The gay rights bill has now passed the Senate.
As Matt pointed out the other day, for all the debate over the "gay civil rights bill", there is a remarkable dearth of press reports about actual recent discrimination cases that would justify a need for such a bill. In today's Seattle Times we have such a report: "Sexual-orientation bias complaints rare, tough to prove"
In the five years she has been enforcement manager in the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Angela Dawson-Milton said she recalls only a single sexual-orientation case that ended in a complainant's favor.And this is the only case of relevant employment discrimination the Times could come up with? Paradoxically, the bill passed precisely because of a shift in attitudes that also renders the bill largely unnecessary. Surely 30 years ago when the bill was first proposed there were many more cases of discrimination. Now (and fortunately, in my opinion), it's scarcely less socially unacceptable to discriminate against gays than it is to discriminate against blacks and Jews. The bill passed by a slender margin not so much because there's a still a serious ongoing problem with anti-gay discrimination that the bill is needed to fix, but because it's perceived by many to be a largely symbolic gesture and the prevailing attitudes in the legislature, as in most cases, are a trailing indicator of public opinion. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 27, 2006 12:15 PM | Email ThisThat case involved a 40-year-old heterosexual waiter at a Seattle restaurant who said he was suspended and later fired because a new general manager was replacing older straight waiters with young gay men.
This bill is not about ending discrimination. It is about ending dissent by eliminating the liberty of those that don't agree with nor want to associate with those promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
Posted by: Larry on January 27, 2006 11:26 AMJust looking at the comment board of any posting on this site, and dems constantly refer to Republicans as racist/sexist/bigots, etc.
It's to give Republicans a black eye and provide Dems with a wedge issue to champion in all local and statewide elections.
Posted by: c on January 27, 2006 11:39 AMYes, there are exemptions for churchs and other religious or secular organizations. Additionally, business with fewer than 8 employees are exempt, along with landlords that are renting a room within their primary residence.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on January 27, 2006 12:18 PMThe problem with giving power to government, or any other group, even if the assumption is that it wont be abused, is simply that it CAN be abused. This stupid bill is ripe for abuse. It allows law suites at the state level, with monetary rewards.
Lawyers love it. With money to be gained, you can bet that plenty of ambulance chasers will start finding sexual orientation discrimination in their morning coffee.
But, what I am relieved about is the fact that those people in our state that have a sexual orientation towards horses will be free from all discrimation. In fact, they should be able to bring their equine mates to work.
.... just another in a long line of stupid things our state legislature does that don't cure any problem, or actually invent problems to be cured, but in the end have a detrimental impact on our ability to live in freedom.
Posted by: BananaLand on January 27, 2006 12:25 PMIndians live under a seperate legal system that orginally recognized the different method in which they became members of the country. Over the years the priortity placed on Indian issues has waxed and waned and with those cycles has come an inablity of laws to change and reflect the reality of the changed situaiton in both the country at large and with the tribes.
In effect Indians today live in world where a unitary legal system does not exist and for any changes to take place, sui generis legislation must be passed. The result has been a lack of economic progress and the creation of a permant underclass called Indians
It seems to me that by demanding special legal recognition and status under the law, gays, lesbians, transgenders or whatever they are are condenming themselves to becoming a permanantly disabled group.
I think I can say that the intensity of focus on gay issues will be surplanted at some point in the future and as that happens it is likely that other human rights legislation will be passed that will marginalize this already marginal population. As this legalistic marginalizaion continues gays will accutally find themselves disadvantaged by the very laws they orginally believed to be salutory.
Jefferson said that the government which governs least, governs best and that is true in this case. This is a very slippery slope who will be the next minority to require special ennumeration in the law? What effect with that have on the unitary nature of US law which is the glory of the world and baisis for our economic,moral and political strength?
Posted by: Dennis on January 27, 2006 12:46 PMThat said - let me be very clear: The only thing seperating State Senator Val Stevens (my state senator) and I on issues like this is her belief gov't should add a mandate for marriage. I couldn't disagree more - I prefer the clergy.
Smaller government is better!
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 27, 2006 01:28 PMWhen a bill comes up to protect our children from sexual predators, they all cry and say that they don't have enough information, police reports, social worker reports, etc.
What a travesty! We need to protect the truly defenseless not those want to make some sort of political point. What a waste of time and tax dollars.
It doesn't seem that Rep. Murray has been discriminated against. He is an elected public official.
