That’s right. You don’t have the same rights as married people. Neither did any of the examples I gave. Nor should you. That’s the point.

The gay and incest argument for marriage is exactly the same: right to love who you want = right to marriage. Wrong–you can love whoever you want. Nobody can marry whoever they want unless it falls within the definition of marriage for that society.

You apparently believe gays are different when it comes to marriage rights, i.e. not the same as polygamy, incest, polyamory, and so on. Wrong: the argument for legal sex and marriage is exactly the same.

You know it is has nothing to do with illegal or legal. I gave many examples of both. Incest is illegal only because society says so…just like homosexual sex was. Everyone has a right to love someone other than their spouse. Adultery is not illegal but that doesn’t equal right to marry…until after a divorce.

Once an apartment is rented, it becomes the renter’s private home. That’s why cops can’t search your apartment without a search warrant just because you don’t own the place.

I appreciate your passion but gays will never achieve the true equality they sense is missing no matter how many laws they can get passed. It’s not about everyone else.

Do you support non-discrimination laws based on entirely selective characteristics such as religion?

Religion is at the core of America’s founding principals, documents, and laws. That’s why it was “selected” as an explicit enumerated constitutional right. Hardly the same class as a variant sexual behavior that has been shunned for thousands of years and still rejected by the large majority around the world. (And whether LGBT is chosen, innate, controllable, changeable or all the above is irrelevant.

The only question is:

“Does discrimination against gays in hiring practices rise to the level requiring federal status as a protected class and justify the curtailment of at least some other citizen’s existing rights in order to do so?

Research published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology concludes that “Gay activists paint a bleak picture of employment discrimination against homosexuals” but “the relative success of gays suggests that occupational discrimination against them is either mild and ineffective or that it is counterbalanced by other factors.” It concludes “Gays are much more successful than heterosexuals…It is undeniable that gays do suffer from bigotry and legal discrimination…but employment discrimination would seem to be a relatively minor matter.

Studies actually show that gay Americans are twice as likely to have graduated from college, twice as likely to have an individual income over $60,000 and twice as likely to have a household income of $250,000 or more.”

Not bad for an oppressed minority who claims its gay rights movement is comparable to Africa-Americans!

Of course, African-Americans rank at the other end of the spectrum in affluence, education, and influence, have no choice whatsoever on being in or out of any metaphorical closet, and make no demands regarding “rights” to an identifying sexual behavior that requires society to redefine family, gender, and morality to accommodate.

(Not to mention, of course, that Blacks were once kidnapped to be bought and sold as property, counted as a fraction of a person, never paid for their labor, banned from voting and education, and could only eat, drink, or even relieve themselves in places designated for ‘coloreds.’

Other than that, the similarities of the gay and Black struggles for civil rights are truly striking!

how comfortable are you with the reasons why you may support non-discrimination laws for some but not for others?

Totally. For decades, gays have bullied and boycotted Fortune 500 companies into submission on sexual orientation policies based on gay economic might. Their median, average, individual, and household incomes, education, and % of higher level jobs exceed almost all other groups.

Suddenly, we are all supposed to believe they can’t get good jobs and need protection?

Does it not say a very great deal…

Yes, it says a great deal: ENDA is not really about needed protections. It’s more about social engineering–particularly the legal and social nightmare of codifying an ever burgeoning assortment of ‘gender identities.”

Do you support non-discrimination laws based on innate and immutable attributes such as race or gender?

Do you support non-discrimination laws based on entirely selective characteristics such as religion?

Do you think that gay people are subject to hiring, promotion, and compensation discrimination?

Do you think that gay people could just “be straight” and then they wouldn’t have to worry about discrimination? Do you think that is a reasonable expectation?

For those who support race and religion based non-discrimination laws but who oppose those based on orientation, how comfortable are you with the reasons why you may support non-discrimination laws for some but not for others? Does it not say a very great deal about your own attitudes, prejudices, and biases if you expect one group of people to make miraculous (and, perhaps, impossible) changes in order to be treated the same as other people?

Such an accusation against Eddy might be valid if homosexuality and race were the same which they are most definitively not. Homosexuality can only be defined by its associated behavior.

No minority is the same as the other, but the discrimination against them and the way the discrimination is dealt out does tend to be the same

Many groups of people are not allowed to marry–like brothers and sisters, the underage as arbitrarily defined by the state, and so on. Gays have the same rights as all those people.

