‘I want to come home to a home cooked dinner @ 6 every night

I get that.  We all judge.  It's done here daily.  As I said, he's entitled to his opinion, can state it vociferously, can raise his kids (boys and girls) as he sees fit.  If he tries to legislate his beliefs, then I have problem with him.

Whoa. did you read the entire thread? I was being facetious. It was Lucy who called that choice Sucky, not me.  Perhaps you should read the entire thread from the beginning and then come back and apologize for your own harsh and unwarranted words.  I was supporting the right of women to do just what Julieotte says she does every night.

Then why on Earth were you so hand slappy? Why did you immediately get defensive of this guy who made huge sweeping nasty comments about working women? What is your motive? I don't get it. It seems like you just wanted to argue.

I'm very comfortable saying sexism, racism, homophobia and discrimination are bad. Full stop.

Did you read the OP? They were the two choices offered by Courtland Sykes. I didn't see any evidence he thinks there is a middle ground. 

Now you're mad at me for *asking* you what your motive is? Why? I want to know where you're coming from.

Some people on this thread insulted his lifestyle. Most people on this thread myself included said we live and let live.

His comments were vile. They were an insult to every working woman. Most likely he means you too. I am wondering why you would defend that? I am sincerely blown away by it.

You can “think” whatever you want. In return, I can “think” you are an asshole and tell you that you are an asshole for your beliefs.

However, you want to put laws or people who make laws in place to force your beliefs on me or my life, BIGLY WRONG. 

you = general you

So very sorry. I am glad you have overcome that.

The bolded part is where one's private life/beliefs become open to public discussion and, yes, judgement.
 
There is no way a person who holds the beliefs expressed by Sykes is going to faithfully represent the needs and desires *all* his/her constituents. 

You’re most likely right. But here in the US, no elected official represents the needs and desires of *all* his constituents

It is one thing to hold a belief, I will defend anyone's right to do so. It is entirely another to use your beliefs to discriminate and say hateful things about people who are different based on sex, color, nationality, religion, etc. There should be no compromise on this.

Wow, 3 pages in 3 hours. Well done.

I too would like to come home to a hot meal each night. In fact, DH is cooking me Chicken sausage, apple and goat cheese pizza tonight. We both cook.

This guy's attack on women who don't meet his narrow parameters of true womanhood is small minded and rooted in his need for control, not a loving relationship.

1. Oh! This is advocating! Good to know. To me that means you are absolutely not looking for a conversation where you truly want to see someone else's views on the topic and that your question really was rhetorical. As you are advocating, I understand you are not listening but only looking for your agenda. Thank you for making that clear. I truly appreciate that. 
2. History is the biggest predictor of future events. If he believes that a woman's job is in the home, he will not work for his female constituents on equal rights such as pay, child care, health care, school, etc. So, we're going to have to disagree with on this one. We absolutely know from his words that if he said anything else "in his platform" we wouldn't believe him. And why would we? 
3. I truly wish I could believe you are not Lauren, but I can't. Much like the politician in this story, and as you noted above, you would believe him if he showed you his platform. Well, your platform is Lauren and in this case I am going to believe you. Tell me, how did you know Lauren went to law school? I thought you were knew to the board. Someone clued you in, I assume. 
4. Ah, but conservatives DO have a problem with Muslim ideals. Just because you claim you don't does not negate my point. 
5. Perhaps - it was an explanation for you to understand my point but you were here to "advocate" not understand so I see how you missed that. No worries. 
6. That made me laugh. Thank you. 
7. Yes, conflated. I thought that would feel familiar to you. But... again, my point still stands. When you choose to look at one singular issue you are going to miss so much context and reasoning. If you want to find that "middle ground" I would encourage you to stop "advocating" start "listening" and look towards a great context. I have found I learn so much more about someone else's opinions and positions when I do that. I don't have to agree, but at least I can understand the argument. 

I'm glad you're not Lauren. She was a horribly miserable contributor here. It was pathetically easy to recognize her game. She mostly played that game alone though and it just became really sad to watch. 

She always seemed to have more more enjoyable things waiting for her to spend her time on than arguing on a message board, so I hope she's off doing them now.