I have never commented on WDRB General Manager Bill Lamb’s “Point of View” editorial. I’m not an expert on it.

But this week, in an editorial titled “LEO’s gay stance is intolerant,” Mr. Lamb decided to disparage and misrepresent LEO Weekly and my recent column supporting a protest of the Kentucky Farm Bureau’s anti-LGBTQ, discriminatory policies.

WDRB 41 Louisville News

I respect Mr. Lamb and others in the media who use their platforms to start a conversation on important issues, and if they disagree with my views, I generally don’t respond, because my word is not the final word … it’s, like Mr. Lamb’s, a conversation starter.

But Mr. Lamb’s attack on LEO deserves clarification. Here is my response to a few highlights from his editorial:

“I’m not an expert on LEO Magazine, because despite publishing good and thoughtful articles, I’m not a fan of the vulgar language and the pornography they also publish …”

Thanks, Mr. Lamb, for increasing our readership by 1,000 percent — among 13-year-olds.

“LEO panders to gay readers, and if that’s a big percentage of the audience, then why wouldn’t it?”

While Mr. Lamb claims to be no “expert” on LEO, he sure plays one on TV. As the owner and editor of LEO, I can tell you, yes, we do have LGBTQ readers. We also have readers who like bourbon, music, food and art, but we would never pander to them or anyone … unless it’s really funny. Like now. Our readers also prefer Target over Walmart. That’s probably because Target is a good, upstanding corporate neighbor, which supports things like bathroom rights for all! But we would never pander to Target shoppers.

“The Farm Bureau is a collaborative owned and run by farmers …”

So … not really. I mean, you could say the NRA is a little collaborative owned and run by gun owners, but, well, you can say whatever you want. Like LEO publishes porn. Really, the Farm Bureau is an insurance company with an affiliated lobbying organization. And within its stated mission is room for it to actively lobby our elected officials with an agenda that is anti-gay rights, which are American rights, which makes it an anti-American position.


“… and [The Farm Bureau] apparently failed to embrace and support all things gay …”

No, the Farm Bureau has failed to embrace the fact that the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land. And please, Mr. Lamb, don’t inflate the bureau’s anti-gay advocacy into some noble stand against a hypothetical master scheme by the LGBTQ community. The LGBTQ community and its friends only want you to embrace your right to live your own life, and get out of theirs.

“… therefore, according to Mr. Yarmuth, they are hateful and intolerant.”

I understand the word “hate” means different things to different people. In this instance, I’m going to defer to the people under attack by the Farm Bureau’s efforts. If LGBTQ people feel that these policies are hateful to them, then I’m going to believe them. Evidence of the bureau’s intolerance from its own mission statement: “We maintain our belief in the equality of all persons under the law and we are opposed to granting special privileges to anyone.” And “We are opposed to any state-supported agency providing benefits to ‘domestic’ partners.” And its education policy is: “alternative lifestyles should not be taught in public schools.” Yeah, I can see why someone might not feel the love, but more so — feel the hate.

“I find Mr. Yarmuth’s position to be intolerant.”

Yep. I am 100-percent intolerant of intolerance.

“Just because people believe to their core that marriage is between a man and a woman, it doesn’t mean they hate anyone, or that they’re un-American.”

This is a nice word-play trick here. See, Mr. Lamb would like for you to feel that my support of the LGBTQ community is an attack on you, personally. I never say a word about any individual hating another. And as for my assertion that the Farm Bureau’s policies are “un- and anti-American.” My argument is that the bureau praises the American-democratic system, but then finds some Americans are less equal than others. Less than equal, in this case, are people who want to keep prayer and the Ten Commandments out of public schools, believe women have the right to make healthy living choices for themselves — without the hands of Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz in the doctor’s office — and assert that American citizens should be allowed to marry, live and love the person of their choice. So, I don’t mean un-American in the “Donald Trump’s hateful rhetoric towards minorities and immigrants is un-American.” I mean it in the self-contradicting way. Like, these policies are specifically anti-everything the Farm Bureau claims it loves about America. I guess that you could say that was a little word-play of my own.

“If the gay community wants more tolerance and acceptance, then they need to respect other people’s core values and stop screaming that anyone who doesn’t support every aspect of the gay agenda is a hater.”

Finally, Mr. Lamb, while this has been a fun exchange, and one that I hope continues an important conversation, this is the truly offensive point in your “POV.” I am not gay, but I consider myself a dear friend of the, as you put it “gay community.” The idea that the “gay community” must earn more tolerance and acceptance is truly offensive. And what your and the bureau’s point of view fails to recognize is that it is hateful and hurtful toward a large segment of Americans. You suggest/put a requirement on gay-acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance. How about we try the other way around? How about the Farm Bureau, and you, start respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the LGBTQ community, and all Americans, regardless of the ones you choose to ignore, and then you can have their respect.

That’s what I think.