Now people don’t often tie things together and thus we end up with unintended consequences.
Let’s hit the wayback machine to the 1960s. The country decides that racism must be stomped out, and that pretty much all means, constitutional or otherwise are justified. Hence we get laws and SC decisions which pretty much toss the concept of freedom of assembly out the window. Let me be clear that I have no objection to government functions and regulations being fully colorblind. It is when the law gets applied in a broad swath across private individuals that I have a beef.
Can there be a black students organization? Yes. Can there be a white students organization? No.
Do I have to be careful of the race(later expanded to sex, disability status, and nowadays sexual preference) of the person I hire or fire? Yes.
Now I’ll be honest, I don’t really care what the light in the loafer crowd does on their own time. I do, however strongly object to the concept that everyone has to accept, nay, like it and have that enforced by law. If I were Catholic and ran a bed and breakfast, I should be able to deny business to a gay wedding reception. It’s my damned property. However that won’t fly anymore.
In the eternal (and extremely misguided) quest for fairness any rights which get in the way are stomped. Freedom religion? Bah. Freedom of speech? Bah. Freedom of Assembly? Bah. Mere obstacles to be overcome and disregarded.
People don’t bother to weigh the rights of people affected by changed. Sure, an alleged right to marriage is denied gays (find me that right in the constitution while we’re at it), so to ‘restore’ that right we stomp the rights of a whole lot of other people for the sake of fairness. Bollocks.
Last survey I saw said gays were around 3% of the population. Catholics and Evangelicals are close to 50% (very rough estimate). Assume even that we take out the smorgasbord Catholics, we still have over 10x as many people getting their right to assembly, religion, and speech stomped on as the people we’re supposed to be helping. That’s not particularly ‘fair’ now it is?
Well said. Gays, contrary their assertions, don’t just get married and sit in their little houses and never bother anybody.
I agree with your post, but don't think that it's even as innocuous as you are perceiving it. This is not a quest for “fairness”. These people are mentally ill, and this is an expression of it. They are “going after” marriage because attacking others is their only joy in life. They are not “gay”. They are miserable and driven to force their misery on others.
Democrats join in this “quest” precisely to achieve the loss of liberty you have observed.
EXCELLENT response.
Where do you draw the line?