|The Family Research Council implies this as a reason why LGBTQ rights shouldn't be protected under the law.|
Today, the Family Research Council published something which more than proves why the organization deserves its SPLC-designated status as a hate group.
FRC not only demonizes the LGBTQ community and portrays us as predators and a health hazard. Via the help of frauds it designates as experts, group publishes distorted research papers aimed at the same goal of stigmatizing the LGBTQ community.
In the latest one, Why "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law, FRC makes the argument that the rights of LGBTQs should not be protected under the law.
On its webpage, FRC said the following about the paper:
In recent years, efforts by LGBT activists to insert "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"
("SOGI") as specially protected categories in the law have continued at the state and local levels, but they have not made much progress in Congress.
With Democrats taking over the House in 2019, that may change. We can expect a renewed push for the sweeping and extreme bill called the "Equality Act." Some members of Congress may even respond by proposing an ill-conceived compromise, dubbed "Fairness for All," that combines a SOGI law with limited religious liberty protections.
In anticipation of these debates, FRC has already produced a new publication with a concise explanation of Why "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" Should Never Be Specially Protected Categories Under the Law. Written by Senior Fellow Peter Sprigg, the new Issue Brief explains that SOGI laws are not justified in principle; are invasive and cause tangible harms; and are coercive and cannot be reconciled with religious liberty.
First of all, let's talk about Sprigg. He is no expert He is a failed actor and a pastor who has a history of publishing piss-poor junk-science filled propaganda. I've written extensively on several of his papers and statements including when he said gays should exported from the United States.
This new hot mess of his is the same as his old mess. I will spotlight a few parts which I feel proves my point. Take this passage for example:
The feelings and sense of identity (same-sex attraction or gender incongruity) may be involuntary, but they have not been proven to be inborn or immutable (there is certainly no way to identify them at birth). The behaviors, however (homosexual conduct or presenting oneself as something other than one’s biological sex), are clearly a matter of choice, and those choices carry a substantial risk of harm to the LGBT individual and cost to society at large.
To create his last statement - The behaviors, however (homosexual conduct or presenting oneself as something other than one’s biological sex), are clearly a matter of choice, and those choices carry a substantial risk of harm to the LGBT individual and cost to society at large. - Sprigg is using information from:
“Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health: Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
His argument is that LGBTQs shouldn't be protected from discrimination because these sources say their behavior automatically carries harm. But that is a clever lie.
None of these sources back up that inference by Sprigg. They actually refute Sprigg's premise by pointing out how societal homophobia and the repercussions of having to deal with this homophobia (a transgender woman not being able to be insured or get an adequate job, a lesbian dealing with chronic stress from having to hide in the closet, or a gay man engaging in risky sexual behaviors or drug abuse to cope) negatively affects the LGBTQ community.
One could easily say that the information Sprigg cites to claim that LGBTQs should not be protected under law actually makes the direct opposite argument - that our rights need to be protected under the law.
In one case, Sprigg practices what I like to call the "sin of omission:
SOGI laws limit access to needed social services by effectively driving out faith-based providers. These laws have been used in several states and localities to shut down faith-based adoption agencies. In Illinois alone, nearly 3,000 children were displaced when this happened. Grants offered through the Violence Against Women Act have a SOGI provision that dictates the hiring practices of institutions that get grants to help battered women. Because this provision violates the conscience of religious institutions, they are unable to provide assistance desperately needed by battered women.
What Sprigg fails to mention is that the bone of contention regarding these situations is should faith-based adoption agencies, etc be allowed to discriminate against the LGBTQ community while still receiving tax dollars. No one in the religious right has been able to come up with a justification for this. So I guess Sprigg decides to ignore the question.
Then there is this simply insulting piece of prejudice, which is the piece de resistance of Sprigg's paper:
SOGI laws could mandate the employment of persons who identify as homosexual or transgender in inappropriate occupations. Sexual conduct and gender can be relevant to employment. Under such legislation, for example, employers in education and childcare would be required to hire teachers who openly identify as LGBT, even if they consider them inappropriate role models for children and youth.
According to Sprigg's interpretation, laws protecting LGBTQs from discrimination are wrong because these laws could lead to them being employed in what he terms "inappropriate occupations" such as education and childcare. And the old canard about "gays want to recruit children" pops up again, albeit slightly covert.
That doesn't even deserve or need a refutation.
But it is a perfect summation of the vileness of Sprigg's entire piece. It more than proves that the anti-LGBTQ industry attacks on the LGBTQ community have nothing to do with religion or safety.
It's all about the exploitation of hatred and ignorance.