jj..

 

okay..  for starters.. you're right.  We did not kill ALL of the Native Americans.  Just most of them. And the ones that are still alive get some great former genocidal target perks. My point was that there was a society before the white man came which embraced homosexuality as a rare gift.  I was simply responding to a comment about society accepting gay people.

 

My comment which inspired you to write about "self righteousness" comes from people who throw out the term sexual perversion.  While I do not know what everyone's personal definition of this term means, it was certainly directed to the idea of homosexual intercourse.  I was merely pointing out that there are some who hypocritically bash two guys having sex, but are incredibly turned on at the thought of two women getting it on or the stereotypical male fantasy of having two girls at once. 

 

I do want to touch upon one thing you said:  "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."  

 

The point here is that it will.  You see..  it didn't matter if white people read the Civil Rights Act of 1968 or not.  They knew that they had to treat these people with full equality or there would be repercussions.  You make the argument that the legal basis was there well before the end of the 19th century to make this happen, but it did not due to a lack of political will.  This ties nicely to the parallel made with the idea of advancing equal rights for LGBT citizens.  The legal basis has been there for over a hundred years.  And the wave of public support to provide equal protections and accommodations is not ebbing.  Just because the argument is in the 14th Amendment does not mean the realization of equality exists within the 14th Amendment.  Black people only got it with the teeth of the Civil Rights Act.  Whether or not the intent was there with the Constitutional Amendment to provide equal protection, the reality is that it didn't.  Just as the Constitution provides the argument and legal basis for equality, but doesn't actually deliver the reality of equality.  

 

Your comment that the Civil Rights Act was more about Native Americans than black people was pretty fantastic.  Even taking into account the differential in the size between the black and Native American demographic, I guess I never saw any Native Americans thrown out of restaurants, attacked by police dogs or physically removed by fire hoses. The Indian Civil Rights Act certainly provided some overdue relief to Native Americans, but to say the Civil Rights Act was more about them than quelling an angry, organized and unsatisfied black minority..  we don't need to discuss this point further.   We can agree to disagree.

 

You continued with this point:  "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."  You say you believe every American is fundamentally protected by the Constitution.  Fundamentally means in basic or primary respects.  So this statement is true.  Black people were fundamentally protected by the Constitution when the KKK burned their homes, schools and churches and lynched them without fear of prosecution.  Black people were fundamentally protected in the 5 year period between 1910-1915 where Oklahoma passed a Constitutional Amendment that only those whose grandfathers had voted in 1865 could take part in elections or when many southern states implemented literacy tests or applied poll taxes as ways to circumvent the 15th Amendment. Black people were fundamentally protected during Jim Crow and segregation.  So..  what good is fundamental protection if you can still be blatantly treated as less than from your station in life to the quality of water fountain you drink from to your seat on a public bus or restaurant?  Fundamentally protected is not actually protected. Further legislation was needed for black people to realize equality.

 

You continue with this point: "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."  You are right.  A basic (fundamental) right was violated.  See the above paragraph..  Had this incident taken place in Orlando or even Atlantic Beach, there would be legal recourse for the situation I described.  If that same scenario took place in Duval County, there would be no grounds for recourse as Duval County has yet to amend their local Human Rights Ordinance as most every other major city in the US has.

 

I will keep this all together as one final point as I believe that was your intent: "The danger with ENUMERATING specific groups of protected classes is two fold.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">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.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">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.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">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.  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">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."

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">As for 1, I am not sure I fully get what you are saying.  I don't understand the need to limit the focus when we say you cannot be discriminated against regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital or familial status, pregnancy or ancestry. should we be limiting the focus more?  You can be discriminated against if you have a particularly grotesque disability or if you're like Cocoon-level old?   What groups are so small that they don't have lobbyists that are in need of protection against discrimination?  If your fear is that this paints with too broad a stroke, my question to you would be, who don't you want to have the same rights as you and what grounds do you have to deny them these fundamental rights we have discussed at length?  

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">And as for 2..  "those not in a special protected class become a new second class citizen.."  When we say you cannot be discriminated against regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital or familial status, pregnancy or ancestry, who is the special protected class?  This mentality that someone is a special protected class when in actuality they are just getting the same rights and protections you have known all along is a bit ridiculous.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">When you get into people's religious beliefs..  I hesitate to respond. Not out of fear of making a sound argument, but because people believe a whole manner of things when it comes to religion and what one person thinks compared to the next is often contradictory.  The very definition of communion, sin, heaven and hell are all open for interpretation and debate.  I don't claim to have all the answers of the universe. There are 40,000 denominations of Christianity ranging from Westboro Baptist Church to Kim Davis to LGBT affirming churches.  Some people believe the earth is 6000 years old and that Jesus hung out with dinosaurs.  Some people ram a Leviticus verse down people's throat as their belief that homosexuality is an abomination ignoring a slew of other abominations mentioned in this same book which they themselves welcome into their daily lives without a second thought or prayer for forgiveness.  Some people act like some sins are worse than others.  Some people think we should bring back stoning people. I acknowledge that many people use their faith as a focal part of their lives and draw a great personal inspiration and sense of community from their church.  That said.. while I respect everyone's right to say "I don't think homosexuality is right," because of their personal interpretation of the Bible, I do not feel that a person can use their faith as a way to circumvent the fundamental rights afforded to all citizens under the Constitution as a tool to discriminate.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">There is a lot of heated debate over this topic and much of it, I feel, comes from those who lean to a more (as fate would have it) "fundamentalist" interpretation of Christianity.  Just today another Florida bill got advanced to set up another trumped up gay vs. religion show down. They are calling it the "Pastor Protection Act" (HB 43) and it is a joke.  It passed along party lines (shocker) despite the fact that faith leaders from around the state testified AGAINST this bill calling it dangerous and unnecessary.  The debate quickly became about marrying or not marrying same sex couples.  This is a real fear for these people? That they are going to be forced to marry gay people?  And special interest lobbyists are raking in cash to fight this non-battle and waste the people's time and energy over nothing.  To date I know of zero pastors or priests who have been forced by the government to perform a same sex marriage against their will anywhere in the US.  This type of thing promotes the idea that granting equal rights to others will somehow take away their own rights.  I do know all churches still get tax exempt status though.  That special privilege hasn't changed.

---