Christian pastor appeals against judge's 'unnecessary and prejudicial' language in ruling against LGBT activists

A Christian pastor who won in a legal battle against Ugandan gay activists is now appealing against the judge's summary judgment in which the latter described the minister's religious beliefs as "detestable" and "abhorrent."

(WIKIMEDIA COMMONS / Tim Pierce)Scott Lively, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, at the 2014 MassEquality and WGBH Gubernatorial Forum on LBGTQ issues, held at the Boston Public Library on March 25, 2014. 25 March 2014.

In June, Judge Michael Ponsor released his summary judgment in favor of American pastor Scott Lively in a legal challenge launched against him by the group Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG). However, the Christian minister is now asking an appeals court to remove the judge's "unnecessary" language in the ruling which dismissed the case against him, World Net Daily detailed.

When he visited Uganda in 2002 and 2009, Pastor Lively expressed his views against homosexuality. These talks led SMUG to file a lawsuit against him.

Earlier this year, Pastor Lively also wrote an opinion piece on WND suggesting that U.S. President Donald Trump should create a new policy which would separate the LGBT from the state. He said the government ought to be prohibited from promoting the interests of LGBT individuals in the same way that it is not allowed to endorse religion.

In the summary judgment, Ponsor slammed Pastor Lively's Christian beliefs and used the words "detestable," "despicable," "ludicrous," "abhorrent," and "bizarre" to describe them. The minister alleged that the ruling was an attempt to smear his character and his religious beliefs.

Liberty Counsel, Pastor Lively's legal representative in the case, said Ponsor purportedly concluded without factual analysis that their client's Christian beliefs broke "international law." The judge also reportedly claimed that the minister's anti-LGBT speeches in Uganda "aided and abetted" certain crimes committed by suspects their client does not know.

"This appeal tests whether a district court which finds that speech and advocacy 'detestable,' 'despicable,' 'pathetic,' ludicrous,' 'abhorrent,' and 'bizarre' – to name a few of the adjectives it employed – can allow that moral outrage to displace the requirements of Article III, and thereby purport to decide factual claims and issues of law for which jurisdiction is indisputably absent," Liberty Council said in the appeal.

Judge Ponsor has not yet responded to requests for comment sent to him via his court staff.