Gays & Maryland Continued

[John]

Quote: from AnonymousPenguin on 4:07 pm on Nov. 27, 2001     However, when it come renting an entire apartment/home or selling a condo/house....you should not be allowed to discriminate!!! ...it is a completely different issue... at this point, your choices are biased by judgements of a group....and in return, hatred of a group.

If I were selling my house I wouldn't care if Woody Allen, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Dahmer were going in on it together. As long as they have the price.

As for the last part of your post...
I don't hate or fear these people....I disaprove of their behavior. If they didn't try so hard to shove it in people's faces at every opertunity they likely wouldn't have have the trouble in life they do.
BTW...One of my peeves is this nonsence of "homophobia". It isn't fear.....Its disgust, revulsion and disapproval.

 

[AnonymousPenguin]

Quote: from John on 4:34 pm on Nov. 27, 2001[br]If I were selling my house I wouldn't care if Woody Allen, Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Dahmer were going in on it together. As long as they have the price.

You may not... but some people hate...and discrimate...
If you recall correctly, there was a time that certain whites wouldn't sell their home to blacks.
You would think, people wouldn't care and would want to simply get the best price whether it is from blacks or homosexuals or atheists... but some people are strange...and choose to practice hatred.  It is for that purpose that equal right laws have to be enforced.... to prevent such wrongful actions.... that reveal nothing but hatred toward a group.


(Edited by AnonymousPenguin at 4:40 pm on Nov. 27, 2001)

 

[andwhat]

so John you're saying that instead of homophobia we should just call it by its proper name bigotry? or perhaps ignorance?

 

[John]

Quote: from AnonymousPenguin on 4:33 pm on Nov. 27, 2001[br]Murder, rape, robbery ...involves harming another.

Homosexuality...is an unharmful choice (if it is).

The government has a duty to protect its citizens.  In the case where there is no threat of harm being implied, equal rights should be guaranteed.... and discrimination is not legitimate!

OK! I disagree but lets try these on for size....

Drug abuse, body mutilation, necrophelia, bestiality, urinating on the front lawn, picking their noses, and what ever other disgusting things one can come up with in 10 seconds or less.

Are these harming anyone in particular? It's still disgusting behavior and people shouldn't be made to accept it.

 

[John]

Quote: from andwhat on 4:39 pm on Nov. 27, 2001[br]so John you're saying that instead of homophobia we should just call it by its proper name bigotry? or perhaps ignorance?

There is nothing "bigoted" about it. It's discrimination based on information. I'm discriminate about where I live, what I eat, wear, believe and yes.......what types of people I associate with. I don't befriend murderers, junkies, deviants, theives etc. and I don't go out of my way to meet them.

Are they out there? Yes! Do I have to approve of their behavior......NO!

 

[andwhat]

John, you wrote

BTW...One of my peeves is this nonsence of "homophobia". It isn't fear.....Its disgust,
                      revulsion and disapproval.

Umm, that sure as hell sounds like bigotry to me. Disgust and revulsion just b/c someone is different then you, whether you know them or not, that is bigotry my friend.

 

[Hessian]

Vraiblonde and John...well, it looks like they let up on me for a day...sorry they felt the need to dump on you.

I would like to thank Morning Hours for looking up that 1992 referendum attempt. I suppose a lot of it comes down to the wording of the question doesn't it? I think I recall that petition drive and there was a load of debate regarding how it was phrased.
I seem to recall a lot of people were "sitting on the Fence" before Thomas Paine Wrote "Common Sense" or when  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" hit the bookstores in the 1850's. I am waiting for some bold author/photographer to get a broad read exposing the agenda of the Homosexual lobby...I've seen small exerpts on occasion regarding some mushrooming legislation out in California...But its all incremental.
If Bin Laden or Hitler had taken a more incremental approach, appeasement would have lasted much longer and they would have built an even larger power base. This is what the Gay movement is counting on...slow, gradual, and subtle
For example "Oh come on...this law won't really do a lot..."
That may be true--but as we see judges misuse and "breathe" new interpretations of the law--yoiu can imagin what distortions are just around the bend.
Ken, this is where I must point out that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the Supreme court to write laws, but activist courts can sometimes move much faster than legislatures: Thus, Judicial review become statutes: This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This peril continues.

