Welcome to The Queerty Query, where we raise questions and ask you, the readers, to weigh in. Sometimes the questions will be funny, sometimes they’ll be serious—it all depends what the chatter around the water cooler is.
Have a question you’d like to see become the Queerty Query? Email it to us at [email protected].
Just recently, the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that a wedding photographer couldn’t refuse to shoot a couple’s ceremony just because they were lesbians. Last year, a bed and breakfast got into hot water for a similar action—refusing to allow a gay couple to wed on the property, even though they had rented out the inn to numerous straight couples. In both cases, the perpetrator ran afoul of state anti-discrimination laws.
Now we’re all for public outcry—and even a good old-fashioned protest—but when it comes to anti-gay companies and proprietors, is the answer to legally force them to take our business?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Some have claimed that, in theory, such rules would require fair-minded businesses to accept bigots as clients. Others say we should know who our enemies are so we can take our pink dollars elsewhere. But without some protections in place, the haters could run amok—especially in small towns where options are limited.
There’s no easy answer, but we want to know what you think. Give us your two-cents’ worth in the comments!
IanT
When a business that is open to the public refuses to serve two people solely because the two people are a same sex couple, it is no different than restaurants not serving individuals because they were black, or other businesses keeping out women or Jews. It is discrimination plain and simple, and it is illegal. While the photography studio owner is certainly entitled to her personal, religious beliefs, she is not entitled to break the law.
Charley
If they are a public accommodation like the B&B, yes. If they are a private service provider like the photog, no.
desdemona
Sure it’s discrimination, but people have the right to be a$$holes- that is, ONLY if it’s a private business. If that’s the case, they don’t have to serve gay people and who the hell wants to work with someone that thinks you’re immoral, evil or what have you. FUVK EM! Take your money to someone who deserves it!!
Charles
There were sit-ins at lunch counters during the civil rights movement because private businesses were refusing to serve people based on their own prejudices. This is the same thing. Privately-owned businesses have to keep their kitchen clean or have appropriate fire escapes or have accommodations for handicapped people or whatever — they are subject to all sorts of public regulations. And those regulations include not discriminating against patrons based on their sexuality, race, gender, religion, etc.
As gays, we can choose not to go to certain establishments (Chick-fil-A), but they don’t have the right to refuse us service.
Marty
Both examples above are stupid. Why would anyone go to these businesses knowing that they’re not gay-friendly? There are plenty of photographers and B&B’s that are and would be. These both just seem like a couple of couples trying to make a point, a point which comes at the expense of equality because it just makes us look like jerks and makes those who are forced to deal with us bitter.
S.White
I wish that… gays could have their own everything, Business, Housing, I try my very
best to always shop at Gay friendly business only.
B
This issue was settled decades ago (in California, the anti-discrimination law is called the Unruh Civil Rights Act, named after a politician). It has been expanded over the years to cover sexual orientation and other categories as the need for protecting those groups became obvious.
The California law in its current form states (in part) “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
The term “public accommodation” is a technical one. For a discussion of the term “public accommodation”, try http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html and note that laws vary from state to state and that protections under state law can be stronger than protections under federal law.
If you allow discrimination against gays, that means they are restricted to fewer businesses, so there is less competition and higher prices. It also means that gays would have to spend more time traveling to obtain goods and services, not to mention the expense due to high fuel costs. Such discrimination actually hurts everyone by reducing productivity and thus dinging the economy.
WewaBoi
Remember, guys, when you say “Just go to another one, there are plenty of X businesses around,” in some areas there are NOT plenty of those businesses. The town I grew up in had two restaurants, and neither would have served an openly gay couple. The same is true for virtually every other business in town. I still live in the Deep South, and neither my state nor any of the neighboring states have LGBT discrimination protections at the state level. There are cities and counties that have anti-discrimination ordinances, but those are few and far between. The important thing, in my opinion, is to ensure that people can live their lives in their own communities without being discriminated against by all of the local businesses. I believe that we need state and federal protections for employment and public accommodation. Like another poster said, we don’t have to patronize antigay business – that is until we are in a small town with limited opportunities and we do have to use those businesses.
