OK

This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.

ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.

  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

My definition of bigotry is the intolerance of any principles differing from one’s own; expressed in the desire to make one’s own principles law, at the expense of all others.

The one thing that religious conservatives have in common is their extraordinary arrogance and absolute certainty that they are correct and that everyone else isn’t. The cause of this is their religious beliefs. They claim that their beliefs are the will of God, the highest authority over man, and therefore, their beliefs are correct and should be law. This is how they are bigoted.

The victim complex that religious conservatives have stems from the belief that they are better than everyone else. Because of this, they believe that they deserve more rights than everyone else. They use religion to claim a right to act in a way that non-religious conservatives and other normal people do not believe is there. And when they don’t get these extra rights, they interpret this as persecution.

Their hypocrisy lies in what they believe their rights are. They believe that their rights include the right to dictate to others how to live their lives, and to legislate to achieve this, and to elevate themselves above everyone else, while marginalizing those that they particularly hate. They don’t realise that rights are a two way street, and that while they have rights that cannot be taken away, other people also have rights that they cannot take away.

We see this most frequently with marriage equality, homosexuality and LGBT issues. Religious conservatives think anything less than their absolute, unchecked right to bully and discriminate against gay people means that they are persecuted. They want the ability to freely spout homophobia, but when anyone confronts them over it, they believe that the person is hateful. They spout homophobia and defend it as free speech, but don’t defend criticism of their homophobia as free speech. They don’t give LGBT people any respect, but then demand respect for their disrespect of LGBT people.

Here's their history:

April 6, 2008

BBC's The Big Questions featured a debate about immigration, but it did briefly turn to homosexuality. In the debate was Betty King of Betty King International Ministries; LGBT rights activist Peter Thatchett; and Richard Dawkins. Here's the exchange:

Nicky Campbell (host): What about the attitudes to gays for example, that, uh, you’ve [unintelligible]?

King: I personally don’t think homosexuality is a good thing. That’s my belief being a Christian. I don’t think two men should sleep together, or two women should sleep together. And I stand by that. What I believe in is uh, obviously coming here, collaborating - before gay people came out, and women, this country did not tolerate that.

Campbell: Was that a better time?

King: I believe it was a better time. But from the Bible, these things are not right. It’s not good.

Campbell: The moral mix is - Peter.

Thatchett: I would defend Betty’s right to hold those views.

Campbell: Well, we’ll come to that.

Thatchett: They’re her conscientious views. Where I would object is the way in which people like Betty, some people like Betty seek to impose her morality on everyone else through the law of the land. They want to make their morality the legal morality that binds us all.

King: Now let me answer that.

Campbell: One second, let Betty first.

King: Um, I do strongly believe you would not be sitting here if you didn’t have a mother. (Applause)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campbell: Richard Dawkins, are you worried at all by some of the social attitudes that come into this country?

Dawkins: Um, I’m worried when, when somebody sitting next to a well known gay activist says ‘I believe that you had a mother’ and gets a round of applause. Now that’s bigotry, and I’m worried about that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King: It was his choice to be gay. That it what I believe. I believe that to be the truth. And so, I don’t personally believe that two men should live together, or two women should live - that is my belief. And I stand by that.

Dawkins: I don’t care what you personally believe.

King: Yeah. Stand by that. And I stand by that.

Campbell: Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins: I don’t think it’s in much interest what you or anyone else personally believes -

Campbell: But everybody’s entitled to their opinions.

King: Very much so.

Dawkins: - so much as the evidence. And there is no evidence, that, as you say, you have a choice about being gay or not. You justified what you said on biblical grounds, which sounds awfullly much to me like forcing your views on other people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Craig, then-evangelical candidate for the Mayor of London: I think what we see here is what we heard from professor Dawkins, is that extraordinary arrogance, that if you have some views different from his, your views are not acceptable. (Applause) There is no such thing a vacuum. There are therefore values in the public sphere. The question is whether you have the lady here, the Pentecostal evangelical with whom I would identify, and encourage her to speak out, or you get the arrogance that says ‘her views are not valid.’ Actually, there have to be some views out there. The question is: Can we live together? Can we tolerate each other, not write one another out like professor Dawkins would do?

