Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

vince garcia wrote:
> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!

I believe that business owners have the right to control the "character"
(for lack of the right word at this hour) of their establishment, but
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details. I wouldn't want my
customers to walk in when two people were sucking on each other, for
example. That's not the environment I'd want in my business. But the
line is a difficult one to navigate: some might argue that "flamboyant"
homosexuals would be offensive to their customers, just as white folks
in times past argued that blacks in their establishments would be
offensive. Times change, thankfully, and justice must prevail.

> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.

No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal freedom
of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more complicated
than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for many is simple
the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating against
homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on their skin
color--it's just the way they were born, and how could they possibly
choose otherwise.

> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other even if
> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
> inflict their own morality on someone else!"

You have a point here. ;-)

In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact would
be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just think of
the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by your hypothesis!

> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe discrimination
> is always unconstitutional.

Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue is
favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to prevent
abuse of power with these laws.

> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the hell
> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.

You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is (or
should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to see
heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I don't
want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop. And I
sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV (couldn't believe
what I saw the other day). We don't allow public "fornication" by
anyone. But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a
means to consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.

It's actually too bad that the anti-gay-marriage crowd hasn't thought of
the stabilizing influence in society of marriage. I bet there would be a
lot less promiscuity and public display of gay sexuality if everyone
would just leave it alone, and treat gays just like everyone else.

Ahh well. I have to leave this discussion, I've run out of steam for it.