James
Businesses are ruled by the almighty buck, not by the Allmighty’s morality. They go with the flow as long as it brings money in. The best way to influence business owners is via boycott when we disagree with thier actions – and via patronage when they are on the RIGHT side of history. There are enough gay and gay-friendly straight people these days to influence almost any proprietor to change his ways ( or fold up shop )
JAW
If we all remember… a couple of months ago a Lesbian that owned a restaurant down south kicked a politician out of here restaurant because she did not like how he voted…
Most people congratulated her… and supported her… So if she can refuse service to a straight person… then they should be allowed to refuse us service.
Derek Williams
@JAW: The difference between the two cases is that the politician can choose to change his policies, but I cannot change my inborn sexual orientation.
Cam
This is a business that needs to deal with the public, and needs to abide by public laws.
i.e. yes, a gas station is a private business, however it deals with the public. If there is only one gas station in a small town and it refused to sell gas to Latinos, that would mean no Latinos in that town would be able to drive.
That is why these laws exist.
Derek Williams
This is the problem with discrimination against minorities, we have little power unless we can get right thinking members of the heterosexual majority onside. This can be successful, for example when the Australian public started to boycott Tasmanian goods – large numbers of our friends joined in the boycott, making it effective. This is why it is imperative to win the heart and minds with cogent argument and exemplary citizenship.
Jerzyguy
@Marty:
Those couples did NOT know that the businesses they wanted to contract with or use were anti-gay. They found out AFTER the fact.
Reality Check
no, why go someplace where you aren’t wanted?
Derek Williams
@Reality Check: The activist in me says, go with our partners and our kids to as many the anti-gay places as we can; engage with them and try to teach them we are good citizens who are no threat to them.
Short term there will of course be many failures, but long term, it’s winning the hearts and minds. “Someone convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still”.
Shannon1981
They should be charged, fined, and sued. It’s no different from refusing service based upon race or religion. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. After they pay up, we reserve the right to refuse them our business and instruct other LGBT people and allies to do the same.
And no, it is not the same as being forced to take bigots in business. Openly bigoted people cause disturbances. For instance, if a gay couple is in a restaurant celebrating an anniversary, and nothing is done to remove the bigot who stares and makes rude comments or uses homophobic slurs or even approaches the couple, they stand to lose a lot of business for not creating a welcoming environment for all people, and failing to stop remove those creating a disturbance(hint: its not the gay couple creating the disturbance).
Marjorie 0120
@Marty:
I agree with you, the law suits could at some point have straight people questioning how far is the gay community ready to take this. Does this mean if I put a baby up for adoption, I can’t choose to have it raised in a straight Catholic family or must I allow it to be adopted by a gay person/couple.
Many people are voting against gay marriages because of the aggressive acts of a few, that just want to sue and stir the pot.
Private businesses should have the right to refuse business to anyone other than if it’s a racial issue. If a drunk gay enters a business and I refuse to serve him, does he have the right to sue me when he sobers up under the special protections given gays? If I serve a drunk, and a car wreak occurs I’m in trouble if I don’t and he screams gay, I’m also in trouble? What if I think he/she is just a trouble maker and don’t realize you’re gay?
Shoving yourselves down people’s throats is not going to get you where you want to be.
Drew
It depends if they are a public business or a private business.
If the business is against LGBT people I’d want to know ahead of time so I won’t give them any of my money.
Derek Williams
@Drew: That’s all well and good, but they mightn’t care since we’re a minority and the loss of our business is only 5% at most, and what’s more they may pick up more than that from homophobes who will flock to an anti-gay store.
The real solution is to engage with people, find out why they feel as they do. Most of it is through upbringing and religion. If we can unravel those without argumentum ad hominem, no mean challenge of course, then we’ve got some chance of success.
Derek Williams
@Marjorie 0120: Gays are not seeking, and have never been given “special protections”, outside of the hate crime provisions also afforded on the grounds of race. Equal access is not “special”, it is in general terms a civil right.
Your analogy of the drunk is flawed because the drunk is a nuisance by his behaviour. He was not born a drunk, and he can choose to be sober. I on the other hand, cannot choose to be heterosexual. That’s the distinction, which is the basis of the rationale for anti-discrimination legislation.
To be acceptable to the homophobic institution, I would have to pretend to be a heterosexual.
Houston Bill
Right after people can deny public accomodations and services to persons because they are Baptist.
Marjorie 0120
@Houston Bill:
Baptist are not a protected group, except in hiring practices.
Don't care.
