Donald Trump supports the evangelical stance on LGBTQ+ rights

The argument

Many white evangelicals see the increased acceptance of the LGBTQ+ and their protection by the law as a danger to the first amendment right to religious freedom and their family values. Trump has heard these fears and worked to assuage them. This can be seen through new regulation providing religious exemptions to companies allowing them to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community on the basis of their gender identity or sexual orientation. This effectively rolled back non-discrimination employment protections implemented by Obama. Trump has also, against expert military and medical advice, banned transgender individuals from serving in the military. His pick for Vice President, Mike Pence is famously against gay marriage and hostile to the LGBTQ+ community, with Trump in 2017 jokingly stating: ‘Don’t ask that guy—he wants to hang them all!’ He has also has rolled back protections of this community by opposing the Equality act despite its high level of support from the American public. Trump has also appointed anti-LGBTQ+ judges to all levels of the judicial system. This is the case with Judge Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh, both Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court. Trump has taken a strong anti-LGBTQ+ stance in his policy proposals and his appointees to offices at all levels of government, and he has been praised extensively by the white evangelical community for these measures.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Trump supports the stance which will win him the most votes. Shortly before the Republican national convention of 2020, his campaign was reaching out to members of the LGBTQ+ community in order to improving his polling numbers and his chances in the election.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Assuaging a fear and privileging a group in policy are different things, and the third position in this debate reads the same conduct as appealing to social insecurity rather than delivering policy returns — the counter adds that the campaign courted LGBTQ+ voters when that appeared useful, which fits a vote-seeking explanation better than a doctrinal one. [Rejecting P2] The measures listed are policy positions, which is not what is in dispute; the premise needs to show they were adopted in order to privilege this constituency, and it offers no evidence of the motive. [Rejecting P3] The judicial claim is the weakest. The Justice named here as an anti-LGBTQ+ appointee wrote the Supreme Court's 2020 majority opinion holding that federal employment law protects gay and transgender workers — the opposite of the outcome the premise predicts.