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.