[Vision2020] My gay agenda (again)

[Andreas Schou]

On 5/17/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Joan, Why is it that if I were to walk up to Dick, smack him in the gob and
> berate him for being a good for nothing, lazy, ugly, stinking, white, male,
> heterosexual, I would only be guilty of battery? If I committed a similar
> assault on you it would be battery and a hate crime.

The number of misperceptions above is roughly equal to the number of words.

First: Idaho law doesn't even currently cover sexual orientation. If
you punched Joan in the gob for being a lesbian, you would get what
pretty much everyone arrested for punching someone in the gob gets: an
battery citation. If Joan punched you in the gob for being a white
dude or a Christian, she'd potentially be open to a misdemeanor and a
felony charge: battery and malicious harassment.

Let me quote you the actual Idaho law:

18-7902.  MALICIOUS HARASSMENT DEFINED -- PROHIBITED. It shall be
unlawful for any person, maliciously and with the specific intent to
intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race,
color, religion, ancestry, or national origin, to:

(a)  Cause physical injury to another person; or

(b)  Damage, destroy, or deface any real or personal property of
another person; or

(c)  Threaten, by word or act, to do the acts prohibited if there is
reasonable cause to believe that any of the acts described in
subsections (a) and (b) of this section will occur.

See anything about sexual orientation in there? No? That's because
it's not there, Gary. See anything in there about race and religion?
Sure do. The same action -- punching somone in the face because of who
they are -- is a felony for her, but a misdemeanor for you.

She's not receiving any sort of "special treatment" under the law; in
fact, she's not even receiving equal protection. But I suspect you
knew that. This is the same thing that conservatives pull every time
their own special privileges are under attack: "Help! Help! Your
rights are oppressing me!"

> equals before the law to me. If I refuse to hire Dick to work in my shop
> 'cause he's so straight he wouldn't be able to turn corners (hawr, hawr,
> hawr) his recourse would be to seek work elsewhere.

This is true. But not for the reasons you think.

> If I refuse to hire you  for being gay (insert favorite ignorant dumb ass comment followed > by guffaws here) a discrimination suit would be sure to follow.

Sexual orientaiton -- either gay or straight -- isn't covered under
fair housing law and isn't covered under federal or state labor law,
though there are states where it is covered. And where it is covered,
gay and straight Americans are protected equally under the law.

Even in those states where sexual orientation is protected, you don't
see a lot of employment suits for anti-straight discrimination. The
reason for that is that there is not a gay Mafia controlling
employment in the US -- which you already know.

-- ACS