Regardless of how you view the gay/lesbian life choices, this is truly opening Pandora's box.
Posted by: Kathie on January 27, 2006 01:29 PMWhile not personally against civil equality for folks with different views on what constitutes "sexual identity", I think this particular piece of legislation is so wrapped in PC gobbledy-goop language that it will create a bonanza of litigation.
I doubt however that the litigation to come was an unintended consequence. I suspect the legislators want the courts to find a definition of identity, since this is apparently beyond their ability.
Posted by: Deadwood on January 27, 2006 01:45 PMThe gay rights bill is unnecessary because no one discriminates against gays anyway, and it's wrong because people should be able to discriminate against gays if they want. You're contradicting yourself.
Posted by: Travis Thomas on January 27, 2006 02:05 PMAs far as there not being evidence of discrimination in recent cases, that's part of the point here. If you were fired for being gay, you didn't have recourse. I could be proven wrong, but I don't think there will be a rash of lawsuits because most employers have gotten the point that you need to amass a fair amount of reasonable documented wrongs before you dump somebody.
Posted by: ChrisW on January 27, 2006 02:31 PMPlease explain to me, because I don't understand...seriously.
Posted by: Dengle on January 27, 2006 03:12 PMYou will be proven wrong ChrisW. The tide of lawsuits will not have anything to do with the behavior of employers. Employers want employees that do the work required of them; employers are probably the people least interested in "sexual orientation." This fact is what government doesn't seem to get.
When an employer fires someone, it is because they don't do the work. But, now, if a gay gets fired, you can be sure that in many, if not most, of the cases, there will be a lawsuit against the employer claiming sexual orientation discimination.
I think the laws prohibiting discrimination against blacks are generally a good thing. Sure, they get abused. But, blacks have a long difficult history of slavery and then discrimination. Sometimes the abuse of legistlation is worth it, to set things straight, at least for a while.
Gays have no such history. And, to the extent that they still face any sort of discrimination today, it's not worth the potential for abuse of this law to try to stop those few occasions.
Question: Outside of applying this ban to government and access to government services (which makes sense), do any of the above categories have a right to another's private property? If not, why shouldn't a private property owner be able to discriminate against anyone he or she wants to? Unless of course one doesn't own their business, land, thoughts etc...
I agree with this statement--but I think it applies to the gay issue too. I just don't see the rash of litigation coming.
For years, disgruntled employees have had a way to abuse equal protection laws: religion. You can simply state that you were fired for being Christian, atheist, agnostic, [[insert anything you like here]]. I think it's wrong to think that gays as a group would be more abusive than anyone else.
If it isn't really needed then it does no harm to have passed the bill. If it really is needed then it is a good thing the bill was passed.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 27, 2006 05:51 PMI disagree.
* It is likely to invite frivolous and unproductive litigation.
* It will institutionalize a perpetual sense of victimhood, entitlement and dependence on government for yet another category of citizens who are otherwise perfectly capable of competing in the free market on their own merits.
I also find it quite odd that Washington feels compelled to "eliminate discrimination against gays, " right after passing the biggest discrimination act in the country against people who smoke and businesses that wish to cater to them.
I guess who is disciminated against is what matters.
Posted by: Lew W on January 27, 2006 06:35 PMThis law will be the foundation of what the gay movement needed in order to get gay marriage passed as an unconstitutional inequity. It all about civil equal rights and all, just ask all of the gay rights special interest groups. This is as corrupt as the fraudulent governorship and this type of legislation ought to be illegal.
Wait, watch and see the State Supreme Court is the next blow. How a Supreme Court justice could be impartial at this point is really unimaginable. They'll make law right along with the Legislature in complete alignment. The socialistic imposition in frightening as to just how far left this place is.
It's UNBELIEVABLE to see legislation like this pass and all the jolly faces on the news considering the worthless legislature should be passing legislation more in alignment with protecting our most vulnerable citizens, our children.
Something like Sarah's law legislation that protects children from these people who are invading our public school systems.
http://www.forsarah.com/html/welcome.html
I absolutely agree, this was a complete waste of legislative resources.
So in essence, you are saying we don't need a law to ensure the protections are there because society has progressed to the point we don't discriminate. You are also insinuating that we hardly discriminate against blacks and Jews these days.
