(A very heavily made-up Greg Quinlan, left)

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays sent out, yet another, expensive media release across the wire service today. It was its latest attack on the Walt Disney Company for rejecting a nutty shareholders resolution to include so-called ex-gays in its non-discrimination policy.

Of course, PFOX’s real goal is:

1) A publicity stunt to make the organization look like it is actually doing something

2) A slippery attempt to water-down non-discrimination laws and policies.

Here is a quick guide to the nonsense spewed by PFOX on its weird media release and then a glimpse of reality:

PFOX Claim: Greg Quinlan, a PFOX spokesperson said, “Ex-gays remain closeted because they are not protected by diversity policies. Employees who support the ex-gay community are also not welcome to express their views.”

Reality: Ex-Gays are not closeted. They simply do not exist. Washington’s City Paper asked PFOX to identify real, live ex-gays in DC – one of this nation’s largest metro areas, and they were unable to do so. It is extremely difficult to find people to come forward who are not “ex-gay” for pay. That is why we keep hearing Quinlan’s name. He is one of the few examples they have and he has made a living off this gig. PFOX is so desperate for examples that they use Quinlan despite the fact he is an unrepentant sinner, due to his recent divorce. While the Bible is not very clear on homosexuality, it is very clear on divorce.

PFOX Claim: “How can HRC demand gay equality when it refuses to extend equality to others?” asked Quinlan.

Reality: PFOX has opposed every single law or policy that offers equality to LGBT people. So, to paraphrase Quinlan, how can PFOX ask for equality? (Although they already have legal protection since ex-gays are presumably heterosexual)

PFOX’s Claim: “Disney’s equality index score is -0- for ex-gays and their supporters.”

Reality: PFOX and other ex-gay groups do not have an equality score index.

PFOX’s Claim: Disney should treat former homosexuals with the same respect and benefits its gives to homosexuals.”

Reality: If PFOX can’t find “former homosexuals” who are not paid, political operatives, how do they expect Disney to do so? And, once again, if so-called ex-gays exist they are now heterosexual, thus protected by non-discrimination laws and policies. What PFOX is essentially saying is that ex-gays do not really exist and are not heterosexual. It is a very incongruous, convoluted message that makes no sense. PFOX has been pushing this insane strategy for several years and it has gone nowhere. Are these people insane?

PFOX Claim: “Last week HRC celebrated the first gay marriages in Washington DC, our nation’s capital. But there is one victory HRC did not celebrate. And that’s the DC Superior Court’s ruling that ex-gays are a legally protected class under the D.C. Human Rights Act.”

Reality: The court did not say that ex-gays constitute an explicitly protected class. The court reversed an earlier ruling that ex-gays are *not* a protected class, but it did not state that they *are* a protected class in D.C.

The court rationalized that, on the basis of the city’ unusually expansive Human Rights Act which defines sexual orientation by “preference or practice,” an ex-gay might hypothetically seek protection on the basis of a mutable decision not to “practice” homosexuality anymore. However, the court found that no such discrimination had occurred in the case of the National Education Association.

Has PFOX failed to notice it is spinning its wheels and not accomplishing anything? They can lie and spin the facts – but they will never get anywhere. Of course, what else can one expect from Greg Quinlan. He began his “ex-gay” career by claiming he had once been a part of the Human Rights Campaign.

When I worked at HRC, not one person had ever heard of Quinlan. So, much for honesty and integrity. I also wonder why PFOX’s Executive Director Regina Griggs has no pictures. Is she ashamed of her work?

The good folks over at Queerty are mad at the Human Rights Campaign for opposing the inclusion of “ex-gays” as a distinct sexual orientation subject to protection under Disney’s non-discrimination policies.

Um. Okay. First let’s read what they had to say on the subject. They start off so good:

In October we learned about the effort from Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, the organization for those cured of The Gay, to get Disney to ban discrimination against ex-gays, the semi-legally protected sexual orientation class. It didn’t go so well.