Richard Dawkins did not say that people who disagree with him aren't entitled to their own opinions. He said that as evidence is more valid than personal opinions, opinions should be informed by evidence. He did not say that opinions that differ from his are not valid. He said that opinions that contradict facts are not valid. In Alan Craig's mind, challenging a Christian conservative's factually incorrect opinion about homosexuality is "extraordinary arrogance" and "writ[ing] one another out". But what about King's overt homophobia? Craig said that he "would... encourage her to speak out."

In his mind, homophobia is a right, but challenging it isn't.

November 2008

After Prop 8 was passed, the Mormon church took a lot of heat for its tooth-and-nail campaign for the measure. In response, they said:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

As Dan Savage aptly told Anderson Cooper:
Part of the democratic process is if you're going to throw a punch, you're going to have a punch thrown back. You don't get to march into the public square, slime people, malign people, demagogue against people, and then jump behind the bushes and say 'no, God, we're a church! You can't criticize us. You can't bring it back to our front doors and say 'we have a problem with what you've been saying about us in public and doing to us in the public square.''

[...]

You cannot campaign against a vulnerable minority group in this country in the public arena without expecting some sort of response.

When they campaign against LGBT people, that's "the democratic process". When others campaign against them, that "disturbing".

October 20, 2010

This was a turbulent time for LGBT equality. Tyler Clementi had committed suicide the previous month, and Clint McCance was about to make genuinely distressing anti-LGBT comments on his Facebook page.

This day gave birth to another national controversy about free speech. It was Spirit Day, an anti-bullying day promoted by LGBT rights groups. Across the country, many students and teachers were wearing rainbow or purple at school, including Johnson McDowell, a high school teacher in Michigan. During his economics class, he asked a student wearing a Confederate belt buckle. A student by the name of Daniel Glowacki challenged this move, asking why it was okay for his teacher and other students to wear pro-LGBT colours but not for a student to wear a Confederate belt buckle. McDowell replied that the Confederate flag is a symbol of discrimination against blacks, and Glowacki said that the rainbow flag is a symbol of discrimination against Catholics. The two began arguing, and Glowacki repeatedly said "I don't accept gays" or "I don't accept gays because I'm Catholic." He was ejected from class and disciplined by the school and later brought litigation against the school. He won the case and damages of one dollar were assessed.

As offensive as I find his beliefs, I trust the federal judge's decision that his teacher overreacted. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Glowacki espoused anti-gay rhetoric while criticizing what he sees as anti-Catholic rhetoric.

The rainbow flag is not related to the Catholic Church. It’s not a statement about the Catholic Church. It’s not an anti-Catholic flag. It just expresses a different opinion to that of the Catholic Church. But in Glowacki's mind, that’s discrimination against Catholics. The second you disagree with the Catholic Church, in his mind, that’s discrimination. You don’t even have to say anything bad about it or Catholics, Just disagreeing with them constitutes discrimination. But of course, it’s perfectly fine for him to say “I don’t accept gays.” He can say that, but if anyone says anything about the Catholic Church, then that's discrimination, according to him.

July 18, 2011

Here we have an international example, one from Australia. The religious conservative in this case is the Australian Christian Lobby, Australia's most well known anti-LGBT hate group. Their leader is one Jim Wallace, who has stated that the campaign for marriage equality "would do great credit to Joseph Goebbels (1:33 in the video)", has described same-sex parents as "less than perfect situations", has compared same-sex marriage to Australia's Stolen Generations of their indigenous people (second-last paragraph) and has stated that gay men live 20 years less than straight men.