Incest is illegal, being gay and having and forming loving relationships with a person of the same sex is not – Being gay is not illegal and no they do not have the same rights as other legal couples to marry

Boy/girlfriends, fiance(e)s, and non-immediate family are also sometimes not allowed to visit without the express wishes of the patient. This is not exclusive to gays. Gays have the same rights as all those people.

Often times despite the wishes of the patient, and when the patient can’t speak for themselves in the hospital, the same sex partner is often not allowed visit – because gay people cannot often marry, even if theyve been in a relationship longer than married couples, they cannot visit their partner in the hospital – so no, they do not have the same rights as married couples

In most places, employees can be fired (or not hired) for even the most trivial reason if it is not designated as protected by EEOC regs… ugly, poor dresser, smoker, or just not deemed a good fit. Gays already have the same employment rights (or lack thereof) as every other American not named in EEOC. Again, this is not exclusive to gays.

Problem is, gay people are often singled out for discrimination because of who they are – in much the same way as AFrican Americans – and as long as the discrimination is happening simply because of who someone is, then extra protections need to be in place to ensure they are treated fairly

I will not argue that owners should be able to arbitrarily boot gays from where they live. On the other hand, that is far from saying accommodating gays should be forced on the girl in California not wanting a lesbian roommate or people with bona fide religious convictions. My first boss was gay and I shared his apartment for a year but I guess the line I would draw is that no private home or apartment should ever be subject to forced compliance in this area.

I’ve never heard of a case where a a private home was forced to accommodate gay people – Apartments normally aren’t owned by an individual and if they are open to the general public to rent, then gay people should be assured, that they can live there – just as any other minority should have that protection and assurance

By the very nature of society, laws prohibit some behavior (even if it is perceived as rights by a group) and protect others (even if the Constitution does not enumerate them as rights).

Oh, I agree – the issue you seem to be having is acknowledging that being gay is not illegal. Gay people simply want equal treatment and sometimes to attain equality you have to have laws that protect minorities from the majority- if it weren’t for those people who felt compelled to discriminate against gay folk then there would never have been a need for the creation of laws to address this discrimination.

Gays even have the right to believe this is unfair and press to change all the above specifically for themselves. Just as they did with sodomy laws. But society also has the right to say NO…just as it has to polygamy and underage sex (or voting or gambling or drinking).

More than just gay people think this is unfair – a host of straight people believe it is unfair as well – Society can say no, it did to interracial marriage for a long time, but that sure doesn’t make society right – and you better believe gay people and their friends and families will keep pressing for change until true equality is achieved.

UT…. Then let’s also look at discrimination against gays on an individual basis rather than pass big blanket stuff like ENDA.

That’s just plain crazy. Because without ENDA you couldn’t look at any case of discrimination against any person based in their sexuality as a reason.

Gays already have the same employment rights (or lack thereof) as every other American not named in EEOC. Again, this is not exclusive to gays.

The only way any truth to that matter were correct is if heterosexuals were being regularly discriminated against for being straight. And I’m sure you can pull some few examples out. But then the question becomes should straights be denied their jobs because of being straight? Of course not, thus ENDA is needed to protect their right based in their sexuality also.

I think such instances of religious freedom being curbed need to be looked at on an individual basis – not all of the examples you bring up are as clear cut as you seem to believe they should be when you look at all the facts

Then let’s also look at discrimination against gays on an individual basis rather than pass big blanket stuff like ENDA.

With your line of reasoning Eddy then separate water fountains for whites and colored would be ok

Such an accusation against Eddy might be valid if homosexuality and race were the same which they are most definitively not. Homosexuality can only be defined by its associated behavior.

This is patently false – if you’re gay, then you don’t necessarily have the same rights as everyone else…Gay people often cannot marry the person they love, sometimes they are prohibited from visiting that loved one in a hospital, for along time they could be kicked out of the place they lived or fired from their job because they were gay – Untwist yourself sir

Many groups of people are not allowed to marry–like brothers and sisters, the underage as arbitrarily defined by the state, and so on. Gays have the same rights as all those people.

Boy/girlfriends, fiance(e)s, and non-immediate family are also sometimes not allowed to visit without the express wishes of the patient. This is not exclusive to gays. Gays have the same rights as all those people.

In most places, employees can be fired (or not hired) for even the most trivial reason if it is not designated as protected by EEOC regs… ugly, poor dresser, smoker, or just not deemed a good fit. Gays already have the same employment rights (or lack thereof) as every other American not named in EEOC. Again, this is not exclusive to gays.

