How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

What employment rights do gay and lesbian employees have? Can you be fired for being gay? Presently there are no federal laws that provide protections for employees on the basis of their sexual orientation. Since 1993 various form and versions of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been pending in congress. The ENDA would ban employment discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation. The bill provides protection from discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion or compensation practices, as well as retaliation for reporting such practices. However, this legislation has not cleared the hurdles of congress and became law.

http://legavue.com/category-table/588-can-you-be-fired-for-being-gay.html

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, and familial status (i.e., presence of children in the household). The Fair Housing Act does not specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases. However, a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person's experience with sexual orientation or gender identity housing discrimination may still be covered by the Fair Housing Act. In addition, housing providers that receive HUD funding, have loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), as well as lenders insured by FHA, may be subject to HUD program regulations intended to ensure equal access of LGBT persons.

Examples:

A gay man is evicted because his landlord believes he will infect other tenants with HIV/AIDS. That situation may constitute illegal disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act because the man is perceived to have a disability, HIV/AIDS.

A property manager refuses to rent an apartment to a prospective tenant who is transgender. If the housing denial is because of the prospective tenant's non-conformity with gender stereotypes, it may constitute illegal discrimination on the basis of sex under the Fair Housing Act.

An underwriter for an FHA insured loan is reviewing an application where two male incomes are being used as the basis for the applicants’ credit worthiness. The underwriter assumes the applicants are a gay couple and, as a result, denies the application despite the applicants’ glowing credentials. This scenario may violate HUD regulations which prohibit FHA-insured lenders from taking actual or perceived sexual orientation into consideration in determining adequacy of an applicant’s income.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/LGBT_Housing_Discrimination

United States Sodomy Laws
compilation v1.0 (January 28, 199

The following state laws explain the legal penalties for consensual sexual behavior between a person's sexual organs and the mouth or anus of another. These acts fall under the general legal rubric of sodomy or crimes against nature where it is marginalized, banned, and penalized. Related acts and questionable laws are also provided where applicable. States which attempt a rational explanation claim that these acts harm the "moral welfare" of society and they have decided that all harm to "moral welfare" can be best remedied by strict penalties imposed against the individuals who partake in those behaviors.

No state has attempted to explain how any particular private consensual act between adults harms the "moral welfare" of society but still the laws remain on the books and legal enforcement continues. This causes citizens to lose respect for the legal system and to not take its laws seriously because they assume that other laws share the same irrational, unreasonable, and ignorant basis.

To prevent further erosion of public respect many states have repealed their laws that previously banned consensual sexual behavior between adults. If government wishes that citizens treat its edicts with respect, the repeal of all unjust laws immediately is required.

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/

Imprisoned for having consensual sex.

These things are happening, gays have and continue to face discrimination in employment settings, fair housing, and yes their very freedom.

You can deny it, attempt to sweep it aside, but that does nothing to diminish the truth of the matter. History shows you are wrong, pure and simple.

 

We are a complex nation, saying we can't tackle two issues at once is asinine.

Civil rights issues don't get put on the back burner because we have other problems.

 

Well yay, the site won't let me see page eleven, so don't expect a reply until it hits page twelve.

 

Sooooo gay and lesbian employees have the same rights as anyone else not in a protected class. But you want SUPERIOR rights for being gay.

 

Have a question?

If God intended man to be with man or woman to be with woman then why did he create man and woman? If this was intended to be the way of the world thier would be no need for two diffrent sexes

 

My apologies; I thought the context was just DOMA, but I see going back further it was more general.

Bottom line: dixon doesn't know what he's talking about, since both Prop 8 and DOMA are on a losing streak in the federal court systems.

 

We can stop right there, since the existence of God is a matter of faith, not accepted, proven fact. As an agnostic, there is no way for me to answer you question since I don't believe it's possible for us to actually know anything about this alleged God, including its intentions and whether or not it's responsible for the existence of separate sexes.

 

loving v virginia. the SCOTUS held that marriage is a civil right.

and more than 1.7% claim to engage is gay sex.

 

well, you would need to prove the existence of your god, and prove it created man and woman in order for this argument to have any meaning.

 

A bit of misdirection. It was a civil rights case about a black marrying a white.

 

and they ruled that marriage is a civil right.

 

The specific demographics of folks who bring a grievance before the supreme court does not limit the findings. In this case the supreme court was quite clear, they didn't say marriage was a civil right only for a mixed race couple. They said it was a fundamental and basic civil right of mankind.​

 

Marriage to someone of the opposite sex was ruled to be a civil right. Likely because at the time it was illegal for an unmarried man and woman to engage in sexual relations. Illegal for them to even cohabitate together without being married.

 

Unlike the recent court cases that found that only the denial of marriage to gays and lesbians is a violation of the constitution, claiming that it is motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

because the bible told them so.

 

Technically, so is homosexuality considering the notable absence of a gay gene.

 

I think they can justify being anti-homosexual by being patriotic pro-freedom Americans and they want to be free of homosexual freedoms in America.

 

Um, no. It's provable that homosexuals exist. We can prove democrats exist too. (And frankly I'm more concerned about a 'cure' for the latter.)​

 

Oh, I saw that group protesting last week! (They also want to be free of black freedoms and Muslim freedoms.)​

 

This again? Not knowing the precise mechanism of cause of something's existence doesn't render it non-existent. The lack of proof to support one theory isn't proof of another theory.

Back to ignoring you.

 

nonsense. the ruling was not limitted to opposite sex couples only.

 

Pretty sure no limitation to opposite sex couples was asserted.​

 

Most people justify it by the bible.....So the better question is, how do they justify using their religion to dictate the rights of everyone else?

 

So is the Bible a book of fiction then?

 

mostly.........