In philosophy (if I just lost you right there, please, give me another chance) there is an informal fallacy called the "myth of pretended neutrality." You see it committed all the time: "I'm not extreme like [insert name of person you want to be "right" of] or like [insert name of person you want to be "left" of), I am neutral, unbiased and in the mainstream."

It is American politics- AFTER the primary, when everyone is "moderate."

Pretended neutrality is a myth- but so is neutrality itself. This is especially true when it comes to ethics. The Biblical view of ethics says that there is an "ought" based on the character of our Creator. Non-Biblical worldviews deny this. There is no neutrality on this point- indeed, there cannot be.

It should not be surprising, then, to see writing like this. I rather like a lot of what the author produces. He is an excellent writer. As a philosopher, however...

What you read is a form of bullying (the passive-agressive tolerance trap), and Christians fall for it all the time.

Don't.

Rick Reilly is implying that:
a) If you say you are a Christian, you are a Christian.
b) If you possess a minority-view sexual ethic you should resign from any state-sponsored job.
c) If you disagree with someone's behavior, then you hate them.
d) If you can find one pastor/writer/theologian who says things like "Jesus and the Bible aren't clear about something" that the statement is always correct, and those who oppose it are always wrong.

Reilly is not just wrong, he is establishing his ethics as binding while villifying another for doing the same. And he's doing it from a platform that he calls "neutral."

Don't let the "myth of pretended neutrality" from an author suck you in. Instead, ask some questions in return:
"What are you saying about the subject?"
"Why do you say that?"
"Do you have your facts right?"
"Does what you claim follow from those facts?"
"What is your sexual ethic?"
"Where does it come from?"

Whatever you do, only play defense until you can take the offense. Make the critic defend what he/she believes, not just take cheap shots at what you believe. Counterpunch- in love- post haste. The soul of your listener may depend on it.