On July 18, 2011, he and ACL pulled out of a planned debate over marriage equality with Australian LGBT rights activist Rodney Croome, citing what he perceives as the demonization of opponents of marriage equality. He made this statement:

This is increasingly typical of the tactics being used by the gay rights lobby and their media. Only last Thursday the Sydney Star Observer described the Australian Christian Lobby and the Australian Family Association, who Terri and I represent, as gay hate groups. The ACL is committed to represent Christ in what we do - not to hate, but to love, even those who oppose us.
The Star Observer is an Australian pro-LGBT news site that has acknowledged using the label "gay hate groups". But there is good reason for this. In July of 2011, Loree Rudd, sister of former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, made these horrible comments:
I call them the global gay Gestapo: it is the lobbying movement that is brainwashing people, particularly the young in the community that [homosexuality] is an optional extra in life.
On July 14, 2011, four days before withdrawing from the debate, Jim Wallace released this statement on ACL's website:
We would believe most people would view Ms Rudd’s use of the term ‘Gestapo’ as referring to attempts to use fear and intimidation to silence dissent. We share Ms Rudd’s concern about the use of these tactics, further demonstrated by the gay lobby’s attack on her today, to stifle debate about the future of marriage.
Jim, equating gay people and supporters of marriage equality with the Gestapo is hateful. It is accurate to describe you as hateful for doing so. As you whined about being demonized for opposing marriage equality, you equated us with the Nazis. While that is overblown, inaccurate, hateful and offensive, I'm not going to whine that I'm being persecuted. Speech and criticism, even as offensive as that, is not persecution. The difference between us and you is that we don't complain of being demonized and persecuted when you call us those names. While you can compare us to Nazis if you truly wish to, we can give it back it to you. But when we do, you whine and pull out of debates. You can dish it out, but you cannot take it.

September 6, 2011

The previous March, Catholic Archbishop Silvano Tomasi complained at the United Nations that homophobes are being persecuted, and called for the criminalization of homosexuality by comparing it to incest and pedophilia.

One lay Catholic by the name of Jennifer Hartline, a writer for Catholic Online, was only too happy to keep this sentiment going. She wrote an article for Catholic Online titled "The 'Gospel' of Tolerance: You Must Approve". A warning - it's one of the most virulently homophobic and transphobic pieces of writing I've ever read. Here's the worst of it:

Stacy Trasancos is one gutsy Catholic.  Last week she wrote a little blog post about how she's getting tired of wondering "what in tarnation we're going to encounter" every time she and her kids leave the house.  Two men ogling each other at the pool?  Two women engaged in public displays of affection in the park?  These are scenes she'd rather her young children not be exposed to every time they go out in public, but it's become impossible to avoid in her community.

For having the nerve to express her objection to immorality, she's become the object of wrath and nasty threats from homosexual activists.

[...]

Well here's a radical piece of truth for you:  tolerance is not a virtue.  It's not a moral victory to acquiesce to evil.

"We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty -- these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end in itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil." - Archbishop Chaput

It used to be that we could hate the sin and love the sinner, but the problem is now we're not allowed to hate the sin anymore!  We have to love the sin, celebrate the sin, and above all, stop calling it sin!

It's not intolerant to make the judgment that something is morally wrong and oppose it.  Just as sex does not equal love, neither does tolerance!  There is such a thing as sin, and it leads to death, and Love demands that we tell our brothers and sisters the truth so that they might decide to reject sin and gain life.

Christians now find themselves in the sobering territory of the new Dark Ages, when evil is called good and darkness is called light. (Isaiah 5:20)

Well, I'm with Stacy.  I've had it with all this darkness parading around as light, being championed by the government, paid for with my tax dollars, shoved in my face and my children's faces and rammed down our throats.

[...]