I actually think it would be good if a business said they didn’t want to accept LGBT customers because then we would know not to give them a penny of our money. I wouldn’t want to give my money to that type of place anyway.
Derek Williams
@Marjorie 0120: Baptists choose their religion, but I never chose my homosexual orientation.
Marjorie 0120
@Derek Williams:
I used to think I was born gay, that I could not change if I wanted to, but I could and did. It was all about the desire to do so that and the support of some wonderful friends and the grace of God.
Even with a so called “gay gene”, you are not held captive by that one small variance in a single gene.
I have a predisposition in my genes to be an alcoholic but quit drinking with no problem after drinking for most of my life.
Derek Williams
@Marjorie 0120: You are the exception and you cannot speak for me, only for yourself. US Census exit polls 2004 and 2008 show 4% of the population openly gay, so 5% is a safe bet counting those in the closet. Apply this to world population of 7 billion and this yields 350 million homosexuals, all of whom, according to you have to be reprogrammed into heterosexuals.
Our parents are heterosexuals, and will continue to have gay babies just like they have through the history of the human race. My upbringing was to be a heterosexual and I had zero exposure to homosexuality during my formative years, yet my first romantic and sexual awakenings at adolescence were for the same sex. This has never changed, and I am now 60 years old.
There is a world of difference between my romantic relationship with my partner and the self destructive behaviour of alcoholism. The fact that you conflate the two shows how little you understand the subject. You may find this link helpful: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Hello
@Marjorie 0120: Liar. You are still gay.
Marjorie 0120
@Derek Williams:
You misunderstand as well, I am not about dictating how anyone should live their lives, I mention a possibility that the gay community likes to deny. Drunks drive, kill people and then use the fact they they are alcoholics to hopefully get a lighter sentence. It’s a built in excuse for their actions, I drink because I have a disease, there’s no choice.
My abuse of alcohol and the ability to stop because I wanted to and no longer allowed myself the excuse of “I come from a family of alcoholics so have, according to scientists a genetic predisposition”. The point was we all have a choice, we are not victims of any genetic variance.
If your gay life brings you happiness and fulfillment by all means I wish you and yours the very best. I remain friends with many of my gay friends, I wish no one any harm. But, I also know that there are others in the gay world who are not happy and fulfilled but feel trapped, I am not unique in not being a happy in the gay world.
Thank you very much for allowing a differant perspective without resorting to name calling and death wishes, lol.
RK
@Marjoire120 – First of all why are you on a site that is clearly meant for gay people? Do you get your pathetic little thrills going on gay websites and spewing your garbage which has no credibility whatsoever! It is obvious that you are some kind of anti-gay piece of ____ bigot that feels a need to spend your time pretending to be “kind, nice, and nonjudgemental” while your real agenda is simply to hate on gay people. The crap about changing your orientation and that you once were gay is very comical. Critical or persuasive writing obvsiously is not your speciality. Why don’t you head back to your hate-filled right wing evangelical blogs where you can freely spew your hate and complete ignorance regarding the gay community with you fellow antichristians. No one actually believes you anyway – seriously!
And the only reason some gay people hate themselves is becaues of people like you! Have you thought of that? The hate is external because of the garbage they hear from the likes of you. Unfortunately, they (your so-called friends) should just get better friends that accept their humanity.
Derek Williams
@Marjorie 0120: You either like something or you don’t. You either are attracted sexually to someone or you are not. I am not and never have been sexually attracted to females. I feel nothing, despite having had ample opportunity over my three score years on the planet, and having female friends.
What’s more, your religion that persuaded you not to read the APA link I left for you is but one of over 34,000 different, oftentimes conflicting Christian religions. There is not one single Christian Religion. Many Christian religions now accept and welcome LGBT both as clergy and as congregation. There is no proof for the existence of God, but I am living proof of the existence of homosexuality.
I have no way of knowing how you suddenly experienced sexual attraction towards males and your sexual attraction towards females evaporated, only you know that, you must have been unhappy with your orientation, but I can assure you of the futility of trying to make the whole world heterosexual.
