Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Bryan Fischer says they cannot coexist:
We cannot have the homosexual agenda and liberty; those two things are incompatible with each other. They cannot coexist. One is going to have to give. Either the homosexual agenda is going to have to retreat or religious liberty is going to have to retreat. Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty.
But this argument applies just as well to every other civil rights law we've ever passed. You cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender in housing or employment, but those were once justified on the grounds of religion just like discrimination against gays is justified by religion. The laws against interracial marriage were universally justified on religious grounds. The trial judge in Loving v Virginia, the case that overturned laws against miscegenation, wrote in his ruling:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Fischer would likely argue that that was different because the Bible, properly interpreted, didn't really condemn interracial marriage but it does condemn same-sex marriage. But that is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether one's religious views are correct or not. If you're going to argue that it is a violation of religious freedom to ban discrimination, it doesn't matter whether you agree with someone's religious views about a particular form of discrimination.
If it violates religious freedom to not allow them to discriminate against gays, then it also violates the religious freedom of Christian Identity types to forbid them from discriminating against blacks, Jews and Catholics. If Fischer's position was valid then it is also a violation of religious freedom to forbid discrimination against women for those who believe that women should be at home and not at work.
So why isn't Fischer railing against those laws? Because society has already moved on from such controversies. The same will happen with gay rights as well and then Fischer will, like the KKK today, be part of a tiny minority that no one takes seriously. Won't that be grand?
Politics
Comments
In a sense (that is so narrow as to be stupid), Fisher is correct. His religion requires him to do anything and everything to impose it one everyone else. Legally protecting the rights of gays really does prevent him from practicing his religion.
Probably so does allowing Muslims to build their own houses of worship. Or immigrating. Or even proselytizing.
And other types of Christians, too.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 22, 2011 11:36 AM
We cannot have gay rights and your 'right' to oppress gays. So, you lose.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 22, 2011 11:49 AM
How many more SCOTUS cases on peyote use do we need to have before these guys get the concept that when the dictates of one's religion contradict/stand in opposition to secular law, secular law wins?
Posted by: eric | July 22, 2011 11:52 AM
Chiropter (that's me!), #1:
Oops. My previous comment may be unclear. My mention of Muslims and other types of Christians was meant to refer to other groups that Fisher might like to discriminate against, not to groups that were necessarily just like Fisher.
But nobody called me on it, so perhaps everyone got my meaning.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 22, 2011 11:54 AM
"So why isn't Fischer railing against those laws? Because society has already moved on from such controversies. "
I think you forgot all the racist signs and comments made by the 'baagers and birthers during the past few years.
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 22, 2011 12:06 PM
Rob - T-baagers? Damn now I'm hungry! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 22, 2011 12:12 PM
Ah, "The Agenda". Everyone has an "agenda" except for those folks who want to cram their particular religious ideology down others' throats.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 22, 2011 12:16 PM
Chiroptera, you'd be really surprised to find that most who read and post here are well-read regarding recent events and are quite good at recognizing sarcasm.
Posted by: Larry | July 22, 2011 12:18 PM
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.
Even from a Biblical perspective, that is so wrong. In Genesis, God, in response to that Tower of Babel thingy, causes everyone not to be able to understand one another's speech and then they all go their separate ways. It never mentioned anything about race.
Posted by: Tommykey | July 22, 2011 12:20 PM
Yet somehow, Canada, which has had gay marriage for nearly a decade managed to miss most of the financial woes US. We also have fewer people killed in natural disasters, and lower rates of violence.
God must really be angry with us.
Posted by: peicurmudgeon | July 22, 2011 12:25 PM
I too yern for my religious freedom.
Posted by: Aztec Priest | July 22, 2011 12:27 PM
I too yern for my religious freedom.
Me too!! Ooogie!!
Posted by: Ooogie Boogie Caveman | July 22, 2011 12:32 PM
And it is important to note that such discrimination is completely Constitutional, at least if not done by a government. "Restricted" hotels, restaurants and resorts, not to mention male-only clubs, were completely legal until the 1960s, when religion and gender were included in anti-discrimination laws. In other words, the same laws that are requiring Fisher and his fellow travellers to treat gays and lesbians as equal could relatively easily be changed to make his "lifestyle choice" the object of legalized bigotry.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 22, 2011 12:33 PM
I swear, every fundie lives in some bizarro universe where words mean the exact opposite of what they mean on planet Earth. "Liberty" in this context means taking away liberty, i.e., allowing the government to continue discriminating against gays and having society accept the fundies' bigotry.
It's almost as bad as when some religious whackos denounce treating gays as human beings as "anti-Christian bigotry." Because not being bigoted is, obviously, being bigoted to nutjobs.
Posted by: Wesley | July 22, 2011 12:36 PM
The worst part of all this is that nutjobs like Fischer give "religious liberty" a bad name, and increase the likelihood that this fundamental liberty will be diminished.
Posted by: bob koepp | July 22, 2011 12:48 PM
@Wesley,
This is what bugged me about some Islamic pamphlets being sent around by the MSA here. They talked a lot about a government's responsibility to preserve its citizens' liberty from sin, and seemed to twist around terms like 'liberty', 'rights', and 'freedoms' to their opposing meaning.
Posted by: Sivi | July 22, 2011 12:52 PM
On a slightly tangential note, I read that the Tea Party endorses... well, they claim that but we really know what "endorse" means to them, freedom OF religion but emphatically not freedom FROM religion. This seems to me to be: We don't care who or how you worship as long as it is like us.
Me, I would like freedom from religion.
Posted by: Rod | July 22, 2011 1:03 PM
This is the problem with religious liberty, You have two groups who claim their rights are being infringed by the other. So now you have a standoff, Who's rights take precedent.
Luckily the choice is simple, one group is a bunch of biggotted wackaloons who mistakenly think they have the right to oppress the other group. The only real harm being done to them is the thought that there is another group out there doing things to each other that makes them cringe. Other than that the so called "Gay Agenda" has no effect on them. Unluckily the loons have a voice in government bigger than their numbers should allow.
They other group just wants to be left alone by the first group.
To those who truly believe in liberty the choice should be simple. You maximise the rights of the oppressed over the oppressor because no one has the right to persecute another.
This is Liberty
This is Democracy
This is Reality!
Posted by: BCReason | July 22, 2011 1:30 PM
To #18:
You forgot that this is also Sparta.
Unfortunately for us, we have no convenient sinkhole to give the boot to our wingnut friends near.
Posted by: Leonidas | July 22, 2011 1:41 PM
We cannot have the CHRISTIAN agenda and liberty; those two things are incompatible with each other. They cannot coexist. One is going to have to give.
FTFY
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 22, 2011 1:49 PM
Posted by: Captain Mike | July 22, 2011 2:56 PM
I guess my response to this is such:
Mormons are not allowed to drink caffeine (the poor,poor souls)
It is Legal to consume caffeine.
Ergo, Mormons must consume caffeine. TEH OPPRESSIONZ!
Oh, wait, no, that means non-Mormons have the option of drinking caffeine, and Mormons faced an (incredibly slightly) increased temptation to do so.
No one is discriminating against Mormons by allowing other people to drink caffeine.
And no one is discriminating against anybody by admitting gay persons exist and have rights and want to (and do) get married.
Posted by: valor | July 22, 2011 3:15 PM
One of these days, I'm going to have to put together an online conservative dictionary so that sane people can understand what they actually mean.
For example:
Liberty (n):
1) Everyone has to the right to live according to a narrowly defined set of rules as put forth by conservative Christians, unless of course, they are an influential republican leader, in which case, the rules do not apply to them.
2) The right to take away rights from any group conservatives do not like.
Ex: We cannot have the homosexual agenda and liberty; those two things are incompatible with each other.
Now I've just got to work on a wingnut definition of "homosexual agenda". Something alone the lines of "The unholy belief that gay people have a right to exist".
Posted by: Greatbear | July 22, 2011 4:15 PM
Re Captain Mike @ #21
The law in question is known as the "public accommodations act," which simply means that any establishment open to the public is not allowed to deny service on the basis race, religion, or national origin. Some states have statewide laws that add sexual orientation.
In general, private clubs and golf courses that are not open to the public can discriminate all they want, provided that they receive no government support. In some states (e.g. Maryland), government support also includes tax breaks.
Posted by: SLC | July 22, 2011 4:17 PM
You are correct, but as SLC notes, public accommodations are barred from discriminating as a result of the Civil Rights Acts in the 60s. Quasi-public organizations, like the Jaycees, were also held to be public accommodations and had to open themselves up to female membership, which is specifically what I was referencing.
Fisher and his fellow travellers, however, often seem to think their freedom from discrimination flows from the First Amendment, and it does not. In fact, only the 14th Amendment, so often discounted by the Religious Right, prevents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, from becoming officially Catholic and passing anti-Catholic laws. It took another hundred years for Congress to formally bar religious discrimination in public accommodations, but that is a legislative act that can be overturned, which could conceivably hurt those with fringe religious lifestyle choices, like Fisher.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | July 22, 2011 7:18 PM
Generally speaking, private social clubs are excluded from most anti-discrimination laws. However, "private social club" is quite narrowly defined: to qualify, an organization has to have a fairly small membership, admit only a small number of new members per year (often with the requirement that they be nominated by an existing member), and charge substantial membership dues. Most importantly, it must have rules strictly forbidding members from conducting business on club premises or at club functions (i.e. membership cannot be considered a bona fide occupational qualification for any job).
