The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
Supporters of gay marriage hold rainbow-colored flags as they rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington March 27, 2013. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

‘Straight’ talk about bigotry

Photo of David Benkof
David Benkof
Freelance Writer

“Bigot” is a favorite epithet for same-sex marriage supporters to bandy about regarding their opponents. It’s used as a synonym for “hater,” “homophobe,” and “racist emulator.”

Yet according to, bigotry is “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

By that definition, the LGBT community is actually more bigoted than its opponents.

Consider recent clashes between First Amendment protections and state laws outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Some business owners who oppose same-sex marriage – from photographers to web designers to cake decorators – turn away same-sex couples. Most of these companies happily help out individual gay people and offer referrals for gay weddings. Some customers, being intolerant of beliefs that differ from their own, sue anyway and usually win, forcing the company either to comply or to face fines and possible loss of their livelihoods.

Such situations go well beyond recent disputes about requiring small business’s insurance plans to provide contraception the owners morally oppose. They involve not only the First Amendment’s free-exercise clause, but also its promise of free expression. The state and the LGBT community must not be allowed to compel people’s creative activities — it evokes the USSR’s encouragement of Socialist Realism. Am I saying these lawsuits are un-American? Yes.

A New Mexico photographer’s case appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. It directly addresses whether a non-discrimination statute outweighs the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee. To me it’s a no brainer: a mere statute versus perhaps the most important sentence in the entire Constitution? Yet three New Mexico courts ruled the other way.

The freedom not to express ideas one finds odious is somewhat established in law. For example, in 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses who objected to New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” license plates had a right “to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster an idea they find morally objectionable.”

The instant LGBT retort to the free-speech argument tends to be: “But you wouldn’t allow similar discrimination against black people.” Well, African-Americans are a legally protected class, while gays are not. Further, people of different races are, essentially, the same. Men and women (and, I believe, mothers and fathers) are not essentially the same. If sex differences were irrelevant, the L and G of LGBT would disappear.

Sure, Americans disagree whether a child ideally needs both a mother and a father. Intolerance of same-sex couples raising children, though, is melting away – only Mississippi and Utah still ban same-sex adoption. Yet intolerance toward even preferring the traditional family format has accelerated.

Gay advocates push a double standard. Before gay marriage, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network published a lesson plan describing marriage as a union of “any two people” building a family. Nobody objected. But after same-sex marriage started spreading across the country, many LGBT people endorsed disciplining or firing public school teachers who present marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That kind of unidirectional open-mindedness, too, is bigotry.