Sprigg, of the Family Research Council, is appalled at the "fanatical" "cultural imperialism" of the Obama Administration saying that respect for the human rights of gays in a given country will be taken into consideration in foreign aid decisions.
1. So we should only push for equal treatment of certain rights if they are universally accepted, lest we be guilty of "cultural imperialism"? What human rights are, in fact, universally accepted, Peter? Quite a number of nations don't believe in religious tolerance (at least as the US recognizes it). Should we not consider that, either?
2. Is overseas missionary work "cultural imperialism," Peter?
3. "It’s ironic that they are pushing this issue while at the same time deemphasizing the recognized right of religious liberty" – a calumny that usually boils down to "not letting me discriminate against others using my religion as an excuse."
4. In speaking against gay rights as fundamental human rights, Peter says, "These type of human rights and civil rights protections are usually granted for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary — you can’t choose them — immutable — you can’t change them …" So (even if one buys the idea that homosexuality is some sort of chosen predilection) does that mean that freedom of conscience, belief, religion, is also not a human/civil right?
Dolt. #ddtb
Embedded Link
Watch: Obama LGBT Rights Policy Fanatical Cultural Imperialism Says FRC
Peter Sprigg says President Obama’s international LGBT rights policy is “fanatical” “cultural imperialism,” adding there is not universal acceptance for gay rights.
Wonder if he’s in the closet.
While it’s surely unfair to make that sort of assumption in any specific case, the number of anti-gay activists who have been caught leading double lives is remarkable.