Andrew Sullivan’s looks at what’s likely to following the achievement of all of the gay-rights movement’s original nondiscrimination goals.
There are political matters on which Sullivan and I disagree, but also many on which he is spot on. And in looking forward, it’s hard to disagree with what’s coming for LGBTQ+ activism. As Sullivan writes:
If current trends are any indication, [the Human Rights Campaign and similar groups] will simply merge into the broader intersectional left and become as concerned with, say, the rights of immigrants or racial minorities as they are with gay rights. In the political climate on the left at the moment, singling out gays as a separate category is increasingly impermissible.
I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp, but the people who think my homosexuality is a sin but who would donate their time and money to save my life anyway are far better human beings than the progressive activists trying to shut those people down.— You Should Have Voted For Gary (@colorblindk1d) April 2, 2020
God bless #SamaritansPurse
All the usual outlets like Buzzfeed and HuffPo are going after Samaritan’s Purse, the mayor’s office has said they are investigating them, and GLAAD put out a statement condemning them for not providing a “safe space”.— You Should Have Voted For Gary (@colorblindk1d) April 2, 2020
All of which seems on par with the progressive media and activists’ attacks on the Salvation Army for feeding the hungry in accordance with their faith:
No one deserves this kind of smear campaign driven by failing, identity politics-obsessed media outlets desperate for clicks.— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) December 4, 2019
New from me @dcexaminer:
Gay media attack Pete Buttigieg for working with ‘homophobic’ Salvation Army https://t.co/T3jG4axe1n
The leading Democratic candidates have a knack for pushing each other further and further to the left — massive wealth redistribution through taxation, gun confiscation, taxpayer-paid abortion on demand until the point of natural birth, “free” college tuition for all, “cancelation” of student loan obligations, etc. etc. But O’Rourke’s latest proposal is so incendiary it may give the others pause.
.@BetoORourke used to seem like a fresh, independent voice on issues like drugs and even term limits, but now he’s all “we’re going to take your guns and tax your churches because Donald Trump is a dangerous extremist who is a threat to the Bill of Rights.”— David Boaz (@David_Boaz) October 12, 2019
.@CatoInstitute’s @walterolson: “This is not some apocalyptic rule opening the door to whimsical discrimination. This is a narrowly drawn rule for a minority of federal contractors. It’s really not that radical and not that new.” https://t.co/3rpSL6vwVc— Gregory T. Angelo (@gregorytangelo) August 15, 2019
LGBTQ activists who say we need the Equality Act to end discrimination refuse to agree to a bill that would protect the conscience rights of religious traditionalists not to be forced to engage in messaging and creative activities that violate their faith. It’s not a big compromise; it’s a win-win. But somehow the activists and their progressive representatives don’t seem to be actually interested in winning (other than winning re-election for themselves and their party by keeping the issue unresolved, election after election).
Dems could have done an Equality Act that merely adds orientation & identity to the usual list of race, sex, etc., and it would have had a decent shot at peeling off Trump & enough Rs.— Andy Craig (@AndrewRCraig) May 18, 2019
The gratituitous nuking of RFRA was to ensure unified GOP opposition. Messaging over policy.
More. Live by identity politics, die by identity politics: Conservative African Methodist Denounces the Racism of Progressive American Bishops.
Via Scopes: “The school does not explicitly bar gay, lesbian or bisexual persons from teaching there, but rather states that homosexual sexual acts (as opposed to same-sex preferences) are considered unacceptable “moral misconduct.” … It is a matter of subjective personal opinion, rather than objective fact, whether the ban on teachers’ engaging in homosexual sexual acts is tantamount to a de facto ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual teachers.”
I disagree with the views of the Immanuel Christian School, but I wouldn’t want to live in a country that did not allow conservative Christians, Orthodox Jews and others to have schools that comport with their faith traditions.
More. Apparently, some who have no problem requiring religiously pro-life taxpayers to help foot the bill for abortions, or with forcing nuns to pay for abortifacients for their employees, are upset that Karen Pence is teaching at a school that’s not accepting of LGBT behavior while receiving secret service protection.
More. Columnist William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal:
Now look at the Immanuel Christian School. Those who run it know they and those who think like them are the big losers in America’s culture war. All they ask is to be allowed, within the confines of their community, to uphold 2,000 years of Christian teaching on marriage, sexuality and the human person. …
[But] it isn’t enough for the victors to win; the new sense of justice requires that those who still don’t agree must be compelled to violate their deepest beliefs, whether this means forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide contraception or dragging a baker in Colorado through the courts until he agrees to make a cake celebrating “gender transition.”
Today’s militant secularists ironically resemble the worst caricatures of religious intolerance of early America.