NOM Lashing Out At Starbucks For Supporting Gay Rights

I absolutely KNEW the argument would be reduced to this pathetic level...

Would you have told a black person prior to Loving V Virginia that they have as much right to marry a member of their own race as you do?

 

Some people are so extreme and misguided in their attitude toward gay people (and usually it goes across the board to all minorities!) that they are actually become the symbol of why gay rights should be a concern for everyone who cares about the Constitution and human rights in general.

In fact, as a heterosexual elderly woman, married 41 years to the same man, I may never have realized how much prejudice and how much hatred was being spewed by bigoted people against the gay community, and I may never have realized that this issue was important and that it deserved my attention and my support for the gay community.

I am happy to say that I have raised my children to look at the world that surrounds them with an open mind, and to respect all people of good will, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. And, although I do not have any children who identify as homosexual, I know that I would have receive a same sex partner (obviously, depending on the character of that person) with open arms, just as I received my son in law and daughter in laws.

I totally believe in equal rights for all people, and it disgust me that some know so little about REAL LOVE, unconditional love, that they could refuse the right of two consenting adults to share their life and their commitment OFFICIALLY AND LEGALLY just because of "anatomic and hormonal" characteristics!

I believe that the people who are so narrow minded that they base their judgement of others on "sexuality" soon will have no place in our society and that they will go the way of the dinosaurs!

 

and about 50 years ago, blacks had just as much right to marry someone of the same race as whites did.

this argument has been defeated by the US supreme court.

 

That amounts to saying "you have the right to marry who we decided." Sorry that isn't equality.

 

Thankyou for sharing your thoughts Sadanie! It's rarer to see an older person speaking out in support of gay rights, but having spoken to a few older people myself on the issue there are actually quite a few who are "waking up" to the issue, simply because they never really thought about it before (like yourself). Kudos to you! I hope you're around to see the changes that are sure to occur over the next decade or two. By 2025 its hard to see how same-sex marriage won't be the law of the land.

 

I'm not leaving before it happens!!!! LOL!

 

Sometimes I get so caught up in the fight that I forget about the passion.

Thank's for reminding me.

 

my morals aren't made by supreme court justices.

they could pass a law allowing cousins to marry, I wouldn't accept it.

 

The thing I see people mistaking a lot is the idea of acceptance.

This isn't a popularity contest. Acceptance isn't the main goal. Legally recognized rights is.

 

what you accept is irrelevant. other peoples rights aren't dependant upon what you accept.

 

it is when I am hiring for a job....


if both candidates are roughly equal.... but one is presumably gay, or displays feminate behaviors during the interview and sets my "gaydar" off, guess which one is NOT going to be hired.

 

Honestly? You people do more to make "burn(ing) in Hell" sound like paradise than you do making people want to avoid it.

 

Welcome to America. They have freedom of speech. Don't like it? Move.

 

and that's discrimination

 

personality and how well a person interviews is subjective. So long as the candidates are somewhat close in qualifications... it's not either.

 

This.........

is discrimination

 

it's a bad personality trait.... poor interview skills, you name it, I can justify it. I can not be forced to hire someone because they are gay.

if both candidates are somewhat equal in qualifications.... I have to decide who to hire based on how well they did or did not do during the interview process. Even if both were straight or both gay, I'd still have to decide who to hire based on how well they did or did not do during the interview process.

 

I understand you are now wanting to run away from this...............

but that statement is discrimination.

 

ok, it's a personality trait I don't care to be around.... if I can pick up on it, it's too much. And if there are two candidates that are roughly equal, and one has a personality trait I don't like that I pick up on in the interview.... guess who doesn't get the job offer....


The same applies if there are two straight guys and one is the "one upper" with personal experiences.... it's a personality trait I can't stand, and will not offer that one a job if it's a close decision.

you can call it discrimination all you want, and I don't agree.... but you are suggesting that if there are roughly equal candidates, but one comes off as gay, I have to hire that one so I don't get mistaken for a homophobe or bigot, or discriminate. The "just to be safe" argument is not valid and refusal to follow. That argument discriminates against the straight guy

 

You seem to be intentionally avoiding the issue here.

when you say this............

and you specifically exclude that person because they are gay, that is discrimination. You keep moving the goalposts, but inevitably come back to discriminating based on sexual orientation. You do not have to hire someone because they are gay. but you can't specifically exclude them for no other reason than that they are gay.

 

I said "I KNOW" a 100 times....


but it's NO DIFFERENT than picking any other personality trait to break a tie when deciding to hire. Flamboyant personality or refusing to look at me in the eyes when he talks.... both deal breakers. Why is one ok, and the other is not.


Are you suggesting that I should hire the gay guy over the straight guy when everything is roughly the same? Why?

 

because one is discrimination and the other is not.

Never once have I said that. my direct quote...........

 

ok, I see what your concern is, and that does get to the point of this thread.....


so "prove" I used "gay" as my reason for not hiring a person in a situation where both candidates were about equal. I simply chose "gay" as my tiebreak. It's no different than saying "because he was a ginger" or because they had a face tattoo or 50 piercings, or didn't show up in a suit and tie.... Take your pick

Point is, it's my business, why shouldn't I be allowed to hire who I want and don't want. If pressed on the issue, I just say "We chose to go with another candidate today, I wish you well in your future endeavors"

 

political correctness says I can't say "I didn't hire you because you're gay" But I can certainly use that reason if I want.

 

this is a rationalization. which is fine, but it's still discrimination.