[Tired of Taxes]

The original comment was intended to point out that Reagan_fanatic’s response was a pathetic stab at someone’s sexual disposition. My response, had you read it fully, did not equate religion with sexual orientation. It pointed out that it was a cheap shot by reagan_fanatic toward someone who allegedly was abused by a police officer.

I did read your comment fully. You are entitled to your opinion, but the comparison you made was inaccurate. You said:

Your comment is akin to saying “As _____ (fill in the blank) as the Jews were, they didn't deserve to be gassed in ovens”.

Unless you think being a transsexual prostitute is on the same level with being Jewish, you'd have to admit that comparison made no sense. You can say you're not equating the two groups, and I'm sure you didn't intend to. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but this is an important point: By making the comparison in the first place, you are drawing a line between criminal/immoral activity and religious heritage.

You probably think I'm nitpicking, but that type of comparison is what has led to many of the problems we're having today, particularly when it concerns so-called sexual orientation. "Gay rights" activists love to equate themselves with other groups - with whom they have nothing in common at all - and then accuse anyone who opposes their behavior of bigotry.

The point is: who cares whether reagan_fanatic is disgusted by the trans sexual? It is irrelavant to the issue.

But it IS relevant, and I'm surprised anyone took issue with it here (especially considering some of the truly nasty comments here I've come across over the years). The person is a transsexual prostitute. The #3 comment was akin to saying: "What that person does is immoral and criminal, but he didn't deserve to be beaten." On the news, we all have watched many videos of the police overreacting during an arrest. A common response is: "That person did something wrong, but..." With such statements, we're criticizing the person's behavior - not something he cannot change such as his heritage - and that's the key difference.

[Honor above all]

But, once again, you miss the point entirely. My comment, as I noted, was not intended to draw a comparison between sexual proclivities and religious heritage. YOU have focused on that. My point, once again, was that the comment was just a filthy, cheap shot at someone who was subsequently beaten, possibly because of the fact that they lived a life considered undesirable by most people. Look at the substance of the argument. The fact is that the motivation of the Nazi was no different. The Nazi did not see the Jew as someone from a different religious heritage, he saw them as someone to be despised for their social status, business acumen, etc.. Regardless, my point had to do with the editorial comment that the person who was beaten was disgusting to the poster. Focus on what you will, if you choose not to see my point that is your choice. You can disagree with it only after you understand what I am saying.