I find it intolerable that our children's innocence is being ripped away from them beginning in Kindergarten with the new mandate of Sex-Ed that indoctrinates them into embracing and celebrating homosexuality, trans-sexuality, gender-neutral insanity, every imaginable manner of promiscuity and abortion.  It's intolerable that our kids are seen as "sexual beings" rather than human souls.

What's truly intolerable is that the adults in power are robbing the children of childhood purity to further their own immoral agenda. What's horrifyingly intolerable is that killing an innocent child is considered a woman's sacred "right."

It is intolerable that my children will probably not be able to make it to puberty without learning about sodomy and "gay marriage."  It is intolerable that before they can even drive a car they will also be convicted of intolerance if they dare to defend true marriage and sexual purity.  It's intolerable that they are growing up in a culture that defiles marriage, corrupts the family, perverts sexuality and destroys human life.

[...]

Then so be it.  Far better to be called intolerant than to call evil good.

When people display this truly disturbing, unbridled animosity and hatred, they get called out. In response to being called out, Hartline writes:
I'm tired of being branded a hateful bigot for not abandoning the moral truths that have been the foundation of the human race since time began.
Hey Jenny, how does it feel? You don't like being called names, do you? How many times did you call LGBT people and LGBT rights supporters "evil" in that post? Why do you think you’re so special that you can say whatever you want about other people, but you’re off limits for criticism for your horrible homophobia and transphobia?

You call us names, but then can't stand it when we give it back to you. You want to say whatever you want and decide how people react to it. That's not how free speech works. While you can say what you said (as horrible as it is), we can respond with the labels "hater" and "bigot". And if that makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem.

November 2, 2011

Less than two months prior, Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14 year-old gay student in New York committed suicide after being bullied. The state legislature of Michigan's response was to try to make these types of tragedies more frequent. Republicans in the state Senate amended an anti-bullying bill named for Matt Epling, a Michigan student who committed suicide in 2002 after being bullied, to exempt from regulation:

a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil's parent or guardian.
In the eyes of the state Senate Republicans, freedom of religion now includes the freedom to bully. All the focus is on protecting the religious rights of the bully, not protecting the rights of the victim to be free from harassment.

December 6, 2011

If Rick Perry had any chance of rescuing his 2012 run following his disastrous debate performance in Michigan, he killed it with this ad. Trying to secure a base with conservative Christians, he declared:

I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian. But you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.

If gay people are allowed to serve in the military, there's a "war on religion". Perry considers banning gay people from the military to be "religious freedom". If religious conservatives cannot take away the rights of gay people, then they are having their rights taken away.

July 2012

At the time, Chick-fil-A was facing boycotts over CEO Dan Cathy's statements about marriage equality and donations to anti-LGBT organizations. Mike Huckabee organized a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" to respond to the boycotts. While explaining the rationale for the day on his Facebook page, he wrote:

I have been incensed at the vitriolic assaults on the Chick Fil-A company because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.

[...]

It's a great American story that is being smeared by vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry from the left.

Mike, why do you so boldly defend Dan Cathy's right to free speech, but then call the free speech of supporters of marriage equality "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry"?

When Rahm Emanuel and Thomas Merino said that they would try to stop Chick-fil-A from building in Chicago and Boston, they were criticized by other liberals, such as the ACLU, Michael Bloomberg, and Kevin Drum of Mother Jones. Those mayors made one stupid comment that others on the left criticized (the same left that you accuse of "vicious hate speech and intolerant bigotry"), and they never acted on that statement.

Why do you believe that in order for Dan Cathy to have free speech, others must not boycott Chick-fil-A? The boycotts against Chick-fil-A are nothing more than an expression of free speech rights of supporters of same-sex marriage. Why does Chick-fil-A gets to say whatever it wants, but when people on the left confronted them over it and exercise their right to free speech, they’re being intolerant and hateful? Why must Chick-fil-A be immune from any criticism in order to have free speech? Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech.

