As Chick-fil-A’s corporate foundation came under heavy criticism last year for its long record of anti-LGBT behavior, the company attempted to distance itself from its political record, claiming it intedend “to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But despite suggestions by some that the company’s WinShape Foundation had already scaled back its anti-LGBT giving before that point, its newly released annual IRS filings for 2011 indicate nothing of the sort.

Most of the WinShape’s anti-LGBT giving in previous years went to groups like the Marriage & Family Foundation ($1,188,380 in 2010), the Fellowship Of Christian Athletes ($480,000 in 2010), and the National Christian Foundation ($247,500). Additionally, the group made small donations to the “ex-gay” group Exodus International ($1,000) and the hate group Family Research Council ($1,000).

In 2011, the group actually gave even more to anti-LGBT causes. Its contribution to the Marriage & Family Foundation jumped to $2,896,438 and it gave the same amount to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and National Christian Foundation as it had in 2010. In total, the anti-LGBT spending exceeded $3.6 million — almost double the $1.9 million from the year before.

While the group gave nothing directly to Exodus International or FRC, a large amount of Chick-fil-A/WinShape money still made its way to those groups. The National Christian Foundation (aka the National Christian Charitable Foundation) gave $4,100 to Exodus International and a stunning $1,260,040 to FRC. This was possible, in part, because of the $247,500 it received directly from WinShape and because the WinShape-backed Marriage & Family Foundation also transferred $870,834 to the group — the self-described “largest Christian grant-making foundation in the world.”

In essence, Chick-fil-A’s “charitable” contributions in 2011 were no less hateful than in 2010 — just less transparent.

Today, the Family Research Council sent out a fundraising email blast full of scary rhetoric about the supposed consequences of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Though the only purpose of ENDA is to protect LGBT people from being fired solely for their identities, Tony Perkins described the bill as “dangerous” and “totalitarian” because it limits anti-gay Christians’ ability to discriminate:

ENDA–the Employment Non-Discrimination Act–is dangerous. It feeds on freedom, primarily the freedom of religion and speech: not in theory, but on a practical, everyday level. It leaves few freedoms behind.

Yes, the bill has a fair-sounding name, but in fact, ENDA would give special rights to men and women who engage in homosexual behavior. It will force Christian schools and colleges, Christian-owned businesses, day care centers, and other organizations to employ people who make their sexual behavior an issue as they parade their proclivities into the workplace. [...]

Certainly to you and me, the very idea of ENDA–giving special rights and protections to people based solely on their sexual behavior–is outrageous. But to this pro-homosexual President and the totalitarian homosexual lobby, it’s a reasonable way to advance their cause–and crush the biblical view that stands in their way of fundamentally transforming America. ENDA is massive leap forward in redefining America.

Apparently, in Perkins’s America, simply having a job is a “special right,” and not one that LGBT people deserve. People can be legally fired for their sexual orientation in 29 states and their gender identity in 34, and Perkins wants to keep it that way. Such cruelty and willful discrimination continues to add to the already extensive trove of evidence substantiating FRC’s designation as a hate group.

As always, the tactic of conservatives is to attempt to erase the complete identity of LGBT people, reducing them to people who engage in sinful behavior. Regardless of how FRC distorts reality, LGBT people are raising families and participating in their communities all across this country, and they deserve the most basic protections to their well-being.

Today the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has been hearing testimony regarding Senate Bill 449, the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, which would finally add gender identity to the state’s nondiscrimination protections. Unfortunately, the Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg was on hand to testify his belief that transgender people have a “disconnect with reality” and need counseling, not protection under the law:

SPRIGG: A person who believes they are, or wishes to be, the opposite sex from that which is written in the chromosomes of every cell of his or her body, is suffering from a disconnection with an immutable biological reality. The solution to this problem is not actions – up to and including self-mutilating surgery amputating healthy body parts – which will reinforce this disconnect with reality. The solution is compassionate counseling aimed at helping the individual to uncover the psychological roots of their gender identity problems, and to become comfortable with one’s actual biological sex.

I understand the motivation behind this bill – the sponsors are concerned about the pain in the lives of these individuals, and hope that this intervention will ease that pain.

