RiotNrrd:

Christa627:In my experience, GLBT "rights" usually translates to "special privileges".

I have heard this type of thing before, but I don't actually understand it. On its own it seems so vague as to be almost meaningless. But since you mention your experience in particular, I am interested in hearing more about that; personal experience definitely trumps vague unsubstantiated assertions.

What privileges, in your experience, are accorded to gay people that are not accorded to me? I am fully heterosexual, but I honestly cannot think of one privilege that gay people have or demand that I don't have; generally it seems like they are denied rights that I do have (such as marrying their partners, although that appears to be changing). So I'm curious what you are referring to when you talk about "special" privileges, over and above those that I have as a straight person. I am literally unable to identify a single one, although I am certainly open to being educated.

I am in a similar position. What rights exactly do gays have that us straight folk don't? Not being fired for it and being allowed to marry are not exactly special privileges that aren't afforded to straight people. There certainly is the loud/vocal minority who do seem to seek restitution, if not revenge, for the present/past injustices. This extremist minority is also present among African Americans, feminists, and other similar groups. They are louder than the majority, but it is as much a mistake to judge the group as a whole based on their actions as it is to judge social conservatives by the actions of the "God hates gays" idiots.

I can see why someone putting GLBT rights so high on the list when talking about issues of a world government might be off-putting, especially when there are so many other groups who suffer far worse injustices. I can also understand the tendency to subtly (or not so subtly) support a group you strongly identify with. As a rider, whenever I see articles/discussions over road laws/etc. I bring up the subject of motorcycles even if it isn't a part of the main topic. So many riders are killed due to reckless or distracted drivers, and justice is not served under the current laws. Similar to this topic, bikers are judged too often by the actions of the few idiots who ride 1000cc sportbikes popping wheelies and speeding through traffic. I've seen some downright disgusting comments in helmet camera videos of car-caused accidents (showing the last moments of someone's life) talking about how the biker deserved to die, etc., even when they were doing nothing wrong.

I guess my point is, don't be so simple-minded in your judgement of an entire class of people. Your experience of them is likely highly influenced by the small minority of vocal extremists, and you know what they say about assuming.

RiotNrrd:

nornen:How did a thread called "One world government" end up in a discussion about gays?

By virtue of being on the internet, of course. Only short threads end up holding a consistent topic.

I recently visited an exhibit about the Nazi persecution of homosexuals before and during WWII, so can we talk about Nazis now?

kaŝperanto:I recently visited an exhibit about the Nazi persecution of homosexuals before and during WWII, so can we talk about Nazis now?

Oh, kaŝperanto. On the internet, you can ALWAYS talk about Nazi's.

Of course, it also automatically means you've lost whatever point you're trying to make, so, you know, two-edged sword and whatnot.

RiotNrrd:

kaŝperanto:I recently visited an exhibit about the Nazi persecution of homosexuals before and during WWII, so can we talk about Nazis now?

Oh, kaŝperanto. On the internet, you can ALWAYS talk about Nazi's.

Of course, it also automatically means you've lost whatever point you're trying to make, so, you know, two-edged sword and whatnot.

I have one final thing I want you to consider. Think about Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Anyone know if a Gay-Godwin's Law has been formulated?

RiotNrrd:

nornen:How did a thread called "One world government" end up in a discussion about gays?

By virtue of being on the internet, of course. Only short threads end up holding a consistent topic.

Goes without saying. How did a discussion about Christians in the military turn into an argument about evolution? Inevitable forum-thread destiny.

For those asking for specifics on what I said about GLBT special privileges, I am not so much talking about what is now, but what would be if they could, and sometimes does happen in real life. Also, not so much what is legally, but what is practically.

For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Talking of discrimination in employment, etc., they say they want equal rights. But if they get that according to the law, what actually happens? You have two people applying for a job; suppose person X is gay and person Y is not. Person Y might be slightly more qualified for the position than person X, or they might be equally qualified (in this particular hypothetical situation); but if the company hires person Y and not person X, person X will sue and claim to have been discriminated against. Maybe he/she was. But a business has the right to hire those they want to hire, for whatever reason. I do not believe it is the government's jurisdiction to declare that a company must hire people from any given group. If a company decides to refuse to hire Christians, or women, or homeschool graduates, or whatever, I would say that's not very nice, but they have the legal right to do that.

Another thing every business has the right to do is to refuse service to anyone for any reason. One sees that on signs in restaurants all the time. And if a cake decorating business decides that they don't make gay/lesbian wedding cakes, that is their business. But I hear all the time about lawsuits against those who use that right; and often times they win; even though the business didn't do anything illegal.