John, thanks for new angle on the issues, as I have said many times before, its not homophobia, its homoloathing.
Just like the queer nation folks disrupting services, vandalizing buildings and generally showing bigotry toward Republicans and Christians...we have shown the MUCH greater "PC sin" of intolerance.
Gotta run,...off to Friendly's
(just kidding)

 

[John]

Quote: from andwhat

Umm, that sure as hell sounds like bigotry to me. Disgust and revulsion just b/c someone is different then you, whether you know them or not, that is bigotry my friend.

Not because they are different.......Because they engage in a disgusting form of behavior and feel compelled to make others aware of it. That isn't bigotry friend. It's discrimination.

I get to pick and choose those I associate with. If you don't like that, tough.

If anyone exibits true bigotry it's been you. You have a deep seated hatred of Christians and anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Where does the Constitution say I am compelled to approve of various forms of behavior? What amendment delegated my right to my own beliefs to some branch of government?

I've not harmed one of these people ever regardless of what they do. I simply don't like their behavior, don't approve of it and you have no right to expect me to. I don't like junkies either. In my opinion they are engaging in disgusting behavior.

I happen to like a few beers now and again. That doesn't mean I have any right to expect the Mormons to accept my behavior. If I push my behavior into their lives they have every right to push back. See how that works.

If you like them so much that's your right and be on your way. As for me I'm content to let them be as long as they don't try to force my approval again.

 

[Ken King]

Hessian,

You don't need to point anything out to me as to what the intent of our founding fathers was.  I am quite capable of determining their intent myself.   I have found it an interesting hobby over the years.  I love both the law and it's history.  Matter of fact, I have recently been accepted at a school of law.

What law has been “written” by the Supreme Court?  I have seen their determinations as to what is or isn’t Constitutional, but I can’t remember ever seeing a law written by them.  You have made a bold claim that the courts create statutes, now provide specifics to what you allude.   What I suspect that you will find is that a law was already written and when challenged they determined the constitutionality of it, as the Constitution dictates.

 

[Ken King]

John,

Not once have any of my gay friends described or made me aware of their sexual behavior.  I have a vivid enough imagination for that, but I can’t blame them for the visions I conjure up.  While I don’t understand how anyone could enjoy what I believe it is they do, I don’t think it is any of our business to say what it is they can or can’t do as consenting adults.

Throughout all of this one thing has remained constant, that being that the Maryland law has only added sexual orientation to other protected groups that had previously experienced discrimination in the areas of work, housing, and public accommodations.  Never has anyone been compelled to accept the behavior.  You can still dislike them if you choose as you have the right to do.  You just can’t discriminate against them as the law specifies.

I feel that too many of you are worried about what the next step will be for the gays instead of just allowing them to live equally in our society.  Is that too much to ask from any of us?  I say no. From the very beginning I saw this law as doing very little for them and in some ways harming them as it specifies what discriminatory behavior is authorized and by whom.  I think  that they should be treated as we treat every other group of law-abiding Americans.  Why can’t they be allowed to form a common bond comparable to a marriage?  If they are devoted enough to each other isn’t that for them to decide and not the state.    

 

[foxylady]

Ken ---- Congratulations on being accepted to law school!  WOW.  Good for you!  You will have to let us know when you set up your practice, my partner and I (Morninghours) will gladly come to you to get our civil union papers drawn up!  Well ... the closest thing to them that this state allows anyway!  

Best of luck, you'll do great!

 :king:

 

[John]

Ken,
Actually there are quite a number of them that seem to take great pains to make their co-workers around them aware of their personal behavior. I, fortunately, haven't worked with them directly. But co-workers in other departments at one location or another did. Believe me I don't need any images of it either.

But to get back to the point of this whole thing I never said they didn't have a right to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. I object to the "in you face" nature of the freak parades, the forced acceptance, and an agenda that teaches this deviance in the classroom to children. (Yes: Ken there are states that have added this to their sex education programs).

I also object to it being given preferential treatment under the law. What's next? Should the Junkies and Alky's in society get equal protection to secure their jobs? Are they too owed consideration for renting an apartment? Sorry. I don't think their is any reason to reward or protect destructive behavior. And by destructive I refer to society in general.

I'd be curious if you'd answer the questions I posed earlier about the business owners rights to an employee that better represents his business. Or do you too believe that society owes them employment?

 

[John]

BTW Ken, congratulations on Law School! Is this a return to college late in life? I always got the impression you weren't a twenty-something!  

 

Again, Good luck!

