Big bucks in being bigots

[AlonzoMourning23]

HOUSTON, Nov. 10 — Last month, a local landscaping firm prompted a furor here by telling a gay couple in an e-mail message, “We choose not to work for homosexuals.�

The message quickly made its way around the Internet, and the company, Garden Guy Inc., was bombarded with threats and hate mail. But since then, the company’s owners say they have gained far more business than they have lost.

In an interview Friday, Sabrina Farber, 34, co-owner of the company with her husband, Todd, 37, said the company had picked up $40,000 in new business in the past two weeks, while losing only two clients worth about $500 each a year.

“I’m not saying that to gloat,� said Mrs. Farber, who described the frenzy as ugly and emotionally draining. But she said they would not do it differently and deserved credit for not masking their refusal with excuses.

“Why can’t people handle it when you say the truth?� she said.

One of the two gay clients, Gary Lackey, said, “We’re hoping things would die down� and declined to comment further in a telephone interview. The other member of the couple, Michael Lord, did not return a call.

The law appears to be on the Farbers’ side, said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

“The federal law of public accommodations says if you hang out a shingle or open your door you don’t get to say, ‘Only to whites,’ � Ms. Graybill said. But sexual orientation is not protected. And while some localities, like Seattle, have adopted ordinances extending antidiscrimination protection to gay men and lesbians, she said, Houston has not.

The uproar began after Mr. Lord contacted Garden Guy, whose Web site contains this slogan: “Treating you with respect and honesty are the cornerstones of our reputation.�

It also carries citations from the New Testament — Mrs. Farber volunteered that her husband was Jewish and now practices Christianity — and a message against same-sex marriage that the gay couple evidently overlooked: “The God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation and your help is needed.�

Mrs. Farber and Mr. Lord talked business on the phone, but after Mr. Lord’s references to his “partner,� Mrs. Farber e-mailed Mr. Lord to cancel their appointment.

“I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us,� she wrote. “I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals.�

In the ensuing uproar, the family had to change its private phone numbers, Mrs. Farber said, and turned over to the police copies of threatening messages like “I will sodomize their children.�

Mrs. Farber said her husband, who holds a degree in horticulture from Texas A&M University, had done landscaping for gay clients before but had become increasingly “grieved� over visiting their homes to discuss design and plantings.

Dumbfounded by the e-mail message, Mr. Lord and Mr. Lackey forwarded it to friends, and it circulated widely on gay Web sites. A copy reached The Houston Chronicle, where a columnist, Rick Casey, broke the story on Oct. 20, suggesting that the Farbers “should refuse to do business with all sinners.�

With the affair spreading to the radio airwaves, Houstonians have piled on.

“It seems to me the Farbers must be a little naïve,� a letter writer, Joseph Carroll, wrote The Chronicle. “Don’t they realize they are probably doing business with homosexuals every day? They should check out their pharmacist, hair dresser, bank teller, the nurse at their doctor’s office, the waiter at their favorite restaurant and the church secretary.�

The Association of Professional Landscape Designers condemned the action of the Farbers, whose membership has lapsed, and instituted a requirement for members to abide by an antidiscrimination clause.

In addition to the criticism of the Farbers, there was also widespread support. Mrs. Farber cited one e-mail message from “Eric in St. Louis,� who wrote: “Life to the Farbers who have planted themselves like solid oak trees against these strong winds of perversion.�

Mrs. Farber said she and her husband never claimed to be perfect.

“We’re sinners, Todd and I,� Mrs. Farber said. But she added: “My husband made a personal choice, according to something he felt in his heart. It was never a judgmental choice or a hating choice or even a choice that said, ‘Well, we’re better than them.’ �



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/us/11landscape.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Labrocca]

Very interesting. I would think the landscaper has a right to refuse doing business. Sexual orientation is NOT protected by any civil rights laws (one day that may change) and the acts of the gays with the threats is sick. Interesting that in the 60s when blacks were denied civil rights they were beaten, hunted down, and harrassed. Now it's the opposite if you mess with the gays. They certainly are harrassing this couple now and it's not right. I personally would sue the heck out the gay couple. They have orchestrated a hate campaign against them. The couple has their religious beliefs which ARE protected under our civil liberties.

This was a very interesting read for me. I wonder how it will pan out.

Do you think we should move this to civil rights?

[piratemonkey]

Â*Interesting that in the 60s when blacks were denied civil rights they were beaten, hunted down, and harrassed.Â*Now it's the opposite if you mess with the gays.

# of gay people I know who have been physically beaten for being gay: at least 11

# of anti-gay people I know who have been physically beaten for being anti-gay: 0

Anecdotal, but you can't tell me anti-gays have it rougher than gays in any significant way.

Hell, I'd be pissed if someone kicked my head in for something I had no choice in.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Very interesting.Â*Â*I would think the landscaper has a right to refuse doing business.Â*Â*Sexual orientation is NOT protected by any civil rights laws

It is protected by many civil rights laws, just not in this particular place.

(one day that may change) and the acts of the gays with the threats is sick.Â*Â*Interesting that in the 60s when blacks were denied civil rights they were beaten, hunted down, and harrassed.Â*Â*Now it's the opposite if you mess with the gays.

And whites were never beaten since groups like the black panthers never actually existed, right?

They certainly are harrassing this couple now and it's not right. I personally would sue the heck out the gay couple.Â*Â*They have orchestrated a hate campaign against them.Â*Â*The couple has their religious beliefs which ARE protected under our civil liberties.Â*Â*

This was a very interesting read for me. I wonder how it will pan out.

Do you think we should move this to civil rights?


So you can orchestrate a campaign for discrimination, but not against? Show evidence showing that the couple were behind the threat.

But, with issues like this, it's not necessarily the targets (in this case homosexuals) that make such threats, but also supporters. To me it seems like an empty threat done to terrify bigots by either a homosexual or a strong supporter of homosexual rights. Honestly, when neo nazi or the kkk set up shop in an area, do you think it's only blacks and jews threatening them? The last time I ran across a neo nazi group they didn't need to be protected from jews and blacks, it was the whites that caused 4 police to have to personally guard the 2 neo nazi's on the commons.

Though I was torn between business and civil rights. Civil rights because it deals with discrimination, business because it shows that bigotry can be profitable, which is in opposition to many arguments that such discrimination is harmful to profits. I focused more on the business side in my title, though the comments may end up fitting more with civil rights.

[Labrocca]

In the ensuing uproar, the family had to change its private phone numbers, Mrs. Farber said, and turned over to the police copies of threatening messages like “I will sodomize their children.”

Seems like a threat to me.

It is protected by many civil rights laws, just not in this particular place.

A persons Sex (male or female) is protected but sexual orientation is only in certain places. I wonder if there is a graph or chart showing the places? I bet it reads like a red/blue map of dems/gop.

Hell, I'd be pissed if someone kicked my head in for something I had no choice in.

Gays do have a choice...they don't have to flaunt their sexual orientation. Albeit they shouldn't have to hide it but if you don't want riducule of your lifestyle don't flaunt it. And if you are referring to their "no choice" in just being gay...that's arguable to no end.

So you can orchestrate a campaign for discrimination, but not against? I don't think it's an orchestrated campaign. As a matter of fact if the gays didn't spread the email around no one would be the wiser. The couple just felt uncomfortable working with gays due to their religious beliefs. Their turn down email was polite.

“I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us,” she wrote. “I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals.”

I don't see any meanness or malice there. They could have not shown up but they were polite enough to give them notice. Also honest enough not to lie about the reason.

[AlonzoMourning23]

As a matter of fact if the gays didn't spread the email around no one would be the wiser.

You seem like you think people are to blame for complaining about discrimination against them. Why shouldn't people be aware of which organizations are run by bigots? Why should people just take discrimination and shut up about it?

And these people are not responsible for any threats unless they were aware of such threats and allowed them to occur.

I don't think it's an orchestrated campaign. ....The couple just felt uncomfortable working with gays due to their religious beliefs. Their turn down email was polite.