Take a look at world population, 7 billion, 4.4 billion of whom have been born since I was born. You claim you are not advocating a heterosexual orientation for me, but the fact that you sought it for yourself and attribute it to divine intervention, tells me that you believe your erstwhile homosexuality, and by implication mine along with it, to be a disorder. Now you want to add another 350 million heterosexuals to a world that cannot feed, clothe or house the people we already have.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon that despite scientific advance is still not fully understood, moreover despite millennia of violence, ostracism, incarceration, execution, excommunication, we have remained steadfastly homosexual. Homosexuality is observed in Nature in over 1500 species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
This highlights the absurdity of a ‘sinning penguin’, who must seek forgiveness for his sexual attraction from a God, who if he exists, made him homosexual in the first place.
If your belief is based on the Bible, remember that this bible also commands women not to speak in church, or to ever be teachers. What’s more the Bible commands us to kill disobedient children, and a host of other nominated groups, including anyone who picks up sticks on the Sabbath. Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuality, only those who judge us.
If there is a God, and that god is all-powerful, all-knowing and created everything, then he knew in advance that he was going to create homosexuals, therefore, God is OK with Gays. To suggest he would create the 350 million homosexuals alive today just to be hated and mistreated, or to be converted in the hundreds of millions into heterosexuals is counter-intuitive, and is not shared across all theologies.
Alcoholism harms everybody, but homosexuality harms nobody. Kindly do not conflate the two any more.
JayKay
No business owner should be forced to serve anyone. If you don’t want to serve gays, straights, blacks, cripples, women, or mormons, the government shouldn’t be telling you otherwise.
Derek Williams
@JayKay: What if you’re the only doctor in town, and you don’t like gays, Jews, Hispanics, or Blacks? This is not necessarily Reductio ad Absurdum, there are many small towns with only one GP.
jason
If the business requires a government licence, yes, it must be made to adhere to state anti-discrimination laws. For example, bars and clubs.
David Myers
@Charley: If a business is advertised to the public than it is not a “private business” . . . whatever that means. No, they do not have the right to discriminate. Simple. Right wing bigots are all about “code words” like “private business” and are always seeking an escape clause from anti-discrimination legislation. There are none – not for relgions, “private clubs” or businesses.
Marjorie 0120
@Derek Williams:
I did visit the APA site and read it with an open mind. It speaks to both of our opinions.
I am sorry I’ve offended so many, they clearly missed the reason for my visit and what I said. I have not asked anyone to convert to straight life, nor have I said they would go the hell if they didn’t. I have not suggested that anyone go to church or read the bible nor have I implied that God hates or condemns anyone for being who or what they are.
I have seen gay people attempt suicide because they were not happy in their life, they did not want to be gay. Everyone has their own story. I came to let those who may not be happy or feel stuck, trapped that they can find happiness as I did. I have done nothing that should offend anyone and have wished those happy in their lives all the best for themselves and their own.
But instead of just discussing the idea the conversation has degraded to name calling, does that mean you’d rather see an unhappy “gay person” commit suicide rather then know there is a way out IF they WANT it? It’s sad that you expect understanding and tolerance, even acceptance but you display none of those things for those who do not think exactly as you do.
I wish you all the best. And again, Derick, thank you for not calling names.
Derek Williams
@Marjorie 0120: Marjorie, I am sure there are as many bad gay people as there are bad straight people, but the suicide issue you refer to almost certainly is the result of school bullying of putatively gay children, and pressure on homosexuals to transmogrify into something we’re not.
In a young person’s life, there are generally four key areas of support:
1. Home and family
2. School
3. Peer group
4. Church
Now let’s take a look at how all four of these lifelines can be withheld from a gay child:
1. Rejection, violence, brutalisation and oftentimes eviction from the family home, attempts by parents to convert their gay child into a heterosexusl
2. School is unmitigated hell for any child who fits a gay stereotype, and for others who do not, who are privately tormented in the closet because they have to witness such gay children driven to take their own lives. Teachers are loath to intervene for fear of being labeled gay themselves. It’s not without malice that the word ‘Gay’ also has come to mean ‘Stupid’ in popular culture.
3. If they’re outed or choose to out themselves, gay children are very often shunned or ridiculed by their former friends
4. Many churches still teach that God hates homosexuality; even though it’s on the scantiest of evidence, gay kids finally surrender to the public perception that they are worthless.
Faced with rejection at this level, suicide makes perfect sense for a large number of gay children, hence why they are shooting, hanging and poisoning themselves in droves.
