems?
            I that there others in this world who suffer
            you write as if gays are the only ones in this world to have ever suffered and to face family issues.
            “It is the fault of the religion/culture that the rejecting parents were spoon fed their whole lives and stubbornly believe.” why is it the fault of their religion or the culture they were brought up in, how and why is your views, society and culture better than theirs? one could say the same with your beliefs that you spoon fed them and how stubbornly profess them.
            “Being gay is a part of a person” one, pleas show me this as a scientific proven fact. two, if true and proven how are people morally obligated to both accept and treat someone gay with high status? three if true and proven how does it mean that homosexuality is morally good and should be treated as such.

            mp:The moral standard that I live by is that adults who are in love should be together and should be monogamous, and I do not care about the details of their sex lives, unlike far too many religious folks. Pedophilia is child rape. Raping children is wrong. Rape in general is wrong. Why it is wrong is obvious. It does not compare even remotely to consensual homosexuality and same-sex relationships.

            my response:
            “The moral standard that I live by is that adults who are in love should be together and should be monogamous, and I do not care about the details of their sex lives” why? why should it monogamous? Why should there be a standard that says that relationships should be monogamous if there are others that disagree? why are they wrong?

            “Rape in general is wrong. Why it is wrong is obvious.”
            How? To what moral absolute standard are you judging this by for that to be considered wrong

            “consensual homosexuality and same-sex relationships.”
            Again as I said, one can make the same argument for consensual polygamy and incestuous relationships, are you fine with these as well? if not why?

          • Mike Painter

            To address what you see as the “main flaw” in my argument, I disagree with polygamy from a moral standpoint because I don’t see polygamy as any different than promiscuity, when it comes down to it. No special bond, no mutual give-and-take, no teamwork, and inevitably, lots of jealously. Recognizing it as legal would pose a lot of logistical problems as well. As far as incest goes, it is not about mutual love so much as it is about convenience and anti-social behavior. Love takes work. “I want to have sex with my sister because she’s right here and I’m bad at dating” does not. That’s the difference. As for your other big counterargument, about “Who are you to judge their morals?” I’m a bit disturbed that you can’t see which is moral and which is not between “gayness” and killing/jailing/marginalizing/slandering/harming someone for being gay. Also, acceptance of homosexuality does not lead you to throw your gay kids to the street like fundamentalist Christianity does. I’m failing to see how my positions cause damage, in other words. As for the Christian wedding vendors, I’m aware they will serve a gay person in general, but they don’t apply their sexual standard to all people when deciding whose marriage they’ll cater. It stands that a man can go into a Christian bakery on his second, fourth, or even tenth wife, for example, and still get cake. It’s hypocrisy that they’d give someone with even one divorce for a case other than unfaithfulness a cake, but not a gay person, when both people’s marriages should be considered “invalid” in Christianity. It is about gays, not sin. There is much evidence that being gay is innate. We know it has to do with hormones in the womb and epigenetics. You ask does this make it moral by default? No. But you’ve yet to demonstrate compelling reasons why it’s wrong other than “the Bible tells me so.”

          • glenbo

            >>”There is nothing moral about wanting to punish someone by making them less than equal under the law just because they are intimate with someone you personally don’t believe they should be intimate with.”<<
            What makes the affections of total strangers any of your business?

        • glenbo

          >>”By consistently calling others bigots, as they do not share your viewpoint on homosexuality or because of their moral values.”<<

          OH MY GAWD!
          WRONG.

          Bigotry by its very definition is as follows:

          {{a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.}}
          If you believe a gay person doesn't deserve rights because "they are one of THOSE people," and FOR NO OTHER REASON, you are a bigot. The reason as to why you feel gays people don't deserve rights is irrelevant.
          If you feel black people deserve to be discriminated against ONLY because they are black and for NO OTHER REASON, you are a bigot.
          Being anti-gay is the exact same concept as being racist.

    • glenbo

      >>”why does timothy keep yelling bigot “<<
      Maybe if people stopped acting like bigots, they wouldn't be labeled as such.
      You, Shaquille, are acting just like a bigot. if the label doesn't suit you sir, then perhaps you should address your behavior.
      Writing and posting negative things about homosexuals is behavior.

  • Tom Rath

    Being a Christian neither makes one a bigot nor grants one special dispensation from being a bigot.

    Practicing bigotry makes one a bigot, even under the guise of religion or other tales.

    • Gary

      Everyone is a bigot. Even those who don’t think they are.

    • glenbo

      >>”Being a Christian neither makes one a bigot”<<
      True. Discriminating against anyone, such a s gay person ONLY because they are "one of those people" make you a bigot by the very definition of the word. It matters not who you are or what your chosen faith is or what your reason for doing so is. If you want to deny gay people the right to marry only because they are gay, you are a bigot.

  • bbb

    Since lawyers and judges have been violating their oaths of office fairly regularly over the last decade the real answer has to be, “It depends upon who is deciding what the definition of bigot is.”
    I stand firm in Jesus Christ, the word of God and the Holy Spirit.
    If my loving God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is decided by twisted legal secular minds to be bigotry, then it will not make me change my mind. It will not change the First Amendment. It will only place them in God’s crosshairs.
    All human kind absolutely must do two things: die and face God’s judgment.
    In the meantime the 7th Appellate court’s ruling is a perfect case for removal of Title IX according to their own definition.

  • glenbo

    Maggie Gallagher is a hate-filled bigot.

Inspiration
St. Paul Takes a Knee
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us