July 10, 2013

Two weeks earlier, SCOTUS had struck down Section 3 of DOMA and dismissed the appeal against the Federal Court and Ninth Circuit's rulings against Prop 8. A writer for the website Catholic Answers, Todd Aglialoro, argued that there would be negative effects of marriage equality in his article "Four Ways that Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect You".

He made no secret of how he wants the law to treat people with same-sex attractions:

Same-sex marriage is not a mere tweak to a few lines of marriage law: It is a codified endorsement of homosexuality. Since the law is a teacher, this endorsement has the effect of confirming in their disorder people suffering from same-sex attraction and removing the stigmas that might have checked others from fully giving themselves over to it.
I find it hard to believe that someone could be that homophobic that overtly. But while he wants same-sex attracted people stigmatized by the law, he doesn't like it when that stigma is turned against him:
So, you might ask, when the state and all the force of law say that our religion is false, that it is in fact bigoted, isn’t there a teensy chance it will affect us in some way?
His argument was that legalizing same-sex marriage demonizes Catholics because the Catholic Church disagrees with it.

First of all, a government that legalizes same-sex marriage does not hate everyone who disagrees with them. All the government is saying is that they disagree with the opinion of opponents of marriage equality. The government isn’t even addressing its opponents personally. They are saying nothing about them or their religion. All it is saying is that it disagrees with their opinions. That doesn’t mean it is saying that their religion is false.

Secondly, Aglialoro openly admitted he wants same-sex attracted people stigmatized by the law, but then whined when he thought that the law stigmatized Catholics. I need say no more.

October 30, 2013

Isaiah Smith is a gay student in Northern Texas. Last October, in response to being told by classmates that gay people go to Hell, he brought his own Bible to school and ripped pages out of it. He was suspended for this on October 30, but the suspension was expunged from his record after intervention by the American Humanist Association.

He was suspended for standing up to religious bullies for offending the bullies. However, as far as I know, no action was taken against the bullies. Their right to bully in the name of religion took priority over Isaiah's right to feel safe by putting a stop to the bullying.

December 2013

Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson had just been suspended by A&E for racist and homophobic comments he made in an interview with GQ magazine. The right-wing had one of the biggest freakouts ever.

What I am going to focus on here is not the right-wing's criticism of his suspension. While I disagree with it, I think that it's somewhat reasonable. What I am going to focus on is the right-wing's complaints that he was even criticized.

NOM's Brian Brown ranted for over a week about the "gay lobby bullies". From December 19:

The gay lobby bullies are at it again. This time they've attacked one of the most popular Christians in America — Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty's Robertson family. They are calling him "vile" and say he is pushing "extreme stereotypes" and "lies."

[...]

They will brook no objection, tolerate no dissent and accept no disagreement when it comes to their orthodoxy.

[...]

We're not going to take the bullying of Phil Robertson and every other person of faith quietly.

[...]

It's important that we get thousands of people to sign our petition to let A&E, Hollywood, GLAAD and the HRC know they aren't going to get away with bullying Phil Robertson simply for expressing a true, Christian perspective on what the bible tells us is sinful.

[...]

Do we want to let groups like HRC that spew hateful rhetoric and incite bigotry towards Christians dictate what is and is not acceptable to say in the public square in America?

[...]

If the HRC and GLAAD are able to silence Phil Robertson, nobody's safe from their abject bullying.

From December 20:
They simply want to intimidate Christians into cowering under their desks, ducking and covering and hoping they won't feel the wrath of the truly intolerant same-sex marriage lobby.

[...]

It's the same tone we've seen from the liberal journalists and media, and gay activists on Twitter and Facebook, in responding to Phil Robertson: "Sure, he's allowed to have his opinion. But not in public. Not out in the open. Behind the closed doors of his church, of around his family dinner table (but only after the credits roll, of course)."

In short, it's the message to Christians, people of faith, and everyone who believes in the simple truth about men's and women's complimentary nature as designed by God for their union in marriage: Duck and cover. Go get under your desk. Stay quiet. Or pay the price. The "price of citizenship."