There are many orchestrated campaigns against homosexual rights, whether you agree that they're entitled to them or not, opposition to same sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation etc. are clearly directed against homosexual rights.

But this denial would not be acceptable if the same was done to a black couple. It's no more acceptable to do it to a gay couple.

I wonder if there is a graph or chart showing the places? I bet it reads like a red/blue map of dems/gop.
It is illegal in surrounding areas, like austin, dallas, fort worth and el paso according to the CNN video: http://www.cnn.com/video/law/2006/11/10/edwards.tx.landscaper.refuse.khou.khou/content.html

[Elrathin]

Gays do have a choice...they don't have to flaunt their sexual orientation.Â*Â*Albeit they shouldn't have to hide it but if you don't want riducule of your lifestyle don't flaunt it.Â*Â*And if you are referring to their "no choice" in just being gay...that's arguable to no end.

Christianity is a choice as well. Are you for companies saying they won't do business with Christians?

[Labrocca]

I think the gay couple should get a lawyer if they felt their rights were violated. Religious beliefs are protected by law. The landscaper did NOTHING illegal. They shouldn't subject to the harrassment that has occured to them. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Personally...I don't care who gives me the money. When I owned a retail shop I had a LOT of gay customers (East Village NYC). As a matter of fact I invited 2 gay couples to my wedding and I have at least 3-4 gay people I would count as good friends. However I do feel that the landscaper has a right to run their business as they see fit (within the law of course).

It's a weird situation and I just think the landscapers have clear rights here while it's unclear the rights of gays. The gays should have just taken their business elsewhere. Of course they have a right to tell their friends whatever they choose BUT they may be orchestrating a campaign of harrassment against the landscapers which is illegal. People are mean and vindictive. In this instance it's only the landscapers that have been harrassed. History or not...in this instance...it's not right what has happened to them.

Having to get another landscaper doesn't make you a victim.

[Elrathin]

Â*However I do feel that the landscaper has a right to run their business as they see fit (within the law of course).

And this is an example of why people are trying to get rights for gays because of people discriminating against them.

Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, there should be rights to prevent gays from being discriminated against in this fashoin.

It really bugs me because this IS a civil rights issue.Â*Â*You should not be able to dscriminate someone based on sexual preference.

If someone can't be dscriminated against because of their religion, the same should apply to gays because being a Chrstian is ALSO a choice.

[Labrocca]

If someone can't be dscriminated against because of their religion, the same should apply to gays because being a Chrstian is ALSO a choice.



This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. Maybe the gays should start a gay religion. They would have more rights if they did. Also glad to see you equate the decision of being a Christian with the DECISION to be gay (at least openly).

[Elrathin]

This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom.Â*Â*Maybe the gays should start a gay religion.Â*Â*They would have more rights if they did.Â*Â*

Remember in this country there was a time that people could discriminate against blacks. It was wrong yes? So why go down the same path and allow discrmination based on being gay? Forget about gay marriage for a moment, we are talking about being able to turn people away for employment, housing, and many other things just because they are gay. Do you think that is right?


Also glad to see you equate the decision of being a Christian with the DECISION to be gay (at least openly).


I equated it that way since that is what most opponents of gay marriage think. I think that there are situations where being gay may not have been a choice, and other times it is.

For instance there are some Christians who claim they NEVER had a choice to be Christian that they ALWAYS felt the calling of the lord and couldn't choose otherwise. Are you saying that is false?

Maybe the correct answer is some choose to be gay while others is a natural feeling for them to be gay. Why can't it be both?

[BoogyMan]

I may have a different take on this than you guys would expect. Christians pretty much consider homosexuality a sin, but we are not to shun the sinner, we are to shun the sin.

However, Elrathin, I would love to hear how you get discrimination into this discussion. I can refuse to sell you a service simply because I don't like the hat you are wearning. It might be a bad call for my business but I can choose to do that.

Based on the logic you are using Elrathin, every "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign better come down as well.

[Labrocca]

If gays want to...let them march, hire the lawyers, and get the law changed. But until then...a business can still turn them away legally and rightfully. We are a nation of laws. I see nothing wrong legally or morally with what the couple did. What illegal or immoral act do you feel they committed?

What if they did a sexual predator search online and found out the client was a convicted rapist? Would they be allowed to turn down their business? What if they had a daughter that was raped? Shouldn't they have a choice on what clients they can or cannot accept?

Black is NOT a choice. Being a man or woman is NOT a choice. We can argue about gay being a choice or not but there IS choice to tell people. As the military rule "don't ask don't tell"...why should gays flaunt their sexual identity when conducting business?

When it's proven fact gays are born that way...I may change my mind. However this is still disputed.

If the landscapers want to turn away business what basis is there for this to be illegal?

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm not aware of any reputable researchers suggesting that being gay is a choice. Being born that way has some debate, but there isn't really any on the issue of choice.

Though there's a huge difference between gay and rapist, you should know that. One is a danger to people, one is not.

[Labrocca]

Define "danger". Those that are religious feel their immortal soul is at risk. Is that not a viable danger to that person?

I'm not aware of any reputable researchers suggesting that being gay is a choice.

Are they not reputable because they don't agree with you?

I have read TONS of websites from both sides. Here is one that states the gay gene is a falsehood and reads pretty well.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

But let's not get too far off-topic. As a matter of fact we should start one "does the gay gene exist?".

As for on-topic. Do you feel the landscapers are evil people for what they did? Do you feel they broke any laws? Do you think they deserve to be harrassed for their choice?

[Elrathin]

I may have a different take on this than you guys would expect. Christians pretty much consider homosexuality a sin, but we are not to shun the sinner, we are to shun the sin.

However, Elrathin, I would love to hear how you get discrimination into this discussion. I can refuse to sell you a service simply because I don't like the hat you are wearning. It might be a bad call for my business but I can choose to do that.

Based on the logic you are using Elrathin, every "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign better come down as well.


You can't turn away someone just for being a Christian, so yes, there are some choices that should be protected under law. Gays should be protected since people feel it is alright to discriminate against them.

Your logic should also be applied to religion as well since it is a choice, however it is not. That is why that logic is flawed.

Someone wearing a hat doesn't generally wear that hat 24 hours a day, someone that is a christian is not a Christian for just a few hours a day and someone that is gay is gay 24 hours a day.

If you can't see the difference between clothing and someone being gay, you have some issues that this board won't help with.

[Elrathin]

Define "danger". Those that are religious feel their immortal soul is at risk. Is that not a viable danger to that person?

Oh common now, you know there is a difference between PHYSICAL danger and so called religous immorality.

Please tell me you aren't trying to compare being gay to being a rapist as the same kind of threat. That is just sick if you are.

[NortheastCynic]

Well, as has been said, there is no law against what the Garden Guys did, and frankly there shouldn't be. If a private group wants to deny service to <insert group here>, then they should be [and Constitutionally are, by the way] within their rights to do so. If Garden Guys decided not to work for black people, then that is their choice, they just flushed x amount of dollars down the drain and will be inundated with complaints and negative publicity, but that is there choice. There is no reason to think that getting rid of civil rights laws that unlawfully [in my opinion] prevent business owners from running their business the way they see fit that things will go back to the 1960s.

-NC

[Elrathin]

Well, as has been said, there is no law against what the Garden Guys did, and frankly there shouldn't be. If a private group wants to deny service to <insert group here>, then they should be [and Constitutionally are, by the way] within their rights to do so. If Garden Guys decided not to work for black people, then that is their choice, they just flushed x amount of dollars down the drain and will be inundated with complaints and negative publicity, but that is there choice. There is no reason to think that getting rid of civil rights laws that unlawfully [in my opinion] prevent business owners from running their business the way they see fit that things will go back to the 1960s.

-NC


I disagree with what you said NC, but at least it is a consistant way of doing things, and can respect that.

[NortheastCynic]

And I've gained more respect for you in the process Elrathin, you are a respectable and reasonable debater.

