Turns out that the Family Research Council issued a press release hammering the Obama White House for promoting childhood homosexuality. I especially like the point about Dan Savage, who is identified as "a homosexual extremist who built a career on hatred of Christians and our values." Word.
And see this from FRC, "Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right":
Because of our national shame at the historic legacy of racial discrimination against blacks, many people have come to think of “discrimination” as inherently evil. However, the basic meaning of “discriminate” is simply “to make a distinction.” To compare and evaluate candidates based on their education, experience, intelligence, and competence is inherently “discrimination.” The question, therefore, is not whether “discrimination” will take place—it can, it will and it must. The question for public policy is: which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?RTWT.
In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress answered that question by including only five categories of protection. As noted above, those categories were: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” For instance, a banker could deny an applicant a loan because the applicant was not credit-worthy, but not because he or she was Jewish or black. What do these protected categories have in common?
While there is no definitive legal answer, the most logical answer would seem to be that the case for granting legal protection against “discrimination” is strongest when based on a personal characteristic that is:
* Inborn, involuntary, and immutable (like race and color);
* Innocuous (because it does no harm to the employer, to the individual, or to society as a whole); and/or
* In the Constitution.
Is “sexual orientation,” like race and sex, a characteristic that is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution? Is it, like religion (which is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or necessarily innocuous, but is in the Constitution), a characteristic that meets even one of these criteria?
The only truthful answer is no.
PREVIOUSLY: "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."
1 comments:
"Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right"
That is true, but it's also not a reason to deny people any rights.
See, that's the bit you have trouble understanding because... well I'm not really sure, it's pretty simple.
Post a Comment