"Bryan Fischer Openly Endorses Discrimination Against Homosexuals, Murderers, And Thieves"
Conservatives regularly use rhetoric about “religious freedom” in an attempt to substantiate discrimination against the LGBT community. Today, the American Family Association’s resident blowhard acknowledged as much in a rant comparing homosexuality to murder and theft, insisting that discrimination was valid:
FISCHER: We ought to discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior. I make no apology about that. We should discriminate! Yes! If you oppose civil unions, you are discriminating against homosexual behavior. We shouldn’t apologize for that. That’s what public policy and the law is all about — what the law is about is it’s about discrimination.
We discriminate in the law against people who commit murder. Why? Because that’s behavior that we don’t want to promote in a civil society. In our law, we discriminate against theft. Why? Because it’s counter to the kind of society that we want to build. It damages society. It hurts society. So we discriminate against people who steal from other people. We discriminate against people who kill other people. We discriminate against people who molest children. All of this is right; this is the right kind of discrimination.
The law is all about discrimination and I am saying absolutely, yes, we should discriminate against homosexual behavior. This is not behavior that ought to be promoted. It should not be legitimized. Relationships that are built on homosexual activity should not be glamorized, they shouldn’t be normalized, they shouldn’t be naturalized, they shouldn’t be given special protections in law. And I have no apologizes for saying yes we should discriminate against homosexual behavior.
Watch it (HT: Jeremy Hooper):
Fischer stops just short of calling for homosexuality to be made illegal, which he probably knows he can’t because such laws were found to be unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. But with comparisons to murder, theft, and child molestation, Fischer makes it quite clear that his desire to discriminate is not simply “religious” in nature. Indeed, his motives to discriminate are quite invidious in nature. His candor may be unique among conservatives, but his feelings likely are not.