You say: “There are killers who were born with that disposition to kill. Yet, we discriminate against them.”

Yes. Because they directly harm other people. Sexuality is about actions among consenting parties.

As far as drug use goes, I agree. Make much of it legal. Make sure there’s accurate information about the effects of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, heroin…People can ruin their lives or their health with any of those and be a great burden on society, but to let only tobacco and alcohol users have legal access to their drug of choice doesn’t seem to be working.

Let’s move on to immutability. As I stated in an earlier comment, sexuality is no more of a choice than handedness is. Just as a person COULD choose to use their non-dominant hand to accomplish everyday tasks, a heterosexual could choose to engage in same-sex conduct, and vice versa. But the action doesn’t change their core orientation.

But the biggest point to be made here is the refutation of your statement that “Homosexual relationships are purely recreational and serve no greater purpose to society.” You clearly haven’t been around many long term gay relationships. Just like many (though not all) opposite-sex relationships, many same-sex relationships consist of two people who are willing to care for each other, watch out for each other’s well-being, and even assume responsibility for the other’s debts or other expenses in times of need. Society clearly benefits from these relationships.

Homosexuals claim immutability. This is irrelevant as well. If by immutable, you mean uncontrollable and that it must be manifest in behavior, then you need to recognize it as a compulsive type of mental illness. There are people who go their entire lives without acting on these kinds of impulses to act inappropriately. Yet, homosexuals are asking for exemption from this requirement.

Let’s make a case in favor for legalizing free use of narcotics. There are many people addicted to narcotics. If we legalized “illegal” use of narcotics, these drug addicts would no longer be deemed as criminal or mentally ill. They could enjoy their complete recreational use of drugs in good conscience. What was once a private activity could be accepted and openly practiced in front of society.

Oddly enough, that’s what the homosexual movement was able to do – abolish sodomy law and cry discrimination at the top (and I mean very top) of its lungs. Now recreational sex is trying to qualify along side prescribed sex. Is recreational sex really in need of special reverence in the way same way as a sexual relationship intended for producing children?

Let’s be real here. Homosexual relationships are purely recreational and serve no greater purpose to society. Whether driven by instinct or choice, the behavior isn’t appropriate and shouldn’t receive validation through the title provided through a state recognized marriage.

I do not believe that a private business or individual should be subject to “protected class” regulations at all.

A rental car company can choose to deny service to persons under 18 or 25. A club can refuse to allow persons under 21 regardless of whether alcohol is served. A business can choose not to hire persons younger than 18. I’m casting a movie I can choose to hold casting calls for blond haired, girls under 5’4″. None of these businesses are required by law to have these restrictions.

I do not wish to make comments about whether sexual orientation is a choice or not, just that whether or not it is I don’t believe private businesses or individuals should be regulated by discrimination laws.

Your assessment would be correct if I and others were arguing that religion should be a protected class. But that’s not the case—such protections should only exist (if even at all) for those characteristics that are innate and unchangeable.

If somebody decides to affiliate with a certain religion, then they should be willing to deal with whatever (legal and moral) consequences stem from that action. So, if sexuality is at all affected by choice (which it is), then it too is open to the same standard as any other choice is.

So even if we accept the argument that homosexuality is a choice, the analysis doesn’t change.

The California Constitution has always classified the “religious” as a protected class, notwithstanding the fact that one actually chooses to become a part of that class. The “choice” factor in the analysis as to who should be entitled to the elevated status of a “protected class” is simply misplaced and misguided.

Wouldn’t this prevent a potential problem with religion? Perhaps someones religious affliation doesn’t deserve to be protected? There can also be somewhat of a gray area between religion, culture and race. For instance the jewish people. its a religion, a culture and a race. A person could claim to be jewish by religion, or by culture, or purely by background.

“…individuals, companies, and churches would all be threatened with legal action for their personal views on homosexuality. ”

Leviticus 20:13 advocates the killing of MEN which have committed a homosexual act. Its possible that an individual, company or church could advocate killing homosexuals and provoke violent acts against gays. Generally, american culture does not tolerate people advocating, ploting or coordinating efforts to do hate crimes.

On an interesting note, female homosexual activity is not described as a detestable act in the law of moses. Prohibited food items include animals which eat fecal material, and rotting things. Taken in context, the law of moses was intended to send a subliminal message about the superiority of the jewish people.

We as taxpayers do not employ doctors, so we do not have the same powers over them. Nor should we.

The doctor’s employer can enforce whatever restrictions he or she pleases, and fire the doctor if he doesn’t comply.

I repeat, the only reason we we can hold police officers to the particular standards we do is because they are on our payroll.

If a police officer were hired by a private employer to protect private property (i.e., security guard), that employer could certainly ask him to allow some of one sexual orientation to get away with trespassing and stop those of another.

In clarification, the police officer is paid by tax money, and is therefore required to serve the taxpayer, whoever it be.

But that means that the police officer doesn’t have freedom, right? In this case, most everyone is OK with limiting the police officer’s freedoms while performing a vital service to the community. My argument is that I am OK with limiting some freedoms of doctors when they are performing vital service to the community.

A doctor, presently, is not. He has freedom, and ought to have freedom, until he too is paid only by taxpayer money. At that point, however, freedom is lost anyways and the whole concept of limited and small government forgotten, and the whole concept of the free market abandoned.

If a firefighter or a police officer were on a private payroll, they would certainly have freedoms a regular police officer would not. For example, privately hired security guards are hired by their employer, and they could quit working for them at any time, and work for another employer. As it is, doctors are on a private payroll, not a government payroll.

However, Brandon, we are not talking about life-saving procedures. We are talking about photographers who don’t want to photograph a gay marriage, and doctors who don’t believe in homosexual parenting.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think doctors and photographers perform comparable services for the community. While not exactly the same, I think most people look at medical care in the same way they do the police or firefighters (I know there is a difference, but their roles are all vital to our society). Can the police refuse to perform non livesaving services just because they don’t like a person? Can they refuse to help gays or mormons, because they disaprove of their lifestyle?

What’s next? A plastic surgeon refuses to give further sculpting because he believes the patient is taking it too far. The patient sues the doctor for discrimination against her sexual orientation, prosthetiphile.

Having said that, there are certain relationships which create a legal duty to undertake to save someone (e.g. parent-child; sorry, you can’t watch your son drown to death and get away with it…).

As a moral/ethical issue, however, it’s all philosophical as to whether there’s a difference. Again, I didn’t read the whole thread, but I hope that sheds some light on whatever it is you’re debating…

I wonder… Connor, perhaps you can chime in on this… is there a difference between inflicting harm upon another, and merely refusing to help? I tend to think that there is, however, I do not wish to decriminalize murder by neglect.

However, Brandon, we are not talking about life-saving procedures. We are talking about photographers who don’t want to photograph a gay marriage, and doctors who don’t believe in homosexual parenting.

I fail to see how this is not the loss of freedom.

I guess I just see shades of gray

Me too, only I don’t want things getting any “darker gray” than they already are. Some of us prefer the lighter shades (as in as close to white as possible). The more black you add the more freedom is lost and just like a bad stain, it’s hard to reverse the damage.