Has it occurred to you that if we can only fix the problems above, gay children might stop seeing themselves as evil abominations, and might be allowed the hope they might one day meet a partner they can marry and have a joyous life together with?
Until we have developed a society free of such anti-gay abuse, I will take any stories of conversion from the so-called “gay world”, whatever that is, with a pinch of salt. Even the founders of Exodus have repudiated the organisation they founded: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo
Jerry6
In a personal service business, such as photography, there is a relationship between the customer and the provider. If the Photographer dislikes the customer, for any reason, it will show in the photographic results. Having earned money in High School, and Collage in the 1940’s with my 4X5 Speed Graphic I know that how I approached the subject, whether it was a person, animal, or structure, depended on my personal relationship with the subject. If a photographer is forced to photograph a Gay couple because someone says they “HAVE TO DO IT”, I assure you that the results will not be to the liking of the subjects. And, there is nothing anyone can do or say to get the photographer to produce any given photograph he does not wish to. It is what the photographer sees when he clicks the shutter that the customer receives. The Bed and Breakfast is a different situation. The owner is not directly involved in what happens in the Bedroom. As far as serving Breakfast, I am sure the Gay couple will be no different than a Strait couple as far as table manners are concerned.
Derek Williams
@Jerry6: What you are describing is nothing more than blatant prejudice.
A photographer who dislikes in advance everyone who is gay, before he has even met them is a bigot. No doubt his dislike will be reflected in the final product as you state, but it is not logically reasonable to dislike every single homosexual on the planet to the point you would not even photograph them.
Same goes for refusing service to someone just because they are Black or Jewish. Such prejudice is not acceptable. While forcing people to photograph minorities they hate may seem counter-intuitive, anti-discrimination laws have helped lead the way in eroding prejudice to the point where black and white students are now schooled together in an increasing number of US schools.
Personal dislike of individuals is another matter, and is completely reasonable. Obviously, we can’t be expected to like everybody, but should we be entitled to refuse service just because we don’t like somebody? Should teachers be entitled to refuse to teach black, gay or Jewish students just because they are prejudiced against them? As with your example of the photographer giving an inferior product to a couple just because they’re gay, a teacher’s dislike may manifest itself in unfair treatment, or awarding grades lower than the students earned, however such prejudice must be shown up. People are not born prejudiced.
We should be working towards a live-and-let-live society. Simply being a homosexual is not sufficient grounds for having the door slammed in our face. If everyone does that we will perish and it’s not like it has not been tried already, and still is in most of the Eastern countries.
Macmantoo
I believe most of you believe in what you say. A business, regardless of the type, should fulfill any contract which they’ve entered unless it puts the person in harms way. If the photographer signed a contract and then backed out because they were gay, then he is in the wrong and should be sued. Other businesses such as restaurants, gas station and stuff have no options. But having said that if they don’t want my business because I’m gay,then I don’t want to do business with them nor give them my money. I do believe if they feel that way, then they should advertise it. That way no one makes a mistake by going and trying to do business when it’s not wanted. But most won’t have the balls to do that. They will “meekly” tell you they don’t want your business.
As far a Marjorie 0210 goes, your comments do not ring true. You do not sound like you’re a “former” gay. You’re can’t change your orientation. You may hide it, you may deny it, you may make believe it’s not there, but if you’re gay you’re gay. I know. I tried to hide it. I tried to make believe I was straight. And was married for 7 years to the most wonderful woman in the world. But today, 35 years later we’re the best of friends and talk all the time. Don’t kid youself and don’t try to convince others of your fanasty. A lot of gay kids are unhappy because of them being shun by their family or friends. No one chooses this “lifestyle”, and it’s tough to live in it with all the hatred and false ideals that the “straight” people put forth. But if we as a community can reach out more to the youth who are gay and offer them guidance then maybe we can save a life or two. By the way, I’m not a young kid, this advice is from an old fart. Just saying…………..
Macmantoo
I’ll add one thing to what I said. I was born and raised in the South. I grew up with the African Americans not being able to eat in restaurants, nor able to drink a public water fountains, or even allowed to go to public restrooms unless they were marked “Colored”. I went to school in a all “white” school which bothered me because to get there I passed several “colored” schools. I also attended school in California where the African Americans, Latinos, Asians and white all went to the same schools. I got a better education in diversity than I did in the “white” school. Bigotry is nasty business. Hatred is even worst. We all have to meet our Maker some day. And I’ll do it with a smile on my face.
