it's too bad everyone can't be just what the religious right wants them to be

Religious right is a pretty sketchy, deceptive use of words. Many right wingers are atheists, most black religious people vote Democrat, and most Catholics vote Democrat.

Both sides are heavily religious and heavily Christian. Anyone not Christian on either side is the exception.

As liberals, they can be accepted even as Christians if they wish to be. As human beings, not as "abominations" ...

Most Christians don't particularly care. Sure they may think that homosexuality is a sin, but they also think speeding is a sin. That doesn't mean they would screw with gays any more than with people who exceed the posted speed limit.

There were multiple gay people in the congregation (Lutheran) I grew up in, and nobody cared.

In reality, the religious right is just a loud but tiny group. Even if those intolerant bastards were not Christian, they would still be judgmental assholes.

A very good reason, they won't be accepted, otherwise.

Face it, the Left has a lot of judgmental assholes, too. Religion has nothing to do with it.

What is weird is that once the myth started that gays tend to be liberal, it almost became a requirement. If they break ranks, lots of lefties accuse them of being traitors. (Despite the fact that who you have sex with is completely unrelated to your preferences about tax policy or entitlements.)

This is why so few gay conservatives come out of the conservative closet. They get too much crap for it.I know a flaming Southern gay guy who told me he got more crap from liberals who were offended by the fact that his dick did not hang to the left than he ever got from Baptists for being gay.

because liberals believe in non-alternative facts, not what some radical idiot drums into their head

The coverage of Trump in the liberal media is 95% negative on Trump. It was 10% negative on Obama. Why this matters is that Trump has nothing on his resume of 'screw ups' that looks like Obama's list of screw ups. This means that you are believing a hand picked liberal media narrative created with the goal of deception.

All of those Democrat voting Muslims love them some gays.*

Conservatives aren't committing mass crime or creating sanctuary cities that protect felons and illegal aliens/gang activity. That would be the left doing that.

So how do all of those millions of Muslims voting Democrat feel about gay people excon?

I'm on the right, and have no problem with gay people. Why is that do you think? In real life I've never met a conservative that hates gay people.

Trump even waved the lgbtq rainbow flag and spoke in support of them at his rallies.

I'm for green people. I love our green brothers and sisters. Nobody is more pro greens than me. Believe me. Too much anti green hate. It is sad.

Ave,

Also most gay people are socially liberal. But gay people can of course be fiscally conservative and many are.

I appreciate that you broke conservative and liberal into two aspects. I would add Constitutional to social and fiscal*.

What is interesting is that social liberal would normally be a better match with Constitutionally conservative. The philosophy that the government may only do what is specifically called out in the Constitution as a governmental power would mean that the Federal government could make no laws regarding recreational drug use, marriage, health choices, etc. Obviously this is also a good match with fiscal conservatism because the less the government does, the less it costs.

This would be an expected fit with the general Republican thing, but because of the loudness of the Religious Right and the Nixon/Reagan roots in the war on drugs, there is this weird traditional morality that often seeps into the Republican party.

By the same token, Constitutional liberals (its meaning may change over time, and the government can do anything the Constitution does not expressly prohibit) is a good match with fiscal liberalism, because all that stuff government is permitted to do costs money. This matches well with the Democrat party. This tendency toward government funded programs leads naturally to government meddling in people's lives, which I would normally expect to drive social conservatism. Instead, it seems to have driven toward a militant social "liberalism" that centers around promotion of particular approved social activities and attitudes, and restriction of any activities based on other views.

The odd result is that NEITHER the Democrat nor Republican party machines and platforms actually support any real social freedom to think and behave as you like without some sort of government intervention in personal relationships, medical decisions, etc.

This phenomenon that both main parties actively work to suppress social freedom (Republicans toward orthodoxy of "traditional" values, and Democrats toward orthodoxy of "leftist" values).