-NC

[piratemonkey]

What if they did a sexual predator search online and found out the client was a convicted rapist?Â*Â*Would they be allowed to turn down their business?Â*Â*What if they had a daughter that was raped?Â*Â*Shouldn't they have a choice on what clients they can or cannot accept?

Classic Conservative thought.

Homosexuals are just like rapists... unbelievable.:rolleyes:

Are you going to compare dark-skinned people to monkeys next?


Black is NOT a choice.Â*Â*Being a man or woman is NOT a choice.Â*Â*
Being gay is not a choice.


We can argue about gay being a choice or not but there IS choice to tell people.Â*Â*As the military rule "don't ask don't tell"...why should gays flaunt their sexual identity when conducting business?

You have a choice whether you tell someone you're Christian or not.Â*Â*Does that mean we should have a don't ask, don't tell policy for religion?Â*Â*That seems to be your argument.

Religion is a choice.Â*Â*Why should I not be allowed to discriminate against Christians?Â*Â*I think that Christianity, in most present forms, is immoral.

Sucks when you're on the other end of your logic, doesn't it?


When it's proven fact gays are born that way...I may change my mind.
It has been.Â*Â*Your willful ignorance of the science doesn't make it less true.

[Labrocca]

A don't ask don't tell for religion sounds reasonable to me as well.Â*Â*It's not the governments business to know a persons sex, religion, or even race.Â*Â*The government should be NEUTRAL in all these things.Â*Â*Personally I am offended when I see on questionairres asking what race a person is.Â*Â*WHY ask that?

I also didn't equate rapists with homosexuals. I just used rapists since they are sexual predators and can be looked up online.Â*Â*I could have used child molestors too.Â*Â*But for sake of argument let's say registered Democrats.Â*Â*What if the couple were staunch GOPers and found out the client was a Dem...shouldn't they have a right to deny their business?

Also you avoided my argument altogether.Â*Â*Have some courage and answer the question...

What if they did a sexual predator search online and found out the client was a convicted rapist?Â*Â*Would they be allowed to turn down their business?Â*Â*What if they had a daughter that was raped?Â*Â*Shouldn't they have a choice on what clients they can or cannot accept?

As for gays and proving the gay gene. I started a thread for that already...go post in it your "proof".Â*Â*Also I don't have willful ignorance.Â*Â*If they can prove the gay gene I would change my stance on gays considerably. I have no problems with that.Â*Â*I have gay friends that don't even believe in the gay gene so how I am suppose to?Â*Â*I have read extensively about the gay gene and it just doesn't yet seem a certain thing. One last thing..if gay gene does exist does that mean we can cure it? Would a couple choose to cure their baby in the womb?

[piratemonkey]

A don't ask don't tell for religion sounds reasonable to me as well.Â*Â*It's not the governments business to know a persons sex, religion, or even race.Â*Â*The government should be NEUTRAL in all these things.Â*Â*Personally I am offended when I see on questionairres asking what race a person is.Â*Â*WHY ask that?

I knew you were reasonable.Â*Â*Those are very reasonable statements.


I also didn't equate rapists with homosexuals.
You compared them in an extremely biased way, implying similarities.


But for sake of argument let's say registered Democrats.Â*Â*
A much more apt comparision.Â*Â*Kudos.


Also you avoided my argument altogether.Â*Â*Have some courage and answer the question...

Because your question is bigotted and doesn't deserve and answer.

E.g.
Why are Christians like necrophiliacs and adore dead things so much?

Is it worth answering that question?Â*Â*Not really.

What if they did a sexual predator search online and found out the client was a convicted rapist?Â*Â*Would they be allowed to turn down their business?Â*Â*What if they had a daughter that was raped?Â*Â*Shouldn't they have a choice on what clients they can or cannot accept?

Your question implies that a gay person being around could cause harm to someone.Â*Â*That's an outrageous claim and, yes, bigotted.


As for gays and proving the gay gene. I started a thread for that already...go post in it your "proof".Â*Â*Also I don't have willful ignorance.Â*Â*If they can prove the gay gene I would change my stance on gays considerably. I have no problems with that.Â*Â*I have gay friends that don't even believe in the gay gene so how I am suppose to?Â*Â*I have read extensively about the gay gene and it just doesn't yet seem a certain thing.Â*Â*One last thing..if gay gene does exist does that mean we can cure it?Â*Â*Would a couple choose to cure their baby in the womb?


This paragraph shows that you haven't read much of merit.

No biologist who knows anything will claim that there is a "gay" gene.Â*Â*Homosexuality is primarily congenital, not genetic.

Is there a genetic component?Â*Â*Of course.Â*Â*Every trait we have has a genetic component.

I love this part:
I have gay friends that don't even believe in the gay gene so how I am suppose to?
Flashback to 50's:Â*Â*I have a lot of black friends who tell me they don't think they are oppressed. :rolleyes:

I don't have time today to dig around and post research done in this field.Â*Â* I've posted some primary journal articles in the past on other threads... and nobody commented on them.Â*Â*I doubt it's worth the effort on my part.Â*Â*People don't make these kind of judgments on the facts... obviously.

[dgridley]

Personally, I think you should have the right to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason.. it's YOUR business (unless it's federally funded, of course).. I support gay rights, but not at the expense of impinging on other people's rights.



Very interesting.Â*Â*I would think the landscaper has a right to refuse doing business.Â*Â*Sexual orientation is NOT protected by any civil rights laws (one day that may change) and the acts of the gays with the threats is sick.Â*Â*Interesting that in the 60s when blacks were denied civil rights they were beaten, hunted down, and harrassed.Â*Â*Now it's the opposite if you mess with the gays.Â*Â*They certainly are harrassing this couple now and it's not right. I personally would sue the heck out the gay couple.Â*Â*They have orchestrated a hate campaign against them.Â*Â*The couple has their religious beliefs which ARE protected under our civil liberties.Â*Â*

This was a very interesting read for me. I wonder how it will pan out.

Do you think we should move this to civil rights?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Define "danger".Â*Â*Those that are religious feel their immortal soul is at risk.Â*Â*Is that not a viable danger to that person?

If we are to go on feelings, there are people who feel hirings blacks puts them at significant risk of being robbed, and that hiring jews puts their soul at equal risk.

It's a viable danger to them, but it deserves the same legal consideration that we give a schizophrenic who is terrified of the aliens living in his nose.

I'm not aware of any reputable researchers suggesting that being gay is a choice.

Are they not reputable because they don't agree with you?

I have read TONS of websites from both sides.Â*Â*Here is one that states the gay gene is a falsehood and reads pretty well.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

I responded to that post. And the concept of a gay gene is a red herring anyway, it's simply a response to a common misconception among the general public, the idea that there is evidence for a particular gay gene (or that genetics is that simple).

But reliable research is research that has stood up to peer review, bases the assumptions on scientific evidence (ie. a study researching the amount of homosexual men who molest children cannot just assume molesting 5 year old boys is a homosexual act without having evidence for that), among other things. I don't know the sites you've read, but the ones you've posted have

A. been interpreting others research and reaching conclusions about that research that are generally inconsistent with the original researcher and other scientists who have reviewed that research

B. Argued a point on an assumption that makes sense to most people, but lacks scientific evidence (the molestation bit)

C. Is from organizations whose primary goal is religion and morality, and not science.

and

D. Some of the studies that they interperet correctly have been criticized for being dishonest and heavily flawed methodologically, to the point where the researcher had APA membership revoked.

Those don't all characterize any single thing I've seen you link on homosexuality, most just had one or two of the issues.

I study psychology, and the area I'm probably most interested in is sexual orientation. If you read the most respected journals and view the positions of organizations within that field, there isn't support for those views. Only when you enter the realm of groups with moral agendas does support for those issues pop up.

As for on-topic.Â*Â*Do you feel the landscapers are evil people for what they did?

I don't think I've ever called anyone evil.

Do you feel they broke any laws?

I'm not aware of any law saying what they did was illegal to do in that city. Though it would have been illegal in many surrounding cities and should have been illegal for them to do.

Â*Do you think they deserve to be harrassed for their choice?