Posted by: ebohlman | July 23, 2011 1:22 AM
Does the KKK qualify as a private social club?
Or are they too informal?
Posted by: Drivebyposter | July 23, 2011 2:03 AM
So Fischer's interpretation says that to be a True Christian [tm] you have to hate teh gayz, which y'know is fine, you hate away sister.
However, there are other religious groups who focus on the universal love of God for all humans, and highlight that people who hate cannot be a True Christian [tm].
Surely religious freedom is served by not endorsing either viewpoint, but protecting all citizens within the secular state, because not everyone who is religious agrees with Fischer?!
Posted by: David Waldock | July 23, 2011 3:15 AM
So the UK, which is officially a Christian state, has legalised gay marriage.
Shrug
Posted by: maxh | July 23, 2011 4:37 AM
CPT_Doom - "...only the 14th Amendment, ... prevents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, from becoming officially Catholic and passing anti-Catholic laws".
If, hypothetically, Massachusetts was to become officially Catholic, why would they attempt to pass ANTI-Catholic laws? [/pedant]
- :) Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 23, 2011 4:55 AM
Sometimes I feel guilty that we (atheists) are using homosexuals as a proxy war against religion. It's like the Cold War, where the USSR and USA backed small nations and pitted them against each other. I'm sure the small nations appreciated the assistance, but why did they have to fight and die for the larger nations.
Religion knows they can't go toe to toe with rationalism. If everyone simply laid all their cards on the table, religion would die. Instead, we fight these running side fights. Evolution in the classroom, gay marriage, interracial marriage, abortion, stem cell research... We will win all these battles, but in that slow grinding way.
Onward my gay friends. I'm about to push you unto the breach once more.
Posted by: Revyloution | July 23, 2011 11:58 AM
Revyloution, I'm both gay and an atheist. So, am I the U.S. or South Vietnam in your little analogy? And if the religious right is North Vietnam, who is the USSR? And is there a draft?
I'm so confused. Maybe you can clear it up for me?
Posted by: Rick R | July 23, 2011 12:20 PM
Revylution, 31: Sometimes I feel guilty that we (atheists) are using homosexuals as a proxy war against religion.
Huh? What?
Gay rights is a real issue. There are people who are being discriminated against, and that isn't right. Everybody should be working to help make sure that everyone can enjoy their rights. "Proxy war," like the examples you cited, implies a cynical use of a cause that they don't believe in to further some other cause. Which is insulting.
It's not the fault of atheists that the only reason people have to be against gay rights is their religious beliefs. It's also not the fault of atheists that this whole issue makes certain factions in various religions look foolish and demonstrates their overall danger to secular, liberal democratic government.
Atheists are no more using this issue in a "proxy war" against religion than religious people are using this issue in a "proxy war" against fundamentalism, or rational, thinking people are using this issue in a "proxy war" against stupidity.
Authoritarian religious beliefs and stupidity in general are dangerous to secular, liberal democracy. The "war" against it is just. Gay rights is a legitimate front in that war.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 23, 2011 12:20 PM
Concern troll is concerned.
I'm an atheist and I actually consider gay rights to be be paramount, simply because what's at stake for them is much greater than what's at stake for me. Atheism is generally protected on grounds of religious freedom so, should I need to, I could at least sue. LGBT people don't have that option in a lot of places.
Posted by: Leni | July 23, 2011 2:03 PM
Revyloution #31 - Do you really think that atheists have more political clout than gays? Are you really suggesting that any homosexuals fighting for their civil rights are doing so because atheists forced them?
You're either an idiot or you're lying.
Posted by: Taz | July 23, 2011 2:57 PM
Here's Jon Stewart taking on another confused contributor to our discourse on religous liberty, Herman Cain. (the Cain segment starts about 1:00 in)
Posted by: Red Right Hand | July 23, 2011 3:53 PM
I am a religious person but not a Christian. My God is not Abrahamic, in fact, he is many gods. I am tired of being told that my conduct must have something to do with Jesus. While I respect your religion, please keep your Jesus away from my Constitution!
Posted by: wayne | July 25, 2011 9:17 AM
Revyloution: What? It has nothing to do with a proxy war with religion, and everything to do with making sure everyone has equal protection under the law and equal application of the law. Discriminating against homosexuals isn't equal. The only reason atheism gets dragged into it is because we're not commanded by a book to despise homosexuals.
Posted by: Shadowin | July 28, 2011 6:39 PM