I don't believe that and have said so, but let's look at the premise of framing the problem that way. The premise is that one's political commitments are primary and religious commitments are secondary. If your church does not accommodate your political views, there is something wrong with your church.
The discomfort that political conservatives feel in UU circles is evidence, therefore, of a shortcoming in Unitarian Universalism.
Politically conservative UU's could be raising hell within the Tea Party groups about their racism, their anti-gay prejudice and their active contempt for most of the poor, but they don't appear to be. I will lend them my yellow t-shirt if they are ready to challenge hate and indifference from within. Instead, they are voicing their discomfort at the UU church, that they feel marginalized at church.
What a small and inconsequential religion they want Unitarian Universalism to be! To them, being a UU is less important than any other aspect of one's life. If it is in conflict with their politics, then it must reassure them that it's OK. Political identity comes first; it is the highest loyalty.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Religion is about Ultimacy, the values and commitments that are above and beyond the workaday and pragmatic. Ultimate concerns should be the place from which we evaluate lesser concerns.
UU political diversity has not led to greater political wisdom, or better work. Everybody does their own thing. Liberal UU's are often hyperactive, glib, and presumptuous of the opinions of others. They don't have to show their work. Conservative UU's are resentful and passive aggressive. The argument goes on and on about the place of politics in church, but never about the political implications of UU theology.
I think that our public theology has become flabby and lazy, even though it has become more vigorous and better branded.
What does it mean to "stand on the side of love"? What is "love" as a concept in public theology?
Does our faith tradition really call for us to be "above the fray", the religious expression of Sunday Morning Talk Show bi-partisanship?
As the class situation in the USA becomes 1% vs 99%, who are we?
Why do we read the seven principles as bland and irenic platitudes, when, in fact, they are actively contested in the political sphere everyday? What if we decided they were principles worth 'fighting' for? What kind of conversation would that require?