Cam
MArjorie is doing exactly what NOM said they were going to do.
They come onto gay sites, disrupt them, try to spread mis information, and attempt to post bigoted comments to try to drive wedges between gays and others.
Nice try bigot.
Cam
Queerty flagged a comment I tried to post on here where I typed what Marjorie was trying to do. It wouldn’t go through. I removed the word r a c i s t. Because I commented on the fact that Marjorie had posted on another thread and her post fit that discription.
I removed that word and the comment wasn’t flagged.
Why would Queerty flag the word r a c i s t?
Gay Bacon
@Cam: I’ve noticed it big time. One of the ways Obama won the primary was with an Internet offensive of commenters and bloggers who supported him over Hilary. The Tea Party has definitely adopted the strategy and are using propaganda. It’s works only when people don’t call bull pucky when they see it and Marjorie is full of it.
censoredagain
This gets into private property rights. I believe that the property owner should have sovereignty over his/her property to include to what segment of the public they would like to open their property too. Individual liberty includes property rights; how can we say we are a free people and a free nation if we do not allow people to act freely.
If we support the use of government to infringe upon their rights then how can we complain when they use the government to infringe upon our rights. How can we ask for tolerance for our (limited) freedoms if we do not tolerate the bigoted ways they use their freedoms. Freedom is not always pretty and sometimes when it is pretty it’s pretty offensive.
David Myers
@Charley: There is no difference. You are just playing games by calling it a “private service”. If a business advertises its services to the public they are a public business/service. Any other interpretation is an invitation to gut the anti-discrimination laws that were fought for and won by the civil rights movement. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Other writers are absolutely correct when they compare this to past attempts to refuse service to black people or women. Period. No ifs ands or buts.
David Myers
@S.White: Separate but equal? Unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.
David Myers
@Marty: You really want laws against discrimination against gays/lesbian to be treated differently than discrimination based on sex, race, religion? Then you are a fool. Equality is equality. Discrimination is illegal. The US Constitution guarantees “equal protection under the law”. You better go back to your high school government and civics classes, clearly you missed something.
David Myers
@WewaBoi: Excellent and reasoned response, and why anti-discrimination laws came into being in the first place (during the civil rights movement).
David Myers
@James: As pointed out elsewhere, not necessarily in a small southern bigoted town where there is only one of each kind of business. You people who are so ready to give up the concept of “equal protection under the law” and anti-discrimination (both federal and state) that has been won over so many long years of struggle for women’s rights, civil rights (freedom from discrimination on the basis of race), religious freedom, and now, sexual orientation astound me. Either your just bigot trolls, or you have no concept of how human rights (for everyone) came to be. Go back to high school and catch up on the civics and government studies you so obviously skipped!
David Myers
@JAW: That politician could have successfully sought a legal remedy to this case of discrimination, if he had chosen to (and rightfully so). This lesbian was wrong and should have allowed this customer as a patron, but still challenged him on his voting record, especially if she was a constituient of his.
David Myers
@Marjorie 0120: Just because you choose to go against your own nature in order to court the approval of bigots doesn’t mean the rest of us should be required to do so. Take you fascist religous theocracy and shove it. This is still a nation where the constitution forbids a (government) “established religion”.
David Myers
@censoredagain: Property rights do not supercede human rights. Simple. You should try reading some history sometime – particularly the history of the civil rights movement. Either you are truly ignorant of that history or you don’t care and are a racist bigot trying to find the thin edge of a very big wedge – using sexual orientation as a basis for asserting “property rights” over human rights. Good luck with that. We (Blacks, Women, Hispanics, other races, GLBTQ, and various religions) will not allow your type to try and roll back human rights by claiming superiority for property rights. This issue has already been settled in the courts. Period.
Derek Williams
People, my apologies for this random post, but I am hoping you might go to a YouTube video about bashings at a Pride Parade in Serbia and post comments to rebut the tide of LGBT hate. Some are calling for all gays to be killed, gassed, bashed etc, others post “God Hates Fags” type comments. It helps if you vote down the video, and vote down the hate comments, as well as vote up the supportive ones. Even better, if you feel inclined to post a comment of your own too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znp8kTGyRx0&lc
You can skip past the intro ad in a few seconds.