 

[Morninghours]

John, if you’re basing your discrimination on “information,” as you claim, you might try actually reading the law we’re debating. Judging from some of your arguments against it, the law might surprise you.

Quote: from John on 3:34 pm on Nov. 27, 2001[br]1. If you have a business and your employees are in direct contact with your customers, and the customers find something about them offensive or unsettling.  Do we have a right to replace them with someone who will better represent our business and have better relations with our customers? Or do you believe someone owes them a job?

The law covers that. It says it should not be interpreted to require an employer to grant preferential treatment to someone because of his/her sexual orientation; nor should it be interpreted to prohibit employers from terminating someone who doesn’t meet standard employment requirements.

However, in the scenario you described, an employer would be expected to deal with a gay employee the same way as when a customer finds it “offensive or unsettling” to do business, say, with an African American or a woman or a physically handicapped person… or even a middle-aged white guy with a Seventh District accent.

Quote: from John on 3:34 pm on Nov. 27, 2001[br]2nd.  If you are renting a room, sharing an apartment, sharing a dorm room etc., do you not have a right to choose someone whose behavior doesn't conflict with your beliefs or principles?

What if a necrophilia wants to share the place? Are we allowed to deny them, and their metabolically challenged life-partner, in favor of someone we find acceptable? (hmmm......Maybe "life-partner" wouldn't be the best description in that case)

What about those who are "involved" with other species? Do those engaged in bestiality have those same right to share our teenagers dorm room?

The law clearly excludes people who want to rent their own house, a room in it, or an apartment (as long as the dwelling contains no more than five apts.)  So chill out. Nobody’s gonna make bunk with a homosexual.

And as colorful as your examples are of necrophilia and bestiality, any high school debate coach would have kicked you to the curb for stooping to this form of fallacious reasoning known as “The “Slippery Slope.” (e.g., “If  we let teenagers slow dance at the prom, the next thing you know they’ll be making babies right there on the basketball court!”)

As Mr. King said, no one is demanding that you endorse, accept, like, or approve of homosexuality. You certainly have a right to your belief that I and other gayfolks are disgusting, offensive, and deviant. (Although I just know your opinion would change if you got to know us. Most of us are lovely individuals!)

The thing you CAN’T do is deprive us of a livelihood because you don’t want gays on your planet.

 

[John]

Morning,

However, in the scenario you described, an employer would be expected to deal with a gay employee the same way as when a customer finds it “offensive or unsettling” to do business, say, with an African American or a woman or a physically handicapped person… or even a middle-aged white guy with a Seventh District accent.

The key difference here is that ethnicity, and/or handicap, is something beyond control! It ISN'T BEHAVIOR! Geez people listen! If that person were a Klansman, and my customers become aware of it, does he get protection too? I think not! His behavior is disturbing to my business! Simple, he's gotta go! Does he get to put on his robe or burn a cross at his farm! That's his private affair. But when he brings it to my business he forfeits his job.
This is what I'm arguing here. It isn't that hard to differentiate unless you choose not to.

I will add this though...If this law was does so little their wouldn't have been a point to passing it. But what it does do is open pockets for littigation and force business owners to hire those applicants under threat of litigation!  
(Wow! A double play! Both forwarding the Gay Agenda and make more money for the Trial Attorneys!)
Crafty little devils!

(Edited by John at 8:57 am on Nov. 28, 2001)


(Edited by John at 9:00 am on Nov. 28, 2001)

 

[Jimmyrich]

John,

Junkies and Alkies are a burden on society and, many times, incapable of work due to their habits.  Gays, on the other hand, are NOT inherintly incapable of work due only to their "gayness". That's the difference there. If someone is a drug abuser and you have no proof of it then, like it or not, they ARE going to get hired and work with you. Only when you become aware of the behavior (like they come in with bloodshot eyes, and can't really focuson work) can you do something about it.
I find it hard to believe that there are gay guys or girls walking up to people you know and saying "do you know who I gave a BJ to last night?" and then going on to describe it in great detail. I've heard some pretty lewd sh!t coming from heterosexual co-workers however.  And if I don't want to listen, I just find something else to do. Doesn't affect my ability to work in any way. Well same thing with Gays.  If you are sitting at your desk unable to concentrate because the man in the next cube is gay, well then maybe its YOU that has the disfunction.
These laws, as Ken points out so well, may NOT be the right step for gays.  But I'm happy that people are even taking notice that it IS a problem that needs to be addressed.  
I don't care if homosexuals repulse you. The idea of obese people having sex visually repulses me.  But what can I do? Make it illegal for fat people to get marriedto eachother?  Not allow them to rent a house from me or hire them for a position for which they are qualified? That IS discrimination, John, and that's exactly what this law is trying to protect. Discrimination based on sexual orientation should be illegal. It is in keeping with the equal protection ammendment in the constitution. What you keep calling "discrimination" and your own personal feelings about it? That's prejudice. And you can have as much prejudice in your heart as you can hold. But you cannot discriminate. Period.

