The "those situations" I referred to were:
So are you saying people with strong religious beliefs, atheists, Zionists, and Palestinians are all, effectively, bigots?
Not necessarily. It's down to whether or not said religious beliefs lead them to judge people of different religions or values harshly or to question their right to live as they choose.
I am not saying I think no one should ever be disqualified from a jury because of his views. If someone openly says he thinks women can't write science fiction, I think it would be reasonable to exclude him from a jury of works that includes women SF authors. My point is that I am wary of just making blanket declarations like "no bigots allowed," since some people have rather.... broad definitions of what makes someone a bigot.
It is a tough line to draw sometimes. We all have biases that make us more inclined to like certain kinds of stories, themes, characters, represented values, world building and so on than others, and our sociopolitical views are part of this. These will affect which stories we think are most award worthy. At what point are these just personal tastes (akin to my having a soft spot for stories with talking dogs, perhaps, and someone else thinking they're silly or maudlin) versus the sign of something stronger?
I know some people who get glassy eyed every time they see a story with a LGBTQ or PoC protag who doesn't HAVE to be LGBTQ or PoC, for instance, because they think it's inherently forced or political to do this in a story. They may not harbor a conscious dislike of or hatred for these people, but they're internalized a view of what a normal, default protagonist is in their preferred genre and think that departure from such must serve a specific narrative purpose.
One hopes, at the very least, that an award panel will be broad enough that panelists with such views would be balanced by other jurors who are excited to see books with diverse characters. So maybe some of it depends on how large the panel is. Still, I think the inclusion of someone who has openly declared themselves to have blatantly negative views about a group of people (and I don't think such views stemming from religion gives them a free pass) makes a statement about where the
organization stands on these things.
One of the things that is really hard to communicate (when asked why people from historically marginalized groups are soooo sensitive) is how exhausting, frustrating, demoralizing, and
terrifying it is to be a member of a group whose equality has not been a given, whose rights and autonomy are still being debated on the national level (not just inside specific Churches or whatever), where prejudice against your group and a desire to strip it of rights is presented as a reasonable sociopolitical view and not hate or prejudice.
Maybe someday, PoC, LGBTQ people, women and so on will be able to shrug and say, "Ah, well, that guy's just a jerk," the way white, straight males can when they run across someone who hates their group (I've been told by white, straight males in my life that this is how I should respond). Because maybe someday we'll be far enough from the historical context of inequality that such views will have no teeth or ability to do more than create an unpleasant interaction. But I don't think we're there yet.
Will we apply the same standard to the many the "blue tribe" authors who've made pretty incendiary remarks about Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, straight white men, and so on?
If someone has stated that they think males, white people, or Christians are lesser beings or people who should hold a lesser status/fewer rights in society, then yes, I'd question their ability to judge novels by or about males, white people or Christians fairly.
