Comments on: American Fork: discrimination, or just awkward?

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:03:16 +0000

You (JBT) describe one of the ironies in these arguments: the gay community regularly objectifies its own adherents, while us “homophobes” see people struggling with (or enjoying) homosexuality as people. Rather than argue (naively, I might add) that I and others simply “meet some of the wonderful human beings” who also happen to engage in homosexual conduct, perhaps you and yours ought to admit that solely through the lens of homosexuality is how you establish the identity of a human being.

Again, a stark irony is that all of the hetero folks who say, “who cares…let them do what they want to do,” are actually objectifying people struggling with (or enjoying) their homosexuality. It’s like they’re saying, “I’d NEVER do THAT! But, because I don’t really care about you, I don’t care what YOU do.” It’s the same objectification that occurs with other “victimless crimes.”

So, please, before you judge me or anyone else, you might at least stop to take a moment and reflect upon who actually sees another person as a human being and not some distant, irrelevant object.

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:07:53 +0000

Being friends with homosexuals and treating them with respect is different at a personal level then it is in law. Several of my high school friends were gay. We hung out–enjoyed some of the same things. But when it came to religion we differed a lot, and had very few discussions on the matter.

My husband and I don’t always agree on everything. But we love each other and we don’t fight about it and we know our differences are okay.

The problem is LGBT groups want to be validated for their sexual practices not their humanity. And I and many other parents do not feel like homosexual pornography should be available in schools, nor do I think my kindergartener who doesn’t even know what sex is should be taught about homosexuality. Nor do I think obscure homosexuals should be celebrated in history class because of who they had sexual relationships with. If that makes me a bigot, then fine. Do not be my friend. Do not have a personal relationship with me. But I know I am not the one discriminating.

By: Diane

Diane — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:56:03 +0000

For parental rights:

read this website in it’s entirety
http://cultureguard.com/

Watch this full36 minute video
http://www.overruledmovie.com/

Read this article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2011/07/27/the_gay_history_law_elevates_the_irrelevant

Read this article at your own risk. It is full of perverse language:
http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

after that, think about whether or not the government not allowing parents to opt out of school programs and curriculum, and others thinking the government should “indoctrinate children” in behalf of LGBT’s does not trump the wishes of parents.

For religious freedom:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/24/michael-ruse-let-the-bigots-rant/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-of-canada-anti-gay-hate-speech-case-could-be-decisive-for-rel/

There are plenty more circumstances in which gay rights are trumping both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. If you want to know what LGBT anti-discrimination laws do, look to places where gay marriage has been legal for a while. Canada, Switzerland, Massachusetts, etc.

By: JBT

JBT — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:27:44 +0000

I couldn’t disagree more Paul. You seem to be twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize and justify your prejudice against persons who are attracted to the same sex.
Prejudice and bigotry wrapped in moral arguments are still prejudice and bigotry. Those who cling to the mantle of “moral superiority” find gays and lesbians to be inferior, and therefore should be “kept in their place” and denied the same basic rights as others. White folks in the south who were good church going Christians were also convinced they were superior to those with dark skins and therefore denied that class of people the same basic rights as others.

In the work place hiring and firing should be based upon one’s skills, good work habits, and lawful conduct. It would be unjust to fire someone who is doing a good job simply because they are a heterosexual. Preventing this type of discrimination would not not be giving this heterosexual special and unique rights it simply gives that individual the basic rights due all human beings.

Ones sexual orientation is not “what they think of themselves” it is who they are as a human beings. In this country and in this century our society has matured to the point that it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against persons because of who they are as individuals. What a person does with the person they love in the privacy of their own bedroom is not the government’s business, it is not their employer’s business, it is not their landlord’s business, and it is certainly not the Sutherland Institute’s business.

In housing it would be wrong to refuse to rent to a couple who have excellent references, proof of income, and who are law abiding citizens solely on the basis that they are both the same gender. If that landlord refused to rent to that couple, all that landlord would need to do is to document on what basis other than sexual orientation they were turned down. If such proof exists that there were better qualified applicants, then he is in the clear. If such proof does not exist then there is a prima facia case for discrimination. The same scenario would be true if a black or Muslim couple were turn down as renters. It is not “too complicated” for them. Why then is it too complicated when discrimination based upon sexual orientation is involved?

The best thing in the world for that landlord would be to be required to rent to the same sex couple and be put in a position to see that they are human beings just like himself. All discrimination is fear based, and usually exists because the person has had no personal contact or inter personal relationships with the persons who are the objects of the discrimination.

It would do the Sutherland Institute a world of good to buy a table at the next “Equality Utah” Banquet, and meet some of the wonderful human beings who make up the GLBT community in Utah. It would take some courage to meet those folks face to face and tell them why you would deny them the same rights as everyone else. I suspect that is why this would never happen.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:21:28 +0000

The point, I thought, was clear: the whole idea of nondiscrimination protections based on “sexual orientation”…or any other non-action…in the workplace is vague, broad and unjust. It takes non-action (thoughts) and gives it standing under law, allows a claimant to tell others what they’re thinking (“perceived as”) under threat of law, and places the law unjustly on the side of an accuser to the severe disadvantage of the accused. I think the dialogue shows all of the legal and practical nuances quite well.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:14:54 +0000

…but it’s okay to for you to impose your moral values on me?

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:13:40 +0000

…and I don’t know what you mean about parental rights.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:13:00 +0000

The rights you claim aren’t “equal,” they’re special and unique — no other American gets to claim a right based on what they think of themselves and what they think other people are thinking. You say you don’t want to be discriminated against based on “sexual orientation” — what is that and how do you prove that?

Yes, we protect religion (a choice)…because, in America at least, it’s a basic human good and requires human action to be judged under the law. Homosexual sodomy is not a basic human good…and “sexual orientation” evidently does not require human action and, hence, cannot be justly judged under law.

By: Paul Mero

Paul Mero — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:05:10 +0000

This is what we’ve argued:

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/publications_detail.php?id=1230

By: JBT

JBT — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:51:40 +0000

How does giving gays equal rights in society take away from your religious freedom and your rights as a parent? Please be specific.