Secular Red Lines

Both Mayor Reed and The New York Times aren’t willing to write a blank check to any and all sexual activity or sexual arrangement. There are limits to what they’d find acceptable, surely.
A friend noted that there’s a poignant question that logic demands both Mayor Reed and The New York Times answer:

• Where is your sexual ethics red-line? How do you arrive at your judgment of what constitutes moral or immoral sexual behavior?

Please don’t pretend Christians have a line and non-Christians don’t. Christians just happen to draw ours differently, albeit based on biblical principle. But there is no fully tolerant or neutral position. What is it? What are its limits? At what point would you negatively opine upon the right of someone to engage in a sexual act you disagree with? At what point is your employment at stake in questioning whether someone’s sexual exploits are moral or right? Who are you to judge when all judgments are ostensibly off the table? These are important questions that demand a level of consistency in application, questions that secularists can’t answer without borrowing words from the Christian lexicon. Everyone has limits, but not everyone has an honest, consistent principle that helps get them there.