While I wish this were so, unfortunately we aren't quite there yet. Blacks and minorities continue to be slighted, and few would suggest we a ready to eliminate the protections that are in place against racial or religious discrimination. Likewise we are not yet in a time and place where prejudicial discrimination against non-heterosexuals is not an issue for a segment of Washingtonians.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 27, 2006 08:49 PMWhen I was a child being raised, we were taught, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me." Seems that age old common sense saying is a thing of the past.
Still, I have a hard time understanding "hate speech" existing right alongside "freedom of speech." Of course, if I am called a 'honkey,' 'whitey' or such euphenisms for caucasians, somehow that isn't also 'hate speech.'
Posted by: Lew W on January 27, 2006 10:01 PM
This means that a plaintiff suing under this law MUST be able to prove his/her status USING ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and also prove that there is no other legal reason for termination/nonhiring/nonrenting.
I will grow very old waiting for someone to show me what such evidence could look like. Frankly, I do not believe it is possible because everybody knows that "gay" or "homosexual" does not exist.
Only "gay acts" or "homosexual acts" exist. So unless those "acts" have a rational relationship to the employment position being sought or occupied, merely mentioning them is an adverse employment indicator justifying nonhiring or firing.
If sued under this law, counterclaim for frivolous action. The other side will pay your fees for having annoyed you with the lawsuit.
Stand against insanity. It's the least you can do for America.
Posted by: platypus on January 28, 2006 08:55 AMWho exactly is discriminating against homosexuals?
Posted by: H Moul on January 28, 2006 09:38 AM"And this is the only case of relevant employment discrimination the Times could come up with?"
The key word here is EMPLOYMENT, and the scope he is referring to is the City of Seattle (doubtless the least bigoted area of the state towards sexual orientation) as reflected in the personal recollection of one employee of the SOCR. The state's anti-discrimination law applies to other important areas besides employment, such as housing and public accommodations. The article itself begins with an account of a very clear example of discrimination against a lesbian couple in Tacoma.
Discrimination on the basis of religion also constitutes a tiny sliver of complaints throughout the state (as opposed to just Seattle, which SS cites): http://www.hum.wa.gov/documents/JeanFactSheet02-03.pdf
Does the fact that there are not many complaints about discrimination on the basis of religion mean that it should not be covered by state law?
Posted by: bartelby on January 28, 2006 10:05 AMThe thing they are not counting on is the tremendous voter backlash which will run the homo-loving gun-grabbing Democrats out of town.
Posted by: Mister Moderate on January 28, 2006 11:12 AMThe next time I get fired, I'm going to bring a suit against the company claiming that I was only let go because I'm a lesbian. It doesn't matter that I've been married for over a decade--if I claim my sexual orientation is toward other women, who could possibly deny me my innermost, inborn feelings? It's a cash bonanza!
Posted by: Sredni Vashtar on January 28, 2006 01:00 PMThe thing they are not counting on is the tremendous voter backlash which will run the homo-loving gun-grabbing Democrats out of town.
Posted by: Mister Moderate on January 28, 2006 11:12 AM
Umm... what exactly is "moderate" about your bigoted position against gays, Mister Moderate?
Posted by: Daniel K on January 28, 2006 02:39 PMOn the issue of gay rights and affirmative action, however (where every major corporation in the state DISAGREES WITH YOU), it is amusing to observe the weird gymnastics in which folks engage in order to cling to dusty bugaboos of bigotry which the rest of society has moved far beyond.
If you get tired of shaking your tiny fists in the market of public opinion you may wish to check out the Pat Robertson Meterological Prediction Club.
Posted by: bartelby on January 28, 2006 03:39 PMIf "every major corporation in the state DISAGREES WITH" us then why exactly was this legislation needed?
The corporations have their liberty to set their policies in the way they want to do business. That liberty may include policies that support your view and they may not. That's liberty.
But that's something you don't want to have happen. So instead you take away others' liberty because you don't like their views.
This bill wasn't about eliminating discrimination. You've already conceded that point as did most of the supporters of this bill. It was about not letting companies and others that disagree with you on the issue of homosexual behavior to have the liberty to choose for themselves. It was about eliminating dissent.
And when people object, you call them names. What exactly would you call them if you were intolerant?
Posted by: Larry on January 28, 2006 05:27 PMIf you're outraged at the passage of this bill (or even mildly annoyed), then I want you to perform a simple exercise.
Reread this thread, but instead of "sexual orientation" pretend that this discussion is about "religion" and see if you experience the same outrage that Washington has a law that makes religious belief a protected class.
