World Net Daily Founder Joseph Farah Argues That Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Protected ‘Sexual Orientation’

FarahIn a WorldNetDaily column yesterday, founder and editor-in-chief Joseph Farah attempted to argue that opposing same-sex marriage can be considered its own form of "sexual orientation" and should therefore be protected under non-discrimination laws.

Citing this month's story of the anti-gay New York wedding venue that was ordered to pay a $13,000 fine after refusing service to a same-sex couple, Farah argues that the owners, Robert and Cynthia Gifford, were simply following their own Biblical-based "sexual orientation" 

Writes Farah

Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman?

The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others.

Farah then proceeds to wrap up his nutty column by logically tying the gay rights movement with Islamic radicals:

When “non-discrimination” becomes victimization of those with different religious and moral convictions, we literally have the establishment of a state religion and, effectively, the repeal of the First Amendment. […]

I only see that kind of coercion demanded among two groups of people today – those who believe in the unlimited power of the state as their “god” and others who believe their god wants them to kill or subjugate all “infidels.”

[via Right Wing Watch]


  1. Bryan L says


    None of that makes any sense whatsoever. Was he drunk AND stoned when he came up with his “hypothetical intellectual challenge”?

  2. Vint says

    When you’ve completely given up on even appearing to be intellectually honest, you’ve entered the black hole of public discourse.

    No light ever comes out of the black hole. Future pronouncements can be ignored with no risk of missing anything illuminating.

  3. Lymis says

    “opposing same sex marriage” is not an orientation. Being straight is, and should have the same protections as being gay or bi or any other flavor.

    Any more than “believing that black people aren’t euqlly human” is a race of its own.

    Gay people in business shouldn’t be able to refuse to serve straight people for being straight any more than straight people should be able to refuse to serve gay people because they are gay.

    But of course, the laws he’s complaining about already do that.

  4. ToThePoint says

    “intellectual”???? AAAAHHHHHAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just ruptured my spleen on that one. Don’t you know intelligence is required for any kind of intellectual challenge!

  5. SFshawn says

    Nice Pornstash for a serious self-loathing, intellectually dishonest and utterly useless closet case! Blather on…..

  6. Bill says

    Maybe someone can find it on youtube, but some years ago I saw a video of a humorous interview with Joseph Farah where the interviewer complemented Farah on his clothes with just the right tone of voice to suggest that the interviewer was interested in Farah, and Farah responded positively. At one point, they faded the video of him out and replaced him with Robin Williams in The Birdcage and Farah’s mustache (at the time) and clothing was nearly a prefect match for the character Williams was playing. I sort of remember him saying that homosexuality was dangerous because it was so hard to resist – something like that.

    It was pretty funny – they made him look like a real closet case.

  7. CPT_Doom says

    If you read his whole column, he claims that a Jewish baker should not be, and would not be forced to, bake a wedding cake for a Christian couple that included a cross. He also claims that a gay photographer should not be, and would not be forced to, photograph a wedding that included the couple getting a picture in front of a religious banner. Yet both those cases would be subject to existing anti-discrimination laws and, in fact, those vendors would not be able to refuse the work because of their religious lifestyle choices.

  8. Rocco says

    What a moron. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess. I’m going to enjoy it for the comedy that it is.

  9. BobN says

    “Why did he staple that huge caterpillar to his face?”

    I’ve never seen a man with a mustache like that who didn’t also have a unibrow.

    He’s obviously a plucker.

  10. james street james says

    Remember the good old days, centuries ago, when Christian “intellectuals” sat around and argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? Why can’t they go back to that? It was never resolved. Remains an open question for all Christians.

    Now they do nothing but cry for special rights. So unbecoming for god’s chosen few.

  11. radioredrafts says

    Wow, he actually confused sexual orientation with religion. Just, wow.

    I am officially flummoxed.

  12. Bernie says

    I’m not even sure how or where to begin with Mr. Farah as he is talking in squares and circles….His theory or what ever it is he said doesn’t even qualify as a point of view………it is so warped and crazy….I often wonder if there is a wing nut school, where wing nuts go and try and beat out each other with the nuttiest statements……..These right wing folks continue to be extremely dim witted and most don’t even know the definition of sexual orientation……I think these ideas are said to help justify and defend their anti-gay behaviors….yes, maybe the mustache is part of his costume to go to western gay nights in the bar!!!

  13. anon says

    The courts actually don’t accept hypotheticals during trials. You can’t say “he might have wanted to kill his wife”, you have to establish that “he wanted to kill his wife”. So, by the same rules you can’t introduce hypothetical sexual orientations into a legal argument. Further, you have to demonstrate a history of discrimination. Variations on “reverse discrimination”, which is what this is, are generally not allowed in court cases as the offended class has no history of being discriminated against. Thus, there’s no remedy under the law. The closest you can get are “race and gender neutral” regulations, which show that certain policies bend over backwards too far to promote minorities, but that’s not what’s at stake here.

  14. Diogenes Onionpants says

    By saying that opposing gay marriage constitutes a sexual orientation, what he’s ultimately admitting is that opposing civil rights gives him a boner.

  15. andrew says

    If he actually reads the Judeo-Christian Scriptures he will see that the god Yahweh actually approved of the plural marriages of many of his favorites. One example: He is quoted as saying to David: “didn’t I give you all of Saul’s concubines and wives as your own”. Seems those pesky Mormons had it right.

  16. Nickman says

    Well, it is. Just as being gay is a religion and therefore should have the same legal protections, including tax exempt status.

  17. jwchenard says

    The “intellectual challenge” that seems to be confounding Farah is that of mentally separating the concept of a person’s ‘religious beliefs’ and the legally unrelated issue of businesses not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, orientation, etc.

    Had the venue in New York refused to host a mixed-race ceremony, or a mixed-faith ceremony, or a marriage in which one partner was divorced but had not received a church annulment, or a marriage in which one Christian partner had not yet been baptized, they would have faced the same legal sanctions.

    This problem seems to be endemic to the far-right Bible wavers. The overarching influence that their faith imposes on their own lives is such that they can not conceive that for many others, who are either less-literal in their interpretation of Christian doctrine or not Christians at all, such factors are irrelevant.

    Mind you, this is the same guy that banned Ann Coulter from speaking at his org’s events because she had the temerity to accept a speaking engagement at a GOProud event. The ensuing media spat memorably concluded with her calling him a swine. And he was detained a few weeks ago for trying to bring a handgun onto a plane. So there’s a significant grain-of-salt factor here.