The Same Old Stuff PLUS Michigan AFA: Gays are employment risks

I don't usually post much from the likes of the AFA (American Family Association) or its ilk (e.g., the Traditional Values Coalition,  Family Research Council, Exodus International, Catholic League, National Organization for Marriage); the rhetoric is pretty much the same regardless of the organization or event to which these groups respond. 

To whit, on any given subject related to gays and lesbians you will hear any mixture of the following, in no particular order:
A) Homosexuality is a disease /sickness
B) Homosexuality results in mental and/or physical disease
C) Homosexuality is sinful /against God's will (seemingly with extra sin)
D) In accordance to B and/or C, a homosexual can choose to no longer be homosexual
E) Homosexuality undermines traditional / Biblical values
F)Homosexual unions (the most conservative and traditional thing homosexuals could do) threaten traditional / Biblical families (by this they refer to one man and woman, and almost never that man's concubines, other wives, or the woman's father who sold her - also Biblical) and/or seek to redefine marriage (to which I say one can only hope)
G) Acceptance of homosexuals (especially homosexual unions) will lead to acceptance of bestiality, polygamy, and/or pederasty
H) Homosexuals seeks to recruit and/or indoctrinate children
I) Homosexuals sexually molest children
J) Homosexuals rights will lead to religious persecution (of Christians, rarely is any other faith tradition mentioned)
K) Related, homosexuals will force their beliefs and values on everyone, leading to legal prosecution of those who disagree
L) Homosexuality is a lifestyle
M) Homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, usually involving multiple sexual partners and/or drug use
N) Homosexuality engage in deviant sexual behaviors (although rarely specific, the general use of this trope implies sexual behavior well above and beyond simple same-sex acts of oral, vaginal, or anal sex)
O) A cabal of homosexual activists are promoting a gay agenda (no need to get specific unless tied to one of these others)
P) Saying any or all of these things does not make one bigoted or hateful
Q) All of the above

I've probably left a few out, but these are the main talking points, repeated ad infinitum.  Although some bloggers seem to reveal in posting each and every lastest iteration these hate mongers spew, I'm grown rather numb to it.  It's the same thing, over and over again.  While there may be some value in demonstrating just how frequently and copiously these organizations and their representatives (and other individuals, religious and political, copying these assertions), I usually skip them.  It's actually gotten rather boring and predictable.  The terms of the debate haven't changed for a good couple of decades (although Mark Jordan's Recruiting Young Love details the longer evolution of this rhetoric)
and I'm tired of reading it.  I certainly can't be bothered to waste emotional energy on any of it.
Usually, however, you do not see these arguments being applied to suggest that gays and lesbians should be denied employment.  Although it's perfectly legal to discriminate against someone for being gay and lesbian (in the private sector particularly) in most states, rarely do you see individuals or organizations actively speak out agains hiring gay and lesbians.  Gary Glenn, the head of the Michigan AFA, has no such hesitation.  In an interview with right wing extremist Linda Harvey, Glenn argues for the inherent inferiority of gays and lesbians:

What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest. It’s not really bright to engage in behavior that puts you at dramatically higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse and AIDS and cancer and hepatitis, and according to various sources, premature death. So to suggest that engaging in that type of behavior defines someone as the best and brightest, which seems to be the line coming out of corporate America, is just ridiculous.

Harvey agrees, noting, "You’re right. And higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships [ed: not so much]. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t."

For all the ranting about the current (imagined) and (to them) likely persecutions of Christians and homophobes should gay rights advance in America, this is the real face of extremism and persecution.  These individuals would discourage and deny basic employment to gays and lesbians in their perfect theocratic world.  This is far more concering and threatening than opponents to gay marriage.