Before I go on with the main substance of this post, I should mention that a person's sexual orientation is defined by to whom one is attracted, not be sexual behaviour. So when someone identifies there sexual orientation as homosexual or bisexual and face discrimination as a result of this, the discrimination is not, in fact, based on their sexual behaviour, the discrimination is based on their ASSUMED sexual behaviour. Perhaps this seems to some as splitting hairs, but it points out that many of the social conservatives that make the behaviour argument do not truly understand how all of this stuff works, which calls in to question their ability to comment on any of these issues. With that said, I will reiterate the fact that it is still not the job of the government (local, state, or federal) to restrict "homosexual behaviour," which is why the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision came down the way that it did ten years ago. Conversely, Peter Sprigg is on record as saying that "homosexual behaviour" is just cause for incarceration.
Now, back to LGBT people supposedly having the same rights as everyone else. Clearly by him making the claim that gay people have all the same civil rights as everyone else, he is flat out factually incorrect. Straight people generally do not have to worry about being fired/not hired/not promoted because they are heterosexual. Gay people are only protected from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in about half of the states, transgendered people are protected even less than that. Straight people do not have to worry about adoption restrictions based on their sexual orientation. Gay people do not have that same protection in most states, including here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. And of course, there is marriage equality. Straight people can marry the person they love and have all of the legal rights that go therewith. Gay people...not so much, given that over 30 states have statutory or constitutional restrictions of a homophobic nature whereas only nine states plus the District of Columbia have marriage equality legally endorsed, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (which restricts the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages) notwithstanding.
Mr. Sprigg made it very evident that one of two scenarios is true with him: either he does not see the very real discrimination happening here in America, or - and I deem this to be the more likely scenario - he does see it...and celebrates it. What does this say about the character of him and those of like mind?