Frank Bruni, writing in the New York Times, condemns those who believe, per the Bible, that homosexual relationships are a sin. He concludes:
So our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.
* * *
And it’s a vital message because of something that Indiana demonstrated anew: Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia. It will give license to discrimination. It will cause gay and lesbian teenagers in fundamentalist households to agonize needlessly: Am I broken? Am I damned?
* * *
Gold told me that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.”
His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense.His article is an interesting read in logical errors and inconsistencies, the most grievous being the intentional conflation of being a homosexual, engaging in homosexual conduct, and gay marriage. For instance, he suggests that the florists and bakers that don't want to be forced to participate in a gay wedding hate homosexuals. However, those florists and bakers have sold products to gay customers--it is the act of assisting in the wedding to which they object. Bruni's argument is that it is impossible to "hate the sin but love the sinner." Thus, he agrees that Christians must be forced to change their beliefs concerning homosexuality as a sin. With that attitude, can his support of reeducation camps be far behind?