A shareholder meeting this week saw the proposal get shot down, which Disney’s board recommended, and because there weren’t enough votes to reach a 3 percent threshold the matter cannot be brought up again for another four years.

Good work, shareholders!

The idea of “ex-gays” as a sexual orientation is a little bit silly for a few reasons. First, it suggests that sexual orientation can be changed, which is a farce. Second, if somebody was gay, but is now straight, that person is in theory a heterosexual, and would fall under any existing sexual orientation protections, because one’s sexuality cannot be a reason for termination.

Correct! If ex-gays exist, they’re now heterosexuals, and thus already protected under sexual orientation protections! I can only guess that the original writer of the piece was at this point incapacitated in some way (get well soon?), because the person who completed the piece went completely off the rails:

In a blog post, the Human Rights Campaign calls the shareholder vote a “victory.” Which is a little funny, because isn’t the Human Rights Campaign in favor of prohibiting all types of discrimination?

Us? We support banning workplace discrimination based on any sexuality. And that includes someone who believes he is ex-gay. We don’t want anyone forcing us to fit into the boxes they created, and we refuse to do the same to anyone else. If ex-gays want to be protected, great! We’ll support it! We don’t really believe anyone can ditch homosexuality, but if deep down you think you did, you shouldn’t be targeted in the workplace for identifying as a former ‘mo. Even if PFOX is a laughable institution, there are people out there who believe they are ex-gay, and they should not suffer the torment of workplace harassment for the same reasons gays, bisexuals, and transgender employees should not: because it isn’t right.

GUYS. You won the argument against yourselves in the first paragraphs of your piece. The Human Rights Campaign is indeed against all kinds of discrimination based on sexual orientation, but you just conceded that “ex-gays,” if they exist (!), are heterosexuals! There is no room in the current policies for discrimination against people who say they’re not gay anymore! They’re already covered! To give an inch on this merely (and quite na?Øvely) plays into Regina Griggs’ and PFOX’s inane strategy to create some phantasmagorical parallel reality where people who identify as HETEROSEXUALS are the real victims of discrimination.

Think this through, because the argument you’ve put forth is just as inane as when Tony Perkins flagellates around the television screen complaining about hate crimes laws being used to punish Christians, since religion is protected under hate crimes laws as well.

The Human Rights Campaign (and we at Truth Wins Out) are solidly against discrimination of any sort based on sexual orientation. “Ex-gay” is not a sexual orientation. Even if we were to pretend for a second that “ex-gays” were a real and lasting phenomenon, and even if we were to pretend for a second that there was a shred of truth to anything that comes out of the maws of Regina Griggs and PFOX, then “ex-gays” would be, by definition, HETEROSEXUAL, and again, protected.

Put another way: What the hell kind of discrimination would Richard Cohen and his wife be subjected to if he decided to somehow parlay his pillow tennis racket beat-off extravaganza into a career dressing up as Cinderella during the nightly parade/fireworks show? The wife would get benefits under their family plan, he couldn’t be fired for being married to a woman, etc.

Queerty people: this entire thing from PFOX is a publicity stunt, and you fell for it. I don’t know if this is what you all think of as “encouraging conversation” or being a “dissenting voice,” but there are ways to do that without embarrassing yourselves.

PFOX* is at it again. Jeremy has the scoop:

What sort of silly shenanigans are the PFOX-ers up to now? Well, they are taking one minor procedural determination from The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and acting as if it has lent some kind of validity to their cause.

Here is the breathless press release from PFOX, replete with exaggerations:
(Read More)

The antigay parents group P-FOX is demanding that the Walt Disney Company offer special protection for non-existent ex-gay employees who are already protected, in any event, under existing antidiscrimination policy covering sexual orientation.

According to TowleRoad, P-FOX also falsely claims (again) that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled that “former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws.”

In fact, the city court merely held that mutability of characteristics may not be used under the city’s Human Rights Act as a pretense exclude persons from protection under the city law. The ruling has no effect outside Washington, D.C., due to the extreme breadth of that city’s antidiscrimination law.