Read on Twitter
David French's thread defending the anti-lgbt Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is nonsensical and illogical.
He's angry that people call ADF "hateful." But he never addresses or even acknowledges the arguments for ADF being a hate group, choosing to focus on irrelevancies instead. https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1316068241584861191
He's angry that people call ADF "hateful." But he never addresses or even acknowledges the arguments for ADF being a hate group, choosing to focus on irrelevancies instead. https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1316068241584861191
For example, he says the ADF signed on to a brief against Qualified Immunity, and that's a good thing, therefore the ADF can't be "hateful."
It is a good thing! But doing a good thing in one area doesn't preclude a person or org from being hateful in other areas.
It is a good thing! But doing a good thing in one area doesn't preclude a person or org from being hateful in other areas.
Signing on to a good ACLU brief doesn't magically make ADF's support of laws outlawing gay sex un-hateful.
(If I purposely kick a puppy on my way to volunteering at the food bank, does my good deed making the puppy-kicking excusable? Of course not.)
(If I purposely kick a puppy on my way to volunteering at the food bank, does my good deed making the puppy-kicking excusable? Of course not.)
David also mentions that they emphasize values like "civility" and "integrity." That is also irrelevant. Being civil doesn't make supporting laws outlawing gay sex any less hateful, it just makes it polite hate.
"You're exaggerating. The ADF doesn't support laws outlawing gay sex."
In 2013, the ADF's Global Executive Director Benjamin Bull said "the Indian Court did the right thing," after the Indian Court ruled in favor of a law that could punish gay sex with up to ten years in prison.
In 2013, the ADF's Global Executive Director Benjamin Bull said "the Indian Court did the right thing," after the Indian Court ruled in favor of a law that could punish gay sex with up to ten years in prison.
In 2012, an ADF senior attorney said that keeping Jamaica's "legislation prohibiting sodomy" was the "bulwark" against the "gay agenda." The Jamaican law can punish people with up to ten years in prison.
In 2013, the ADF defended yet another gay criminalization law in Belize.
In 2013, the ADF defended yet another gay criminalization law in Belize.
This matches the ADF's track record in the US; in 2003, the ADF filed two amicus briefs in Lawrence v Texas defending anti-sodomy laws.
(David French calls ADF's record before the Supreme Court "glittering." We should all be glad the ADF didn't "glitter" in 2003.)
(David French calls ADF's record before the Supreme Court "glittering." We should all be glad the ADF didn't "glitter" in 2003.)
ADF's views on outlawing "homosexual sodomy" haven't changed since 2003.
As recently as 2015, ADF called the Lawrence v Texas ruling "devastating," saying it " fabricate[d] legal protection for homosexual sodomy."
As recently as 2015, ADF called the Lawrence v Texas ruling "devastating," saying it " fabricate[d] legal protection for homosexual sodomy."
David praised ADF's free speech record.
Not mentioned: ADF's support of free speech doesn't extend to LGBT people. ADF supported Russia's law banning "gay propaganda" with an 8-page memo in 2013. The law is a direct assault on free speech. https://news.trust.org/item/20180830102838-1f0sa/
Not mentioned: ADF's support of free speech doesn't extend to LGBT people. ADF supported Russia's law banning "gay propaganda" with an 8-page memo in 2013. The law is a direct assault on free speech. https://news.trust.org/item/20180830102838-1f0sa/
David said "biblical ethics" aren't hateful, and I agree with him. I know of many non-hateful people who draw on the Torah and/or the Bible for their ethics.
But particular *interpretations* of "biblical ethics" definitely can be hateful. Such as ADF's. https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1316068245233901570
But particular *interpretations* of "biblical ethics" definitely can be hateful. Such as ADF's. https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1316068245233901570
ADF claim they just want religious freedom. But for them, religious freedom seems to mean the freedom to legally discriminate against lgbt people - including preventing kids from being adopted, and allowing doctors to discriminate against lgbt people.
ADL supports "conversion therapy." They support firing people for being trans. They support anti-LGBT myths that trans people and gay people are predators or pedophiles. They are against medical treatments to help trans teens.
And I haven't even gotten into all the hateful things they say in their book "The Homosexual Agenda."
Truly incredible things, like claiming gay men commonly seek to become HIV positive. And claiming that homosexuality and pedophilia are "intrinsically linked."
Truly incredible things, like claiming gay men commonly seek to become HIV positive. And claiming that homosexuality and pedophilia are "intrinsically linked."
The book was written in 2003 by ADF founder Alan Sears, but they still keep it in print and sell it. As recently as 2015, Blackstone - the ADF affiliated educational program David defends- had "The Homosexual Agenda" on a recommended reading list.
Using bland, unspecified "biblical ethics" as a shield for such hateful behavior is intellectually dishonest.
It's an attempt to unfairly paint people who speak out against ADL's hateful agenda of criminalizing and discriminating against lgbt people as anti-religious bigots.
It's an attempt to unfairly paint people who speak out against ADL's hateful agenda of criminalizing and discriminating against lgbt people as anti-religious bigots.
David's defense of ADL is nothing but a dodge.
David's refusal to address the substantive reasons people call ADL hateful is very telling. It suggests that at some level, he knows ADL cannot be successfully defended on substance.
(End rant).
David's refusal to address the substantive reasons people call ADL hateful is very telling. It suggests that at some level, he knows ADL cannot be successfully defended on substance.
(End rant).