From December 31 (italicized text is original, bolded text is added):
Other even more ominous threats crop up every day in our country: powerful forces at the beck and call of the radical homosexual lobby, all with the same goal. They seek to push people of faith and those with traditional values regarding sex and marriage out of the public square altogether — to silence, to shame, and even to punish them for their beliefs.

The attacks against religious liberties and other first amendment rights don't end with our chaplains. In recent months, we've seen ordinary citizens in the crosshairs of the radical same-sex marriage agenda: from bakers to photographers to florists to bed-and-breakfast owners. The same-sex 'marriage' radicals pinpoint anyone who dares speak or act in the public square about their belief in marriage as the union of one man and one woman — demanding every citizen accept and affirm this radical social experiment. Phil Robertson is just the latest target of these bullies.

I bolded the part where NOM uses violent rhetoric against us, implying that we target our opponents with guns.

I'll continue with the rest of the right wing in a moment, but I want to point out an inaccuracy in Brown's criticism of HRC and GLAAD.

1. First of all, HRC's letter to A&E was also written with the NAACP.

2. While they asked that A&E condemn Robertson's remarks and see that he apologizes, nowhere in the letter did HRC and NAACP actually demand that Robertson be disciplined. The entire letter is here:

Nancy Dubuc
President and Chief Executive Officer
A+E Networks
235 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
December 18th, 2013

Dear Ms. Dubuc,

As leaders of the nation’s premier civil rights organizations for African Americans and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans, we’re writing to express our outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson, a cast member on your network’s show ‘Duck Dynasty.’ As you may know, Phil attacked both African Americans and LGBT people in a recent GQ interview (January 2014) – saying that African Americans were happier under Jim Crow laws, and equating being gay with bestiality and promiscuity.

These remarks go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive. They are dangerous and revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination. We urge A+E to immediately denounce and repudiate Robertson’s comments. Furthermore, we call on you to see that Phil Robertson apologizes for his vitriolic comments. Surely a brand like A+E does not want to be associated with such racist and homophobic remarks.

We want to be clear why Phil Robertson’s remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate. Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn’t see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it’s important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT – it’s not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous.

We understand that ‘Duck Dynasty’ is a lucrative show for your network – one that attracts millions of viewers from diverse backgrounds on a weekly basis. That’s why it’s so critical for you to take immediate action and condemn these offensive remarks. His words show an unbridled lack of respect for African Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to experience on a daily basis.

When a figure from a popular show like ‘Duck Dynasty’ makes such disparaging remarks about entire communities of people, we cannot allow it to go unnoticed. No doubt there are both African Americans and LGBT people among the millions of viewers of both ‘Duck Dynasty’ and other programs across A+E’s media platform. Those viewers who have demonstrated loyalty to your network deserve to hear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, and that Americans won’t stand for Phil Robertson’s comments. That’s why we’re so hopeful you will move swiftly to condemn his remarks.

Sincerely yours,

Chad Griffin
President, Human Rights Campaign

Lorraine Miller
Interim President, NAACP

3. While they denounced his remarks, GLAAD also did not demand that Robertson be disciplined. Here's their response in full:
The Robertsons, the family whose duck hunting products have made them a fortune, are breakout stars featured in A&E’s Duck Dynasty. GQ Magazine’s profile of Phil Robertson included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication. His quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.
And later in the article:
Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
The statement is far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people. In Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, 56% of the population support some sort of legal recognition, marriage or civil unions, for gay and lesbian couples according to Public Policy Polling released in August 2013.

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

GLAAD reached out to A&E to speak about if the network stands behind Robertson's comments.

Back to the rest of the right wing. The Family Research Council said:
Phil Robertson has been targeted simply because he expressed his religious beliefs[.]
Sarah Palin said this, whatever the hell it means:
Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us.
Todd Starnes tweeted:
"It was only a matter of time before intolerant, anti-Christian haters targeted Duck Dynasty."