If you maintain your same position, great. If not, then you likely need to explore why you think religion should be a protected class but sexual orientation shouldn't be. Oh, and you're likely a hypocrite.
Posted by: Timothy on January 28, 2006 06:30 PMIf you maintain your same position, great. If not, then you likely need to explore why you think religion should be a protected class but sexual orientation shouldn't be. Oh, and you're likely a hypocrite. - Posted by Timothy
1) The First Amendment of the Constitution actually protects religion so having religion as part of this law doesn't seem contradictory.
2) Just because there may already be an illegitimate item in the law does not mean that another item should be added. Both must be evaluated on there own merits.
- Brokeback Mountain, TransAmerica, and Capote all receive rave reviews and honored at the Golden Globes.
- Gay characters are all over TV
- Then-candidate for Governor Christine Gregoire listed cities, counties, and "major Washington-based businesses" that have "brought sexual orientation under the umbrella of their human rights ordinances."
- Homosexuals have higher than average incomes, are better educated, and are more likely to hold professional or managerial positions.
- Cities are openly emphasizing tourism to the gay market in order to expand the dollars spent in their cities.
- The Columbian, last year, observed four openly gay members of the legislature.
My point is that anti-discrimination laws are for oppressed groups. Homosexuals are not oppressed. The supporters say so. They use terms like discrimination, rights", "equality", etc. to create a positive, emotional reaction to their position to distract from the evidence.
In doing do, they advocate for an unjust law.
Talk about it, flaunt it, put up personal decorations promoting it, etc. Gays can wear gay pride items in city hall, but Christians can't because it might offend someone. So much for the law helping...
I don't think it is a good law, I just see it as a stepping stone to more lawsuits.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 28, 2006 11:10 PMAll the legal benefits of marriage, can be legally obtained via 5 legal documents. But cultural acceptance will not come because the two joinings are not the same.
So until a man and a man or a women and a women, without outside intervention, can produce a child this will not happen. Evolution is against you, not bigotry.
Truth hurts, don't it.
Posted by: Mike P on January 29, 2006 08:06 AMLarry...the first amendment only guarantees that congress shall make no law respecting religion (and not only religion, but all "speech" as well, btw). The first amendment does not protect religionists from discrimination by individual citizens. It would not, for example, explicitly forbid a lanlord from not renting to a christian.
Larry states: Just because there may already be an illegitimate item in the law does not mean that another item should be added. Both must be evaluated on there own merits.
OK...so let's get to this point. You seem to suggest, later in your post, that the criteria for creating a protected class should be actual discrimination. For example, you say "anti-discrimination laws are for oppressed groups."
Are you actually suggesting that Christians in America are oppressed, but that homosexuals are not?
Larry states: My point is that Homosexuals are not oppressed. The supporters say so. They use terms like discrimination, rights", "equality", etc. to create a positive, emotional reaction to their position to distract from the evidence.
I can scarcely take you serious on this point. That a small group of homosexual individuals have grouped together in a very few urban centers in this country to create safe places, that they have created support networks for themselves and by doing so, some have been able to create comfortable lives relatively free from direct bias, is true. But, step outside of these so-called gay ghettos and there is a much different picture. And while you may be right that a gay person working for a major corporation in Seattle doesn't see much discrimination, are you suggesting that the same would hold true in Yakima, Pasco, Spokane or Wenatchee?
But, back to your point. You seem to be arguing, finally, that these laws are legitimate so long as there is evidence of oppression. Have I stated your position correctly? How much oppression is needed? How many instances?
Posted by: Timothy on January 29, 2006 09:03 AMI think you're being hyperbolic here. But, are you seriously suggesting that gays are less oppresed in our State than are Christians? I would find discrimination of either disturbing. But, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to take a random sampling of workplace environments in this state, that we find, by an order of magnitudes, many more religious symbols (crosses, bibles, etc.) openly displayed than we would find gay iconography displayed.
SouthernRoots states: So much for the law helping...I don't think it is a good law, I just see it as a stepping stone to more lawsuits.
So long as you're making a sweeping statement here, arguing that religionists should not be a protected class either, and not just focusing your arguments against homosexuals, then I can at least relate to your point. So, is that what you're suggesting? That we should not create any protected classes?
Posted by: Timothy on January 29, 2006 09:12 AMAnd I think Timothy raises a good point. I may feel that people who think some loon that got stuck on a stick 2,000 years ago has any relevance to the present day are imbecilic bumpkins. So why can't I exercise my freedom by refusing to hire them, rent to them, or serve them in my restaurant?
