Quote:It's society's choice to tolerate the abnormal? Well.. native Americans celebrated homosexuals for being both male and female in one person and called these people "two-spirited" ..until we killed them all.

 

Native Americans are not extinct. 


 

I guess they realized they were a naturally occurring deviation from the norm. Maybe they noticed the 10% of the ram population that never had sex with ewes, but frequently had sex with other rams. Or any of the other hundreds of species that displayed same sex or bisexual behavior. If you don't believe nature does this, look no further than the mutation in one gene which causes 2% of the world's population to have red hair. As for sexual perversion, I really hope you're not one of those guys who is thoroughly grossed out by two dudes having sex, but can't take your eyes off two girls getting it on, because that would make you a hypocrite. On that note, since the word so often comes up when describing sexual perversion, you might be surprised to know that heterosexuals practice sodomy more commonly than homosexuals.

 

no it wouldn't.  Hypocrisy is when you use yourself as an ideal of what is true and correct.  That's self righteousness.  It's an entirely different point to say that we are all inherently immoral and should strive toward a higher standard of behavior and morality.  

 

Quote:This is the point I have been trying to make. The 14th Amendment is not enough to provide protections on its own. Even though it expresses the idea of equality, it was not enough to implement the full meaning of that word.


Therefore, when someone says additional protections are not needed for LGBT person's because of the Constitution, I can knowingly say that is not true. It was not true for black people and it is not true for gay people.


The one positive is that the Constitutional Amendments paved the road for cities to create Human Rights Ordinances, Committees and Commissions which already designate explicit protections against discrimination and rights to public accommodation in such a way that six words are all that is necessary to be added to provide equal (not special or extra) rights to people who are gay or transgender. Because it is so simple a majority of gay American citizens now have equal protection where the live as several local governments have already updated their city's ordinances. Jacksonville is not one of those places (yet). Providing these protections means that these people can focus on being the best employee they can be while bringing their "whole self" to work without fear of unjustified termination. As for terminating underperforming employees .. I know Florida is a right to work state and I have seen plenty of incompetent employees fired with cause by simply being put on a performance management program to encourage them to get up or get out. Based on the amount of layoffs I have seen local employers go through in some rollercoaster years, I wouldn't think getting rid of employees good or bad is as difficult as you make it sound.

 

I still think that you are missing the point.  If someone doesn't read a human rights ordinance or a commissions report about how to treat another individual then ultimately their behavior isn't going to be swayed.  In 1871 there was enough legal basis for a properly inspired attorney general to get virtually every legal accomplishment of the mid 60's based on the 13th 14th and 15th amendments as well as the re authorization of the civil rights act of 1866.  It wasn't about lack of legal basis, it was about lack of political will. 

 

The great accomplishment of the Kings and Malcoms of the world wasn't the impact that they had on 60 senators in washington, it was about the impact that they had on an entire nation that saw and entire group of people being mauled by dogs on television marching for rights that the constitution clearly recognized and that they themselves took for granted.  

 

Quote:I guess you're right if you want to call black people, Muslims, handicapped people and the elderly a special class as they are all specifically covered under the the existing blanket term. I worked in the HR nerve center of one of the larger employers in town and have been in the industry over a decade. All you need to fire anyone is documented proof of poor performance. Oftentimes not even that as Florida is a right to work state and employees sign a document stating their awareness of this when they are onboarded.


Did black people want special rights during the Civil Rights Movement? No. They just wanted the same rights that the Constitutional Amendments said they deserved. So when they fought.. they won. And that is why slowly, but without question, LGBT Americans are seeing their fight for equality being won one city or state at a time. If the original law (14th Amendment) was not being followed, so a better one was needed to replace it.

 

And just as a matter of detail the civil rights act of 1968 (which was actaully a lot more about native americans than black people) didn't supplant the 14th amendment, it didn't replace it, it put systems of enforcement and criminal penalties in place for those who violated it.  

 

The point that I am trying to make is this.  I believe that every American is fundamentally protected under the equal rights doctrine expressed in the deceleration of independence, the 14th amendment among others and the right to due process as expressed in the 5th amendment 15th amendment and others.  

 

I think that any consideration outside the specific scope of a lease agreement, employee contract, mortgage document etc. used to deny anyone basic services and decency is a violation of their basic civil rights and can be proven to be unconstitutional.  

 

The danger with ENUMERATING specific groups of protected classes is two fold.  

 

1.) that it limits the focus to the acknowledges groups or minorities and negates the groups that are so small that they don't have lobbyists.  

 

2.) it creates a system where those not in a special protected class become a new second class citizen instead of leading to a more egalitarian melting pot.  

 

Case in point, a person of same sex orientation has the right to expect reasonable service from a public establishment as long as they have the money to pay for it.  Should that same basic right to reasonable service trump the vendors first amendment right to free religious expression or conscientious objection.  

 

It's wrong to evict someone just because of the way they dress just as much as it is to put someone out of business for what they sincerely believe.  

---