While I share that motivation, I must oppose this bill because it will not work. This bill would force the state and private actors – employers, landlords, and others who provide public services – to officially and legally affirm the very delusion that puts these suffering individuals at odds with reality. Not only will it not make their lives better, but it will prevent them from getting the very help they do need to make their lives better.

Sprigg is making two very offensive points here; not only is he claiming that trans people are “suffering” from a mental illness, but he’s also saying that they deserve to be discriminated against as a result. Leave aside the fact that the psychology professionals recommend affirming trans people in their gender identity, FRC wants it to be legal to fire, deny housing, and deny basic services to transgender people, who are already quite vulnerable to such discrimination. Sprigg has previously called for criminal sanctions against homosexuality and the exportation of gays and lesbians. It’s such campaigns against basic humanity that warrant FRC’s designation as a “hate group.” (HT: Joe.My.God.)

As the Illinois Senate prepares to vote on marriage equality today, Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, an anti-gay hate group, has published another screed against same-sex marriage. Her concern, as per usual, is that children will learn gay people exist and have families, but she also writes about how upset she is that gay people are even being hired as teachers:

Public schools will be hiring teachers who are in legal “homosexual marriages.” These teachers will put photos of their homosexual spouses on their desks and talk about their homosexual spouses to their students. Such images and ideas coming from teachers whom children love and admire will powerfully shape the feelings and beliefs of young boys and girls, particularly when such images and ideas are reinforced countless times in other cultural contexts. Such images and ideas will undermine what is being taught at home.

Some will argue that schools are already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, so the legalization of same-sex marriage won’t change anything. They are only partly correct. Although schools are, unfortunately, already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, once the government recognizes homosexual unions as marriages, administrators and school boards—particularly in elementary schools—will have the social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions knocked out from under them. And this, of course, is the chief motivation for homosexuals to pursue same-sex marriage when they already have all the benefits and privileges of marriage through Illinois’ civil union law.

As Jeremy Hooper points out, the question of gay teachers was settled decades ago and even Ronald Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative to ban gay teachers in California. But given Higgins’ penchant for candid homophobia, her objection to gay teachers is perhaps not as surprising as her delusion that her argument has anything to do with same-sex marriage.

First, there seems to be little foundation for her argument that schools have “social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions.” There are gay teachers everywhere teaching at all grades without controversy. And even in states that don’t recognize same-sex marriage, surely many of those teachers have a spouse or partner’s picture on their desk anyway. Higgins is arguing that gay people want marriage equality so that they have a better chance at getting hired as teachers. That’s not just wrong and loaded with offense, it just doesn’t even make sense. Refreshingly, she’s at least not arguing that all gays are pedophiles, like most of her conservative allies.

On Monday, the Defense Department released a new list of benefits that the same-sex partners of military servicemembers could access in spite of the limitations imposed by the Defense of Marriage Act. One spousal benefit that was not specifically mentioned was eligibility to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, but that didn’t stop the American Family Association from making that its primary complaint. In an action alert sent out after the Pentagon’s announcement, the anti-gay hate group warned that same-sex partners would violate the cemetery’s “hallowed grounds,” complete with the misspelled graphic pictured at right:

This means the military will recognize homosexual lovers as “married” and will give a full slate of benefits, including burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

Panetta, at every turn, has exposed the military to open homosexuality, which presents an unacceptable risk to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion – qualities essential for combat readiness.

Actually, the new guidance allows the military to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships specifically so it doesn’t have to recognize same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, AFA is encouraging supporters to send the following letter to members of Congress:

Under your watch, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has effectively devastated our nation’s military by allowing the “gay agenda” to take priority over national defense.

This week, his decision to grant “marriage” benefits to homosexuals in the military presents an unacceptable risk to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion – qualities essential for combat readiness.

Most disturbing is his decision to allow homosexual partners to be buried on the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

I urge you to do your part in restoring sanity to the Department of Defense and stop social experimentation in the military.

Besides the fact that plenty of gay people are surely already buried in Arlington National Cemetery, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had no consequential impact on the military’s “good order, discipline, morale, and unit cohesion.” DADT was the social experiment, and all that came of it was the firing of soldiers. The social experiment of shame and discrimination is over.

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.

