Advocates seek to expand gay rights

Now that the left has manipulated the courts through unconstitutional means to get the results they can't obtain through the regular legal process of actually gaining public approval for a Constitutional Amendment, what is next on the gay agenda?

This is a further degradation of our society and destruction of our country and our Constitution. Stupid people may celebrate in the streets only because they do not understand that the same 9 member court that ruled in their favor today can tomorrow rule against them with no Constitutional legal basis whatsoever.

Don't think that this fight over gay marriage is over and done with either. That would be a big mistake to assume that. This decision will trigger more lawsuits and legal wrangling than Roe vs. Wade ever did. People will lose jobs, businesses will be sued, churches will be dragged through the courts, and people will be put into prison because of their religious beliefs. Conservative businesses will be targeted intentionally, forced to hire gays, forced to pay benefits to gay spouses or be sued, forced to close and go out of business. Churches and synagogues of all denominations will be sued to allow gays to attend churches and to conduct same sex marriage and other services to them which go against the beliefs of the churches and synagogues. Justice Kennedy make it clear in his decision that this is a fundamental right and therefore no church can deny people of fundamental rights. If they do, they will probably be subjected to losing their tax exempt status, fines and civil lawsuits.

Everyone in all work places will be forced to believe that same sex marriage is a right, and those who dissent will be terminated from their jobs. Christians and people of other faiths who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman will be targeted, harassed, demonized, called bigots, boycotted, protested, forced out of business or fired from their jobs. I predict that they will be subjected to vandalism and violence as well. The state will threaten their families by claiming child abuse, for teaching their children traditional marriage definitions. You wait and see, some of this has already come to fruition.

 

merkley is not discussing anything that revolutionary. He's talking about the 28 states that do not protect gays from discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodation like the other 22 states plus DC do. Its exactly the same kind of 'forced acceptance' we currently extend to women, Jews, blacks, and the disabled when they try to rent an apartment, interview for a promotion at work, or sit down to eat a burger at a diner throughout the country.

 

supreme court stacking by the obama with feminists has resulted in this type of leftist unconstitutional rulings , and congress refusing to step it up, is now just the judicial branch running the country sad..

 

The BIGOTRY on the left knows No bounds! Their "My way or the Highway" mantra will continue for as long as they can keep it going. I truly hope that the American people are starting to see the bigotry/hypocrisy in full HD now.

 

If the homosexual community believes that they have won anything, they are sorely mistaken. The united states is home to many muslims, with many more coming across the borders. Those that are devout believers of sharia law readily kill homosexuals in the countries they reside in. It would be quite foolish to believe that the same will not occur here. And as they are another minority given special consideration by the liberal political party, it will more than likely result in a clash of protected minorities. This ruling may only spur the move towards violence against infidels.

The question will come down to who the liberal party chooses to throw their support behind; the homosexual community, or the muslim community?

 

WOW! First response out the door and the comparison of homosexuality to being black is out of the bag. This is about gay rights/same sex marriage, why would your first response be to pull out the race card?

Secondly, just to let you know, being black is not at all equivalent or comparable to being gay. Do you realize that blacks hate that homosexuals are hijacking the black civil rights movement? Do you realize they resent that? Blacks think that it is racist to compare their civil rights struggles to homosexual agendas.

Why should gays be protected against discrimination? If an employer doesn't believe in same sex marriage and you are gay, why would you want to work for that employer? Likewise, if someone owns a business that doesn't believe in same sex marriage, why would you want to patronize that business?

And since when is being gay a disability? I'm sure that liberals will do what they always do which is make the supreme court write laws that they can't get passed the way laws are supposed to be written, through the legislature.

 

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

My discussion here actually not about same sex marriage, which has been decided. This is about those parts of our civil rights agenda left unfulfilled, namely getting those remaining 28 states to include us under the umbrella of civil rights legislation. In all 50 states that umbrella already precludes discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age and disability. We are none of those and we are not pretending we are. That is why we would need to be added, like has been done in 22 states.

I have worked for employers who did not support gay marriage and believed homosexuality to be a sin. I did so because I liked the work, got a decent wage, and got treated fairly decently anyway. They obeyed the law and I worked my ass off. It was a professional relationship and politics did not enter into our decisions. I have worked with bigots too,. It was my job to stay professional and civil as long as the bigots were working by my side did the same.