 

[John]

Actually Jimmy if they are working in the next office I don't care. What I would care about is how they affect business. Period!

Let's jump on one you brought up...

The idea of obese people having sex visually repulses me.  But what can I do? Make it illegal for fat people to get marriedto eachother?  Not allow them to rent a house from me or hire them for a position for which they are qualified?

There are quite a number of overweight people in this world. Is Gold's Gym required in your "Mein Kampf" to hire Mary at 300lbs to run the front desk? How about Jim, at 450, to instruct the aerobics class? How about Bill at 115lbs to recruit business for your weight training programs?

Jimmy, and the rest of the "feel-good" crew, perception is at least 50% of business! Some argue more. But regardless of the numbers, it is esential if you engage in business that employees "positively" reflect your business.

As for your contention that they don't deliberately make awareness of their activities, as you put it "do you know who I gave a BJ to last night?"  Actually their are at least nine examples of that that I'm aware of, three in a company I used to work for and the rest are anecdotal from contacts at other companies.  To the second part of your statement..."I've heard some pretty lewd sh!t coming from heterosexual co-workers however".  
Very true! And if they do it in my business and make others uncomfortable in the work environment I should have the right to replace them too! Period!

There is nothing sinister, bigoted or unfair about this position. If you'd like to argue the merits of the defined scenarios that have been detailed here several times then do so. For the most part you keep bringing up ethnicity, handicaps etc. These are Apples and Oranges.
There is no legitimate comparison.

 

[andwhat]

John and Hessien, since you two are so quick to try and quote the founding fathers and what they siad here's one of their little sayings for you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
    with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--


This law has not given gays any preferential treatment in anyway. In fact it was implimented to ensure an even playing field for all. That is what you are missing, b/c you are so wrapped up in your hate mongering that you have worked yourself into a rage.
I do not hate christians, i have nothign against religion in anyway. What I do have a problem with however is people like Hessien who says I wanted to kill those two lesbians right there with a shovel and bury them and let future archeologists find them and then quote the Bible. Hessien in my view represents the most hypocritical person I've ever had the unfortunate chance to meet. While he quotes from the bible he also says that all of you are worthless b/c hwe're not exactly like him. Funny, I thought one of the big things about Jesus was his love for all of mankind. Hmm, seems to me thats one of the reasons he died on the cross. Love for all mankind huh Hessien?
I will admit that appearance is a large part of business, thats why you have supermodels showing clothes and not people like jimmy (sorry Jimmy couldn't resist). But just b/c perception is such a large part of society does that mean that thats the way it should be? If you were horribly disfigured in an accident, would you want people to treat you any differently? John, what is your big problem with gays in a parade or a teacher telling children that some people do these things and enjoy the company of the same sex? If the kids don't like it, then they don't have to try it. Understand that most certainly ethnicity, sex, handicap is most definitely directly tied to a behavior. Women act differently then men, they think differently as to people form other cultures and those people who are handicapped and are forced to do things differently. this is a behaviour.
If you don't like the parades, don't watch them. Don't like the sex ed being taught in public schools, send your kids to Hessien's little Hitler day school or whatever its called. If youy don't agree with it, then don't agree with it. but don't try and defend someone who says that he wants to beat gays head in with a shovel.

 

[Jimmyrich]

Ok then, Johh, TELL me how a gay person is going to affect your business by being gay....

Then, tell me what the hell you're thinking when you compare hiring a gay person for business to a 450lb guy at Gold's Gym.  He's not going to be QUALIFIED to run an arrobics class. THATS why you don't hire him. Not because he is fat and you are repuled by that.

Then, tell me where you get off referring to any agenda I have as MY "Mein Kampf"? Hitler's "Struggle" was full of hidden agendas, racism and calls to violence.  If anyone here is close to being a Nazi...

And no one's saying that inappropriate behavior by ANYONE is to be tolerated in the work place. There are a different set of rules. Doesn't matter if you are plugging Claudia Schiffer or a hole in a stump, you don't talk about it at work.  