Do they deserve it? No. Is it wrong? Depends on what part exactly. Threats and violence are wrong, angry phone calls denouncing (but not threatening) them and such I'm neutral on.

But short of violence or intimidating people who had no say in the issue (such as the kids) do I really care if they get scared? No. I wouldn't do it, but on a basic level I simply don't care. I strongly denounce the sodomy threat against the kids, but if it was against the parents then it wouldn't bother me. It should be illegal, if I was a cop I'd arrest the person who made the threat and if I was a judge I'd convict them, but as an ordinary citizen I don't care.

As for gays and proving the gay gene. I started a thread for that already...go post in it your "proof". Also I don't have willful ignorance. If they can prove the gay gene I would change my stance on gays considerably. I have no problems with that. I have gay friends that don't even believe in the gay gene so how I am suppose to? I have read extensively about the gay gene and it just doesn't yet seem a certain thing. One last thing..if gay gene does exist does that mean we can cure it? Would a couple choose to cure their baby in the womb?


Most researchers don't believe in a gay gene, and I don't believe in a gay gene.

[underdawg]

In some weird way, that does make sense. A gay religion. Not that I believe being gay is like a religion or that it is a choice, but to declare homosexuality as a religion might make the government look differently at the situation.

He he, I bet then you would have lots of people wanting to make up their own religions, like The United Church of Pot Smokers, or Scientologists.

[Labrocca]

Flashback to 50's: I have a lot of black friends who tell me they don't think they are oppressed.

Nice how I can't use rapists in this argument but you can easily equate blacks with gays. Hmm..a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

My question was only bigotted toward rapists. It was to prove a point that bigotry isn't illegal in all cases nor should it be.

bigotry (noun) - The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

You act as if being a bigot is a bad thing. Anyone that's a pedophile I am bigoted against. Anyone that declares America evil and side with terrorists I am bigoted against. What's the problem here?

Now ask me if I think the law should be changed...yeah probably. Do I think this landscaper couple did anything illegal or immoral...NOPE. If gays want the rights they just need to do what the woman and the blacks did..stand at the court and protest until it happens. Get the law changed..go for it. I am still against gay marriage because marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman..give gays a civil union. Heck...give everyone a civil union and make marriage a religious institution instead.[hr]
In some weird way, that does make sense. A gay religion. Not that I believe being gay is like a religion or that it is a choice, but to declare homosexuality as a religionÂ*Â*might make the government look differently at the situation.

He he, I bet then you would have lots of people wanting to make up their own religions, like The United Church of Pot Smokers, or Scientologists.


Yeah the gay religion can believe god is gay. They just need to get some ministers..congregate (maybe every friday night at say...11pm) and worship according to the religion (2 martinis maybe?). hehe..

Seriously though a gay religion ALMOST makes sense if I was gay and wanted more rights...heck the thought of this might scare the hell out of Christians and Catholics so much they might just cave in on some issues just to make this new religion go away. Gosh a gay religion would be fun to have around. Let's think of some names.

The Church Gayologists
The Church of Homoshianity
The New Hope of Homo Church
The New Church of Gay

C'mon..those are funny...don't hate my cuz I have a sense of humor.

[dgridley]

My thought is gays at least deserve the right to a legal civil union. I personally consider the civil union a "marriage" but not religious. It should be up to the various religious institutions if they want to sanctify the union in a church before God. It's not up to the government to rule on marriage and I can see them denying the right to a religious marriage, but not a civil union.



Heck...give everyone a civil union and make marriage a religious institution instead.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Nice how I can't use rapists in this argument but you can easily equate blacks with gays. Hmm..a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Not directed at me, but there's a difference between comparing one group to a respectable group (blacks) vs a violent group (rapists).

[piratemonkey]

Nice how I can't use rapists in this argument but you can easily equate blacks with gays.Â*Â*Hmm..a bit of a contradiction don't you think?

Not directed at me, but there's a difference between comparing one group to a respectable group (blacks) vs a violent group (rapists).


Exactly.

Comparing two groups, neither of which have negative connotations is different than comparing a respectable group to rapists.

Why can't you understand that this isn't appropriate?

Would you compare a gay man to a rapist to his face.

I doubt it.

Then you shouldn't do it here.

[NortheastCynic]

Just out of curiosity...Can anyone tell me what part of the Constitution gives the government power to regulate the hiring/working practices of individual businesses? That seems like a fairly important aspect that is being overlooked. If the gov't can't legally do anything in this case, then the tone and focus of this debate shifts from "why isn't he gov't doing something" to "should the gov't be able to do something?"

-NC

[Labrocca]

Would you compare a gay man to a rapist to his face.


And would you compare blacks to gays in the face of a black man?

I doubt it.

Most blacks are insulted when their civil rights struggle is compared to the gay rights struggle.

blacks and rapists are of course not even close as groups but that's not the point...I made a comparison...he made a different comparison. Why should his comparison be acceptable and mine unacceptable?

At no point did I compare blacks to rapists...heck I didn't even really compare gays to rapists either. I made a point of how a small business should have the right to turn away a client if they choose. Neither being gay or being a rapist is protected by federal law. Race, Age, Creed, and Sex ARE PROTECTED..and that's it. Get the law change then complain.

[BoogyMan]

You can't turn away someone just for being a Christian, so yes, there are some choices that should be protected under law.Â*Â*Gays should be protected since people feel it is alright to discriminate against them.

Hi Elrathin, sorry for the delayed response. If someone doesn't want to take my money for a service because I am a Christian, so be it. I can always find someone else who will and who will do a great job.

Your logic should also be applied to religion as well since it is a choice, however it is not.Â*Â*That is why that logic is flawed.

Someone wearing a hat doesn't generally wear that hat 24 hours a day, someone that is a christian is not a Christian for just a few hours a day and someone that is gay is gay 24 hours a day.

I see your logic here as being flawed as we are discussing someone refusing to sell a service. I wouldn't want someone like that to work for me and take my money because I don't believe they would give me the same level of service as they would someone of whose lifestyle they approve. Â*Â*

I honestly don't see your point. You cannot legislate thought or acceptance, and that is what this boils down to. If a business owner doesn't want to sell his services to people who wear hats or people who are claim the gay lifestyle, that is their choice.

[Anti-Racism]

I would think the landscaper has a right to refuse doing business.

I would hope they could refuse to work for whoever they did not want to work for. Black, gay, Jewish, etc.

[Elrathin]

You cannot legislate thought or acceptance, and that is what this boils down to.


Sure we can. We do it everyday. Can I refuse service to you because you are a Christian? No, I can't legally do that. So thought and acceptance ARE legislated.

You may think that a business person has a right to refuse service to anyone regardless, of color, religion, sexual preference, or whatever and for that I commend you on at least being consistant in your thoughts, but right now legally I cannot deny someone service because they are a Christian, so why should someone be able to deny someone service for being gay?

Pandoras box has already been opened and I would be more than happy to have it closed and have your way implemented, however it won't be and you and I both know this.

It is easy to sit back and say that you think a business owner has the right to choose who he does business with for any reason, but legally that just isn't going to happen. So if Christians are given rights because they make a choice, so should gays in this instance.

[MAP2010.wireless]

HOUSTON, Nov. 10 — Last month, a local landscaping firm prompted a furor here by telling a gay couple in an e-mail message, “We choose not to work for homosexuals.�

The message quickly made its way around the Internet, and the company, Garden Guy Inc., was bombarded with threats and hate mail. But since then, the company’s owners say they have gained far more business than they have lost.

In an interview Friday, Sabrina Farber, 34, co-owner of the company with her husband, Todd, 37, said the company had picked up $40,000 in new business in the past two weeks, while losing only two clients worth about $500 each a year.

“I’m not saying that to gloat,� said Mrs. Farber, who described the frenzy as ugly and emotionally draining. But she said they would not do it differently and deserved credit for not masking their refusal with excuses.

“Why can’t people handle it when you say the truth?� she said.

One of the two gay clients, Gary Lackey, said, “We’re hoping things would die down� and declined to comment further in a telephone interview. The other member of the couple, Michael Lord, did not return a call.

The law appears to be on the Farbers’ side, said Lisa Graybill, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

“The federal law of public accommodations says if you hang out a shingle or open your door you don’t get to say, ‘Only to whites,’ � Ms. Graybill said. But sexual orientation is not protected. And while some localities, like Seattle, have adopted ordinances extending antidiscrimination protection to gay men and lesbians, she said, Houston has not.

The uproar began after Mr. Lord contacted Garden Guy, whose Web site contains this slogan: “Treating you with respect and honesty are the cornerstones of our reputation.�

It also carries citations from the New Testament — Mrs. Farber volunteered that her husband was Jewish and now practices Christianity — and a message against same-sex marriage that the gay couple evidently overlooked: “The God-ordained institution of marriage is under attack in courts across the nation and your help is needed.�

Mrs. Farber and Mr. Lord talked business on the phone, but after Mr. Lord’s references to his “partner,� Mrs. Farber e-mailed Mr. Lord to cancel their appointment.

“I am appreciative of your time on the phone today and glad you contacted us,� she wrote. “I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals.�

In the ensuing uproar, the family had to change its private phone numbers, Mrs. Farber said, and turned over to the police copies of threatening messages like “I will sodomize their children.�

Mrs. Farber said her husband, who holds a degree in horticulture from Texas A&M University, had done landscaping for gay clients before but had become increasingly “grieved� over visiting their homes to discuss design and plantings.

Dumbfounded by the e-mail message, Mr. Lord and Mr. Lackey forwarded it to friends, and it circulated widely on gay Web sites. A copy reached The Houston Chronicle, where a columnist, Rick Casey, broke the story on Oct. 20, suggesting that the Farbers “should refuse to do business with all sinners.�

With the affair spreading to the radio airwaves, Houstonians have piled on.

“It seems to me the Farbers must be a little naïve,� a letter writer, Joseph Carroll, wrote The Chronicle. “Don’t they realize they are probably doing business with homosexuals every day? They should check out their pharmacist, hair dresser, bank teller, the nurse at their doctor’s office, the waiter at their favorite restaurant and the church secretary.�

The Association of Professional Landscape Designers condemned the action of the Farbers, whose membership has lapsed, and instituted a requirement for members to abide by an antidiscrimination clause.

In addition to the criticism of the Farbers, there was also widespread support. Mrs. Farber cited one e-mail message from “Eric in St. Louis,� who wrote: “Life to the Farbers who have planted themselves like solid oak trees against these strong winds of perversion.�

Mrs. Farber said she and her husband never claimed to be perfect.

“We’re sinners, Todd and I,� Mrs. Farber said. But she added: “My husband made a personal choice, according to something he felt in his heart. It was never a judgmental choice or a hating choice or even a choice that said, ‘Well, we’re better than them.’ �



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/us/11landscape.html?_r=2&ref=us&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Look I'm not for that kind of thing, but its you right not to offer your services to who ever you want.

I work with who ever wants to work with me.

[piratemonkey]

Would you compare a gay man to a rapist to his face.


And would you compare blacks to gays in the face of a black man?Â*Â*

I doubt it.

Wrong.

a) Most black men I know are gay.
b) There's nothing wrong with being gay.

You continue your implicit assumption that there's something offensive or even dangerous about homosexuality.Â*Â*That's bigotted and a shame coming from a typically reasonable person.Â*Â*It shows how far this country still needs to go.


blacks and rapists are of course not even close as groups but that's not the point...I made a comparison...he made a different comparison.Â*Â*Why should his comparison be acceptable and mine unacceptable?
You made a comparison between gays and rapists.
I made a comparison between gays and blacks.

If you can't see the difference there, please refer to my previous example involving Christians and necrophiles and tell me that it's not insulting to Christians.

You're grasping at straws now.Â*Â*I think you know what you said was out of line, but for some reason can't admit it.

A shame.

[Labrocca]

I think gays are wrong. I think it's an improper immoral unethical inhuman sexual deviant behavior. There I said it. This is where we differ extremely. btw...I think rape is an improper immoral inhuman sexual deviant behavior. That's the connection for ya. You can't say blacks are improper immoral inhuman sexual deviant behavior because it's only skin color and has NOTHING to do with SEXUALITY! I feel my comparison is on the mark while yours is insulting. Blacks were slaves for hundreds of years in chains while gays just hid in the closet..whoopie doo dah!

Simply because 2 gay men consent doesn't really mean all that much to me.

Being gay is not normal. Scientists are already attempting to peg down WHY certain people are gay. When this happens do you think they will just say "oh that's cool" or do you think they will work on a cure and correct measures?

[dgridley]

I don't think many gay men would accept the prospect of being "cured".. for them, it's who they are.

Do you think most blacks (for example) would want to be cured, and therefore become white (or vice versa)? No, I don't think so.



When this happens do you think they will just say "oh that's cool" or do you think they will work on a cure and correct measures?

[MAP2010.wireless]

I think gays are wrong.Â*Â*I think it's an improper immoral unethical inhuman sexual deviant behavior.Â*Â*There I said it.Â*Â*This is where we differ extremely.Â*Â*btw...I think rape is an improper immoral inhuman sexual deviant behavior.Â*Â*That's the connection for ya.Â*Â*You can't say blacks are improper immoral inhuman sexual deviant behavior because it's only skin color and has NOTHING to do with SEXUALITY!Â*Â*I feel my comparison is on the mark while yours is insulting.Â*Â*Blacks were slaves for hundreds of years in chains while gays just hid in the closet..whoopie doo dah!Â*Â*

Simply because 2 gay men consent doesn't really mean all that much to me.

Being gay is not normal.Â*Â*Scientists are already attempting to peg down WHY certain people are gay.Â*Â* When this happens do you think they will just say "oh that's cool" or do you think they will work on a cure and correct measures?


Your right.

[dgridley]

You really should learn to smile more in your photos.. :)



Your right.

[MAP2010.wireless]

You really should learn to smile more in your photos.. :)



Your right.



I'm getting a better one.

[Labrocca]

I don't think many gay men would accept the prospect of being "cured".. for them, it's who they are.

Do you think most blacks (for example) would want to be cured, and therefore become white (or vice versa)? No, I don't think so.



When this happens do you think they will just say "oh that's cool" or do you think they will work on a cure and correct measures?



The continued insistance that a sexual behavior is the equavilent of a race is absurd. It's used by the left over and over again but it just don't pass the test. You make the argument and comparison of blacks with gays YET there is NO scientific proof of the gay gene. It's NOT a natural occurance as race is. 2 black parents can NEVER have white baby (albino doesn't count). I may lose the moral argument that being gay is "wrong" but the left will NEVER win the argument that being gay is like a race simply because it's NOT.

[NortheastCynic]

Again, I'm lost...From where does the gov't derive the power to force a private company to work for someone it doesn't want to?

-NC

[Elrathin]

I may lose the moral argument that being gay is "wrong" but the left will NEVER win the argument that being gay is like a race simply because it's NOT.


Then let's assume you're right about there being no gay gene and being gay is a choice.

Being Christian is also a choice and it is protected, so why shouldn't being gay considering that it cause NO PROVABLE harm any more than Christianity does? Why should your demented religion be protected when I find it immoral and hate filled?

Seems like you only want YOUR choices protected and not others.

[MAP2010.wireless]

I may lose the moral argument that being gay is "wrong" but the left will NEVER win the argument that being gay is like a race simply because it's NOT.


Then let's assume you're right about there being no gay gene and being gay is a choice.

Being Christian is also a choice and it is protected, so why shouldn't being gay considering that it cause NO PROVABLE harm any more than Christianity does?Â*Â*Why should your demented religion be protected when I find it immoral and hate filled?

Seems like you only want YOUR choices protected and not others.


Your wrong, Gays are Protected by Law.
Not because they are Gay but because they have the right to be Gay, Just like I have the right not to be Gay. I am protected as a Christian, because I have the right to choice my Religion.

But there are some Religions that feel they should have 10 wifes, Sorry thats not Protected and is wrong. So Gays can be Gay, You can choice to be Gay and thats fine.

[Elrathin]

Your wrong, Gays are Protected by Law.


Really? Can I not hire someone because they are gay? Yes
Can I refuse service to someone cause they are gay? Yes
Are gays being refused the ability to marry the same sex? Yes

How is that protected?

Can I not hire someone cause they are Christian? NO
Can I refues service to someone cause they are a Christian? NO

So why do I have to put up with your demented religion when YOUR religion is a CHOICE that I don't agree with?

[AlonzoMourning23]

If homosexuality was not a natural occurrence we would not find it throughout the animal world. It is a natural occurrence, and can be seen in many species. Hell, some species, like Bonobo's, all engage in it. Male bottlenose dolphins only form long term relationships with other males, and they're sexual. Male penguins have been documented mating for life and building nests together, just like other penguins engage in heterosexual relationships.

Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)

The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.

"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."

Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.

She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."

Sexual Gratification

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.

Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.

In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban gay marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal.

Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal.

Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

I'm also not sure where people argued that sexual orientation was the equivlant of race. The argument seems to be that there are similarities between the two in terms of civil rights issues.

Though I wish local government was better recorded. Byron Rushing, a black house member representing Boston, gave a wonderful speach at the constitutional convention. He essentially argued that, throughout our history, the words of our founding fathers has been used to promote ideals that they didn't fully understand. Freedom for all people was important, and that those ideas, once uttered, no longer belong to the individual who said them. Just as those words were used to advance the cause of civil rights for blacks, when we know very well that such an issue would not have achieved support in the time of the founding fathers, they should now be used to advance the cause of equal rights for all members of society. As that is in the spirit of the ideals of the founding fathers, even if they did not agree themselves.

[underdawg]

No one is saying that the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, is the same as the difference that exists between the different races of man. One is a difference that is visual and the other is a difference that exists in the brain. The thing that is similar between the two groups is how blacks and gays are the object of prejudice.

Blacks used to be thought of as possessions. Whites used to think that they were an inferior race. People even used the Bible to justify owning slaves.

Homosexuality until recently was treated as a crime. People justified this prejudice against gays by using the Bible the same way they justified using blacks as slaves. Discrimination against gays or blacks is still discrimination. And in a country that prides itself as being an example to the rest of the world as far as having freedom, and justice , equality, written into our Bill of Rights, we do a pretty sorry job of living up to those standards set by our founding fathers.

[BoogyMan]

If homosexuality was not a natural occurrence we would not find it throughout the animal world. It is a natural occurrence, and can be seen in many species. Hell, some species, like Bonobo's, all engage in it. Male bottlenose dolphins only form long term relationships with other males, and they're sexual. Male penguins have been documented mating for life and building nests together, just like other penguins engage in heterosexual relationships.

Not buying the argument Zo. Humans are reasoning beings with the ability to make a conscious decision rather than being lead around by instinct as animals do.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Boogey, the claim was homosexual behavior is not natural.

But higher primates, like bonobo's (which are a type of Chimp), are clearly thinking being that can make conscious decisions. Empathy, delaying of gratification (less now means more later) are within their realm. They have documented culture, which is the transmission of signals, techniques and tools that are not instinctual, and which differ between groups. The same can be said for chimps and gorillas as well. And they can communicate abstract concepts to some degree.

Humans have the capacity for a higher level of logical thinking. We use that logic to explain our societies. But humans are not computers, they're animals. Humans have the capacity for high level logic and reason, but that's not how humans go about their everyday life. Such high level logic is employed in science, math etc.. But when you start looking at memory (largely not stored as logical hierachies), at superstitions, romantic relationships, gambling behavior etc. logic isn't what that is coming from. Hell, the fact that homosexual behavior continued during the reign of the nazi's, where homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, isn't logically sound. It sounds nice and is a good philosophical argument, but the evidence that humans are driven by logic is extremely lacking.

But even so. If humans are driven by logic, then what? If my desires are for members of the same sex, and there is no real argument for why that is wrong or immoral, I'm going to struggle finding a logical reason as to why I should pursue a gender which I have no interest in, other than social pressure.

[BoogyMan]

Boogey, the claim was homosexual behavior is not natural.

But higher primates, like bonobo's (which are a type of Chimp), are clearly thinking being that can make conscious decisions. Empathy, delaying of gratification (less now means more later) are within their realm. They have documented culture, which is the transmission of signals, techniques and tools that are not instinctual, and which differ between groups. The same can be said for chimps and gorillas as well. And they can communicate abstract concepts to some degree.

Humans have the capacity for a higher level of logical thinking. We use that logic to explain our societies. But humans are not computers, they're animals. Humans have the capacity for high level logic and reason, but that's not how humans go about their everyday life. Such high level logic is employed in science, math etc.. But when you start looking at memory (largely not stored as logical hierachies), at superstitions, romantic relationships, gambling behavior etc. logic isn't what that is coming from. Hell, the fact that homosexual behavior continued during the reign of the nazi's, where homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, isn't logically sound. It sounds nice and is a good philosophical argument, but the evidence that humans are driven by logic is extremely lacking.

But even so. If humans are driven by logic, then what? If my desires are for members of the same sex, and there is no real argument for why that is wrong or immoral, I'm going to struggle finding a logical reason as to why I should pursue a gender which I have no interest in, other than social pressure.

Conscious decision making and logic don't always go together Alonzo, as is evidenced by the dearth of competitors who have earned a Darwin award. :)

It shows choice Zo, a choice that is made implicitly.

[dgridley]

First of all, while many might disagree, I don't consider myself from the "left"..

And when you can prove being gay is not biological in origin, as is race, you'll have an argument. To be honest, I can't even say that it is, but I believe it is.. it makes the most sense to me.




I don't think many gay men would accept the prospect of being "cured".. for them, it's who they are.

Do you think most blacks (for example) would want to be cured, and therefore become white (or vice versa)? No, I don't think so.



When this happens do you think they will just say "oh that's cool" or do you think they will work on a cure and correct measures?



The continued insistance that a sexual behavior is the equavilent of a race is absurd.Â*Â*It's used by the left over and over again but it just don't pass the test.Â*Â*You make the argument and comparison of blacks with gays YET there is NO scientific proof of the gay gene.Â*Â*It's NOT a natural occurance as race is.Â*Â*2 black parents can NEVER have white baby (albino doesn't count).Â*Â*I may lose the moral argument that being gay is "wrong" but the left will NEVER win the argument that being gay is like a race simply because it's NOT.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Your wrong, Gays are Protected by Law.


Really?Â*Â*Can I not hire someone because they are gay?Â*Â*Yes
Can I refuse service to someone cause they are gay?Â*Â*Yes
Are gays being refused the ability to marry the same sex?Â*Â*Yes

How is that protected?

Can I not hire someone cause they are Christian? NO
Can I refues service to someone cause they are a Christian?Â*Â*NO

So why do I have to put up with your demented religion when YOUR religion is a CHOICE that I don't agree with?


Let me ask you something do you know the law?
You say that you can not hire some because they are Gay?

Really? Can I not hire someone because they are gay? Yes
Can I refuse service to someone cause they are gay? Yes
Are gays being refused the ability to marry the same sex? Yes

That is not true, there are case where company did something like that and lost. So your wrong.

[Elrathin]

That is not true, there are case where company did something like that and lost. So your wrong.


That is only a FEW states, it is not a FEDERAL law. As it stands only a few states have protection for gays.

My point still stands that Christians have FEDERAL laws protecting them and Gays don't.

[MAP2010.wireless]

That is not true, there are case where company did something like that and lost. So your wrong.


That is only a FEW states, it is not a FEDERAL law.Â*Â*As it stands only a few states have protection for gays.

My point still stands that Christians have FEDERAL laws protecting them and Gays don't.


Its under a mentally handicap protection law.
But I don't like being force to hire people I don't want to hire.
All my employees are contract.

