For a non-moralistic example of this behavior, consider a fat person who wishes to lose weight for the selfish purpose of attracting sexual partners, but is unwilling to put down the bacon. Is this person a fraud when they say people should lose weight?
If I'm a person who habitually does certain things, but I publicly advocate denying those activities to others, that's very significant information.
Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?
Anyone pushing a policy they actually oppose is a fraud, gay or not.
Would my thinking be suspect? Does that mean that I think that gay people shouldn't be hired or be able to get housing?
From the common / popular "pro-gay" view my positions would be characterized as "anti-gay" and I would risk being demonized by GLAAD, etc.
The problem here is that these terms "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" etc, are completely political and ignore all possibility of nuance.
Let me put it another way. I think a gay person should be allowed to choose not to rent out a room in their house to a mormon who, when he came to see the room, went on and on about how evil gay people are.
Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Clearly, also, being forced to rent a room to someone you are not going to get along with is a recipe for trouble.
But, specifically, it is a violation of your property rights in the room you're renting out, just as forcing you to rent it out, or preventing you from renting it to anybody, or dictating the price at which you can rent it is a violation of your right to use this property as you see fit.
Further, freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whom you like and also not associate with people you don't get along with.
Discriminating against people (based on sexuality or beliefs) is a bad idea when you're hiring because you'll exclude people who would be productive in preference to people who might be less productive.
But discrimination is intrinsic in both property rights and freedom of association. (And freedom of association is simply another way of saying property rights in your own body.)
So, while GLAAD and other political groups would call me an anti-gay politician in this hypothetical, would you really call me a fraud?
I think in the end I'm agreeing with you that it is not black and white, you just hit on the political angle that I can speak directly to.
I've been called "anti-gay" because I don't support "pro-gay" legislation, even though my position is based in a (stronger than my opponents, I believe) belief in human rights.
Not really. It's a subtle difference, but it's more like discriminating against someone for being a jerk. Or perhaps insensitive.
a) If the person wasn't religious but said the same thing, one might discriminate the same way. (Therefore showing it wasn't because of religion)
b) Alternatively, if someone was religious, but wasn't judgmental, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them.
In a way, making discrimination illegal is a form of a thought crime, as it requires determination of the thinking process on the person charged with discrimination.
I never thought of it that way. It's about your biases but it requires some action to mean anything. (In the same sense as murder being technically a thought crime, acted out No action no crime.
I do agree though that if there is public funding involved, such as with public schools, things can be different if desired. But I disagree that government should dictate behavior of private behavior, who one is allowed to sell to or not. If someone owns a store and hates minorities, I would love for them to have a big old sign in front saying so so I know not to buy anything there. Government dictating that that is not allowed just buries the discrimination that is going to be there no matter what. I say, let it be in the open where I can see and ridicule it.