First Amendment. First clause.

What you are seeking are not protections, they are exceptions. You want laws that exceed those any other group has. Perhaps if the group was not so typically "in your face" it would not be so opposed and the laws that the rest of us find adequate would be enough.

Then there is the whole science thing where there is no proof of the existence of a gene that is the trigger for homosexuality. Without that proof it is a desire, a lust, a wish, not a physical, identifiable, sex. Odd that there are genes for both male and female and genetic examinations of homosexual individuals render no statistical variation from whichever sex that person is. The genome is mapped and the reason behind each pair is known, at least to the specific area they control. From eye color to number of toes, it's documented and no homosexual genes were found.

The best case to prove your path might be to have reinstated into the PDR as a psychological disorder. Then efforts could then be made once more to cure it - but that's not what you want, is it?

I do not know who dinged you, star. This is the second time I have seen this comment:
"we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges."
I'm not sure where you get that? But, I'll start another post regarding this...

If you think that maph, you've never read the posts that are following somebody here in the gulch confessing to be a Christian. I've received PM's from MANY Christians who tell me that they just couldn't stand the pressure that would fall on them if they admitted to being a Christian on here.

Unlike the LGBT people you campaign for with the religious fervor of a true acolyte, we religious people ARE a protected class, specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, with our activities listed first in that shopping list of rights and privileges.

As a man interested in science (but not blinded by it's limitations) I know and understand the meaning of the term "cull" and "mule" as expressed in genetics. Perhaps you might want to examine that as a part of your "open minded research" into sexuality.

Huh. Sometimes I want my rights protected from the LGBT community.

What "equal rights" are you referencing? Why should an employer be encouraged to hire a certain percentage of LGBTs? How is that efficient business practice? Am I not for equal rights? What does the color of one' s skin have to do with their skillsets? The only purpose in granting extra rights for groups is to force extra privleges everyone outside the group doesn 't get. If I was a baker and you wanted me to decorate a cake for a neo-nazi rally and I refused, have I violated someone's "equal rights?" Maybe hate groups deserve some extra rights because most of the rest of us refuse to associate with them. I know I wouldn 't hire someone who openly admitted he spent his off time hating people due to race or sexuality

I think the more we draw attention to differences between groups, the more the issue. Those who identify with the LGBT community (lots of gays and gays who are in partnerships don 't btw) make things awfully confrontational over perceived slights. I am not saying that bad people aren 't out there targeting people based on race, sexuality etc. But for the most part the community has way overplayed its hand leaving large numbers of people who are usually live and let live defensive and angry. I think you engage that way. Then when you get that reaction you point to it and say see? Hate. Until you 've made it clear to us you 've attended some tea party rallies and engaged in the agenda set forth in the rally I would say your opinion is highly prejudiced falsely. A candidate can claim they associate with any group. Many rinos during election time say they support the tea party. Many democrats avoid the word socialist in favor of progressive even though socialist ideas direct their policy making. We say we are a capitalist society when we actually are a bastardized version of it which has really bad consequences when we incorpotate socialist laws and regs and cronyism. So Cuba's a marxist country with strict gun control. Guns were not a pillar of the philosophy but every country that works at communism figures out pretty quickly they don 't want their citizens armed. Tryanny is about division indtead of production and individualism. An individual freely associates. Group thinkers tyrannize by forcing associations and stealing from certain groups to give to others. Sometimes Christians put the fish symbol on their advertising encouraging business relationships based on being part of that group opposed to building a reputation on good products and services. After all if your reputation is secure why the need to shout you 're a Christian to your customers? So what? Asian communities tend to do business with other asians first. This is especially true in real estate yet no one screams racism. Refusing or shutting down opportunities based on illogical criteria hurts that individual more than an individual offering a good opportunity. Someone else will jump in and take it. There were probably 50 bakers in CO who would have solicited the couple who sued. Seems to me the couple shut down opportunities for themselves and on a vendetta forced someone to do something against their will. I like the blog layout btw

I have a few problems with Map's arguments-
Map, you want to find the truth. This is stated with some belligerency, do so, who is stopping you?
Post up when it is found.
There are founders of philosophies, and there are movements. For example: Darwin and evolution, Marx and communism, Mohammed and Islam, Rand and Objectivism. Maybe bad stuff happens as a result of the movement, one view says is will turn out ok, or will later be shown to be correct, or the followers have distorted the words of the founder. With a discrepancy between the words of the founder and actions of the movement it can be asked- who is right? How to form an opinion? Try "By their fruits shall you know them".

I believe PEOPLE have rights, men and women, straight or homosexual. Literally everyone I know from the Tea Party (hundreds across the country) support and would die defending the rights of men and women. Advancing any rights based on anything other than their being male or female is sheer stupidity and open to manipulation, exploitation and exaggeration.

The article says Tea Party rallies are filled with people who don't support equal rights. You say they're wrong. Maybe the media just find a few rare bigots. Then you say you're not for equal rights. Are you the rare exception or is the article correct on this point?

The absolute ignorance in this posting is astounding. Attend Tea Party meetings and rallies and see for yourself. Be as flaming as you wish but STOP SHOVING IT IN MY FACE. That is the sentiment I've repeatedly seen and agree with. Men and Women have rights this is universally supported by everyone I've ever met. A persons SEXUAL PREFERENCES has no business attaining rights. unless of course gays aren't either gender

"it seemed to me that the word “Socialist” had literally no meaning whatsoever, and was just a negative byword that people could use as an empty vessel to describe any and all political policies they disliked"
Sometimes it is, but I think the most common substantive meaning is paying for private goods with public monies. A private good is something like housing b/c the use of a house could be denied to those who don't pay for it. A public good is something like policing b/c there's no way to exclude those who'd rather not have the benefit of policing. The problem comes when the gov't pays for something that proponents say benefits everyone (e.g. providing education, propping up the financial system). When critics scream, “but that's socialism!!” what I think they're saying is, “this is not a public good like policing.”

“disturbing trend I've noticed among the Tea Party is that they almost universally oppose Civil Rights, especially equal rights for the LGBT community”

Almost universally? I wonder if there are any surveys. This could be true, but it doesn't ring true. You'd think they'd want the govt to leave LGBT people alone.