When PFUX manages to get 20,000 attendees for an Anti-Gay-Day at Disney World, then Disney might take them seriously – of course, it would have to be "unofficial" because Disney would never put it's name on such a hateful event. Disney will also never take them seriously unless they start to take themselves seriously; which it's pretty obvious that they aren't serious about "needing" protection, they are just attempting to push their anti-gay political agenda.

PFOX is doing it so when they are denied they can then force Disney to pull funding and recognition of the GLBT groups saying if ex-gays can't have funding then the gays can't. It is their new tactic.

Um, aren't ex-gays just straight folks? So, who's going to discriminate against them???

Another conservative fraud.

These people are lunatics. Rick is right…aren't ex-gays straight? What discrimination are they getting?

Seriously, that's what happens when you repress your true self. The rest of your mental abilities go right out the window.

@Bill: It's a bit more duplicitous than just trying to get Disney, or anyone else, to pull funding for LGBT causes/groups. What they are now trying to do is get recognition, in much the same way that we try to get recognition. Once they can amass enough instances of being taken seriously as a group, and being recognized as a valid orientation, they will use that recognition against LGBT folks in court cases dealing with the Equal Protection Clause, which is likely our best argument for equality. Under current precedent, in order for a group to attain suspect class status, the class must be defined by an immutable, or unchangable, characteristic. If anti-gay groups can point to enough instances where people have taken ex-gays seriously, it will help to overcome scientific opinion that sexuality cannot be changed, and they will be on better ground to have a case decided under rational basis scrutiny.

@Jon B: "Under current precedent, in order for a group to attain suspect class status, the class must be defined by an immutable, or unchangable, characteristic."

I see what you're saying, but they'll never be able to prove "ex-gay"ness is immutable/unchangeable, as their entire sham is based on the idea that "gays can change."

Of course, they don't recognize their own doublethink. And they will gnash their teeth and rend their garments when they finally realize they can't have it both ways — but they're too stupid to understand why.

On the other hand, religionists are a protected class, and religion is hardly an immutable, unchangeable characteristic. (Although I don't know if religionists are protected as a suspect class in the same way ethnic and racial minorities are.)

But if we stick strictly to the "immutable, unchangeable" criterion set for protection on the basis of sexual orientation, the "ex-gays" don't have a leg to stand on, as long as they continue to insist that a person's sexual orientation can change (or be changed).

@Sapphocrat: "they'll never be able to prove "ex-gay"ness is immutable/unchangeable, as their entire sham is based on the idea that "gays can change.""

Exactly… If ex-gays become taken seriously, it goes against our argument that sexuality is an immutible, inborn, unchangeable characteristic. They are doing these things not for their own rights, but to hinder the advancement of ours.

An ex-gay isn't really no longer gay. If they were, they would be called heterosexuals or bisexuals or asexuals. An "Ex-gay" is just some mentally-ill idiot (remember a certain percentage of the population – gay, bi, and straight people – are literally insane) being played by rightwing groups for political purposes.

I think so called "ex-gay" people should wear t-shirts that say "caution! at any moment, I might started sucking c*ck again and again and again…" LOL

Of course, "ex-gay" is already covered under sexual orientation, which covers ALL sexual orientations (including those who are nonsexual), and probably also protected under the "religion" portion of their anti-discrimination policy. But what they really want is "ex-gay" recognized as legitimate, because that would help suggest that gays can change their orientation — and therefore it isn't an immutable characteristic worthy of protection. (Unlike … religion?) Kind of a Catch 22.

Disney should call their bluff and ask them to produce a real ex-gay who can prove they were discriminated against by the Disney Corporation specifically because of their alleged ex-gay orientation.

This is a huge political ploy from religious groups to politicize a group of people they have victimized. According to the American Psychiatric Association anti-gay therapy damages significantly more people than they help.

It is more harmful to recognize or protect them as a class of people.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/.....ion97.html

The resolution further states that the APA "urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation."