Phoenix_person

I'm aware of the implication, which is why I'm careful about the context in which I use it. When I say "alt-right", I'm talking about people who deny the Holocaust, think white people are being bred into extinction, and spit slurs faster than Eminem spits verses.

I've checked in on a few. Most of them are Jewish atheists who are pro-Palestine, and certainly very much against any further Jewish loss of life as well. There's a reason why the left's stance for over 6 months has been to call for an immediate ceasefire. We don't want any more death on either side.

True. But that doesn't change the fact that he has considerable influence, or that elected members of Congress were in attendance. It may be on the far right, but the far right seems to be getting bigger by the day. I think I've previously acknowledged (and condemned) the fact that some people on the left have taken anti-Zionist rhetoric too far, to the point of taking into the realm of antisemitism. I condemn it every time I see it. And yes, I do see it out there. I also see a lot of people who mistake anti-Zionism of any sort with antisemitism. Anti-Zionism supports a true two-state solution. But that's not the current fight. The current fight is to get Israel to stop blowing up children. If I seem soft on my side, it's because I've seen too many Palestinian kids with missing limbs and heads. I imagine that may be fueling some of the rhetoric we've seen in the halls of government. It doesn't make it right. I don't love the fact that "FTRTTS" has become a battle cry for people who I know for a fact bear no ill will towards the rank-and-file citizens of Israel, but it underscores the fact that a truly peaceful coexistence between the two nations may not be possible. 1948 isn't far from living memory, when over a half million Palestinians were forced from their homes. Israel deserved their own nation, but that wasn't the way to go about it. Not even close. I would hope that it goes without saying that I don't want to see either side eradicated. Most of us don't. We just want Palestine to be free. That puts us in a position where we're at odds with both the Israeli and US governments. But as I said elsewhere, I prefer to stand with the little guy whenever possible.

That's simultaneously surprising and refreshing, and it's something you don't have in common with multiple members of Congress and at least one former president. For context, AFPAC was billed as an "alternative" to CPAC (from which Fuentes is banned; he was also kicked out of Charlie Kirk's org, TPUSA). Paul Gosar also spoke there. America First is a movement started by Fuentes that has been lauded by Trump, MTG, Gosar, and several other prominent MAGA politicians and activists. I tried to come up with a leftist equivalent to this picture. The best I could come up with is that it's like Ilhan Omar shaking hands with Shaun King, which somehow feels like an insult to both Omar and Fuentes. So I guess I'm not very well-versed on the non-elected extremists on my side either.

I could have told you that based on the title alone. Imagine a world where virtually everyone is 100% honest with each other in day-to-day interactions. What do you suppose that would look like? I operate on the outskirts of the political realm, and even from a reasonably safe distance, it's painfully obvious to me that it's impossible to be a truly honest politician. They simply don't exist. That doesn't mean they're all bad people. I'm quite fond of most of the people who represent me in government. I'm even thinking about volunteering on my state rep's reelection campaign. But a lot of political strategy requires some sort of dishonesty and deception, and no political "sides", extreme or centrist, are immune. I'm on the spectrum, so that's been a difficult adjustment for me. I don't usually struggle with tact (I used to), but directness is typically my default. I've had to work on that a bit in my current volunteer capacity. Welcome to the Thunderdome.

NGL, I kinda feel bad for the dude. But still. 😂😂😂😂

I used to feel that way. Then Georgia elected a woman who does photo ops with Nick Fuentes and pushes antisemitic conspiracy theories. Then the Minnesota GOP officially endorsed this guy to challenge the DFL state representative who represents my former district. His name is Wes Lund, if you want to look him up. He likes to show up at city council meetings wearing shirts that say things like "It's okay to be white" and "White Lives Matter". He doesn't have a shot a winning, luckily, but guys like him are running for office in far less blue places. BTW, the district he's running in is home to a considerable portion of our (legal) Somalian and Mexican immigrants. I don't know who's in charge of endorsements at the MNGOP, but they're not sending their best and brightest. Point is, the internet trolls are being legitimized. Seeing hateful rhetoric online is one thing. That's been a problem for years. But now they're running for public office, and some of them are winning. They're getting into school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and the United States Congress, and they're bringing their hateful alt-right ideas with them to marginalize anyone who doesn't fit their particular conservative archetype. You can certainly make an argument that the same is happening on my side. I'm not saying that's right. It's not. But given the choice between defending 7% (LGBTQ) of our country's population or 70% (Christians), I'm going to stand with those who have a stronger need for allies. FWIW, I also try to be a voice of reason in the face of some of the more extreme elements on my side. I don't have any particular amount of concern for Christianity specifically, but a lifetime ago I swore to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I'm no longer bound to that oath, but I still try to live by it the best I can. And ultimately, if they can come for Christianity, they can (and do) come for less prominent/powerful religions in this country.

It's happening for me on my phone as well.

All I know about Barry's politics is that he's mostly apolitical, though when he does bring up politics he tends to swing in both directions. He's mostly a sports parody account, though. Here's more from the guy that replied to him, from a keyword search. Barry and another (less apolitical but still very nonpartisan) sports comedy account I follow have noticed upticks in flagrantly antisemitic and at times blatantly pro-nazi responses when they take even the softest swings at the right (lefties who don't get the bit usually either block and move on or try to have a serious debate; the latter never goes well for them). Barry's tweet was intended to illustrate that point, and it worked. Here's the other guy (3 Year Letterman). I don't even think he was trying to bait anyone here, except maybe Elijah. Here's a source you may be more familiar with, and a sampling of responses to a fairly tame post making fun of white supremacists. Note how many people in these comments have blue checkmarks, indicating that they pay monthly to have their content prioritized in the feed (and often monetized). Seth's follow-up tweet didn't go well either, in case you're wondering. Definitely some hit dogs hollering. I know the internet isn't the most accurate picture of our society, but it offers glimpses of how our minds work when we're shrouded in faceless anonymity. I've been poking the right wing bear for years on the internet. And with the lone exception of Gab (which I gave up after my incident because I needed some peace), I don't even necessarily seek out the extreme elements. But they sure are easy to find these days. Even just 5 years ago, you wouldn't see stuff like this on the major social media outlets without severe backlash. Now, it's just another Tuesday. And if they're willing to say stuff like this in defense of Nazis and white supremacy, imagine the kinds of things they're spewing with impunity about the LGBTQ community. I know my side can be toxic and hateful towards Christians. I hate that, truly, especially when it's aimed at well-meaning people, which is how I've always viewed you. I'm sorry that you've had that experience.

The suburbs, mostly. And they're primarily liberals, not leftists/progressives.

First things first, equating LGBTQ identity/behavior to suicide is disgusting. As a former believer, I understand where views like that come from. As a suicide survivor (and just barely), believe me when I say that you're going to push more people to my side than yours with rhetoric like that. That's all I'm going to say on that subject. Please don't push it any further. I would prefer not to get banned from these forums. I don't believe that churches should go out of business, but it's very likely that quite a few will if they continue to preach against LGBTQ people. That's not persecution, it's just the reality of the world we live in. FWIW, I'm perfectly content to end up being wrong about this. Why would you persecute Protestants like that? 😉 To be clear, I don't believe that any major Christian denomination is going to disappear entirely. When I talk about churches closing their doors, I'm talking about individual congregations, not the monoliths of Baptist/Methodist/Catholic/Orthodox/etc faiths. Well, it looks like we're both re-writing history, apparently. I think I've mentioned before that this isn't the only place I go to discuss politics and religion with "the other side", it's just the least toxic. And boy howdy is "non-toxic" becoming rare in a lot of conservative spaces. This forum is where I go when I (a cishet non-Jewish white man) want a break from being called every racist and homophobic slur in the book. It used to be limited to Gab and other bottom-shelf websites, but ever since Elon legalized free speech on Twitter, it's blown up there, and apparently Zuckerberg decided to match, because there's been a noticeable uptick in Nazi hate speech there as well. I realize that you can always find the worst in humanity if you look hard enough, especially in the digital age, but it seems like it's hiding in plain sight more and more. And in case you think I'm being hyperbolic, here's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Yes, Barry posted it as bait (and FWIW, he very rarely gets "political"). But it's an accurate snapshot of what it can be like to navigate political discourse in even some of the more mainstream corners of the internet. Offline, I spend a lot of time doing work in political organizing spaces (with a faith-based organization, believe it or not). That means I'm at city council and school board meetings a lot, as well as sitting in on town halls from both parties. I've had great conversations with conservative folks, especially up here in a purple state (Texas was... a different experience). I've also been called multiple slurs to my face and even had someone tell me, in person, that I "should finish the job". In both online and in-person political circles, it's rare that I see LGTBQ issues mentioned without the words "groomer" and "pedo" being thrown around. Those words have practically been defanged from overuse (ditto "woke"and "DEI" in derogatory use). If one doesn't want to be called a hateful bigot, then perhaps throwing homophobic slurs at people simply for being LGBTQ or defending them isn't the best idea. That's not it. I've said it before and it bears repeating: I don't believe that there are hateful bigots on this forum. Some of the terminology I use may seem excessive in that light, but believe me when I say that my view of conservative Christianity would be considerably different if my overall experience in conservative Christian spaces, both online and IRL, was more like this and less like Gab. If it seems that I'm calling anyone here hateful or a bigot, please accept my apology and know that that isn't the case. This seems to be turning into an argument of belief vs practice. In practice, which is what I meant, heterosexuality is still very much the norm. I'm willing to (quite gladly) concede that this isn't the case for belief. Let's look at interracial couples*. Interracial couples make up roughly 30% of couples in the US (with same-sex couples having a slightly higher percentage, for whatever that's worth). 94% of Americans approve of interracial relationships. So about 2/3 of Americans approve of the relationship without adhering to it themselves. I see the same thing happening in regard to LGBTQ identity. They're still very much a minority in this country, but they're more accepted by the cis-het demographic than they used to be. And in the case of the LGBTQ community, that means less people being violently assaulted, ruthlessly bullied, and generally discriminated against, and I would hope that those benefits can be appreciated regardless of religious belief, benefits that were largely the result of the Pride campaigns and school curriculums that conservatives are fighting against. And yes, a by-product of those things is that more people are coming out because they feel safe questioning their sexuality. After all, unlike interracial couples, most queer folks are able to hide in plain sight if they want or need to. *Yes, I know a different discussion has sprung up around this. I'll address that in a different post. I mentioned the Sacred Band of Thebes earlier. They supposedly defeated a Spartan unit (and historians have theories about them, too), but the Spartans got the movie deal? C'mon, man. For real though Greek history is filled with some pretty "alpha" gay dudes. So how is it that homosexuality is viewed as emasculating and weak? Perhaps we should ask the guys who eventually conquered them, the same empire that eventually converted to Christianity and abolished the old sexual traditions. Also, I was well into my 20s when I learned that at least some of the Shakespeare sonnets I read in high school were more probably than not written for men. Something DID happen. Society started softening its attitudes towards the LGBTQ community, which meant that people started to feel safer coming out, which meant that more people came out. It also means that more people with LGBTQ traits are able to identify it at a younger age and grow into their sexuality in a safe environment.

Yes, thank you. Apologies for misunderstanding.

Are you sure you want to talk about contemporary Christianity? On THIS website?? Christianity has been getting tweaked and updated for centuries. That's why there are so many Christian denominations these days, including one that claims that the true gospel of Christ was gone from the Earth by the time the Bible was canonized, yet still accepts the Bible as canon (as far as it is translated correctly). And THAT church isn't recognized as Christian by the denominations that were at that table hundreds of years ago because it adheres to extrabiblical scripture. "Contemporary" Christians would have persecuted you as a heretic right alongside me and my gay buddies. People tend to forget what "bisexual" means, apparently. "Non-binary" is a gender identity, not a sexual orientation. And statistically speaking, half of the people who identify as bisexual are likely to enter into opposite-sex relationships. That doesn't mean that they aren't also attracted to the same sex. In the case of LGBTQ, one of the biggest obstacles to remove was faith-based intolerance and discrimination. The LGBTQ community seems oppressive to religious people because religious people have historically been their strongest (and most violent) opponents*. In order to remove THAT obstacle, it's necessary to dismantle some of the religious views around LGBTQ behavior. So yes, children are being taught that sometimes a loving home has two daddies or two mommies, or that sometimes people decide to change their gender, is a necessary part of removing those societal obstacles. You're still free to teach them whatever religious views you want on the subject or to send them to a school that matches your religious convictions, but public schools exist to prepare ALL kids for happy, successful lives, not just Christian kids. *The second-largest obstacle to LGBTQ people thriving is a sub-category of the first, and that's parents. I don't necessarily agree with the stance that some districts take of keeping issues of a child's sexuality and gender identity a secret from parents, but I see the need for SOME type of safeguard to exist for kids whose parents may respond to such news with abuse. If you spend time talking to people in the LGBTQ people and getting to know them, then you know that this is still a very real concern, even in 2024. And to be clear, I'm not calling religious teaching or "firm but gentle" conservative parenting abusive. I'm talking about severe physical, mental, and emotional harm. It's happening to kids all over the country. It's not as widespread as it was than when I was a kid (and I'm probably one of the younger pisters here), but it's still a real problem that schools need to plan for and react to. Where do you get that figure from?

Some did. He flipped a handful of very red rural counties, but not enough to beat Ted (who isn't exactly winning any popularity contests among non-MAGA Texas Republicans).

You're twisting what I said. I only mentioned leftists, not Democrats. Leftists are a minority in the Democratic Party, but a large enough group that ignoring them is unwise. Just ask Hillary. "Significant" =/= "majority". Bernie got 45% of the primary vote in 2016 and 26% in 2020 (some leftists, like myself, voted for Liz Warren, who got 7.7%). If you take away 30% of the Democratic vote from the 2020 election, Trump wins. THAT'S why the leftist minority matters. And most leftists still only voted for Biden because his opponent was Trump. And the percentage of Republicans who are not MAGA (about 24%, based on this year's primary*) is more than enough to keep Trump out of office if they really want to. Just like Dems will never win another general election without the leftist vote, the GOP needs never-Trump Republicans to win elections. *In a previous draft of this post, I broke down the margin of victory for every incumbent president in my lifetime, which goes back to Reagan. I ended up losing that draft and I don't feel like re-doing the numbers because ultimately the exact numbers aren't important and they're easy to find. But it's worth noting that, with the exception of HW Bush (who went on to lose the general), every incumbent Republican president since Reagan has won over 90% of the primary vote. Of THOSE presidents, Trump in 2020 was the only one to slip under 95% (but not by much, to be fair). I also noticed that every incumbent Dem got around 90% of the primary vote in their reelection years. Biden wasn't even that much of an outlier this year at 87% compared to Clinton in '96 and Obama in '08. Trump's 76%, however, could be significant. Once again, Biden's opponent may be his ticket to victory. A significant portion of Democrat voters are leftists, yes. I'd say at least 30%. And yes, it makes more sense to reach out to them than to Republicans, though the latter is never off the table, (*stares in Hillary's direction*) especially in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I did some phonebanking for Beto O'Rourke in 2018. His campaign really impressed me in that it was the first political campaign I'd seen where a candidate was able to win over both leftists AND some Republican centrists. He got 48% of the vote in his loss to Ted Cruz, which is significantly more than any Democratic Senate candidate has received in Texas since 1976, which was also the last time a Dem won a US Senate race in Texas. So, yes, bilateral outreach matters. Republicans seem to be forgetting that. As a former Marylander, I've been watching Larry Hogan's Senate race carefully. I think he could be another bridge between radicals on one side (MAGA) and centrists (Dems) on the other, though apparently the RNC is reluctant to give him their full support. Link

The Bible I grew up reading portrayed Christ as someone who always showed compassion and warmth to those who deserved it, and quite often to those who didn't. There were exceptions, sure, but I think it's pretty clear that the foundation of Jesus' biblical ministry was love (which, yes, is different from acceptance or tolerance). Yes, I frequently see this story cited by "Christians" trying to justify hateful behavior towards minorities, foreigners, and LGBTQ people. But what type of person was it that Jesus was truly going after with whips and flipping tables? I'll give you a hint: I think you missed both the point and the ending of that story. That train left the station long before the 60s. There's no need to be hyperbolic. Heterosexuality is still the norm in our society. Practicing heterosexuality isn't bigoted. Telling someone else that THEY need to practice heterosexuality is. That doesn't mean I believe that churches should change their stance on LGBTQ issues. I believe in religious freedom. I also believe that the free market will eventually put a squeeze on a lot of churches that shut out LGBTQ people. That's not persecution, though, it's just free will at work. As I said earlier in this thread, Christianity is fighting to maintain relevance in an environment where there's a new Catholic priest or Baptist youth pastor being charged with sexual assault of a minor seemingly every week. The anti-LGBTQ messages are still alive and well in some churches, but some congregations are no longer receptive to that. It's not persecution when your congregation rejects your message. Sure. But since when do we all need to be Christian? And no, non-het behavior has not historically been 100% forbidden in non-Christian cultures. Ancient gays were written out of the history books by historians that were overwhelmingly Christian, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist or were universally persecuted. Look up the Sacred Band of Thebes. And don't get me started on the theories about King David and Jonathan.

Rise, my brothers, we are blessed by steel....

You know what they say: if you go far enough left, you get to keep your guns.

Speaking of Trump, felonies, and shady financial dealings, Dinesh D'Souza's film "2000 Mules" just got pulled off the market. You remember Dinesh, right? He was convicted (and later pardoned by Trump) for making illegal political contributions by *checks notes* using mules.

She was investigated by the FBI. James Comey even re-opened the investigation two weeks before the election. There was never a recommendation to indict her. That's probably why Trump fired Comey. The previous investigating didn't leave DOJ much room to act.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that most leftists would be happy to see Trump and Biden sharing a prison cell at some point in the future. Maybe Hunter can have the cell next door. Trump's recent convictions are an outlier in a system that typically favors people like Donald Trump. If it weren't for people in power putting knives in each others backs, we might not have a single convicted white collar criminal in this country. Trump made a lot of enemies during his time in office. The fact that his enemies turned the law against him is an indictment of the toxicity of American politics, not an indictment of the legal system itself. If Trump didn't want his enemies using his crimes against him, then perhaps he shouldn't have committed so many crimes. And yes, I will gladly say the same about Biden if a day ever comes when he faces credible criminal charges. I truly hope that holding politicians accountable for criminal behavior becomes a new norm, even if the reasons for doing so may be politically-motivated. Perhaps it will result in a new class of politicians that actually respect the law. I doubt it, though.

I'm sure Shaun King is taking notes. Yes, it turns out that there are consequences when you break the law, even if you're a former president. Crazy, right? One can only hope. And to be clear, Trump has been convicted of zero crimes charged by Biden's DoJ. That may happen later in the stolen documents case, but for now it's important to remember that the current convictions (all 34 of them) are from the state of New York exclusively.

Pharm-to-Table is the way of the future.

My post was primarily a direct response to @person0 rather than a direct response to your OP. Your goalpost: People who reject LGBTQ lifestyles will eventually be persecuted and marginalized for it and their kids will be taken from their heteronormative homes and placed in LGBTQ-friendly ones. Person0's goalpost: Christians currently ARE being persecuted and marginalized through the removal of kids from Christian households. That's the implication I got when I asked for clarification, anyway. I inferred it from person0's post. If I inferred incorrectly, I'll welcome further clarification from him. Again, I wasn't addressing your exact words, per se. At least not directly. Person0 made an implication that Christian children are currently being removed from their homes on grounds that Christian households are inherently abusive. That's what I was addressing. And the fact that there's a difference between being LGBTQ vs supporting the LGBTQ lifestyle is true, and it takes the fangs out of your OP (which barely had teeth to begin with). Cishet identity is still the majority identity, by a lot. LGBTQ identity has increased in recent years (in part simply because it's safer to come out than it was 40 years ago), but they still make up less than 15% of our population. The rest of us, more or or less, are still having babies. Some left-leaning folks have kids who show LBGTQ tendencies, but a lot of us don't. We're not brainwashing our kids to be LGBTQ, we're simply teaching them that it's a valid lifestyle so they won't be afraid to talk openly with us if they ever feel unsure of their identity or sexuality. Then what motivated you to make a post predicting, without any logical basis, that LGBTQ acceptance will eventually render traditional Christian values illegal? You talk about leftist talking points, straw men, and fallacies on a thread that is based entirely on subjective conjecture. Again, I was never addressing you directly. At that point, I wasn't necessarily addressing person0 either. His stance seems like it might be based in some variation of White Replacement Theory in which LGBTQ folks and their allies abduct Christian children and force traditional Christianity into extinction. But I won't assume that about him. Keep in mind, this website is a dying breed of conservative-coded platforms where I can say the things I do without being called the n-word, a Jew, a pedo, or any combination of ethnic/racial/homophobic slurs (and to be clear, I am 100% a non-Jewish cishet white man). I don't believe anyone who posts here is a bigot, but I don't reserve that assumption for most hard right folks I encounter online (or even IRL lately), and the way they talk, apart from being more colorful, isn't that much different from some of the things I see said here sometimes. Fear of LGBTQ goon squads rounding up cishet Christians and putting them in some kind of rainbow gulag has permeated far right circles. You don't have to connect many dots to get from your OP to the hateful stance that a lot of conservatives take against LGBTQ people. So if it seems that I'm unnecessarily reactionary here, keep in mind that respectful discussion on this topic is a courtesy I frequently attempt, but rarely receive outside of this website. Is it possible that, at least in some cases, LGBTQ church members simply realized that the church was never going to fully accept them, so they left to try to find a better spiritual fit for them? That's primarily been the case with the handful of queer LDS members I know who walked away from the church. Naturally, everyone has different experiences and I don't doubt that some LGBTQ members, especially in Utah, might be a bit louder about their exit. But mostly, I think they're just moving on to worldviews that they view as more... relevant. That's great. Bigotry is far less common in LDS circles compared to your born-again counterparts. LDS bigots are out there, though. And yes, I personally know a few. What would you call it when someone claims to be loving towards LGBTQ people, but groans and complains any time they're talked about in a positive way, see them cast in movies and TV shows, or show any kind of deviance from heteronormative behavior in public? We have entire states erasing LGBTQ education in schools because they think the purpose of it is to turn kids gay/trans (spoiler alert, it's not). "Don't ask, don't tell" was abolished by the military, but is still alive and well in the minds of millions of Americans, and it's more widespread than you give it credit for. I think we (regardless of political or religious loyalty) tend to unjustifiably view universities as a microcosm of our society. That's not to say that the story you shared about Riley Gaines is irrelevent or not disturbing, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that that's the norm of how these issues play out. The boring, uneventful instance of a trans person politely correcting someone who misgendered them isn't going to end up on Youtube, but I'd wager that's a much more common occurance than a 300 lb bearded ma'am putting someone in a chokehold. Heck, I've been corrected before. It happens. And most of the time, there's a polite correction, a quick apology, and that's the end of it. I think we will eventually have to set some clear standards regarding trans people in sports. I don't know what the solution is. I don't think an outright trans ban is the way to go, but it would be useful to establish minimum transition requirements, especially in womens' sports. At a certain point, hormonal transition makes it virtually impossible for a trans woman to compete as a man (and vice versa, for opposite reasons). No, I'm not. I addressed this a few paragraphs up. "Don't say gay" policies are meant to erase LGBTQ people. It's not made up when several school districts and at least one entire state is doing it. Teaching kids that LGBTQ people exist is not indoctrination, it's education.

It seems like you're shifting goalposts from people being persecuted for not being LGBTQ-tolerant to people being persecuted for being non-Christian. Both goalposts are incorrect, I might add. The math just doesn't check out. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that less than 15% of the US population is an existential threat to ~70% of the US population. Yes, Christians have lost roughly 10% of their strength in the US in the last 20 years, but they're/you're still the dominant American religious demographic, and it's not particularly close. I feel like some conservative Christians feel threatened by the fact other lifestyles and worldviews, lifestyles you don't approve of, are gaining traction in our society. But you're still in the overwhelming majority. The fact that minority demographics are getting more visibility in our culture doesn't mean that Christian traditionalists are being erased. What *is* at risk is the overall relevance of religion in modern Western culture. The Catholic and Baptist churches, in particular, have been plagued by poorly-handled sexual assault and child molestation allegations, yet they blame the LGBTQ community for their empty pews. A lot of Christian pastors (and some LDS members) spew anti-LGBTQ hate based on nothing other than contempt based on dogma, and there's no place in today's society for that. A lot of you pay lip service to "live and let live", but what you really mean is "I live how I choose and you live in the shadows if your lifestyle offends me". Remember all the fuss when the live-action Beauty of the Beast came out and one of the minor characters was *gasp* GAY??? 😱 Pretending LGBTQ people don't exist to the point of getting upset any time they appear in your sightline isn't "live and let live". It's a phobia. Queer people don't want to eradicate cishet people, they just want to peacefully and respectfully coexist with us. And yes, that means you need to respect your LGBTQ co-worker's pronouns if you want any chance of them respecting your religious beliefs and practices. It's a two-way street.