Oh Harry!

[Sali]

.

And there goes the rub... LGBT consider themselves a race... One of these days, I'm going to start a movement to put people under 5'2" in a protected group. It is quite discriminatory for companies to have the breakroom microwave just tall enough that I have to risk the step ladder in my 4-inch heels.

Or even being excluded from particular jobs all together. There are tons of jobs that have height requirements.

[MarginOfError]

I oppose is lumping same-sex attraction with race/gender/age. The science is not yet conclusive on whether SSA is completely biological, is acquired, or some combination. By canonizing the sameness of "sexual orientation" with the traditional protected groups, we (the U.S.) are canonizing something that remains a controversy.

How about lumping same-sex attraction with religious preference. Afterall,it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion alone, and religion, I think we could agree, is an "acquired" preference.

EDIT: I should clarify, I don't necessarily believe that SSA is acquired. But trying to distinguish between acquired states and natural-born states isn't entirely relevant to the conversation as we've already codified acquired states into protection from discrimination. Whether or not you think a certain acquired taste ought to be protected is a personal matter, but the fact that it is acquired doesn't necessarily rule it out from consideration.

Edited November 12, 2013 by MarginOfError

[Soulsearcher]

Talking about my personal life to my work friends outside of work cannot be used to fire me from my job.

And there you go. Yes it can :). That's exactly what this protection is trying to stop. If you talk about it out side of work and one of them uses that information against you, you can be fired. Say I'm out on a date. I'm not having sex, I'm just holding hands with my date. Someone from work see's me, tells my boss. With out the protections being proposed i can be fired. Or more closely related to your statement. I'm out with a friend from work and they ask if i'm married and i say i can't be because this state doesn't allow me to be. Same scenario, they could tell the boss and I'm fired. And even though it's highly unlikely it could happen to you as well, you are not protected based on your orientation, hypothetically speaking if someone thinks your gay and yet you talk to a friend out side of work about your husband, you could be fired. Now think how silly that sounds.

As for the height thing, it's funny you bring it up because most companies i know here are required to make arrangements for people with height issues. We have a lady working for us that's about 4 ft, and her office had the entire plan redone so nothing is out of reach and everything fits her.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Soulsearcher

[carlimac]

The problem with this is people keep thinking it's all about sex. Once you get past that it isn't you might see it a bit different. To comply with your rules, no one straight or gay could mention their spouse or who they were dating. Family discussion could never come up because it might give away someone's orientation. It's not talking about sex that's being protected, it's being able to talk freely about other aspects of your life. i hear about husbands and wives all day. I get asked once a week about my marital status or if i'm dating someone all the time, just as part of normal discussion among co-workers. Rarely does my sex life ever come up except with co-workers i consider good friends and even then it's very vague. Heck even the very religious places i've worked talk about spouses and dating and family all the time.

So I also assume you don't ever mention the fact your married or have kids except to very close friends and family, and no one you or your husband might work with know your marital status?

I agree with Anatess. It IS all about sex. Why would a business object to having an employee who got along great with his or her roommate and were actually fond of him/her in a brotherly or sisterly way? Once the physical intimacy (even holding hands) enters into the picture it's a whole different story.

I think heteros who don't object to gay marriage/relationships are people who either have managed to block the physical aspect out of their minds completely or who have such liberal views about sex that it doesn't phase them.

Now about this rule about not talking about families...it's beyond ridiculous. We'd all have to pretend babies came from the stork or were conceived in a test tube. I assume you don't really think that should be the rule but to even use it hypothetically is pretty silly. I know you're trying to get us to see the world through your view, but it just doesn't work. To make things "fair" for all sexual orientations would mean we'd have to deny nature. I think that's exactly what Satan wants. To neutralize us all. To remove the ability to perpetuate our Father in Heaven's work and purpose for us in life. I know talking about God just turns you off, but truly, why else would there be sex in the first place? It's absolutely necessary to keep the human race going. It's vital. It's not just about satisfying physical lust.

Now I'm just babbling.

Edited November 12, 2013 by carlimac

[Guest]

And there you go. Yes it can :). That's exactly what this protection is trying to stop. If you talk about it out side of work and one of them uses that information against you, you can be fired. Say I'm out on a date. I'm not having sex, I'm just holding hands with my date. Someone from work see's me, tells my boss. With out the protections being proposed i can be fired. Or more closely related to your statement. I'm out with a friend from work and they ask if i'm married and i say i can't be because this state doesn't allow me to be. Same scenario, they could tell the boss and I'm fired. And even though it's highly unlikely it could happen to you as well, you are not protected based on your orientation, hypothetically speaking if someone thinks your gay and yet you talk to a friend out side of work about your husband, you could be fired. Now think how silly that sounds.

As for the height thing, it's funny you bring it up because most companies i know here are required to make arrangements for people with height issues. We have a lady working for us that's about 4 ft, and her office had the entire plan redone so nothing is out of reach and everything fits her.

Soul... I can get fired for anything. It's a private compay. But, the company has to provide good cause or I can sue them. Sexual orientation is not more special than being short. I can get fired for being short. Now, if the company can prove that my being short is detrimental to my work function, then they have good cause and I have no leg to stand on in a court case. For example - if it costs the company more money to retrofit technology to my height so I can function (stewardess, pilots, storage warehouses, etc.), they should be able to fire me than continue to lose money. It is then in my purview to prove to them that my height is not detrimental to my function.

This is the same for being a runway model. The company can fire me at anytime if I gain or lose such weight as to not fit in the runway clothes. A designer doesn't make clothes to fit the model. The model has to fit the clothes. Therefore, in this business, you can get fired for being too fat or too thin, too short or too tall, etc.

In the same manner, if the company can prove that your sexual orientation is detrimental to your job... for example, the music director of a Catholic parish... a company should be able to fire you.

But, if you're a programmer for Amazon.com website, you can't get fired for being gay... you'll end up a millionaire after you sue Amazon's pants off.

And there's the rub again... You think you're so special that NOBODY should be able to fire you if your morality conflicts with the company's mission/vision. Because, let's face it... your main purpose is for everybody to change their morality to accept yours as normal.

[Soulsearcher]

I agree with Anatess. It IS all about sex. Why would a business object to having an employee who got along great with his or her roommate and were actually fond of him/her in a brotherly or sisterly way? Once the physical intimacy (even holding hands) enters into the picture it's a whole different story.

I think heteros who don't object to gay marriage/relationships are people who either have managed to block the physical aspect out of their minds completely or who have such liberal views about sex that it doesn't phase them.

Now about this rule about not talking about families...it's beyond ridiculous. We'd all have to pretend babies came from the stork or were conceived in a test tube. I assume you don't really think that should be the rule but to even use it hypothetically is pretty silly. I know you're trying to get us to see the world through your view, but it just doesn't work. To make things "fair" for all sexual orientations would mean we'd have to deny nature. I think that's exactly what Satan wants. To neutralize us all. To remove the ability to perpetuate our Father in Heaven's work and purpose for us in life. I know talking about God just turns you off, but truly, why else would there be sex in the first place?

Now I'm just babbling.

I really can't get my had around this. Is there a sexual element yes, but as you yourself have pointed out marriage/deeply loving relationships aren't just about sex. You worked very hard to prove this point. People aren't being fired just for having sex on the job. People are being fired for what they do in private. They are good at their job, don't call in sick, don't take extra breaks, they work hard. Now because someone doesn't like gay people either due to religious beliefs, misconceptions, ect, that good worker is fired. Now it seems that people either think this is a good thing, or can't get why a gay person might ever let it slip they are gay and then it's their fault.

It can't be compared to race or gender because it hasn't been proven to be biological, though more and more evidence leans that it has huge biological factors. It can't be compared to religion because...... no one's really explained that. If being gay is a choice, just like religion...then why protect one choice ( that by the way has been the cause for more violence and hate in the world than gays ever will) but not the other.

People get hung up on the sex, great i'm thinking some straight people spend way more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do and that's saying something. Is it really such a horrible thing that gay people can't be fired for something that does not impact their jobs in any way? If they have done great work, top performer, don't be inappropriate at work, customers love them with no complaints, does it really make sense to fire them and keep the loud mouth who annoys customers because he happens to be christian, or black and the boss is ok with them? I mean lets not even look at religious protections and the people who try to use those while no having set foot into church in a decade and have made no attempt to follow their faith. I really can't get what the issue is with people not wanting to lose their job in a job market that is horrible, not wanting to be broke and having to explain why they were terminated to their next potential employer and not being able to use a reference from the last job because he'll out me to my new potential boss. The amount of people who think this is ok or just don't see a reason to care baffle me, more so since the LDS church took a stand and said this was not ok in Utah. The church stood beside people fighting for this when it came up in Utah and yet it's members still think this is ok to do to people? Color me confused.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul... I can get fired for anything. It's a private compay. But, the company has to provide good cause or I can sue them. Sexual orientation is not more special than being short. I can get fired for being short. Now, if the company can prove that my being short is detrimental to my work function, then they have good cause and I have no leg to stand on in a court case. For example - if it costs the company more money to retrofit technology to my height so I can function (stewardess, pilots, storage warehouses, etc.), they should be able to fire me than continue to lose money. It is then in my purview to prove to them that my height is not detrimental to my function.

This is the same for being a runway model. The company can fire me at anytime if I gain or lose such weight as to not fit in the runway clothes. A designer doesn't make clothes to fit the model. The model has to fit the clothes. Therefore, in this business, you can get fired for being too fat or too thin, too short or too tall, etc.

In the same manner, if the company can prove that your sexual orientation is detrimental to your job... for example, the music director of a Catholic parish... a company should be able to fire you.

But, if you're a programmer for Amazon.com website, you can't get fired for being gay... you'll end up a millionaire after you sue Amazon's pants off.

And there's the rub again... You think you're so special that NOBODY should be able to fire you if your morality conflicts with the company's mission/vision. Because, let's face it... your main purpose is for everybody to change their morality to accept yours as normal.

But that's what your not seeing. They don't need good cause. They don't need to show it's detrimental. There have been cases where it's caused issues because the person fired as great at their job, no complaints from customers, or the very odd few and the loss of the person cost them more than the few odd complaints did. AS of now in the states that had no protection, sure i could sue but i would lose because there is nothing against firing someone for being gay.The need show no just cause other than orientation. All of your examples don't address this. they address things that are covered by either existing labor laws or contracts as in the case of models.

The example of the catholic parish is covered in the new protections and i agree with you on it.

Amazon has themselves put in place a policy as part of their employment that addresses orientation and there fore yes i could sue easily. they stepped up and did what the ENDA is trying to do.

I don't think I'm somebody special because I'm gay. I want to be just like everybody else. I don't want to be fired from my job because of something that has nothing to do with my job. I work longer hours, i tend to keep teams together longer so we don't have to keep hiring new staff. My sales numbers tend to be higher than most. My customers follow me when i'm transferred to other stores. What part of that has anything to do with being gay? And yet they can fire me for something that has nothing to do with my work and i can't do a thing about it? can't even sue like you say because it's not against any rules to fire me.

I don't want every body to change or accept i just want to be judged on my work merits. If companies make it clear they don't want or like gay people up front then i won't work for them. I'm not looking to get on the inside and make trouble, i just want to make money so i can support my self. I'm not sure how wanting a little job security makes me such a horrible subversive person seeking to change everyone.

[Guest]

But that's what your not seeing. They don't need good cause. They don't need to show it's detrimental. There have been cases where it's caused issues because the person fired as great at their job, no complaints from customers, or the very odd few and the loss of the person cost them more than the few odd complaints did. AS of now in the states that had no protection, sure i could sue but i would lose because there is nothing against firing someone for being gay.The need show no just cause other than orientation. All of your examples don't address this. they address things that are covered by either existing labor laws or contracts as in the case of models.

Dunno what country you live in... but in most, if not all, the States of the USA, there is no law against firing someone for being straight, gay, tall, short, fat, skinny, or if your eyes are too far apart or your lips are too wide or if you have 12 fingers or if you have a scar down your face that makes you look like Frankenstein. Why is your being gay more special than these others?

But, there is LAW against firing someone without JUST CAUSE. That law is working perfectly for the straight, gay, tall, short, fat, skinny, eyes too far apart, lips too wide, 12 fingers, and even for Frankenstein... until gay people decide they're more special than Frankenstein.

[Soulsearcher]

Dunno what country you live in... but in most, if not all, the States of the USA, there is no law against firing someone for being straight, gay, tall, short, fat, skinny, or if your eyes are too far apart or your lips are too wide or if you have a scar down your face that makes you look like Frankenstein. Why is your being gay more special than these others?

But, there is LAW against firing someone without JUST CAUSE. That law is working perfectly for the straight, gay, tall, short, fat, skinny, eyes too far apart, lips too wide, and even for Frankenstein... until gay people decide they're more special than Frankenstein.

Then you seem to be misinformed, that's what this entire thread is about, the just cause is for just being gay and it's not working for them.

[Guest]

Then you seem to be misinformed, that's what this entire thread is about, the just cause is for just being gay and it's not working for them.

And that's what I've been trying to tell you... I don't see a reason for a special law that protects gays and not Frankenstein. And if we're talking about protecting everybody including Frankenstein, then it's an idiotic law that is contrary to a capitalist society because, private enterprise hinges on the theory that you can choose the best people for the job - the private enterprise decides how to define Best.

Edited November 12, 2013 by anatess

[Soulsearcher]

And that's what I've been trying to tell you... I don't see a reason for a special law that protects gays and not Frankenstein.

But you already have laws that protect others, are you just as against them?

[carlimac]

I really can't get my had around this. Is there a sexual element yes, but as you yourself have pointed out marriage/deeply loving relationships aren't just about sex. You worked very hard to prove this point. People aren't being fired just for having sex on the job. People are being fired for what they do in private. They are good at their job, don't call in sick, don't take extra breaks, they work hard. Now because someone doesn't like gay people either due to religious beliefs, misconceptions, ect, that good worker is fired. Now it seems that people either think this is a good thing, or can't get why a gay person might ever let it slip they are gay and then it's their fault.

It can't be compared to race or gender because it hasn't been proven to be biological, though more and more evidence leans that it has huge biological factors. It can't be compared to religion because...... no one's really explained that. If being gay is a choice, just like religion...then why protect one choice ( that by the way has been the cause for more violence and hate in the world than gays ever will) but not the other.

People get hung up on the sex, great i'm thinking some straight people spend way more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do and that's saying something. Is it really such a horrible thing that gay people can't be fired for something that does not impact their jobs in any way? If they have done great work, top performer, don't be inappropriate at work, customers love them with no complaints, does it really make sense to fire them and keep the loud mouth who annoys customers because he happens to be christian, or black and the boss is ok with them? I mean lets not even look at religious protections and the people who try to use those while no having set foot into church in a decade and have made no attempt to follow their faith. I really can't get what the issue is with people not wanting to lose their job in a job market that is horrible, not wanting to be broke and having to explain why they were terminated to their next potential employer and not being able to use a reference from the last job because he'll out me to my new potential boss. The amount of people who think this is ok or just don't see a reason to care baffle me, more so since the LDS church took a stand and said this was not ok in Utah. The church stood beside people fighting for this when it came up in Utah and yet it's members still think this is ok to do to people? Color me confused.

Yes, you are confused. I don't think it's right to fire someone for simply having same sex attractions. I never said it was OK. I believe a person should maintain or lose their job based on performance and ability to do the work. BUT I don't think there is a need to legislate this into law, thereby taking away employers freedom to act on their best intuitions about their business. And as Anatess pointed out, there are some businesses where a person's moral stance is important to the work.

Perhaps we should all be asked up front what our sexual orientation is in the interview and if it conflicts with the company's or employer's stance, then we'd never get the job in the first place.

What about body odor or Tourettes syndrome or someone who eats really stinky food for lunch at their desk everyday. Should we legislate protections for them, too? Is it fair to fire someone who does the work really well but can't help the obscenities they yell every few minutes? Or someone from any number of foreign countries who eats so much garlic that they carry that odor wherever they go and the smell chases away clients. But they are brilliant workers. Should we write laws for them, too? Or laws for obese people with thyroid problems so that they can't lose weight but they break all the chairs they sit in. But they are darn good workers. Shouldn't there be laws for them? I mean according to the "special protections" LGBTs want we should also be coming up with endless number of laws specially protecting all kinds of people who have all kinds of special situations. It's impractical and unnecessary and absurd.

[Guest]

But you already have laws that protect others, are you just as against them?

The same law that protects others protect gays as well... but you're too blind to see it.

[Soulsearcher]

Yes, you are confused. I don't think it's right to fire someone for simply having same sex attractions. I never said it was OK. I believe a person should maintain or lose their job based on performance and ability to do the work. BUT I don't think there is a need to legislate this into law, thereby taking away employers freedom to act on their best intuitions about their business. And as Anatess pointed out, there are some businesses where a person's moral stance is important to the work.

Perhaps we should all be asked up front what our sexual orientation is in the interview and if it conflicts with the company's or employer's stance, then we'd never get the job in the first place.

What about body odor or Tourettes syndrome or someone who eats really stinky food for lunch at their desk everyday. Should we legislate protections for them, too? Is it fair to fire someone who does the work really well but can't help the obscenities they yell every few minutes? Or someone from any number of foreign countries who eats so much garlic that they carry that odor wherever they go and the smell chases away clients. But they are brilliant workers. Should we write laws for them, too? Or laws for obese people with thyroid problems so that they can't lose weight but they break all the chairs they sit in. But they are darn good workers. Shouldn't there be laws for them? I mean according to the "special protections" LGBTs want we should also be coming up with endless number of laws specially protecting all kinds of people who have all kinds of special situations. It's impractical and unnecessary and absurd.

Tourettes and obesity due to health problems tend to be covered under medical conditions and do have special regulations. Body odor and Eating stinky food are usually treated as coach able items and have set ways to deal with them as they can directly impact your customer base or co-workers. We work with many of the people you mention and believe it or not, at least here they can't be fired just for those things, the labor laws here do give them protections. Maybe it is the difference in countries. Here those people can not be fired or fired easily at a whim, but a gay person can be.

[Soulsearcher]

The same law that protects others protect gays as well... but you're too blind to see it.

Again, not it doesn't. It protects race, gender and religion, sexual orientation is not a protected class otherwise this entire thing would be moot. If you can show me in the laws exactly where they have the exact same protections please show it to me and i would gladly back off. Again i ask if those protections were already in place why did the church make such an issue of supporting it when it came up in UTAH?

[Guest]

Again, not it doesn't. It protects race, gender and religion, sexual orientation is not a protected class otherwise this entire thing would be moot. If you can show me in the laws exactly where they have the exact same protections please show it to me and i would gladly back off. Again i ask if those protections were already in place why did the church make such an issue of supporting it when it came up in UTAH?

Whoop, there it is!!!

What did I just tell you? You believe that sexual orientation is of the same level as Race, Gender, Religion... It is more special than Frankenstein.

I am sorry... your sexual orientation is really not that important. You are A LOT MORE than gay just like I am A LOT MORE than straight. It should not define you just like my being short and Frankenstein's being Frankenstein do not define us. Affording you the same protections as race, gender, religion makes your being gay a whole-person defining factor. And if I was gay, that would offend me.

Edited November 12, 2013 by anatess

[Soulsearcher]

Whoop, there it is!!!

What did I just tell you? You believe that sexual orientation is of the same level as Race, Gender, Religion... It is more special than Frankenstein.

I am sorry... your sexual orientation is really not that important. You are A LOT MORE than gay just like I am A LOT MORE than straight. It should not define you just like my being short and Frankenstein's being Frankenstein do not define us.

I am a lot more, but that simple thing alone is what i can be judged by in the work place instead of who and what else i am. Just like a person is more than black, more than man or woman and more than their religion. not sure why you think that was a "gottcha" moment?

So you agree I should not be judged for employment or fired just for that simple thing, but for my actual work.

And you said that those protections are already there and the only ones that are certain are the ones i listed, and still didn't show me where the protections are?

[Guest]

I am a lot more, but that simple thing alone is what i can be judged by in the work place instead of who and what else i am. Just like a person is more than black, more than man or woman and more than their religion. not sure why you think that was a "gottcha" moment?

So you agree I should not be judged for employment or fired just for that simple thing, but for my actual work.

Exactly... Making it a protected group WILL MAKE IT DEFINE YOU. You should be opposed to such special treatment.

Religion, race, and gender is a total definition of a person. I am not more than my religion, race, or gender. I AM my religion, race, and gender. THAT defines me. There's no running from that.

[Just_A_Guy]

It is more special than Frankenstein.

I am sorry... your sexual orientation is really not that important. You are A LOT MORE than gay just like I am A LOT MORE than straight. It should not define you just like my being short and Frankenstein's being Frankenstein do not define us.

Dear Anatess,

Frankenstein wasn't the monster. He was the creepy German doctor who created the monster. On behalf of creepy German doctors everywhere, I demand an apology for your lack of sensitivity and your false insinuation that creepy German doctors are monsters.

[Soulsearcher]

Exactly... Making it a protected group WILL MAKE IT DEFINE YOU. You should be opposed to such special treatment.

Religion, race, and gender is a total definition of a person. I am not more than my religion, race, or gender. I AM my religion, race, and gender. There's no running from that.

No you choose your religion, being a convert you know that to be true, you can live it, but it is still a choice, and many who claim a religion are not their religion. You have run from one faith to another and there is really absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it again. I know you won't, but many people change religions multiple times.

I have no problem being defined that way if it means i don't have to go through 5 jobs a year never knowing if i will have rent money because someone doesn't like who i date when i'm not at work. This isn't just some crusade to make people change or think different and i do wish people could see the impact it has. Think about not ever knowing when you'll be fired, it just coming out of the blue . Not laid off, not on leave, fired with no income for no good reason. Maybe it's different in the states, but that usually can't happen here, but it can in cases like this. One day with no warning and no reason you lose your income cause you are gay. If i have to be defined so i can keep supporting myself i am not against it because i'd prefer to be a label with a roof over my head vs living on the street but undefined.

[carlimac]

AND...back to the reason this thread is titled "Oh Harry".

Not meant to debate endlessly about the necessity of the law ( or not). It was more about Harry Reid not being quite in touch or speaking for other members of his church. He needs to be a leetle bit more careful not to do that when he's a public figure and one especially who isn't thought of all too kindly by more than a few.

This part of the article is the real issue : "Politico reported that Reid, who is LDS, told a group of reporters, most of them working for LGBT publications according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that his social views have shifted over time to support issues like ENDA. He said he thought that was true of other Latter-day Saints.

The church did not directly address the broad range of LGBT rights. It responded to media inquiries with its statement, which read in part, "As the church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position.

This thread illustrates that perfectly. Some "yays" and some "nays". It's obvious to me why Mitt Romney was hesitant to talk much about his faith. He at least has the sense to recognize the wide range of feelings and experiences people have being LDS members. And those who aren't members are likely to attach a high profile individual's words to all Mormons. Not saying Mormon politicians shouldn't profess to be a member and not be ashamed of it, but you just don't attribute your personal feelings to other members, too.

Edited November 12, 2013 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances News Story — 10 November 2009 Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction.

The Church said the Salt Lake City Council’s new nondiscrimination ordinance “is fair and reasonable” and balances fair housing and employment rights with the religious rights of the community.

The remarks, representing the position of the Church’s leadership, were read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting tonight. (Read full remarks).

Otterson told city council members: “The issue before you tonight is the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempts to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.”

The Church said that while protections in housing and employment were fair and reasonable, the Church also remains “unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” Otterson also pointed out that this position was “entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters.”

Otterson added, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”

Edited November 12, 2013 by Soulsearcher
bold added

[Guest]

No you choose your religion, being a convert you know that to be true, you can live it, but it is still a choice, and many who claim a religion are not their religion. You have run from one faith to another and there is really absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it again. I know you won't, but many people change religions multiple times.

I have no problem being defined that way if it means i don't have to go through 5 jobs a year never knowing if i will have rent money because someone doesn't like who i date when i'm not at work. This isn't just some crusade to make people change or think different and i do wish people could see the impact it has. Think about not ever knowing when you'll be fired, it just coming out of the blue . Not laid off, not on leave, fired with no income for no good reason. Maybe it's different in the states, but that usually can't happen here, but it can in cases like this. One day with no warning and no reason you lose your income cause you are gay. If i have to be defined so i can keep supporting myself i am not against it because i'd prefer to be a label with a roof over my head vs living on the street but undefined.

Soulsearcher... Religion is in the special protection group not because you are born with it but because it is specifically protected under the 1st Amendment. I would think that would be obvious.

And like I said... your being fired because you're gay is not unique to your sexual orientation. My husband got fired from his job because he is married with 2 kids (true story). You can cry your sob stories... we all have them.

[Soulsearcher]

Soulsearcher... Religion is in the special protection group not because you are born with it but because it is specifically protected under the 1st Amendment. I would think that would be obvious.

It is, but it's shown precedent for protecting a choice and lifestyle. You are not born that way, it's not something you can't change. It's something you can be persecuted for, there are things that might never be known about it, but it doesn't change the facts about how you think or feel on it. So while people might have issues comparing race or gender, there can be a comparison between between religion being it fits most people assumptions about homosexuality. So while the origins of homosexuality might be up in the air it can fall somewhere along the spectrum between the already protected classes.

[Soulsearcher]

Soulsearcher... Religion is in the special protection group not because you are born with it but because it is specifically protected under the 1st Amendment. I would think that would be obvious.

And like I said... your being fired because you're gay is not unique to your sexual orientation. My husband got fired from his job because he is married with 2 kids (true story). You can cry your sob stories... we all have them.

K so did the being married with two kids have any type of negative impact on his work? and if not as you said he's protected by law so he was able to sue right?