Posted by: bartelby on January 29, 2006 09:13 AMI disagree. Religion is already mentioned in the law as a protected class. My attempt here is to compare the addition of one protected class to the newly protected class.
Mike P states: Too bad that you can't see, most laws governing behavior are discriminatory by their very existence. Gay did not want equal rights because thay already have them.
Do you believe that religionists already have equal rights? Are you arguing that the law is unnecessary altogether? If so, you may be presenting a coherent argument (although, in my opinion, naive). But, if you're suggesting that religion should be protected in this way, but sexual orientation shouldn't, then I'd like to hear your argument for the distinction.
Your arguments about gay marriage are flawed, but are also a red herring to this discussion, so I'll leave those points aside for now.
Posted by: Timothy on January 29, 2006 09:20 AMAnd yes, I believe this should apply to all minority groups, even though I am a member of one of 'em. The government can never make bigotry go away, but they sure can make freedom go away.
Posted by: Marc on January 29, 2006 10:36 AMOne question remains: Will Queen Christina be reviewing this year's May Day Parade?
Posted by: Cartman on January 29, 2006 10:39 AMYour position, however, raises all sorts of questions. In the end, you seem to be arguing that minorities have no natural rights, but only retain rights as granted them, on a case-by-case basis, by the majority. Is that your view?
You noted that a "private citizen" should be able to discriminate. Should the government, likewise, be able to discriminate? For example, can a local police department decide that it does not like christians, and therefore, not hire any based upon that classification?
Posted by: Timothy on January 29, 2006 10:48 AMYou also won't touch the Gay Marraige part because you know that I have it exactly nailed. Marraige is an institution used for joining two tribe, races, countries together for centuries. That union, in order to be effective, had to produce children. When it did not, 75 percent of the time it resulted in another conflict. Evolution and History are against you. But I know that does not matter because you claim to "care" more than I do.
Again truth hurts, don't it.
"Maybe I'm the only one willing to say it, but if a private citizen wishes to discriminate however he wants he is legally able to do so according to the First Amendment (freedom of speech and association)."
Marc asserts that "the right of the people to peaceably assemble" includes the right to discriminate against others with impunity.
Those pesky 13th and 14th Amendments were obviously the work of pansy liberal busybodies. As the President does with FISA, we can just treat them as dead letters.
A principled conservative might differ with Marc. What are the chances of seeing that 'round here, Jethro?
Posted by: bartelby on January 29, 2006 03:24 PMI agree. I'm not sure why religion is in an anti-discrimination law. I was just making a speculation as to why it might be. One would have to go back to when the law was created to see what the argument was for including it. The point is, however, that even if religion is included illegitimately it does not follow that "sexual orientation" or "gender expression" can therefore be included. It should be evaluated on its own merits.
Timothy states: OK...so let's get to this point. You seem to suggest, later in your post, that the criteria for creating a protected class should be actual discrimination. For example, you say, "anti-discrimination laws are for oppressed groups."
Are you actually suggesting that Christians in America are oppressed, but that homosexuals are not?
Actually, I have made no statement as to whether Christians are oppressed or not. It is irrelevant to this discussion and your attempt to bring it up serves no other point than to distract from the main issue.
What law is "sexual orientation" and "gender expression" being added to? The anti-discrimination law. What is the reason the supporters give for needing those added? Gays are being discriminated against. How do they know there is discrimination unless they have evidence? So yes we should have evidence of actual and legitimate discrimination.
So I gave a list of evidence, none of which comes from the opposition, that shows that our society is very tolerant of homosexuals. But that wasn't enough. It isn't enough that some companies already have protections for homosexuals. We have to force ALL companies do so.
Rep. Jim Moeller, in yesterday's Columbian, stated that this law will affect gays in their lives very little. Why would someone who argues gays are discriminated against say that? Because it's not about discrimination against gays.
I can scarcely take you serious on this point. That a small group of homosexual individuals have grouped together in a very few urban centers in this country to create safe places, that they have created support networks for themselves and by doing so, some have been able to create comfortable lives relatively free from direct bias, is true. But, step outside of these so-called gay ghettos and there is a much different picture. And while you may be right that a gay person working for a major corporation in Seattle doesn't see much discrimination, are you suggesting that the same would hold true in Yakima, Pasco, Spokane or Wenatchee?