[Elrathin]

Its under a mentally handicap protection law.
But I don't like being force to hire people I don't want to hire.
All my employees are contract.


If you want to call it that, it is your choice, but the actual name of it is:

Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

Point being, Christians have FEDERAL PROTECTION, gays don't. Being a Christian IS A CHOICE. Why should your demented and perverted religion be protected when I disagree with it's hateful message of prejudice and fear tactics?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Its under a mentally handicap protection law.


If you honestly believe that then that's ignorant, if its a joke then its insulting. Homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder, and cannot be covered by such laws.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Its under a mentally handicap protection law.


If you honestly believe that then that's ignorant, if its a joke then its insulting. Homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder, and cannot be covered by such laws.


Its covered under as a Mental Disorder, and I think it something we should work on a cure for mental disorders.

Its real and not a joke.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Its covered under as a Mental Disorder, and I think it something we should work on a cure for mental disorders.


Show where its covered. It certainly doesn't have the support of any major mental health organization, such as the american psychological association or the american psychiatric association, both of which argue that it does not meet the classification of a mental disorder and that treating homosexuality is ineffective at best, harmful at worse. Treating peoples distress over their own homosexuality is the only treatment endorsed by such groups, and is the only way homosexuality gets into the mental illness group anymore.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Its covered under as a Mental Disorder, and I think it something we should work on a cure for mental disorders.


Show where its covered. It certainly doesn't have the support of any major mental health organization, such as the american psychological association or the american psychiatric association, both of which argue that it does not meet the classification of a mental disorder and that treating homosexuality is ineffective at best, harmful at worse. Treating peoples distress over their own homosexuality is the only treatment endorsed by such groups, and is the only way homosexuality gets into the mental illness group anymore.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/site/full_logo_2006.gif
Pentagon Lists Homosexuality As Disorder

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON Jun 20, 2006 (AP)— A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.


"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.


On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil


Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Heres my point, If it from birth or not its a Disorder.
Its not to say they are not Smart and can work and do everything you or I can do, they might even be better at somethings.

But thats with every kind of person, but its a Disorder and we should look into it. And this is not my way of making fun of gays.

Mark

[AlonzoMourning23]

And the pentagon was denounced for that, many of which came from the psychological community. They still incorrectly classify homosexuality, but no longer classify it as a mental disorder: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4340910.html.

Homosexuality does not lead to personal discomfort, it does not lead to impairment in functioning, and it does not lead to other psychological issues. No major psychological organization classifies it as such, and nowhere in civil law is it treated as such.

But, considering the military bans open homosexuals from serving, I fail to see how that link does anything to support your argument that homosexuals are protected.

[MAP2010.wireless]

And the pentagon was denounced for that, many of which came from the psychological community. They still incorrectly classify homosexuality, but no longer classify it as a mental disorder: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4340910.html.

Homosexuality does not lead to personal discomfort, it does not lead to impairment in functioning, and it does not lead to other psychological issues. No major psychological organization classifies it as such, and nowhere in civil law is it treated as such.

But, considering the military bans open homosexuals from serving, I fail to see how that link does anything to support your argument that homosexuals are protected.


Well I will only say this is something that should be fix, I feel that they should be protected because they have the right to Choice who they want to have Sex with. I think it wrong, I think is sick, But there is a lot that sounds sick that people do. But I feel thats as far as that right goes, that right has allways been and allways will be.

Check out Vote 2008 Poll.

Thanks

Mark

[Anti-Racism]

Being gay is not a mental disorder. Leading a promiscuous lifestyle, gay or not, seems to me to be (and I've never seen anyone emerge from it with a "whole" life).

[MAP2010.wireless]

Being gay is not a mental disorder. Leading a promiscuous lifestyle, gay or not, seems to me to be (and I've never seen anyone emerge from it with a "whole" life).


I feel its wrong and I want to help, you can call if whatever you want.
But they say "I wish I was not Gay" I Never said I wish I did not Like Women or Black Women, See what I mean. Why do they say I wish I was not Gay? They need help and We should look to see what can be done.

Mark Pendergraft

Please Vote in the 2008 Vote. Thanks

[Elrathin]

But they say "I wish I was not Gay"


They say that because they are tired of being discrminated against. If I was told what you tell them all the time, I wouldn't want to be gay either. You make people feel ashamed of who they are and that isn't right either.

I remember some black people didn't want to be black either. Does that mean being black is wrong?

[MAP2010.wireless]

But they say "I wish I was not Gay"


They say that because they are tired of being discrminated against.Â*Â*If I was told what you tell them all the time, I wouldn't want to be gay either.Â*Â*You make people feel ashamed of who they are and that isn't right either.

I remember some black people didn't want to be black either.Â*Â*Does that mean being black is wrong?


I feel being Gay is wrong, but I'm sorry if I have hurt peoples feelings.
Thats you right and choice to be gay.

Mark Pendergraft

[dgridley]

I agree... alot of gays are tired of fighting against the social stigma, one reason many stay in "the closet". Can't say I blame them.




But they say "I wish I was not Gay"


They say that because they are tired of being discrminated against.Â*Â*If I was told what you tell them all the time, I wouldn't want to be gay either.Â*Â*You make people feel ashamed of who they are and that isn't right either.

I remember some black people didn't want to be black either.Â*Â*Does that mean being black is wrong?

[Elrathin]

I feel being Gay is wrong, but I'm sorry if I have hurt peoples feelings.
Thats you right and choice to be gay.

Mark Pendergraft


If you lived in a town where people constantly harrassed by almost all the people for you for being a Christian and talked down to you all the time, you would understand.

I'm just letting you know WHY they feel like they don't wanna be gay. Who wants people to make them feel like shit?

[Elrathin]

Can't say I blame them.

I don't either, who wants others to make you feel like shit just because of a choice you make.

[piratemonkey]

I think gays are wrong.Â*

About what topic or opinion in particular?

(See how the above sentence is absurd, yet?Â*Â*I'd be embarassed and ashamed to post something like that in a public forum.Â*Â*I hope you someday figure out why.)

Hows about this... explain how "gays" are "wrong,"Â*Â*presumably about everything that they say or think, by your wording above.


Â*I think it's an improper
Sorry if someone's sex life isn't "proper" enough for you.Â*Â*I bet yours isn't "proper" in my eyes.


immoral
For something to be "immoral," there has to be an active verb.Â*Â*Something has to happen... a thought, a gesture, a violent beating...

Being gay isn't an action and therefore can't be immoral.


unethical
Who is hurt?Â*Â*For something to be unethical, someone has to be hurt in the process of "being gay."


inhuman
*laugh*

F**king absurd, this one.Â*Â*I know more than one "human" who would disagree.

From a scientific perspective, a trait that has existed in roughly the same proportion for thousands of years can't be cast aside as "inhuman."


This puerile diatribe has shown you to be the bigot you are.

It's pitiful that an educated adult can say things like this.

[piratemonkey]

inhuman

I take it back.

I shouldn't have laughed at this.

Dehumanizing a class of people is only a small step away from sanctioning violence against them.Â*Â*Statements like Labrocca's above aren't only reprehensible, they actually encourage bigots beat up homosexuals.

Labrocca, you've lost a lot of respect on this one.Â*Â*Calling another human being "inhuman" just for existing is what Nazi's did.Â*Â*It's what Maoists did.

It's not what Americans do.

[wonder cow]

Very interesting. I would think the landscaper has a right to refuse doing business. Sexual orientation is NOT protected by any civil rights laws (one day that may change) and the acts of the gays with the threats is sick. Interesting that in the 60s when blacks were denied civil rights they were beaten, hunted down, and harrassed. Now it's the opposite if you mess with the gays. They certainly are harrassing this couple now and it's not right. I personally would sue the heck out the gay couple. They have orchestrated a hate campaign against them. The couple has their religious beliefs which ARE protected under our civil liberties.

I agree. The gay power movement has strong support from the Hollywood elitist bunch.

