Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

Students at the Georgia Institute of Technology are going to court to fight for their right to be intolerant.

Well, that's how most news sources are putting it. But it's rubbish. People have the right to be as intolerant as they want, nobody denies that right. What Georgia Institute of Technology prohibits is people actively campaigning against minorities on campus.

The plaintiff here wants exceptions made for Christians who want to spread their hatred against homosexuals.

However, as distasteful as this may seem, it hides a different agenda.

This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about getting the Christian version of homosexuality - that it's a choice and not something one is born with - established in US law by getting courts to rule in favour of cases which have this misconception as their basis.

The agenda is revealed in the way that the people concerned phrase it:

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

Even the correction that they later issued has the same principle in it:

"Religious expression: An article in Monday's Section A said Gregory S. Baylor of the Christian Legal Society viewed homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. In fact, he does not have a stance on that issue. As the article noted, he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race, gender and other inborn traits. He asserts that antidiscrimination policies regarding homosexuality are different because they protect people based on conduct. Baylor's organization seeks to exempt religious groups from those policies."

This isn't about the right to be intolerant. It's about establishing in US law that homosexuality is a choice.

And once you've established that it's a choice, laws protecting it are easier to destroy, and laws preventing it are easier to introduce.

And, of course, with the newly redesigned US Supreme Court the time is ripe for this kind of change.

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies - Los Angeles Times: