Gays and the St Patricks Day Parade

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Oh, the gays want "tolerance", do they? Then why do they sue Christian business owners, solely for their religious beliefs? When the government tells a Christian photographer, "go to this gay wedding or we will fine you", please tell me how that's not also persecution? I don't think the government would force a black photographer to take pictures at a Klan rally, and I don't see a shred of difference.

"Tolerance" has very little to do with this. It's about punishing those who are not in complete agreement with you.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

I can see the point you are trying to make, but using the Klan to make a point is probably not a great idea... they are classified as a known hate group by the US government... I am not a fan of organized religion, but I don't think Christians or Homosexuals are members of hate groups...

Of course you have a point there. My point is, under this administration, there are plenty of examples of Christians being asked to abandon their beliefs (which is blatantly unconstitutional) to advance the agenda of the current administration. This is a bit off-topic, but I'm confident that I'm correct.

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

If one group is not inclined to consent, then fortunately for them, they have the right to stay home. No one is forcing them to participate in a St Patricks Day parade.

We live in a pluralistic society, and like it or not, it requires a certain degree of assimilation at times. We all have to try and fit in a bit. We can't always get our way, all of the time, in every situation. Most of us learn this by the time we are 6 or 7 years old. In my opinion, this patricular group, is struggling lately with the notion that others have the right to pursue their vision of happiness as well.

Banning gays from the parade would be one thing. Asking them to leave their sexuality aside for 2 hours is not nearly the same thing, despite Spence's desperate attempts to paint it that way.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In this case, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were both asked to do the same exact thing (no proclamations of sexuality for 2 hours), that cannot be considered to be discriminatory. By definition, 'discrimination' is singling out one group for different treatment. No one can say that is happening here.

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Ian

Why do you think that rule exists in the first place? To keep the annoying heterosexuals from flaunting their pride?

But why is that? Why is it easy for one group to avoid public proclamations about their sexuality, and one group struggles with that? Lots of heteresexuals identify pretty closely with being heterosexual, right? Yet, i didn't hear any of them complain about not being able to flaunt their heterosexuality during the parade.