Comments on: PFOX Declares Victory in Court Defeat

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:56:53 +0000

Exactly Bruce! WTF?
Just WHAT kind of discrimination are they beefing about? In what way are their lives compromised, their freedoms diminished if they are living AS straight people?

Perhaps PFOX needs to get educated on what discrimination means, and more precisely, exactly in what way they are DAMAGED.
Being RESTRICTED from promoting false, inaccurate and defamatory information is not discrimination. Nor is it bigotry.
Ideology or dogma is not restricted in churches, so obviously they aren’t discriminated against there.

If these people are so wedded to what is choice and what isn’t, the choice NOT to be a part of their program, the choice to be honestly and openly gay without constant bombardment of self and social esteem attacks should be respected.

Hedging that there be no choices with the force of government is so obvious, don’t they understand that religious belief isn’t enforced in this country?

By: Bruce Garrett

Bruce Garrett — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:21:52 +0000

“Try and get someone somewhere to declare that ex-gay is an orientation…”

But…wait…they’re saying they’re not gay anymore. They’re straight now…right? Ex-Gay is Not Gay Anymore. Correct? Isn’t that…well…Straight? Heterosexual? Not Gay? Alan is straight now…right? Isn’t he? Didn’t he say so while he was testifying against same-sex marriage? He’s straight. Happily married and all that. Right? Straight is an orientation. How discriminated against are straight folks in this country…?

By: Bruce Garrett

Bruce Garrett — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:12:18 +0000

“Am I wrong or did PFOX actually just win a case for gay rights?! ”

Well they certainly ripped apart their own (and the anti-gay industry’s) rhetoric about gay folk not deserving protection because homosexuality (they claim) is not an immutable characteristic. They just congratulated themselves for getting a judge to throw out that argument as it applied to them.

…which, of course, means they’ll still keep right on applying that argument to gay folk anyway, since of course that is a completely different thing…

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:55:55 +0000

The game PFOX is playing goes like this:

1. Get some court to say that ex-gays are a protected class

2. Try and get someone somewhere to declare that ex-gay is an orientation

3. Demand that schools include the “ex-gay orientation” in all lessons that include information about sexuality

4. Use that to teach in schools that “you don’t have to be gay, you can change through the power of Jesus Christ”

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:17:13 +0000

Lynn, thank you for asking that because I was scratching my head and thinking the same thing. This statement was the one that set me back a bit: “Ironically, it has been a standing practice of PFOX to oppose all non-discrimination policies under the claim that they discriminate against ex-gays.” I did a double-take there because, if I understand this correctly, PFOX sued in favor of a non-discrimination policy.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:14:05 +0000

Am I wrong or did PFOX actually just win a case for gay rights?! So if they fight against our rights, they are by extension fighting against the rights of their precious ex-gays (which isn’t even a sexual orientation, but more a socio-religious point of view against one’s own sexuality). PFOX is getting more and more loony-tunes….

By: Don

Don — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:26:37 +0000

So why was the case decided in DC? Is that where the NEA is headquartered or were the PFOX people venue shopping?

I’m curious who represented them? Or is this another pick a fight case from the Alliance Defense Fund or ACLJ crowd?

By: Burr

Burr — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:35:57 +0000

Twisted, contorted, and often contradictory “logic” is no strange territory to these folks.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:36:56 +0000

I heard about this on Signorelle on the way home. Yes it IS sad that they don’t give us the same courtesy. As an “ex-straight”, I should be able to have the same protections that they’re clamoring for.

Two things I’d need to hear as a judge in this case.

One: what are specific instances that ex-gays are discriminated against, and by whom?

Two: Are the ex-gays trying to claim that “ex-gay” is distinctly separate sexuality class? If so, what are the differences between ex-gay and gay and ex-gay and straight?

By: William

William — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:32:38 +0000

Well, that seems fine to me. I take it to mean simply that, whether or not there’s really such a thing as an ex-gay, someone who claims to be one can’t be discriminated against on the basis of it, just as presumably anyone else making an eccentric claim (e.g. to be a reincarnation of Mark Twain or of Mary Baker Eddy) can’t be discriminated against on the basis of it either.