Gay Mitchell and Presidency

[MrMan]

Well strictly speaking only innocent when they're born and baptised, but yeah I can see how pro life has caveats.

But as I stated it's a moot point. If, as quite rightly pointed out, condemning Norris had nothing to do with his sexuality but it was the fact that he wrote the letter, why can't the same people condem Mitchel?

The basis of writing the letter is the same. The difference is the politics, sexuality and crimes involved (as both are practicing Christians).

So please ,why not just say Mitchell was wrong as quickly as it was stated Norris was wrong?

I do think it's wrong for politicians to interfere in criminal cases, but if someone is against the death penalty there is a difference imo as it is about sparing a life and not shortening a sentance.