I would patronize a business because I want the product or service it promises me by virtue of its commitment to serve the public. I normally do not quiz the employees, I just park my car and walk in expecting to be seated or served as the equal of anyone else who parks their car and walks in.

I compare myself to blacks or the disabled or Jews or women in this post, because they also need work, places to live, products and services, and just like me and my partner, they make out credit reports, job or rental applications, formulate ' good faith' offers on homes, park their cars, and walk in expecting equal treatment. And they too occasionally find themselves denied equality of treatment and opportunity at the hands of bigots. While the nature, reason or essence behind the second class treatment for a woman, an old person, a wheel chair bound woman, a black man or a lesbian is very different, the result and impact is exactly the same.

MOD EDIT - Off Topic

 

You have worked very hard here to miss the point. The point is, nobody should face arbitrary discrimination. And "arbitrary" here is being used as "discrimination for reasons unrelated to the nature of the discrimination." The listed groups - Jews, gays, women, blacks, the handicapped -- have faced refusal to hire, and firing, and refusal to rent, and other insults NOT because they are unqualified for the position, apartment, or whatever, but because they are members of some group who are systematically shortchanged simply for being a member of that group.

Now, if gays wanted some sort of affirmative action (as practiced, meaning jobs and other opportunities selectively awarded to gays simply because they are gay), then I'd be opposed to this as well. Being gay should not make any difference one way or the other. Currently, gays DO face discrimination. There's no reason for it.

 

Give them time, first they have to achieve full fledged victim status under federal law and they will. I can see it now to dudes get thrown out of a restaurant for being all over each other, they take it to court, bam victim status. When they get that, they will go for affirmative action. After all gay is the new black.

 

They should be able to do anything you can do, and should not be able to do anything you can't do. Which includes things like getting a cake baked.

 

Well yeah. Think about it. Homosexuals faced discrimination in the workplace, as in they could be legally fired due to their sexual orientation. Yet they decided that getting the right to marry was what they should focus in on as a community. Strange isn't it? That's because as a community Homosexuals decided to make gay marriage their focus. So now it's time to focus on other pursuits. How about getting the right to speak to children about homosexuality and building a community within the youth? That's one right there.

 

`
What the legislators are doing here is force the states that do not or will not include gays on the list of those that are legally protected against discrimination. This would not apply to Wisconsin, for example, because our state laws already make it illegal to discriminate against a person because of their sexual orientation or marital status.

 

It sounds like we are in agreement, they will push for victim status then they will push for affirmative action.

 

Nobody will push for victim status if nobody victimizes them. If someone will bake a cake for me but not for you, you are a victim. If someone will take photographs for me but not for you, you are a victim. If someone will rent an apartment to me but not to you, you are a victim.

NOTE that you did absolutely nothing different from anything I did, in any of these examples. So whose fault is it that you got snubbed in each case while I did not? It's not my fault, and it's not your fault. Can you find those at fault?

 

If someone will not bake a cake for me I go to a different baker. Same with the others. I've been refused gas for being white. I was told in an interview I had zero chance because I wasn't a woman. There's two quick examples off the top of my head where a "victim" would sue. Did I cry or file charges? Hell no I took my ass down the road and got it elsewhere because I'm not a victim because a woman wants to work with a woman or an ******** doesn't want to sell me gas because of my skin color or a cake baker doesn't like my life style. Of course you don't have to believe any of my anecdotes.

 

So hypothetically, if a Nazi skinhead asked to rent your apartment and you said no, it would be discrimination? Technically he could be the most harmless human on earth, just scary looking. The fact he made you uncomfortable should be reason enough not to do business with him....free country and all So if a 6ft 5 transvestite wanted to rent the same room, could he sue you for discrimination if you said no? There isn't any freedom if someone can FORCE YOU to do something by yelling PC. If you're female and a black male wanted to rent the room, would it be discrimination? Should a black female be forced to rent to a white male? Could a white male say no to a white female? Can ANYONE say no to anyone without tossing some sort of card, since it really shouldn't matter what you are and who they are. Simply saying NO means you're choosing NO for some reason and you're discriminating based on that reason. Where does it end...or does it only matter if a white male does the discriminating, since they're not a protected class?

