With a reminder that federal law does not protect individuals on the basis of sexual orientation -- that's a state's purview -- the idea is that someone doesn't have a choice in their sexual orientation. I certainly didn't choose to be heterosexual. I just am. So the addition of sexual orientation to some state anti-discrimination laws seems in the same spirit. I don't entirely follow your example. The law's statement on "sex" refers to gender, not a sexual act in a barn. And the law's statement on sexual orientation refers not to a sexual act or a ceremony, but to the state of having an innate sexual preference.

Whether or not gay marriage existed 10 years ago is not especially important to me, personally. There was a time when black people were considered sub-human. I'm happy we progressed beyond that, but I can imagine a similar statement when they were in the throes of progress: "Now we can't discriminate against n------ who just a year ago weren't even considered a person?"

Sometimes a law ages well. Sometimes we grow to a point where a law is no longer needed. And sometimes the spirit of the law calls for an expansion of its language.

That's what I think, at least. Still, this is not an easy thing.

Now come on. YOU'RE the one who posited that some here want to roll back the Civil Rights Act.  Don't become a shrinking violet when I challenge your supposition.

Whether someone has or doesn't have a choice in their sexual orientation (not founded in science), or for that matter that newly created genders (founded in sociology, not biology) beyond the natural two, should not permit a creeping  expansion of laws (federal or state) that begin to impinge on people's freedom of religion, association, or speech, just because some new group or class of people now claim to be a party eligible for "special" protections under the law.

Yet that is EXACTLY what is happening today.  In fact, if you look at the baker or florist or wedding barn cases, these special, "new" groups are being granted rights over others' religious rights, even though RELIGION is one of the protected groups in the Civil Rights Act, not to mention the First Amendment. All because the "expansion of its language" is societally hip. 

Laws should not work this way, and I reject that they are being expanded by the courts and not the legislatures. 

queer mafia


Whew, really had to hunt for this one. Took almost 12 seconds. You can do further research if you like. trust me - it's all over but there are some who don't want to see it. Could they be,,, might they have,,, Bias?


But wait - bias when it promotes MY brand of superstition is not bias. It's trampling MY rights.

gulp

What the fuck is that?  That's "convert or die?"

Yet another fail by an anti-religion bigot.

I am - as always, dismayed and somewhat taken aback by the intolerance of believers against anyone who does not conform to their faith or superstition mechanisms. One could almost go as far as to call that kind of behavior something we would see from the 'religion of peace'.

I always hoped that the christians had left their 'convert or die' philosophy in the dark ages. But no - it's still here.

It is?  Really?  I'm sure you can provide examples. Go ahead, I'll wait.

What fucktards. This bitching about gerrymandering is out of control. It's a good thing democrats don't use that tool to maintain power.

Oh, wait. Check out the crazy shape of congressional districts in northeast Illinois. Democrats gerrymander much?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27_congressional_districts#/media/File%3AIllinois_Congressional_Districts%2C_113th_Congress.tif

Don't do it. Your toilet will thank you.

Ha!  Duly noted. Plus we have some damn good real pizza here in Milwaukee.

I may just go get my first Papa John's pizza. Good for them for calling out the NFL. 

That spin is dying, spectacularly.

I hope you're right, but the Accomplice Media will beat this horse long after it died a miserable death.  They will never let up. And 150 million stupid people will believe what the media says.

There is no solution until you go to the root causes and fix them.

Unjustified racist feelings on the part of cops is not one of the biggest root causes. Cops are going to "profile" consciously or not, morally right or not, legally or not, and whether or not they are inherently racist, as long as blacks are statistically more likely to be a criminal.  That's never going to change until you fix why blacks commit more crime in the first place.

Why are blacks statistically more likely to be criminals?  That's where our focus needs to be.  Focusing all our attention on training cops to treat everyone equal is just trying to treat the symptom, and not very effectively, and ignoring the disease.  The disease is a threat to all of us.

Well said, Rush.