Homosexual "rights"?!

Not if they create themselves as a public accomodation in a jurisdiction in which such discrimination is illegal. In the BSA, Inc case, that’s exactly how a unanimous New Jersy supreme court ruled. The case has been accepted for review by the USSC, so the question’s not yet settled. FTR, I agree with the USSC’s ruling on the St Patrick’s Day parade, but don’t understand why, when gay contingents march openly and proudly in St Patrick’s Day parades in Ireland NYC’s Ancient Order of Hibernians thinks that being Irish Catholic means excluding gays.

Otto:

So much for the Constitutional guarantee of “Freedom of Assembly”-- But then shredding the Constitution is what the left is all about.

Yes, dear - I’ll put you on the list for our next soiree. You won’t be the only one… we have a few others we still hope can be educated

Boomer:

The First Amendment rights of the public accomodation are balanced against the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the party not being accomodated. BSA Inc is free to re-create itself at any time as a purely religious organization. The NJ supreme court has ruled that because BSA Inc advertises itself as open to all boys (among other reasons) it fits the state’s definition of "public accomodation. Here’s Lambda Legal’s press release on the NJSC’s unanimous ruling, and links to the decision are available at this page as well.

Otto:

I’ll take your word on what the ruling was for the time being, but I fail to understand your legal rendering on the decision. Or, it may have taken some legal contortionism on someone’s part to interpret the Constitution as meaning that the Boy Scout could not exclude homosexuals.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that is says “no state”…“shall deny to any person equal protection under the law” Just how are homosexuals ‘denied protection’ by being barred from membership or participation in the BSA?

Apologize for the double post. It was an attempt to edit the bolding. I’ll proofread before I post next time :open_mouth:

In reviewing the Dale decision, I find that I have misstated the basis of the decision. My apologies for any confusion. The decision is here; I’m quoting the syllabus, which is not part of the official decision. The page numbers in the syllabus refer to the pages of the decision.

I’m going to wait on Melin’s review of your post, Otto, before I comment, other than to say that this has been dealt with before. Check the older posts…it was just over a month ago. (Why Melin? She is a judge and lawyer, quite gay-friendly, who had IIRC seen the gays-in-BSA question as not quite something that the courts could compel… and you need to realize that any lawyer reviewing statute and case law here is saying what the application of the laws is, not necessarily what he/she thinks it should be.)

{oogle oogle oogle}

On an unrelated note… slythe, you’re SCA? Me, too! :slight_smile:

Esprix


Ask the Gay Guy!

  1. What are your feelings on domestic partnerships?

  2. What is the problem with affording them equal legal protection?

You also might want to check out the various other gay-related threads (particularly mine in the BBQ Pit), as much of what this conversation could erupt into has already been covered.

Esprix


Ask the Gay Guy!

I know the name of the spouse of every person I work with. I know who is married and who is single and who is dating and who they’re dating. I know the names of their children, and some of their grandchildren. I hear stories of their domestic situations/squabbles/weekend antics when I come into work each morning. My boss wears a wedding ring, and has copious pictures of her husband and children all over her office. Several of my co-workers are God-fearing Christians with Bible verses, angels and assorted religious paraphernalia adorning their cubicles.

And they all treated me quite well… until when someone asked me if I had a girlfriend, I responded by saying no, I had a boyfriend, and his name is Giang.

Now, well, they don’t talk to me as much anymore.

Now, do I really need to go into the story of my friend Randy, who was murdered just for being perceived as gay?

Esprix


Ask the Gay Guy!

Exprix said:

I will not make stupid Life of Brian/Robin Hood: Men in Tights jokes. I will not make stupid Life of Brian/Robin Hood: Men in Tights jokes. I will not make stupid Life of Brian/Robin Hood: Men in Tights jokes. I will not make… :smiley:

On a more serious note, I think Esprix’s last post on pictures in offices, etc., certainly made it quite clear that this is not about sexual practice so much as it is about the overall living of one’s life. And I would hope that Boomer, Patrick, and a few others would take a good look at that without any preconceptions as to “the agenda that Esprix is trying to promote” and comment intelligently on what precisely he is supposed to do in a situation such as what he described, in their view.

It’s not about “orientation” or “practice” or “deviancy” or whatever the hell abstract noun you want to dig out of the unabridged dictionary and throw in here. It’s about people.

{soliet green rant}

THE GAY AGENDA IS PEOPLE…PEEEEPLE!!!


Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Polycarp, I look damn fine in tights!
That’s why I joined the SCA. :wink:

I don’t know why I found that so amusing, but thank you, Dave… :smiley:

Yes, there IS a gay agenda.

They don’t want fairness in voicing their views, they want to advocate it, which is a totally different thing.

Disagree with a gay groups’ agenda, and you’re automatically labelled a “bigot”, “hatemonger” or “intolerant”, and they are calling US hateful, intolerant?

The gay groups want the world to change to their point of view.

I have as yet to read, see, or hear any gay or lesbian activist openly state or demand that their choice of a same sex lifestyle be received by society as valid, legal, correct or moral. Instead, they choose to cloak the acceptance of their same sex lifestyle within traditional institutions such as marriage, religion, family adoption, or military service. I find most articles and arguments from the gay and lesbian community focus on how “normal” or “correct” their lifestyle is when compared to the moral definition of relationships between a man and a woman. Gay and lesbians profess that “we pray to God, we can provide a loving environment for children, are more committed than heterosexual couples, or how physically fit we are to serve in the military.” Well, all these statements are true, but have absolutely nothing to do with the real question: should their choice of lifestyle be accepted by an individual or society as moral and correct and receive recognition by traditional institutions?