Anyone can yell victim right?

 

Translation: Yes, you know who is being discriminatory but you can't come out and admit it, so you evade the issue.

Yes, I've also been refused a job because I wasn't a woman. I oppose affirmative action. I should be accepted or rejected based on my ability to do the job, and nothing else. Same with getting a cake baked - it should depend on whether I have the money, and nothing else.

 

Yes, it would. Now, if this guy starts damaging the property or disturbing the peace, THEN I can have him evicted for those actions, but not for being who he is.

I suggested there should be some relevant, substantive reason for discrimination. Now, if there IS such a reason, certainly you should discriminate. Not being able to pay the rent is a good reason. Pets not allowed is another good reason.

But I note with amusement that every example you can think up involves arbitrary bigotry, and those are the best examples you can find. Says a lot about you.

And I notice you also evade the question of who is at fault, but in your case the implication is strong that the bigot is the good guy, and blame falls on the victim.

 

Actually SSM was the smart play now they can sue for housing, employment benefit and related rights as discriminatory as couples in the public domain although not currently church or similar religious sanctuaries. So if you deny a SSM couple housing its likely an actionable bias in the law and can be sued over or fined over, or both.

The next battleground will be sexual orientation and identity as a Federally protected class. Why not?

 

so homophobes are gonna become Muslim terrorists now?

 

I don't care if people want to discriminate, it is their right. If they don't want to do business with me I don't want them to have my money. How do you know the person baking your cake didn't drop their balls in the batter because they are being forced against their will to make it.

 

I hope you can understand that most people DO care, when they are the victims. Imagine you pull up to a motel with a vacancy, dead tired, late at night, the only motel in town. And they won't let you have a room, because you're, you know, one of "them". If this sort of thing happens to you too often, you kind of get bothered, know what I mean?

I wonder why it should be against their will at all, if that's what they're in business to do. But for whatever reason, they do sound like sickos, don't they?

 

Well for starters I'd start picking towns with more than one motel. When I travel I tend to plan ahead to make sure I'm not pulling into town dog tired. And if they did refuse me room I'd sleep in my car, wouldn't be the first time.

People do sick (*)(*)(*)(*) all the time, that's why I never (*)(*)(*)(*) off my server. Some people don't want to do certain types of jobs. I used to roof houses in the summer and if a job looked like to much trouble we wouldn't even get out of the truck to give an estimate. If we got on the roof and it looked like to much trouble we'd just estimate through the roof. Pun intended. If I were a baker and didn't want to bake the cake I'd do the same thing, tell them we are booked up or price it higher than I would other wise.

 

And totally ignore freedom of religion. You expect everybody else to ignore their religion and support gay marriage against their religious convictions.

So gay people can't discriminate against straight people in the workplace? It will be enforced just like black on white "hate crime". You also ignore parental rights. I choose my kids religion and influences. Gay people or anybody else don't have that right. They can raise their kids as they see fit.

 

So, is a woman a bigot if she isn't comfortable renting to a man? And what makes you a bigot if you simply don't get a good vibe from someone? The VICTIM is the person being forced to deal with someone regardless. When its against the law to simply not want to deal with someone, then EVERYONE is a victim. What if a guy asks a woman to marry him but she thinks he's ugly? He's the greatest guy in the world. Funny, kind, just a great person. Just ugly. Guess she's the bigot then, correct? The fact YOU think you have to LIKE SOMEONE regardless, makes you worse than a bigot...it makes you a fascist.

And we already know that gay people will have cart blanch to discriminate whenever they want, much like every other minority. There are already example. Gay baker refused to bake a cake. Baker is seen as brave. Straight baker refuses to bake cake....accused of being a bigot and the MSM runs them out of business. Its about hypocrisy!!!! You can't have it both ways. Much like businesses that are either ALL black or prominently black or all Hispanic and nobody says a word.

By the way refusing to rent to someone if they look like a pig isn't discriminating. Its being smart. If a gay person was renting a room and a guy drives up in a Chevy POS, dressed in ripped jeans and a sweaty smelly t-shirt, I wouldn't have a problem at all. Its the prerogative of people to be able to decide who they associate or do business with.