Anti-gay lawmaker outed by man he flirted online

[Likely Voter]

What is "anti-gay" about this person?

because he is one of these people (upper right hand corner)...

[Likely Voter]

The following are federal anti-discrimination protected classes:

•     Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
•      Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
•      Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
•      National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
•      Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
•      Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
•      Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
•      Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
•      Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
•      Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
•      Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
•      Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

How is that adding sexual orientation to that list is going to result in an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits?

I'm sorry but voting against ENDA type laws means you are anti-gay rights, which means you are anti-gay. If you are really worried about lawsuits and want to be ideologically consistent, then you better be also advocating for overturning the  Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act and all the others.

[Likely Voter]

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

[Likely Voter]

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously. 

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

[Likely Voter]

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously.  

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.

Firstly being gay isn't some 'psychological' condition. More to the point, why deny gay people the choice to marry because you chose to believe in a particular religious philosophy? Why do the choices of the religious have any bearing whatsoever on the civil laws of a state.

It makes as much sense as members of the Rotary Club ensuring that members of Elks Lodges cant get fishing licenses because they believe that Elks shouldn't be able to fish.

Your religion has no place in law. Of course that is why when it comes to actual court cases they have cooked up absurd notions like how denying gays the right to be married is because of 'tradition' or even more absurdly, because of 'responsible procreation.' Let's face it, the religious have decided gays are icky and they want to f--k with them in any way that they can and they have used the levers of government to do so but those days are ending and now they are having a hissy fit. In a generation we will find those of such beliefs as antiquated as those who oppose inter-racial marriage or fluoridation of water.

[Likely Voter]

one of the ironies of this debate is how people justify discrimination of gays because of the claim that it is a 'choice'. When one looks at the list of protected classes one group stands out as being clearly a choice, and that is religion. Yet while your religion is a choice, the ones fighting against gay rights are also always wanting more protections for the religious. They even want the right of the religious to discriminate against gays enshrined into law (RFRAs)

Alas, I doubt they see the irony.

There are religious based exceptions to the religion civil rights laws.
If you are going to compare religion and same-sex orientation, it doesn't help your argument if you don't take religious concerns seriously.  

Gay people don't choose to be gay, but people who choose to be fundamentalists demand that their world view that the gays should be discriminated against be enshrined into the laws of a secular nation. I take that very seriously. It is seriously f--ked up.

People - gay, straight, whatever - choose to have sexual relations and/or get married.  That is the issue that is causing the legal controversy, not someone's psychological sexual orientation.

Firstly being gay isn't some 'psychological' condition. More to the point, why deny gay people the choice to marry because you chose to believe in a particular religious philosophy? Why do the choices of the religious have any bearing whatsoever on the civil laws of a state.

It makes as much sense as members of the Rotary Club ensuring that members of Elks Lodges cant get fishing licenses because they believe that Elks shouldn't be able to fish.

Your religion has no place in law. Of course that is why when it comes to actual court cases they have cooked up absurd notions like how denying gays the right to be married is because of 'tradition' or even more absurdly, because of 'responsible procreation.' Let's face it, the religious have decided gays are icky and they want to f--k with them in any way that they can and they have used the levers of government to do so but those days are ending and now they are having a hissy fit. In a generation we will find those of such beliefs as antiquated as those who oppose inter-racial marriage or fluoridation of water.

If being attracted to someone of the same sex is not a psychological condition, what is it? A physical condition?  A metaphyscial condition?   Surely you must admit that being attracted to someone and having sex with them are in some way distinct? 

not really sure what is the point you are trying to make. All the health and psychological associations consider homosexuality to be a healthy aspect of sexual orientation and not a disorder.

My point which you seem to be avoiding is that religion is a choice and sexual orientation is not. And further, it is the religious (like yourself) which seem to want to deny gays the non-discrimination rights bestowed on other protected classes, including religion (hence the irony, again).

[Likely Voter]

not really sure what is the point you are trying to make. All the health and psychological associations consider homosexuality to be a healthy aspect of sexual orientation and not a disorder.

My point which you seem to be avoiding is that religion is a choice and sexual orientation is not. And further, it is the religious (like yourself) which seem to want to deny gays the non-discrimination rights bestowed on other protected classes, including religion (hence the irony, again).

Psychological and psychologically unhealthy are two different things.
My point was that having sex and getting married is a choice, unlike attractedness.  Saying sexual orientation is not a choice is misleading if it is being used as a way to make people go along with the choices people make to express their sexuality.  If you want to an organization should not fire someone because they are attracted to the same sex, I could agree with that. But if an organization has a code of conduct based in their beliefs that they do not support any open sexual activity outside of man-woman marriage, then that is different.
If someone has a religious objection to doing something I want them to do because I am not of their religion, then I do not believe I should be able to punish them.  So, there is no contradiction.

That was so twisted I am not even sure what you are talking about. So you are saying that a private business owned by a religious person shouldn't be able to fire someone for being gay as long as that person never has gay sex? (in the privacy of their own home)

Beyond the convoluted logic, how the f--k are you going to actually implement such a policy?

[Likely Voter]

Glad to see that you (unlike the hypocrite that this thread is about) endorse ENDA laws then. Since they have nothing to do with religious institutions.