I will not argue that owners should be able to arbitrarily boot gays from where they live. On the other hand, that is far from saying accommodating gays should be forced on the girl in California not wanting a lesbian roommate or people with bona fide religious convictions. My first boss was gay and I shared his apartment for a year but I guess the line I would draw is that no private home or apartment should ever be subject to forced compliance in this area.

By the very nature of society, laws prohibit some behavior (even if it is perceived as rights by a group) and protect others (even if the Constitution does not enumerate them as rights).

Gays even have the right to believe this is unfair and press to change all the above specifically for themselves. Just as they did with sodomy laws. But society also has the right to say NO…just as it has to polygamy and underage sex (or voting or gambling or drinking).

Re the gay employee at McDonald’s. No one has a problem with that. Do you have evidence that PFOX does? They oppose ENDA and, in the comments I’ve read from them, they’ve expressed no concerns about McDonald’s or the insurance company or the construction crew….and instead focussed on how that law might go astray in the classroom.

While I agree that hate crimes legislation, discrimination and employment discrimination legislation are separate entities, they share much common ground in the way that existing laws, thought to be clear and respectful of the rights of all, are open to interpretation AND, especially when involving the two polarized groups…the conservative religious and the gays, they lead to a collision of rights and interpretations sometimes go either way…an evidence of the lack of clarity.

For this reason, I didn’t feel that we were all as far off-point as we’ve been known to go. I reviewed Lynn David’s comment at 3:05 that went more towards hate crimes legislation. It was followed by Untwisted’s rebuttal that included a list of legal responses that was a mix of hate crimes legislation, discrimination and employment discrimination cases that seem to justify conservative concerns. Subsequent comments picked up on some ‘hate crimes legislation’, discrimination and employment discrimination. (I’m sure we have a catch phrase for things like the eHarmony situation other than simply ‘discrimination’ but my pre-coffee mind is drawing a blank.)

I’m going to check out now…hopefully for good. I’ve become convinced that my views are somewhat disruptive and run counter to the views of the site moderator.

AFTAH, FOTF, NARTH, PFOX, the Traditional Values Coalition, MassResistance, The Thomas More Legal Center, Citizens for Good Public Policy,. Citizens for Good Government, Coral Ridge Ministries,

• Rev. Andrew Wesley, pastor of St. Ladislaus Church and co-chair of the group Hamtramck Citizens Voting NO.

• Masud Khan, president of the Al Islah Islamic Center.

• Abdul Latif Azom, imam of Al Falah mosque.

• Abdul Salam, imam of Masjid Un Nur mosque.

• Adbo Zindani, secretary of Eiman Islamic Complex.

• Amin Alwagah, representing Algalazali mosque.

• Saleh Algahaim, president of Eiman Islamic Complex.

• Dzenan Kalanac, imam of Bosnia Islamic Center.

• Mohammed Shehab Khan, imam Baitul Islam mosque

(The meeting was conducted under the auspices of the Knights of Columbus in Hamtramck), every spokesperson for the Catholic Church who has ever commented on the subject, the legislatures of 38 states which have rejected such legislation – including recently the New Hampshire Senate, where the bill to give Trans people the same employment rights as Gays was rejected unanimously on the same day they voted in favour of same-sex marriage, the Washington Times, who wrote an editorial saying Discrimination is Necessary – Subjecting kids to weirdos undermines standards of decency., At least 178 representatives in the House and 38 in the Senate… shall I go on?

ENDA’s been languishing in the House Education and Labor Committee since August. There was supposed to be a markup in November, but this was “postponed” the day before it was to happen. Literally.

Though being fair, it appears that many of them wouldn’t have a problem if the McDonalds employee was gay. They just don’t want the transgendered or intersexed to be protected too. The 2007 version – passed by the house – only protected gays, not trans people. That version didn’t even make it to a vote, and neither version made it to a vote in the Senate.

ENDA was first introduced in 1994, and in 1996 the legislation reached a near victory in the Senate, coming within one vote of passage. It also to get to a vote in 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003.

While the 2009 version may possibly get to a vote in the House in 2010, it’s considered unlikely it will get to a vote in the Senate – and if it does, will face a filibuster.

So the short answer is – a LOT of people, Warren. Every single Christian group even slightly to the right of centre, Matthe 22:39-40 notwithstanding.

I’m not sure what it is you don’t get about there being a problem with a group of people offering services to the general public but excluding a certain group of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?