WARNING, This Subject Might Get Touchy!

[Contumacious]

Just writing this to CDZ specs might be hard but the topic is VERY interesting.

Okay you have the civil rights bill passed many years ago okay? And Obama and the democrats were looking to add the "LGBT" community to the bill when a little issue came up.

Okay here is where it gets touchy. Seems the Negro's OBJECT to any change in the civil rights bill because they view it as THEIR bill.

"The bill’s proposed route to ending bias against the LGBT community has attracted some controversy from some civil rights groups. The bill,introduced by congressional Democrats in July, would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include LGBT people. Civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights have expressed hesitance to support altering the historic civil rights legislation."

So now you have one minority seeking to quash another minorities rights. This is going to be a problem.

"Civil rights leaders like Henderson have expressed concern that amending the Civil Rights Act could open the door to amendments that aren’t in line with the original intent of the bill, according to LGBT news outlet The Washington Blade. The Obama administration seems well aware of these concerns: As recently as early October, Earnest told reporters that the bill was still being “carefully reviewed” by the White House."

That bill is the path to equal rights in housing and protection and jobs to the LGBT group. And YOU are a democrat running for office and your largest minority group does NOT want the smaller minority group included with them under equality laws and protections.

If you write ANOTHER law just for them that makes a separate but equal law that does NOT fit your platform. So you tell me how do you solve this without upsetting your base and NOT making a separate but equal law?

Same-Sex Marriage Was Just the Start: White House Champions Equality Bill

According to Chick-fil-A


L G B T stands for

Legs
Giblets
Breasts and
Thighs


Is that right?


LOL?

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is a real issue. The black community is going to have to adjust, no way around it.

 

[DGS49]

This is a totally phony, made up issue. Some relevant facts:

(1) The number of adult U.S. citizens overtly identifying as homosexual is less than 2%.

(2) Unlike race, there is no test for "homosexuality." It is not genetic, nor is it indicated by any measurable or observable physical trait. Anyone can claim to be homosexual or not, and no other person can prove that claim to be false. Anyone can engage in "homosexual acts" or decline to do so, and in the case of females it is not unusual for women to live as both homosexual and heterosexual at different times as their current desires dictate. When would they be covered by such an anti-discrimination law and when not?

(3) NOBODY discriminates against a person for being "homosexual," because it is impossible to know that anyone is, or is not, homosexual, based on visible evidence.

(4) To the extent that any person manifests as a homosexual, those manifestations are entirely voluntary and intentional, and while it is possible for someone to discriminate against a person due to perceived homosexuality, that discrimination would be based on the affectations (voluntary), and not the inclination (involuntary).

(5) "Homosexual" is impossible to define legally. Is a celibate person with homosexual inclinations a "homosexual"? Is a conventionally-married person with homosexual inclinations a "homosexual"? Is a heterosexual prison inmate who regularly engages in homosexual acts a "homosexual" for purposes of the law? Is an effeminate man or a masculine woman who is sometimes mistaken for homosexual covered by an anti-discrimination law? The practical issues are overwhelming.

(6) There is little tangible evidence of widespread actionable discrimination against homosexuals. Average annual income of homosexuals and homosexual couples is higher than that of the general population. Unemployment among homosexuals is lower than that of the general population. Accumulated wealth of homosexuals is higher than that of the general population. And on and on. Where is the widespread discrimination that would justify a NEW FEDERAL LAW to fight it? When do fat people or short people or ugly people get their anti-discrimination law?

(7) Anecdotal "evidence" of discrimination is simply that: anecdotal. It happens, but in almost all cases the conduct is either on the one hand, legally actionable regardless of the orientation of the person experiencing discrimination, or on the other hand, no worse that discrimination against someone who is fat, ugly, red-haired, or dressed outrageously. In other words, that's life.

Of course this change to the Civil Rights Act will never happen, regardless of which political party holds a majority in Congress or sits in the White House. It is a stupid idea and would be an utterly stupid law. Every jackass in the country who is passed over for promotion or not hired will claim to be a closeted-homosexual - or perceived as homosexual - and file a lawsuit.

 

[Misty]

Actually of course, its whites who think they're above all others.

Its not as though only whites can be bigots. Bigots come in all colors, sizes and religions. Whites, like that kkk types on this board, don't like equality for any group but themselves.

Tough.

Same with others - white, black, brown, yellow, polka-dotted - who feel that way. For example, ever hear of that asshole phony sheriff in Maricopa county AZ? Among true Americans, he's known as Joe The Hoe. Hopefully, he'll die soon but in the meantime, all decent human beings are and should fight every sleazy, corrupt, stinking thing he does.

Don't you agree?

You're the only one sounding racist here

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, as long as there's ignorance, hate, racism, and bigotry, and efforts to codify that racism and bigotry, there will be a need for the Constitutional case law prohibiting such measures.