"Intolerant, Anti-Straight groups are targeting Duck Dynasty[.]"

All HRC and GLAAD did was denounce Robertson's remarks and ask A&E to do the same. They did not ask for any disciplinary action to be taken. The response from the Right was accusations of being "gay lobby bullies", "intolerant", "truly intolerant", "anti-Christian" and "Anti-Straight".

In their mind, Phil Robertson must be allowed to say whatever he wants, but if you criticize him, you're an intolerant bully. He comments about black and LGBT people are fine, but any comments about him means he's being persecuted.

May 17, 2014

The Facebook page of the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See (Vatican) contained the following post:

Surely remembering a victim of an anti-gay murder, supporting LGBT youth and increasing tolerance toward people who are different is something even marriage equality opponents can support, right?

Well, not conservative Catholic writer Thomas Peters:

It’s nice to see where our tax dollars are going. One wonders if a rainbow flag was flying from our embassy in Rome today. Or if the embassy staff was distributing literature in St. Peter’s square today to promote awareness of homophobia and transphobia.

A post like this by our embassy prompts the question, is it the position of our embassy that the Holy See is guilty of homophobia when, say, it opposes the redefinition of marriage, or is the Holy See transphobic in their eyes when it refuses ordination to a woman who undergoes sex reassignment therapy?

Is the embassy saying the church does not support all youth, including those who are questioning their sexual identity? Is the embassy saying the church is intolerant?

Citing the case of Matthew Shepard is itself incredibly incendiary. The claim here is that anyone who refuses to give gay activists everything they want politically is somehow guilty of hate crimes perpetrated against gay people. (That’s even setting aside the questions of fact surrounding the story.)

After openly denouncing efforts to combat homophobia and transphobia, and exhibitng a disturbing dismissal of the plight of LGBT people with his attitude toward Matthew Shepard, he then goes on to say:
I think we need to help our embassy to the Holy See overcome its “pope-a-phobia” — their fear of the teachings of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, St. Pope John Paul II, St. Pope John XXIII, and all the popes in between and all the popes before and all the popes to come.

Also, the teachings of the Church (dogmaphobia) and the teachings of Christ (christophobia).

But “popeaphobia” just sounds better.

You can join me in celebrating this First Annual International Day Against Popeaphobia in several easy ways[.]

[...]

Who knows, if enough of us get involved we may even inspire one of the members of the embassy staff to come out as a Catholic and as an ally of church teaching!

Sure, that may earn them some bad names around the office and they will probably face discrimination from their bosses in the Obama administration for coming out as catholic, but that’s the price we pay to create a more tolerant and understanding world for all of us, even us LGBT (“Loyal, Good, Beautiful and True”) Catholics.

Initially, he objects to the way that homophobia and transphobia are discussed and to the way that the plight of LGBT people is characterized. But he then takes that characterization and applies it to Catholics - "phobia", "come out", "ally", "LGBT", etc.

Firstly: Thomas, if you object to that characterization and discussion, why did you apply it to yourself?

Secondly: Matthew Shepard was not kidnapped, tied to a fence in Wyoming, beaten to within an inch of his life and left to die because he was Catholic. So even after you dismiss what happened to him and ridicule the efforts to prevent it from happening again, you then complain about being a victim of "dogmaphobia".

If a gay person is murdered, he doesn't seem to care. But if a Catholic is discriminated against, then he thinks he's a victim (even though that's not what happened).

Religious conervatives don't understand that free speech is a two-way street. They don't understand that freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or consequences of speech. They don't understand that you don't get to say whatever you want and decide how people react to it. They don't understand that they should, to quote Keith Olbermann, either man up and live through the bad press or get out.

Intro

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to leftprogressive on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 06:08 PM PDT.

Also republished by Angry Gays and Street Prophets .

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.