So discriminating on the basis of religion - a freely chosen behavior - is OK? I think the author may have proved too much.
Yes, that’s their logic.
That's whose logic? The text I quoted was the article author's argument against homosexuality as a protected class - an argument that also rules out religion as a protected class.
To quote from the piece:
“The complaint reveals the problem of establishing a protected class that is constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts. Protected classes should be constituted by morally neutral, immutable, objective characteristics. That is to say, protected classes, like race, biological sex, or national origin, are wholly objective conditions, in all cases immutable, and are not in any way constituted by freely chosen behaviors.
Homosexuality is in some cases mutable (even “queer” theorists argue that “sexual orientation” is fluid) and is constituted solely by subjective feelings of attraction and volitional sexual acts that are perfectly legitimate to assess morally.
This raises the question that will surely soon emerge on the cultural landscape: Why should homosexuality and “gender identity,” which are constituted by subjective feelings and volitional acts, be included as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws but not other conditions similarly constituted? For example, why shouldn’t polyamory be included in anti-discrimination laws?”
___________________________________________________________
Yes, that is an argument against homosexuality as a protected class, but we all know the born that way argument is how they get around it. This is fact: How else would they have gained status as a protected class? And to their logic, religion is chosen so is not a protected class.
So yes, that is gay advocacy’s logic.
Do not understand your question.