When individuals and institutions put forth a statement or bill such as Proposition 22, the gay and lesbian community immediately cries discrimination and defamation. It is all they can do; for they cannot defend their lifestyle any other way. Acceptance into institutions and the rights associated with each is as close as the gay and lesbian community can reach.

Any individual has the self responsibility and right to live any lifestyle choice. But, one does not have the right to politicize the forced acceptance of this lifestyle as moral, correct and valid upon the society or individuals that do not believe it to be moral. I believe we will never see the gay and lesbian community come forth directly with a statement proclaiming their lifestyle as moral and correct. Instead, we will continue to see and hear arguments that cloak this lifestyle and scream discrimination. A vote yes for Proposition 22 will force the gay and lesbian community to find acceptance of their lifestyle by other means than acceptance in traditional institutions.


Patrick Ashley

‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke

Pashley, people keep asking you specific questions, and you keep not answering them. Have you actually been reading this thread, or do you just scan it and then post a generalization? It would be nice if you went back and actually responded to a few issues raised here, since you did start the thread.

You wrote:

Do you think there is fairness in voicing their views today?

Um, huh? I think this may be your perception, but most gay people and groups I know are quite comfortable saying that homosexuality is valid, legal, correct and moral; I know I am. Now, is it valid, correct or moral for you? Doesn’t seem that way, which is fine by me. However, when it comes to questions of legality, I do expect us to be treated equally.

Then what’s your beef?

No one is demanding that churches who feel that homosexuality is a sin should perform wedding ceremonies; however, churches are not a civil institution, which are supposed to be concerned about treating people equally.

And obviously you’ve done absolutely no research whatsoever into the psychology of homosexuality.

Please amuse me by saying that Proposition 222 is not an anti-gay initiative.

Uh, no, not really. State-wide anti-discrimination laws, the striking down of sodomy laws, the right to raise your own children - all of these things exist and are not part of any “institution,” unless you’re regarding civil law as an “institution,” in which case you’re sounding very silly by advocating that not everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law.

I’m not sure what country you live in, but I don’t believe you speak for the entirety of the United States population. Last time I checked, there is growing nationwide support for SSM’s, equal rights, and so forth. If the US votes and it turns out they do think homosexuals are just as moral and valid as anyone else, have they still been “forced” to do so?

{ahem}

I, a homosexual, come forth directly and state that my lifestyle is moral and correct.

Thank you.

A vote yes for Proposition 22 will encourage discrimination and second-class citizenship on one group of people. Sounds like you’d be forcing your views on me. Gee, that wouldn’t be right, now, would it? :rolleyes:

As always, the voters will decide, and thankfully not you alone.

Esprix


Ask the Gay Guy!

Thank you for a reasoned post, Patrick, and may I retract some of the less-than-charitable remarks I made when I saw you as “trolling” as that term is used here?

It seems to me that the term “lifestyle” needs to be relegated to the back section of the Sunday paper, and not used with regard to this topic. A lot of things constitute a lifestyle. A single person tends to do many of them by him/herself, with a group of friends, or with a date. A married couple tends to do them together. A committed gay couple would tend to do them together. And the wide variety of “them” that can fill in that blank is the reason I say this. You would certainly not object to two people of the same sex attending church together, Patrick…and it doesn’t matter whether those two people are Otto and Esprix or the two widows who usually sit directly behind my wife and me on Sundays. Two men dining in a good restaurant may be a couple of gays, or a salesman and his client, or two longtime friends whose wives are off shopping. Or some combination of these!

As I see it, the gay agenda calls for them to have the same rights as do other people. By careful nuancing of one’s sentences, one can cast these as different rights. But I think analysis would show them as identical. I married my childhood sweetheart, the one woman I have loved in the romantic sense. I had the right to marry the person I love. Esprix wants the same right. Never mind that the reason he does not currently have it is that that person is the same sex as him. And so on for the entire list of “gay agenda” items.

Now, there is one strong point here. It would seem that people who find homosexual activity immoral could say so and not be therefore necessarily considered bigots or hate-filled. Flinx is a prime example of someone who so believes and is none of the above. Otto might suggest a bit of “internalized homophobia” (do I have the terminology right?) but I think that he is being honest about who he is and what he believes God wants of him.

Patrick, I have never seen the “gay lifestyle is moral” statement either. But it is implicit in what they do say. Quite simply, they do not see having a condition they cannot change nor the acting of it out as behaving immorally for them. If you are content that they consider it immoral and simply want the right to say that you believe differently, I don’t think that is terribly objectionable. But consider how you stand in judgment of them when you say this. On what grounds can you call them immoral? Most people would quickly turn to the Judeo-Christian ethic, which calls for being non-judgmental.

As for the “traditional institutions,” your church may do as it sees fit, as may the American Legion, the Elks Club, and so on. Traditional governmental institutions are obliged to treat citizens equally. If you want to say your church should not marry two gays because you find it immoral, all well and good. If you want to say that the J.P. should not, you need to consider what the basis of that law should be. And IMHO it should not be your feelings but the rights of the public: yours and theirs both.

The Gay Guy sayeth:

Well, of COURSE they have, Esprix! I mean, it’s clearly the vast left-wing conspiracy that started by teaching the evils of evolution in schools, then was followed up by allowing people to gasp reason on their own, and will now let homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us! CLEARLY this a sign of the TOTAL moral decline of this country, and God will be coming along to smite us any second now.

(Before I get flamed to a crisp: a note to the sarcasm-impaired. THAT WAS A JOKE! Thank you.)

Oh, and I’m a heterosexual, but can I just say I think a homosexual’s “choice of a same sex lifestyle” is “valid, legal, correct or moral” as well? Or do I not count on this one? :wink:


Winner, SDMB’s Biggest Chat Addict

“Only two things that’ll soothe my soul - cold beer and remote control.”