Quote:I never said that. And I don't care whether people like or agree with people who are gay or transgender. But I do feel they should have equal protection to earn a living and to public accommodation. Is adding LGBT to the list of protected people (race, religion, age, etc.) bending over backwards for them? Allowing them to have the same rights I as a straight man have today?


 

 

 

Quote:Your comment on equal protections and expanding the Human Rights Ordinance is also very revealing. Adding six words to protect gays or transgender people in Jacksonville from being fired from their job, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant JUST FOR BEING GAY OR TRANSGENDER is bending over backwards for them. Because they are a minority. Like blacks. Jews. Muslims. Handicapped people. And they're the only ones left we can still keep or thumb on. Just admit you want to reserve the right to discriminate against these people because you don't like or understand them. At least you'd be honest.

 

 

 

Quote:So you agree that it should be okay for people to be fired, evicted or kicked out of a restaurant just for being gay or transgender?


 

 

If you think that you can pigeon hole me by limiting my responses to a single word then you are going to be VERY disappointed.  This part of our conversation started when you made the comment about adding LGBTQ to a LIST OF PROTECTED PEOPLE, i responded by saying simply that I disagree with the general idea of a specific list of people being protected because ALL PEOPLE have inalienable rights and our laws should reflect this for all citizens and I cited the 14th amendment to the constitution as proof that this is codified into law and as such should be observed by all states and municipalities.  

 

If you disagree with my legal interpretation of the 14th amendment or the universality of equal protection from discrimination (specifically in light of the multiple federal civil rights acts) then that's fine.  You can feel free to make that argument from a legal or constitutional standpoint.  But to make the argument that someone who believes in the universal dignity of every person, even those with ailments or parts of sects or minorities seen and unseen, is RESERVING THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE is frankly so disingenuous that it reveals how desperate your argument is and by no stretch of the imagination could any reasonable person say that i didn't respond to your question. 

 

Conversely, I am still waiting to see how you prescribe that society should research and dig deep within our souls to help the blind lady trapped inside a body with functional eyes to truly find her voice in society and live out her days as a person deprived of sight.  

---