Giving a group extra civil rights protections based on a behavior or behaviors is nonsensical, IMO.

[Elrathin]

Giving a group extra civil rights protections based on a behavior or behaviors is nonsensical, IMO.


Sure thing, just be sure and take away those extra civil rights from Christians. After all those rights are based on a behavior or behaviors as well.

[BoogyMan]

Giving a group extra civil rights protections based on a behavior or behaviors is nonsensical, IMO.


Sure thing, just be sure and take away those extra civil rights from Christians.Â*Â*After all those rights are based on a behavior or behaviors as well.


What extra rights are those Elrathin, links please?

[Elrathin]

What extra rights are those Elrathin, links please?


Can I fire someone because they're a Christian? Nope, I can't. Those are extra rights.

As for a link, the Federal Discriminiation Act.

[BoogyMan]

What extra rights are those Elrathin, links please?


Can I fire someone because they're a Christian?Â*Â*Nope, I can't.Â*Â*Those are extra rights.

As for a link, the Federal Discriminiation Act.


Links?Â*Â*I guess not.Â*Â*Since you don't feel the need to substantiate the half truth in your argument I will expound upon and clarify it for you.

SOURCE: www.eeoc.gov (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

hiring and firing;
compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
job advertisements;
recruitment;
testing;
use of company facilities;
training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits;
pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
other terms and conditions of employment.
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.

Religion is protected as a whole, not just Christianity as you would have the readers of this forum to believe.

[Elrathin]

Religion is protected as a whole, not just Christianity as you would have the readers of this forum to believe.


Religion is a choice and behavior is it not? Therefore it is getting special treatment. My point stands as Christianity is a behavior and to quote wonder cow's comment:

Giving a group extra civil rights protections based on a behavior or behaviors is nonsensical, IMO.

[BoogyMan]

Religion is a choice and behavior is it not?Â*Â*Therefore it is getting special treatment.Â*Â*My point stands as Christianity is a behavior and to quote wonder cow's comment:

Giving a group extra civil rights protections based on a behavior or behaviors is nonsensical, IMO.


Sorry Elrathin, but your argumentation is collapsing under its own weight.Â*Â*If ONLY Christianity were protected you might have some ground upon which to stand, but since that isn't the case, the argument really has no merit.

[Elrathin]

Sorry Elrathin, but your argumentation is collapsing under its own weight. If ONLY Christianity were protected you might have some ground upon which to stand, but since that isn't the case, the argument really has no merit.


Nope it makes my point, if religion (Something that is a choice to be or behavior) has special rights, why shouldn't the behavior of being gay be protected?

Why shouldn't being gay be protected under the federal discrimination act? Do you think gays should be discriminated against for hiring and firing based SOLELY on sexual preference?

[BoogyMan]

Sorry Elrathin, but your argumentation is collapsing under its own weight.Â*Â*If ONLY Christianity were protected you might have some ground upon which to stand, but since that isn't the case, the argument really has no merit.


Nope it makes my point, if religion (Something that is a choice to be or behavior) has special rights, why shouldn't the behavior of being gay be protected?

Why shouldn't being gay be protected under the federal discrimination act?Â*Â*Do you think gays should be discriminated against for hiring and firing based SOLELY on sexual preference?


Your point is that because something else that you have a particular disdain for is included in the eeoc legislation that surely this particular proclivity must be included as well. This is a classic example of association fallacy.

[Elrathin]

Your point is that because something else that you have a particular disdain for is included in the eeoc legislation that surely this particular proclivity must be included as well. This is a classic example of association fallacy.


Is Christianity a Choice? Yes.

Is homosexuality a Choice? Yes.

Sounds like you are ok with YOUR choice to be protected, but not others. Thanks for clearing up the fact you think it should be legal in this country for gays to be discriminated against, but not Christians or followers of other religions.

Let Freedom Ring, unless your gay. :rolleyes:

[BoogyMan]

Sounds like you are ok with YOUR choice to be protected, but not others.Â*Â*Thanks for clearing up the fact you think it should be legal in this country for gays to be discriminated against, but not Christians or followers of other religions.

Let Freedom Ring, unless your gay. :rolleyes:

Lets take your line of argumentation a little furter:

Being a murderer is a choice, should murderers be protected?

Being a rapist is a choice, should rapists be protected?

Your line of argumentation in this case makes absolutely no sense in the broader context of the discussion.

[Elrathin]

Being a murderer is a choice, should murderers be protected?

Being a rapist is a choice, should rapists be protected?

Your line of argumentation in this case makes absolutely no sense in the broader context of the discussion.


Is being a rapist illegal? Yes.
Is being a murdere illegal? Yes.

No comparison.

Just answer the question, do you feel it should be legal to dscriminate against gays? Yes or No?

[wonder cow]

Sure thing, just be sure and take away those extra civil rights from Christians.

They don't have any.

1st amendment guarantees rights concerning religion to everyone of every religion and even those who are not religious. This is not 'extra' protection.

Enacting protections based on the fact that someone is gay would be extra protections because they don't currently exist.

And in fact, for legal purposes, define who is and who is not gay. This may seem obvious, but it is more complicated than it appears.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sure thing, just be sure and take away those extra civil rights from Christians.

They don't have any.

1st amendment guarantees rights concerning religion to everyone of every religion and even those who are not religious. This is not 'extra' protection.

Enacting protections based on the fact that someone is gay would be extra protections because they don't currently exist.

They wouldn't be extra protection for homosexuals, since heterosexuals too would also be covered. For example, a book store that stocks mostly homosexual literature and such wouldn't be able to fire someone for being bisexual or heterosexual.

And in fact, for legal purposes, define who is and who is not gay. This may seem obvious, but it is more complicated than it appears.


If someone is fired, attacked etc. for something relating to homosexuality (thoughts, acts etc.) then they would be covered.

[wonder cow]

They wouldn't be extra protection for homosexuals, since heterosexuals too would also be covered.

That is fun reasoning, but erroneous. I like to use that angle myself, but it is naughty, naughty logic.

It would be the same as saying a ban on same sex marriage does not apply to just homosexuals, but also keeps heterosexuals from marrying people of the same sex.

If someone is fired, attacked etc. for something relating to homosexuality

Yet another reason to suit someone.

I just don't see this turning out well.

Are we going to give preference in employment, scholarships, and housing to gays as well, to ensure that they have fair representation in these areas?

It's a small hop from 'hate crime' laws to action of the affirmative variety.

[Elrathin]

Yet another reason to suit someone.

So because you see lawsuits coming out for discrimination you are against it?


It's a small hop from 'hate crime' laws to action of the affirmative variety.


So because of that your choice is to just ignore it altogether?

[AlonzoMourning23]

That is fun reasoning, but erroneous. I like to use that angle myself, but it is naughty, naughty logic.

It would be the same as saying a ban on same sex marriage does not apply to just homosexuals, but also keeps heterosexuals from marrying people of the same sex.

That makes no sense. If you were to allow discrimination against one group (heterosexuals) and ban it against another (homosexuals) then that would make sense. But neither group is being prohibited from doing anything, other than firing someone over sexual orientation. Right now sexual orientation is not protected in many areas, but if we protect it then both heterosexuals and homosexuals gain protection, right now neither have it. In terms of marriage, one group can marry who they want, the other cannot. This covers both either way and does not prohibit anything on the side of the workers.


Yet another reason to suit someone.

Whether you think there are too many lawsuits is irrelevent, as that has nothing to do with each lawsuit individually.

[quote[I just don't see this turning out well.

Are we going to give preference in employment, scholarships, and housing to gays as well, to ensure that they have fair representation in these areas?

It's a small hop from 'hate crime' laws to action of the affirmative variety.
[/quote]

Nice slippery slope there. It has no basis in reality. No one calls for that, primarily because homosexuals aren't walking around with a big label on them for all to see, and are much more integrated into mainstream society.

Do you think it should be legal not to hire someone due to race?

[Jefferson/Hoffman '08]

Wow... this shouldn't even be an argument. What is this, 1955?