Díaz walking arm-in-arm with NOM President Brian Brown.

It seems the National Organization for Marriage believes that if it simply redoubles its race-baiting tactics as if they are not problematic and offensive, then the controversy over its now-known intention to do so will somehow be overlooked. New York state Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz (D) has unsurprisingly volunteered to be the anti-equality group’s latest token to help “drive a wedge between gays and blacks” and “make opposition to gay marriage an identity marker” for young Latinos:

DÍAZ: Brian Brown and NOM have done something, that no one has been able to do before: they have helped Black and Hispanic people throughout the nation to find our voice when everyone else rejected us and excluded us from the debate.

You should know that NOM has not divided us, it has brought us unity; NOM has given a voice to the voiceless on the marriage issue, and shown us respect for our core, and sacred values on marriage—a respect the mainstream media has consistently denied us.

No New York Times editorial, nor anyone else will be able to sow seeds of dissension between us and NOM in this great effort to protect marriage.

The New York Times had condemned NOM for its “poisonous political approach,” an approach Díaz is all too happy to help bring to fruition. His polarizing language suggests that all people of color believe together as one block and attempts to paint NOM as an ally to their communities. But as the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out, NOM is simply using these groups for its own insidious purposes, and surely the group hopes that Díaz’s comments will provide another opportunity to take false umbrage when his offensive views are called out.

Díaz’s anti-gay antagonism is about as harmful as a state senator’s can be. In the lead-up to the passage of marriage equality in New York last year, he held a rally that featured religious leaders who said gay people are “worthy of death.” He lied about the religious exemptions in the bill to make his case for opposing it, and his own lesbian granddaughter even rebuked his “love” for her. Following the bill’s massage, Díaz declared “Today we start the battle! Today we start the war!” For him to claim his own anti-gay hatred as representative of people of color is affront to the diversity of those communities, including the many people who experience oppression both for their sexual orientation and the color of their skin.

NOM is free to highlight as many black and Latino spokespeople as it would like, but every time it does with such obvious malicious intent, it proves how little it actually cares about any group but itself.

Politico’s Mike Allen reported last month that reality star/businessman/attention seeker Donald Trump is building his political stature as a top surrogate for Mitt Romney. The controversial figure is supposedly “gaining juice and respectability in national politics,” Allen reports, has recorded robo-calls ahead of key primary battles and participated in “a ton of talk radio for Romney in Michigan, Arizona and Ohio.” The Donald even received personal “thank you” shout outs from Ann Romney during multiple campaign victory speeches.

It’a curious relationship and one that may prove dangerous for the Massachusetts governor, as he courts independent voters ahead of the general election. Trump is a shameless and at times unpredictable self-promoter whose history of misogyny will do little to help Romney’s low standing with women voters. After all, this is the same guy who described Rosie O’Donnell as a “very unattractive woman both inside and out” and a “fat slob,” allegedly required Miss USA pageant contestant to parade in front of him “so he could separate out those he found sexually appealing from those he did not,” and suggested that he would be dating his daughter and her “very nice figure” if he were not her father. Just yesterday, Trump inserted himself into the controversy surrounding a transgender contestant who had been disqualified from participating in his Miss Universe competition by offering to show his penis:

Donald Trump is confident … attorney Gloria Allred would be blown away by his man junk.

The Donald called in to TMZ Live moments ago, claiming, “I think Gloria would be very very impressed with [my penis].”

Donald’s genitals became a topic of contention earlier today during Gloria’s news conference with transgender beauty queen Jenna Talackova — when Gloria said, Jenna “didn’t ask Mr. Trump to prove he’s a naturally born man, or see photos of his birth, or to view his anatomy … It made no difference to her.”

But it makes a difference to Donald, who said he’d be willing to show what he’s got … if Gloria’s willing to pay the right price.

Donald also said he wouldn’t apologize for disqualifying Jenna last week from the Miss Universe pageant on the basis of her birth gender — even though he later reversed his position — and added, he “couldn’t care less” if Jenna even competes.

Romney courted Trump’s endorsement and even appeared alongside him to accept his support. And while one can’t ascribe Trump’s sexist comments to Romney, it’s a wonder that he feels so comfortable with Trump representing his candidacy to voters.

LE MARS, Iowa — To Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the problem is not that it’s legal for employers to fire an employee for being gay. It’s that the employee made his sexual orientation publicly known in the first place.

ThinkProgress spoke with the Iowa congressman Monday about whether it should be legal for businesses to discriminate in their hiring and firing decisions. King said that “they shouldn’t be able to do that [to] a private business” because “they need to have freedom to operate.”

We asked if this meant that he opposed the idea of forbidding businesses from firing an employee because of her sexual orientation. “How do you know someone’s sexual orientation?” he countered, before proposing an idea similar to the recently repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military. “I would think that unless someone makes their sexuality public, it’s not anybody’s business, so neither is it our business to tell an employer who to hire.”

KEYES: Would that encompass, for instance, the government being able to tell businesses who they can hire and fire?

KING: Yeah, they shouldn’t be able to do that [to] a private business.

KEYES: Even if those were to be regulations say on a matter of sexual orientation or gender or other stuff like that?

KING: How do you know someone’s sexual orientation? I don’t know how you discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. That’s their business.

KEYES: I guess if it became public knowledge that an employee were lesbian or gay.

KING: You have private sector businesses here and they need to have freedom to operate. In the first place, I would think that unless someone makes their sexuality public, it’s not anybody’s business, so neither is it our business to tell an employer who to hire. He won’t know who to discriminate against in the first place.

Watch it:

Nobody should have to hide who they are for fear of losing their job. Gay and lesbian people, like everyone, ought to be able to be themselves and be free from employment discrimination. Unfortunately, in King’s world, it’s an either-or proposition.