Again, I am not talking about what is nice, I'm talking about what should be mandated by law.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that this is not merely a legal issue. This is a moral issue. According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Thus, for those who believe the Bible, it is a severe violation of conscience to participate in it, by, for example, making a lesbian wedding cake. Every person has a right to follow his/her conscience. To force someone to violate conscience is tyranny. I have heard of Obama saying things to the effect of "People just need to put their religious scruples aside." He doesn't seem to realize what he is saying. A person's religion is the basis of his or her worldview, and is believed to be the thing that his/her eternal destiny depends on. People in all times and places have willingly died, rather that violate their "religious scruples". Every person, including business owners, must have the right to follow conscience; whether this means being closed on Sunday, not making gay/lesbian wedding cakes, or not paying for employee's abortions. Any intrusion on this is tyranny. If a Muslim business owner refused to hire me because I am a Christian, that would be discrimination. But it would be his right. And I would not say that the government should force him to hire me.

But I have already given my position on the role of civil government; I still hold that enforcing or preventing discrimination is not its job. Its job is to stop murderers and stuff.

Note about the wedding cake example, that it is different than if, for example, a gay or lesbian couple wanted a dozen cookies. It is generally not considered participating in their actions to sell them something; only if that something involves actually making something that, well, is involved in it, like making a cake that has two women or two guys depicted on it; thus involving the decorator in the action. I don't know if I'm being clear here...

The historical reason for the separation of religion and state in the USA goes back to the Civil War in England, when people were literally slaughtering each other for religion. Fortunately, we GLBT people are not going to slaughter you for not baking a cake for us, but unfortunately, there are enough het people who kill and murder GLBT people for the slightest thing using our GLBT-ness as an excuse. If that is part of your religion, then I truly feel sorry for you - and it underlines my hostility to religion in any extreme form. When the bible or mao's little red book or mein kampf takes over being human then the person taking that stance sins against humanity as a whole.
And since I WAS fired by a "born-again christian" and DID lose my salary and WAS forced into early retirement which means that my Social Security payments will remain at the level that I was forced to retire at and NOT at the level that I wanted to attain by working longer, and since I know that if I had been a het and she had fired me for being a het, then I would indeed have had a case before the court, I see that hets have special privileges, not I.

robbkvasnak:The historical reason for the separation of religion and state in the USA goes back to the Civil War in England, when people were literally slaughtering each other for religion. Fortunately, we GLBT people are not going to slaughter you for not baking a cake for us, but unfortunately, there are enough het people who kill and murder GLBT people for the slightest thing using our GLBT-ness as an excuse. If that is part of your religion, then I truly feel sorry for you - and it underlines my hostility to religion in any extreme form.

No, I don't approve of murdering anybody, and neither do any of the other Christians I know.

Christa627:

For those asking for specifics on what I said about GLBT special privileges, I am not so much talking about what is now, but what would be if they could,

oh, do you know what every one of us WOULD do in such cases? How do you know this? Have you talked to every one of us? I, for one, don't ever remember telling anyone anything of the sort.

Christa627:For example, if a guy puts on makeup an a feather boa, he still doesn't belong in the women's restroom! Yet I have heard of many cases of that privilege being demanded.

Thee is talking about transgenered folks, not gays and lesbians.

Christa627: suppose person X is gay and person Y is not. Person Y might be slightly more qualified for the position than person X,

then person Y gets the job, regardless of the sexuality of either applicant.

Christa627: or they might be equally qualified (in this particular hypothetical situation); but if the company hires person Y and not person X, person X will sue and claim to have been discriminated against. Maybe he/she was. But a business has the right to hire those they want to hire, for whatever reason. I do not believe it is the government's jurisdiction to declare that a company must hire people from any given group. If a company decides to refuse to hire Christians, or women, or homeschool graduates, or whatever, I would say that's not very nice, but they have the legal right to do that.

no, they do not, not if it's because they are glbt/christian/female/homeschooled/whatever.

Christa627:Another thing every business has the right to do is to refuse service to anyone for any reason. One sees that on signs in restaurants all the time.

and those signs are a waste of time and effort. No matter how it should be, restaurants, etc. can not do that, not legally.

Christa627:And if a cake decorating business decides that they don't make gay/lesbian wedding cakes, that is their business. But I hear all the time about lawsuits against those who use that right; and often times they win; even though the business didn't do anything illegal.

Thee needs to distinguish between moral and legal. They did indeed do something illegal; they discriminated. Should they be allowed to? Yes; it's THEIR business and they should be free to do (or not do) business/associate with whomever they want and face any market-based consequences. Forcing them to do so isn't going to suddenly make them love whom they previously did not love.

The question to be asked is not whether it's against the law. the question to be asked is whether there should even be a law in the first place.