Ever since the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced last summer that it would not be changing its policy prohibiting gay Scouts and Scout leaders, conservatives have rallied to defend the organizations “core value” of anti-gay discrimination. This effort seemed to explode over the past week, with social conservative talking heads desperately pleading with BSA to hold fast to that policy, lest it create a not-so-ambiguous safety concern for Scouts. Perhaps more than any other recent issue impact gays and lesbians — repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” marriage equality, or the Chick-fil-A controversy, how social conservatives’ discuss the BSA policy reveals the depth of their anti-gay animus and the foundation of lies they perpetuate in their agenda against LGBT equality.

Though BSA refused to share any of the details of the two-year review that resulted in keeping the policy, plenty of conservatives voices have attempted to make the case on behalf of the organization, including Mike Huckabee, Bill O’Reilly, Rick Perry, the Family Research Council, the Liberty Counsel, the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, and the Southern Baptist Convention, to name a few. While some have made weak appeals to “traditional values,” the overwhelming argument against changing the policy has been a claim that Scouts will be more vulnerable to abuse if gays are allowed to participate in the organization, an argument that doesn’t even address the question of gay Scouts. Here is a sampling of the underlying assumptions about gay people that inform this point of view:

• The LGBT community is viewed entirely as adult gay men.
• The only aspect of a person that defines a gay identity is participation in same-sex sexual behavior.
• Nothing is apparently more important to gay men than having as much sex as possible and talking about it at all times.
• For gay men, there is no difference between being attracted to other adult gay men and being attracted to underage boys.
• Gay men are so obsessed with having sex that consent means nothing to them.
• Even though the men most commonly found abusing boys identify as heterosexual, the fact that their victims were boys means that they must be secretly gay, as opposed to just being pedophiles.
• It’s impossible for a child to learn that gay people even exist without becoming “sexualized” and somehow put at risk.
• So long as homosexuality is prohibited, all Boy Scouts will remain totally chaste and never think, learn about, or talk about the existence of sex.

This line of thinking proves that conservatives have learned nothing about gays and lesbians in decades. Any of these assumptions can and have been debunked not only by social science but by simply the mainstream visibility of the gay community. Nevertheless, conservatives continue to see gays as mentally ill, sex-obsessed, child-abusing sinners who do not deserve an equal place in society. This is what they believe when they argue against marriage equality (e.g. gays are too sex-obsessed to commit to monogamy), same-sex adoption (e.g. children fare worse with same-sex parents), or military service (e.g. straight soldiers won’t serve as effectively if gay troops are hitting on them). And though these issues mostly impact people who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual, many of the same negative stereotypes are similarly applied to transgender people, such as the claim that allowing them to use the same bathroom with which they identity would endanger children.

As GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project has revealed, conservative talking heads often sugarcoat their anti-gay messaging when speaking to mainstream media, but the BSA policy has been the exception. Under the guise of arguments defending “religious freedom,” it’s clear that social conservatives maintain a warped view of the gay community and are intent on promulgating that view. It is an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting children, families, or “values,” but that is designed specifically to defame and stigmatize the gay community, encouraging people to doubt and fear them through the guise of religious faith. Fortunately, people across the country are learning to see through this hateful charade and support the full inclusion of their LGBT friends and family in every aspect of society.

Earlier today, Floyd Lee Corkins pleaded guilty to several counts relating to when he opened fire at the Family Research Council, injuring a guard before he was subdued. FRC’s Tony Perkins used that news to reiterate his belief that by labeling groups like his as “hate groups,” the Southern Poverty Law Center gave Corkins a “license” for violence:

PERKINS: The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarters and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a “hate group.”

Today both assertions were validated in court as Corkins plead guilty to multiple criminal charges, including terrorism. The Southern Poverty Law Center can no longer say that it is not a source for those bent on committing acts of violence.  Only by ending its hate-labeling practices will the SPLC send a message that it no longer wishes to be a source for those who would commit acts of violence that are only designed to intimidate and silence Christians and others who support natural marriage and traditional morality.

Once again, I call on the SPLC to put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their promotion of homosexuality. Whether the SPLC continues to demonize those who hold to biblical morality or not, the Family Research Council will remain unequivocally committed to our mission of advancing faith, family and freedom.

