Robert Knight is apparently unemployed again, Knight has worked for numerous anti-LGBT organizations and hate groups. He doesn’t seem to last on anyone’s payroll for very long. Perhaps that is because of polemics like: Rejecting the Marxist Version of the Constitution. There is, in point of fact, only one version of the constitution: As it is written. Moreover, America is not being influenced by nefarious Marxist forces.
There is, however, a conservative Christian version of the constitution. Among many other things, the Free Exercise clause is in bold print while the Establishment Clause has been subjected to a strikethrough. The Second Amendment also gets the boldface treatment.
Within the text of Knight’s intellectually stupendous essay is this:
The Left has also redefined civil rights, warping the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Jim Crow laws. Moving beyond immutable characteristics such as race, color, national origin and sex, the Left has expanded it to include something entirely different – volitional behavior with enormous moral implications. Civil rights laws containing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” now pose a dangerous threat to civil liberties, and much of the media are more than fine with that.
Isn’t it odd that religionists seem to have this weird cognitive affliction in common? It causes them to forget that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 precludes discrimination on the basis of religion. I can understand that to some extent because it is in the Act, not for the benefit of the Christian majority, but for the protection of religious minorities. Jews and others were the targets of systematic persecution and discrimination in 1964. Racists believed and promoted the idea that integration was a Jewish conspiracy.
Aside from the intent of the Act, is Robert Knight contending that religion is an immutable characteristic? Furthermore, discrimination against LGBT people has nothing to do with what Knight dishonestly describes as “volitional behavior.” LGBT people are discriminated against simply because they exist.
And just who is Mr. Knight to claim the moral high ground? Many religions and sects do not believe that LGBT people are immoral. Furthermore, Knight has worked for odious hate groups like Coral Ridge Ministries and Concerned Women of America. What is more immoral than the spread of hate based upon fabricated stereotypes? Give me the proverbial Godwin but that is precisely what the Nazis did.
What is moral about being dishonest? Knight has already told a lie of omission by intentionally leaving out religion as a protected class under federal law. Then his intended inference is that neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are immutable. That is a lie. It is also a lie to claim that nondiscrimination protections “pose a dangerous threat.” It is not necessary for anyone to discriminate on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Knight does not approve of Jews. We are bound to Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior. Oh, he will try to obfuscate that with some BS about Israel but he is not claiming that any threat is posed by a Christian vendor having to serve a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. He can easily claim that Jews are defined by “volitional behavior with enormous moral implications” just has he has done with LGBT people. In both cases it is abject bigotry to do so.
Knight does not express his antisemitism, at least not publicly, because it is no longer acceptable in polite society. However, Robert Knight has no problem with the identical argument being applied to LGBT people. The consequences are the same as well: Having to serve or hire people that you disapprove of. According to Knight, robust civil liberties include a right to discriminate. Yesterday it was Jews. Today it is queers and Muslims. It is a further lie to assert that civil liberties are dependent upon the ability to discriminate.
Robert Knight is not lying when he claims that much of the media are fine with nondiscrimination. That is because most of the real thinkers in this country are not slaves to a literalist appreciation of Bronze Age texts. That seems like good common sense to me. Common sense is a rare commodity in the fundamentalist orbit.
Since the time of the Spanish Inquisition, using religion to justify acts of cruelty is as immoral as the acts themselves. Robert Knight is immoral.