How Many Gay People, Exactly, Would 'Christian' Lawyer Mat Staver Like To Lynch?

The Liberty Counsel demands protections for LGBTQ people be removed from anti-lynching bill.

Last month, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, and Sen. Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, introduced a bill establishing lynching as a hate crime. It passed the Senate unanimously, because what politician wants to be known in 2018 as a pro-lynching candidate? (Steve King, probably, but he is in the House.)

One would hope that lynching would just be one of those things we all collectively agree is bad, like serial killing or a toilet bowl filled with cockroaches or those freaking smug ass Charmin bears. "Lynching is bad" is truly the lowest possible common human decency setting.

OR SO YOU WOULD THINK.

Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel (an SPLC-designated hate group) whom you may recall from the time he was Kim Davis's stupid lawyer, is not happy with this legislation at all. Specifically, he is demanding that references to "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" be stricken from the bill before it is put to another vote. He claims it was passed "without some senators realizing an amendment was added providing special rights for homosexuals and transgenders." Ah, yes, the "special right" of not being lynched.

---

I would like to imagine that the senators who passed it -- again, that's all of them! -- were well-aware that it included such an amendment, and all collectively agreed that it was maybe good to not murder people just because their sexual orientation or gender identity upsets you. Then again, there is not a lot I would put past Republicans when it comes to cruelty or stupidity.

Staver claims that passing this bill will lead to LGBTQ+ people getting even more "special rights."

"The old saying is once that camel gets the nose in the tent, you can't stop them from coming the rest of the way in," he explains. "And this would be the first time that you would have in federal law mentioning gender identity and sexual orientation as part of this anti-lynching bill."

No one can or should oppose a bill that bans lynching, says the Liberty Counsel attorney, and thus it's being used as back door approach to pass legislation such as the controversial Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

"So far they've been unsuccessful over the many years in the past," Staver observes, "but this is a way to slip it in under a so-called anti-lynching bill, and to then to sort of circle the wagon and then go for the juggler [sic] at some time in the future."

And soon they'll get all kinds of "special rights." What those are, we cannot even begin to imagine. Perhaps they'll be able to cut in front of you at the airport or get free scoops of ice cream at all participating Baskin Robbins, even when it is not their birthday. Who knows? Clearly, it is a very slippery slope. First you can't even lynch people, then you can't fire them for who they're boning, then they get to legally force you to be a human sushi buffet at some Bacchanalian gathering where everyone is wearing a fancy mask. It is sheer madness!

When will all these crazy liberals with their far out ideas learn to understand that it is just too soon for people like Mat Staver, who perhaps aren't yet sure that they've gotten their lifetime fill of lynching in yet.

Is it that? Is it that Mat Staver would like to lynch some people? How many people, exactly, would fill his quota? Because this really does seem like a pretty weird thing to oppose unless one has "lynch a gay person" on their bucket list.

[ NBC News ]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!