reply to post by quietlearner
Gays DO NOT have the right to marry who they love (in most states), as you or I do . If you were told that you were not allowed to marry the one you
love, would that make you unhappy? Your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has just been revoked. Gays are NOT asking for special rights -
they are asking for the EXACT same right you have - the freedom to marry who you choose. They don't want anyone to tell them who they can and can't
marry. In case you were going to respond with "what's to stop them from marrying children or animals", please let's keep the conversation to
consenting adults - same rules applying as to hetero marriages.
I can't speak for all gays, but the gays that I know personally, and gays I have read interviews on have said that they aren't demanding religious
institutions perform the religious ceremony for them (although it would be nice if they would), but what they do feel they deserve is the same legal
marriage rights as everyone else. In other words, if heteros can get a "marriage license" from the state, then gays feel they should be able to get
a "marriage license" also. They don't want to be singled out as "special" by the state. If you change it to "civil union", then it must be
called a "civil union" for heteros as well. This is something that many gays have suggested, as the state should be separated from the religious
connotation of marriage anyway. There is great resistance from certain camps on this - primarily religious extremists, who don't want separation of
church and state. So, if it's still called a "marriage license", then gays feel they should be able to have a "marriage license" too. I
personally feel that what the state hands out for straights AND gays should be "civil union licenses". Then, in conversation, everyone can just say
they're "married", as that is the term everyone recognizes. Then if a church recognizes the union, they can perform the religious ceremony.
There are many people who want gays to go away, or at least to change their sexuality to hetero. It is true that there is no current law stating gays
have to leave the country or get sexual orientation therapy, but gays are constantly being made to feel that they should at least hide the fact that
they are gay. This means they can't feel comfortable talking about their significant other ( as heteros do all the time), bringing their dates to
public functions (as heteros do), showing any signs of affection to their loved one (as heteros do). Not to mention the whole serving in the military
issue. Heteros aren't made to feel miserable or guilty for doing these things, gays shouldn't either. You may say that you don't do this, but many,
many do, and this is one thing gays would like to change. This is not a legal issue per se, but it is a basic right to be who one is without being
pressured to hide it.
The right to life is more than just the act of a heart beating (although there have been many instances of "hate crimes" against gays leading to
their death). The right to life also means the right to have a job so you can pay for food/shelter to live. Which leads to your question of do you
have the right not to hire a flamboyant gay. I would say that if you want your business to succeed, you should hire the person who is the most
qualified for the position. There are discrimination laws that prohibit you from refusing to hire someone on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.
Sexual orientation would fall under this. So, you're right, you're pretty much screwed if you didn't hire a qualified person just based on their
flamboyancy, if that person could prove sexual orientation is why you didn't hire them. So, if you could rationalize that this person didn't have
the qualifications for the job, and you could show this, you're in the clear. People break these laws all the time and get away with it, so why not
you. By the way, I have been in management many years, and I have occasionally hired perky types when they were the best qualified for the job. Drove
me nuts, but I'd like to think I was professional enough to suck it up for the good of the business. True, if I had not hired them, they couldn't
sue me ... unless they could prove it was for another reason, such as they were a woman, Jewish, too old, black, etc., etc. So, when I decided not to
hire someone, I heavily documented all the valid reasons why, just to avoid this issue.
This is a very heated subject, with strong feelings on both sides. I don't usually attack people unless I feel they have attacked me first, or if
their way of addressing me is condescending, rude, flippant, etc.
I'm worried that I'm not making sense anymore because I'm tired. Must sleep now. I hope you respond to this post. Thanks-