Would this be the same Spokane where gays want to create a "gay" neighborhood? That has a Human Rights Commission. How did these "gay ghettos" manage to influence the state legislature and the Governor to pass this law? By the way, ghetto entails a picture of poverty and oppression. You use ghetto to invoke an emotional reaction to your position. Since gays make more than straight, as I pointed out in another of the evidences, "gay ghettos" would be a picture of affluence.
You single out also Yakima, Pasco, and Wenatchee which is interesting since you seem to believe that Seattle only has safe places and gay ghettos. But regardless, this reveals the difference between our positions.
If a business owner does not want his business represented by a homosexual or a landlord doesn't want to rent to a homosexual:
My position: The homosexual has the liberty to go find someone who will and the business owner and landlord have the liberty to run their property according to their conscience. Both have liberty.
Your position: The business owner and landlord MUST violate their conscious. They CANNOT hire or rent to whom the want. You take away their liberty. In effect, you say it is okay to oppress those who do not share your view on homosexuality.
Posted by: Larry on January 29, 2006 04:09 PMI was responding to your statement that "every major corporation in the state DISAGREES WITH my side." But that is not enough for you. You want ALL corporations to do your bidding. Before this law, if a business owner didn't want a homosexual to represent their business then the homosexual can go elsewhere. They both have liberty. You say, however, that only one side should have liberty. The business owner, the one who is who pores his money and energy into, cannot run his business the way he sees fit; that the homosexual gets to run it instead. You have no problem with that discrimination; the discrimination that takes away someone's liberty.
Secondly, Rep. Jim Moeller, in yesterday's Columbian , stated that this law will affect gays in their lives very little. Why would someone who argues gays are discriminated against say that? Because it's not about discrimination against gays.
If the Tacoma incident refers to the YMCA (i.e. the Young Men's Christian Association). Two women were upset because the Y would not issue them a "family" membership. The Y did not bar them from membership (they received individual memberships). The Y didn't say you could only swim in the gay pool. Nope, they only said that two women with children did not constitute a family. The women had the liberty to go elsewhere or, as they did, get individual memberships. Nope. Instead they want to take away the organization's liberty. Did they not to realize they were walking into a historically Christian organization.
Thirdly, how does your one example show an oppression of gays?
This law isn't about eliminating discrimination. It discriminates against those who do not hold your views. It is an unjust law because it takes away the liberty and the freedom of those who don't take your side.
bartleby states:And I think Timothy raises a good point. I may feel that people who think some loon that got stuck on a stick 2,000 years ago has any relevance to the present day are imbecilic bumpkins. So why can't I exercise my freedom by refusing to hire them, rent to them, or serve them in my restaurant?
I have no problem with you refusing them, personally. As for the guy on the stick, glad to see you are honest in your rejection of the foundations upon which Martin Luther King stood.
Posted by: Larry on January 29, 2006 04:11 PMI too question the need for this law and whether the legislature has just created a protected class of people, with the push towards gay marriage next.
Posted by: Palouse on January 30, 2006 08:07 AMObviously evidence suggest discrimination was/is not an issue in today's liberal society. That being the case what is the issue? Why did the Democrats move to pass such a bill? Examine the political basis for an answer. Democrats are a political party beholding to a few groups led by labor unions and trial attorneys. This bill rewards trial attorneys by opening up new case law for them to feed on for years to come. It also provides Democrats with a wedge issue in future campaigns. The militant Gays win government legitimacy. They are now considered a legal group and must be dealt with as such.
Who are the losers? The immediate losers are private companies that employ more than 8 people. For example the Boys Scouts come to mind. And any company the dismisses a so called, self thinking "gay" employee will be subjected to expensive civil prosecution. (trial attorneys being rewarded)
Religious groups that don't accept the Gay life style will also suffer the wrath of the State's legal system which will no doubt be reinforced to deal with malcontents.
Single sex marriage will also receive stamp of approval by the courts and lead to further consequences that will impact society for future generations.
Gays will become the big losers. They will be perceived as the cause. The snapping of the painfully expensive legal whip will cause society to resent the "gay group." And society will actually start discriminating against them. Just as black people actually became the big losers by government intervention, gay people will ultimately become the big losers as well. Societies ultimately decide equality.
"All pigs are equal; some are more equal"
Suggest we support a referendum for the People to Decide.
Posted by: snuffy on January 30, 2006 08:43 AM