Homosexuality will never be or should be a Protect Class

There is no such thing as a pedophilia orientation. It's a mental disorder and that's it.

 

but if they are a protected class which they would become if you add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes you couldn't keep a pedophile from being a kindergarten teacher or working in a day care or force them into therapy, because you would be discriminating against his or hers sexual orientation

 

This was an error that the APA corrected. It blew up conservative blogs in 2013 but it's not actually a thing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/

 

Your mind may operate in absolutes with no nuance whatsoever, but other people are capable of including complexities and nuances in things like this.

 

You argument is silly.. Children cannot consent to sex with adults.

 

It doesn't work like that. Anti-discriminatory laws have limits like everything else.

If there is a logical reason to assume that allowing something would encourage an illegal act, that's not something that would be protected in court even if a protected class is involved.

 

Exactly. For a similar reason we don't allow you to discriminate based on religion. However a religious organization can choose to only hire members of their religion

 

The refrain that no one gets hurt is bull.

As an example...the State of CA has put my grand girls at risk...to appease the gay activists. Now a young boy can enter the girls bathrooms AND locker rooms, simply by stating (and trust me - many boys would lie just to exploit this for a thrill) they are "confused" over their sexual identity. Now we have my grand girls losing their expectation of privacy...the rights of the "confused" have surpassed the rights of others.

So don't tell me it doesn't create harm. BULL

 

Limits become walls that the left MUST tear down...That religious organization is now going to be sued using the currently incorrect SCOTUS decision.

 

There is plenty of room for fixing laws regarding transgender people, but what you're talking about is a lot less direct than what TRFjr mentioned.

 

Commonality of discrimination is irrelevant. Take the Eric Holder decision to not prosecute the new black panthers for voter intimidation...He used your logic to decide that people of color had dealt with a lot more, so white folk are not to be protected by our civil rights laws. Look no further for gov sponsored discrimination and bigotry. You are either discriminated against or you are not...past discrimination should have no bearing upon current violations. This is such a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy.

 

Can anyone else hear Nero's fiddle?

 

laws work in the absolute not in the abstract

 

Fixing...has been the problem. It's pretty F'ing direct when my grand girls have lost their expectation of privacy...your lack of concern for this basic right of these young girls speaks volumes about the depth the left will sink to...to support something that is so idiotic in the first place.

 

You can be a Pedophile or Zoophile all you want, keep it to yourself and no one cares. But if you act on that attraction, then you have broken the law. At that point, you will be "discriminated" against. And rightly so I might add...

 

do you know the difference between Pedophilia and acting on that orientation
you can be a pedophilia are you life and never act on it
just like you can be a homosexual and never act on it

 

Religious organizations have been sued by hetrosexuals for years before this decision. The courts have always backed the religious organizations if they were indeed a religious organization. There were a number of lawsuits for refusal of service after the laws banning interracial marriage were struck down.

 

I'm not a fan of Holder either. However, his interpretation of the law is faulty, not the laws themselves.

When properly administered, anti-discriminatory laws are evenhanded. The issue you're addressing is political, not legal. There are plenty of cases where it is evenhanded, but when things go right, it doesn't often make the news.

 

The only way a boy can enter a girls bathroom is if they are transgender. And that's not something you just wake up and become. The boy would have to show a long time and consistent desire to be a woman. How many little boys do you know show a long time consistent desire to be a woman?

 

...until liberals say they are being discriminated against right comrade?

 

Alright, grandpa, chill out for a sec. I've been trying to keep this civil.

As far as the transgender stuff goes, I haven't been pleased with all of the choices made either. Granted, you do live in California, and that's where things get loony oftentimes anyway.

There have been more levelheaded approaches in places like Philadelphia, where they just have a third bathroom that is gender neutral.

 

I wish to state this very clearly:

Your post clearly indicates the need for Homosexuality being a protected class.

 

How do you rationalize that and any other "protected class" with our constitution?

 

There should be no walls unless you can explain why they need to be there. Thats the entire point.

The government needs to demonstrate a compelling interest if they are going to deny me something. That is true of everything, not just gay marriage. The government is not your parent. They should not be able to deny you something just because they feel like it.

It was the other side that wanted to use the government for social engineering first. This is your result. The sword really does cut both ways, and you are getting sliced by it now.

 

`
Excuse me, this this your thread, you are making your case, which means you supply your own logic and your own evidence. What I think is irrelevant. What I know is pertinent. If you want to make a claim or argument to support your opinion that homosexuality should not be a Protected Class, then the onus is yours alone. I'm not going to be party to a red herring. The law has already defined what a Protected Class is. I did not create a "Protected Class", they are the result of anti-discrimination laws passed by elected officials.

PS - do you mean "exclude?"