Perkins’ accusation is just as “outrageous” now as it was back in August. The SPLC is simply identifying “hate” as “hate.” Contrary to Perkins’ implication, hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased in 2011 despite the fact that the overall number of hate crimes declined. Of course, he never takes responsibility for the rhetoric FRC puts forth everyday, such as this morning when he reminded the world that he believes gay men are pedophiles, despite claiming to say the opposite. In September, just moments after once again painting FRC as a victim to the SPLC, Perkins then compared homosexuality to drug abuse. It’s not hard to draw a connection between that kind of hateful rhetoric and the ongoing harassment of the LGBT community, but FRC’s “mission of advancing faith, family, and freedom” is not particularly concerned with reality.

This week, the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America will reconsider the organization’s policy of barring gay Scouts and leaders. As a result of this proposed change, many conservatives are urging the group to maintain its discrimination.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has written extensively about how the Boy Scouts affected his life, and he reiterated those thoughts to hundreds of Texas Scouts who gathered in the state House of Representatives on Saturday for their annual Report to State. Speaking to reporters afterward, Perry defended the discriminatory policy:

PERRY: Hopefully the board will follow their historic position of keeping the Scouts strongly supportive of the values that make Scouting this very important and impactful organization. I think most people see absolutely no reason to change the position and neither do I… To have popular culture impact 100 years of their standards is inappropriate.

Perry also disagreed that a change would make the Scouts more tolerant, claiming, “I think you get tolerance and diversity every day in Scouting.”

Fellow former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has offered a similar screed against the proposed change in the Scouts’ policy, suggesting the board’s vote this week is “a challenge to the Scouts’ very nature” that will cause a “mass exodus,” “leaving the Scouts hollowed at its core.” Indeed, a whole coalition of anti-gay hate groups is calling on the Scouts’ to maintain the policy because of the false assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

Over the weekend, President Obama disavowed all of these claims in a pre-Super Bowl interview, saying that the Scouts should drop the policy because “gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life.” Obama has previously condemned the policy because he “opposes discrimination in all forms.”

The Family Research Council, an anti-gay hate group, has filed amicus briefs in both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases before the Supreme Court. In these briefs, FRC claims that gays and lesbians do not deserve nondiscrimination protections because of their sexual orientation, but adds that even if they did, the Court could still rule against them in these cases. The group explains this by pointing out that gay people can enter opposite-sex couples, and thus laws like DOMA and Prop 8 do not discriminate specifically against gay people, just same-sex couples:

In his concurring opinion in Andersen v. King County, Justice J. M. Johnson noted that the state DOMA “does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation,” and identified a recent case in which a man and a woman, both identified as “gay,” entered into a valid opposite-sex marriage. It is apparent, therefore, that the right to enter into a marriage that would be recognized under § 3 of DOMA “is not restricted to (self-identified) heterosexual couples,” but extends to all adults without regard to “their sexual orientation.”  Contrary to the understanding of the California Supreme Court,  a law that restricts marriage (or the benefits thereof) to opposite-sex couples does not, on its face, discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.  The classification in the statute is not between men and women, or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but between opposite-sex (married) couples and same-sex (married) couples.

FRC could have used the same argument in 1967 to defend bans on interracial marriage, something like, The classification in the statute is not between white people and colored people, but between same-race couples and mixed-race couples, differentiated for the purposes of racial integrity. Just as it’s clear such an argument would still be discrimination based on race, so too are DOMA and Prop 8 discrimination based on sexual orientation.

FRC relies on its own myths to support its other myths. The brief argues essentially that gay people don’t exist — that their identities are not immutable and can only be defined by behavior. Only with this narrow conception of the lives of gay people would any of these arguments hold up, and fortunately reality modern-day reality does not allow for such naivete.

It’s worth noting that RightWingWatch also noticed a stunning contradiction in FRC’s briefs. In an attempt to dissuade the Court from recognizing sexual orientation as a suspect class (like race and gender), FRC argues in the DOMA brief that gays are a powerful group, particularly given the victories for marriage equality in the November 2012 elections. However, in the Prop 8 brief, FRC argues the opposite: since 30 states have banned same-sex marriage, there is no “emerging awareness” that the right to marry extends to same-sex couples. In other words, FRC’s version of “truth” is whichever spin supports its argument against equality.