Trump Meets With Supreme Court Pick Who Thinks Gays Should Be Jailed For Having Sex In Their Homes

President-elect Donald Trump met with conservative judge William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this past Saturday in New York. The Alabama-based judge is on Trump’s short list for potential Supreme Court candidates. This is also the same judge rumored to have posed nude for images that ended up on a gay porn site.

Pryor is on record as stating he believes gay people should be imprisoned for having sex in their homes and has compared homosexual acts to “polygamy, incest, pedophilia, prostitution, and adultery”. He also doesn’t see LGBT people as being protected by the Constitution.

Reports the AP:

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting had not been publicly announced.
Trump said last week that he would select a candidate to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia within his first two weeks in office. He has promised to seek someone in the conservative’s mold and said he is working from a list of 21 people, mainly conservative state and federal judges in their 50s.

Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for LGBT people, identified Pryor as the “most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory” in 2005. The group claimed the judge had “repeatedly shown clear hostility to the rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV – and also to women, people of color, disabled people and others.”

Lambda Legal’s comments are the result of an amicus brief Pryor wrote in 2003 for Lawrence v. Texas in support of Texas sodomy laws. He wrote:

In short, the States should remain free to protect the moral standards of their communities through legislation that prohibits homosexual sodomy. If legislation of such activity is no longer supported by a majority of the citizens of the States, the legislatures of the States will repeal them, or elected executive officials will cease to enforce them. The recent movement toward decriminalizing homosexual sodomy, even with Bowers v. Hardwick on the books, shows that the legislative system is quite able to respond to popular will without judicial prodding. Impatience with the pace of change, or with the resistance of citizens who do not regard the change as beneficial, does not justify the judicial creation of a new constitutional right.

Additionally, according to Pryor LGBT people as a group are not protected by the Constitution.

“This Court has never recognized a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy,” he wrote. “Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ that is ‘as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.”

Pryor also claimed Texans should be protected from homosexuality:

“Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected.”

RELATED: After Friday Inauguration, Trump Says He Will Take Rest Of Day And Weekend Off ‘To Celebrate Win’

In addition, Lambda Legal also pointed out that Pryor cast a deciding vote that blocked Florida same-sex couples from adopting children in need of homes.

“Several judges on the appeals court wanted to hear the case and said the law raised ‘serious and substantial questions,’ but William Pryor kept that from happening,” wrote Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal’s executive director. “As a result, lesbians and gay men in Florida cannot adopt children who need permanent, loving homes.”

READ NEXT: Watch Al Franken Grill Education Appointee Betsy DeVos Over Her Support Of Gay Conversion Therapy