And finally, you seem to be operating under the guise that it's the behavior of gays that you loathe, not the actual attraction. Therefore, you feel comfortable referring to homosexuality as a choice because, following your thinking, sexual activity is a "choice" and they can "choose" not to follow their impulses. Ok. But that's a pretty nice cop out.  Do you think the IMPULSES they feel are a choice? Do you think anyone would CHOOSE to live a lifestyle which leads to the necessity of laws such as the one that was just passed? And one that brings out hatred against them such as your own?  I think not.  How many gay people do you know?  And of those (if any) how many WISH they could be straight. I can't tell you HOW many times I've heard my brother or one of his friends remark "man it would be so much easier if I were straight".  He even tried it for 20 years. But it's beyond his control. And until, John, you do your own medical study and tell me that it's not, then I'm going to operate under the assumption that I don' t know for sure EITHER way what the truth is. But, as such, I'm not going to levy any judgment on someone as though I did...hmmm...sounds a bit like the Agnostic doctrine doesn't it?  You still with us?

 

[John]

To Jimmy first,

I like how you chose only one example out of the many so that you could argue it to your advantage. Try the rest as well. There are many posts with examples of the defined criteria.
As for whether they be hired. A 115lb stick is not even a weak sell for your business. A 300lb receptionist isnt' a good front door to your health club either. That's the point. It isn't becaus she's fat it's because she won't further the goal of the business.

If they don't "wear it on their sleeves", which so many seem to do now, it wouldn't be a problem.  I don't care how many times you have sex with your wife and my business isn't the venue for you to detail it. If you do make your co-workers aware of what plastic implement you use, what farm animals you've added to it etc. You are going on the street! Likewise so should they! Why is this soooooooooo hard for you people to grasp?

As for the Parades...They were all over the television and what I object to was the displays of mock activity, to put it mildly, the topless lesbians, etc. If these had been hetrosexual people of some repugnant organizion they would have been rightly arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior in public. However because the group uses the media and politics to their advantage so well....They weren't. If you happened to live in one of these areas, and they were paraded through some residential areas of Wash., NY, SF, Phili, NJ, etc., they exposed peoples children to this sight. That's what I disapprove of. Is this acceptable to you?

As for the "Choice" thing...When you can provide the genetic marker, which DNA sequence, that forces this behavior then come and tell me. Until then it is just that! Behavior. They are fully capable of making choices or altering it as many have including Ellens "girlfriend" or countless nameless others that have put themselves on the media's spotlight from time to time.

There are so many other deviants that claim they "can't help who they are" are we supposed to give protected status to all of them. How about Necropheliacs? Goat-Humpers? Nambla?  They all claim the same things! Do they get legal protection next?

To Andwhat now...

Quote: from andwhat on 9:40 am on Nov. 28, 2001[br]I will admit that appearance is a large part of business, thats why you have supermodels showing clothes and not people like jimmy (sorry Jimmy couldn't resist). But just b/c perception is such a large part of society does that mean that thats the way it should be? If you were horribly disfigured in an accident, would you want people to treat you any differently? John, what is your big problem with gays in a parade or a teacher telling children that some people do these things and enjoy the company of the same sex? If the kids don't like it, then they don't have to try it. Understand that most certainly ethnicity, sex, handicap is most definitely directly tied to a behavior. Women act differently then men, they think differently as to people form other cultures and those people who are handicapped and are forced to do things differently. this is a behaviour.
If you don't like the parades, don't watch them. Don't like the sex ed being taught in public schools, send your kids to Hessien's little Hitler day school or whatever its called. If youy don't agree with it, then don't agree with it. but don't try and defend someone who says that he wants to beat gays head in with a shovel.

First of all...I'm not in a rage. In fact I think I've posted my argument in a fairly civil manor. Second I didn't come into this to rescue Hessian.

Discrimination against Women, Blacks, Chinese, those with a disability etc..... ARE....... NOT ......BASED .........ON..........OBJECTIONABLE.........BEHAVIOR! I.......am.....writing.......this .......slowly......so.......you.......can......grasp......it!

I have not advocated beating, tortureing, enslaving, killing or jailing anyone because of this behavior.
Read the above line again. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WISH IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR HOMES.
They don't have the right to display, promote or detail it in a place of business.

I am only saying that giving them protected status based on a "given" insert any behavior between those quotes is not right!