Hmmmm. I consider myself to be a faithful and orthodox Christian -- though I'm an Anglican, and hence perhaps a bit more willing to tolerate ambiguity than are those who one usually calls "fundamentalist."
I think it's probably necessary for you to get more specific than "you have noticed," so that we can consider the context within which my comments were made.
My suspicion is that the thread or threads in question would similar to this one, where one side is screaming "religious persecution."
I to am an Anglican, althoug I have not worshipped in a church in the Anglican communion since the mid 1980s when I noticed a distinct tendency of the Episcopal Church to ignore orthodox teaching and Biblical authority for whatever was convenient at the time.
If you ever spend time with "fundamentalists", as I have a great deal since I stopped visiting Episcopal churches, you will find they are very comfortable with ambiguities where they exist. In this case there is no ambiguity.
Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."
If the quoted text is correct, then the only explaination for such sloppy wording is an activist judge trying to make the U.S. safe from homohobic theists. The judge could have easily said, "make sure that there is nothing in the upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered poisonous to Dr. McLeod." IMHO that is much more constitutional and much more enforceable. Can you tell me why it would not have been sufficient?
Shalom.