I was actually thinking of more along the lines of Civil suites where illegal activities are not in question. I do think it is a very valid thought, and I don't think that any organization should get special treatment over any other organization. I think that if this were "Dog Lovers Bar" and the example thompson used was "Cats lovers bar" people would not be so much up in arms..but the unfortunate examples are two rather inflammatory groups.
Well, even in civil suits there is some sort of substance and there's someone claiming they are hurt. It would still require a judge to be able to say "disturbing neighbours with loud music is bad, but they were lesbians so I'll rule in their favor", which I think would require some very weird judge. (who'd probably get disbarred:P)
A bigger danger is actually people having 'ins' with the bar by simply being friends in private lives. I don't know how severe scrutiny there is over such matters, but I'd assume it would take care of both.
People see "Gay and Lesbian groups" against "Christian groups" and it all comes back dwn to "oh those nasty bigotted people" rather then thinking "Um why should One group recieve special treatment?"
From what I know about Christianity in general, a Christian group could just as likely be:
- homophobic and attacking homosexual rights
- anti-homosexual by doctrine but refraining from trying to make their beliefs law
- neutral on the issue
- accepting of gay members and gay marriages
- actively pro-gay and believing homophobia to be sinful
Of course the former groups are sometimes larger and almost always very loud, so there's the perception that Christianity and Homosexualism are some sort of 'opposing forces' that Thompson plays on.
Frankly I think he's being an ass both towards homosexuals and towards Christians by this and I believe that in a truly just society neither sexual orientation or religious conviction should need to be political.
And I would like to add, that I don't think I ever said that Homophobia deserves Neutrality. I said that Political offices should have neutrality rather then singling out one organization over another to give special treatment to. That is all.
I think that the way it works here is that the official organization gives support to those organizations that seem to need it the most. In this case, a group that is known for finding itself in many legal battles.
Personally I believe that a religious group that would face persecution of some kind should also get this sort of support if they'd ask for it. Of course I'd hope they wouldn't use an argument of "If gays got it than should too!" but just explain why are they in need.
On other hand, someone could theoretically argue that no organization ever should ever get this sort of assistance, no matter how just their cause is. But that's a pretty rigid, orthodox policy that I think might not be worth it.