Of course, the real issue is not about Raddon. While Laer continues to highlight these examples to try to make gays and those protecting gay rights to look really bad and intolerant, the cases are non-representative and irrelevant. They are non-representative because tyranny of the majority is a bigger risk than tyranny by a minority, which is why the equal protection clauses in the US and many state constitutions start their analysis by asking whether the potentially aggrieved group is a suspect class by determining whether they are likely or have historically suffered from discrimination. For example, blacks are judged to be a suspect class while whites are not.

This “gays are intolerant too” theme conflates rather than illuminates the reality of what is going on from a legal standpoint. But these examplese are also entirely irrelevant from a legal standpoint because the mere existence of intolerant gays who rat on upstanding citizens and cause them to lose their precious jobs does not justify the denial or, in the case of California, the revoking of constitutionally protected rights by the intolerant and/or ignorant majority. Debates and discussions over the validity of the Mormon faith or the rectitude of homosexual Americans IS TOTALLY BESIDE THE POINT and the focus on the conversation should reside on the legal rights that are being denied a subset of citizens in a very un-American way.